crobatoWell- the Russians have a particular difficulty in that their legacy systems were all programmed using machine code and had a very customised instruction set, which makes porting the code rather difficult. Either you have to develop an complete emulation for the original code, or you have to start almost from scratch.
The US uses a high level language (Ada) which makes porting from one processor to another easier.
I think the Russians are moving their machine language to C or C++ and may have already done in their new BTsVM 900 or Baguet 54 boxes. The BTsVM 486 box (did I get the prefix spelled right) uses the following processors in its different versions: 486DX-50, AMD 486DX-100, AMD 586DX-133, and MIPS R3081.
crobatoCould be but what wrecks that theory was that KnAAPO was also building the two seaters in the eighties. That was before Sukhoi made the assignments that who builds the single seaters and who builds the twin seaters. Both IAPO and KnAAPO were just factories then, and the rights for both single seater and twin seater were held by the Sukhoi design bureau.
Even if KnAAPO didn’t have the taller fin design at their disposal, Sukhoi could have given it to them, rather than lose the lucrative Chinese contract. The PRC wanted KnAAPO to build the MKK and not IAPO, and after some negotiation there was no buts as to who should build it. It was this way or no way.
In fact, Sukhoi tried to move the assignment back to Irkut for the second MKK contract. The PRC could have gotten planes like the SU-30KN instead. In fact, I think the SU-30KN was probably designed as a backup alternative to the MKK in case Irkut could get the Chinese contract. KnAPPO sued of course.
PRC at that time wasn’t very happy with a very similar and more visible case of the same happening with its Project 956EM contract, which was being jocked around from shipyard to shipyard and threatened to cancel the contract if it was given to a contractor of the PRC’s choice. Same ultimatum was given around the same month to Sukhoi and the Russian government, and KnAAPO got the second contract.
Certain parts of the destroyers were made by one shipyard (Baltic I think) who refused to give the parts to the shipyard actually making the destroyers, but nonetheless the government stepped in, and the parts were delivered. This month, the first of the two destroyers had been launched.
These cases show that when the bottomline is concerned, factory rivalries will have to be put aside.
My theory was that the PLA was looking for bomber and could not get the Backfire or anything like that. They had already spec’ed an increase in payload for both the SU-27SK and UBK from 6500kg to 8000kg and was clearly using the Flankers as low level shallow dive bombers. Now they wanted this new MKK plane to be able to deliver this payload at the maximum range possible with full internal fuel capacity, which means a considerable increase in maximum or overload takeoff weight. The increased payloads would have meant a redesign in the airplane structure. KnAAPO must have found a convenient way of recruiting the SU-35’s structure for this purpose—please note that the tail comes with the structure. The additional fuel capacity is part of the PRC’s requirements, and with the increase in body weight, using the lighter tail comes handy to compensate. The tail also offers more stabilizer and rudder area to compensate against a plane while carrying heavier loads.
crobatoBut on the other side of the argument, there are 1000s upon 1000s of two engined J-6s and Q-5s which served the PLAAF for years. The same with the F-5 which was and is operated by many poorer third world nations. While the turbojets in the J-6 had a short life and were overhauled and replaced often, obviously the cost of doing so wasn’t prohibitive.
China didn’t have much of a choice there, but the MiG-19 didn’t last long with the Soviet bloc and partners. By the sixties, the type is being discarded like flies in favor of the single engined MiG-21. The J-6/MiG-19 saw surprisingly little combat during the Vietnam War relative to the other MiG types, but when it did, it did force a re-evaluation of the “obsolescence” of the type.
In China, the J-6 engines were so cheap that it was better to replace them than to overhaul them. It was the first demonstrable example of the “throwaway” engine. Pakistan was also able to maintain their J-6s because the Chinese taught them how to build the engine and parts for it, and helped in the construction of a factory.
The F-5 did prove its maintainability over tmie, but then look how small and tiny the engines are.
Going once more back to China, I didn’t think the two engined J-8II was exactly heaped with praise either, both for its maneuverability and its operability. This is in contrast to the quite popular J-7s, especially the J-7E.
crobatoI love the Vulcan pic there. Gives a lot of character.
crobatoThe F-16I is still powered by the F100-PW-229, the same engine as the F-16 Block 52 and 52plus. Like I said, it is more of a customized variant of the 52plus, which also has CFTs.
The F-16I also uses the same APG-68(9) used with the Greek Block 52+.
crobatoThat site is but a Russian translated copy of the FAS web page.
The EM I believe is the version that was supposed to have a lofted flight profile and possibly a two mode motor. I think it was cancelled.
crobatoAt 60%, the Flanker still carries around 5,600kg of fuel.
Compare it with other planes at full internal load.
MiG-29A (early) 3,000kg
F-16 3,000kg
MiG-29M (late) 4,500kg
Rafael 4,000kg
Typhoon 4,500kg
crobatoKen, anything pertaining to the Chinese stuff will always have this cloud of secrecy which not even people with connections to the arms makers will be able to penetrate consistently. These simply have to be put in a seperate category from the other Flankers when it comes to the clarity of information. It sounds like a double standard but it is because of the pressure the CHN imposes on arms companies not to disclose things as much as possible. We all know the PLA can be a bit paranoid. Russian arms dealers are generally chatty about everything but turns solemnly quiet when the mention of exports to China are brought up. Once in a while, some details do come up because of their need to advertise or report to the UN arms registry. A good example of muffled expression come from Salyut, who now never mentions the J-10 by name, but only refers to it as a “single engined fighter” everytime the topic of its AL-31FN exports to China come to mind.
Some details only finally come up belatedly. For example the strengthening changes requested on both the SKs and UBKs (Irkut listed the UBK at 8,000kg before they remodeled the site) were never known until many years came to pass since the first delivery of SU-27s to China. Even today there are many details about the Chinese SKs and UBKs, the J-11s and even the MKK that remain unclear or undivulged. I’ve been studying these for a while and I keep getting the feeling they’re not telling the full story—too many gaps, too many question marks. Neither was the full capability of the MKK was ever divulged before and soon after it was shipped; it took around 2002 before we got some meaningful data, and KnAAPO still never fully refers to the MKK prototypes in shows as “MKK” but only “MK”. When the MK2 contract was signed, its details are not known then, and even now, when there is more information, there still is a lot of question marks.
It is likely the MKK would use those integral fuel tanks—when they truly need it. They are not there without a purpose and they fit perfectly well with PLA doctrine to provide extended striking power well into the East China sea. They didn’t make the plane do an overload of 38.8mt for nothing, a weight figure which represents almost a full payload plus full internal fuel.
But for the moment, the vast majority of the work you expect on a Flanker can be expected to be done with only 60% of fuel—around 5600kg—which is enough for a 4.5 hour sortie with weapons.
crobatoTV-guided?
They should pull what the US did with Maverick and what the Russians did with Kh-25M- different seeker variants (TV Kh-25MT laser Kh-25ML, imaging IR Kh-25MTP etc).
They did. There is a seperate IR seeker variant. Never heard of laser however.
The TV guided and IR guided are further permutated into seperate land attack and coastal AshM variants.
I don’t see much optimism for the land attack version however, while the coastal AshM would fill its niche. The reason why I don’t see the land attack version entering service beyond limited numbers is that the PRC acquired 2000 Kh-29s, some new, but mostly coming from existing RuAF stock. That’s plenty enough to last for a while, and I suspect the prices are cheap and very competitive if the PLA wants more.
crobatoYeah, but in terms of actual increased size, is it worth continuing development rather than favoring the newer, more agile generation?
If there was a serious customer (read India or China) who would buy it in quantity and sponsor the development, it probably would be worth the development. Both countries have significant R-27 inventory investment. With the -EA, all they need is to acquire the “head”, and use it to upgrade the missile body. The radars may need reworking but it may be possible to make the missile fire from the STT mode, without upgrading the radar. The result is your MiG or SU-27 that can fire an active missile without radar upgrade.
But alas, there was no interested sponsor.
This passive R-27 on the other hand seems to be a tailor made proposal that the Chinese could use and could be aimed at that market, the target of the business end of that missile being the ROC’s E-2’s, or the AWACs of any intervening power.
crobatoWell, that was the whole point. Then it was halted. Oh well- regardless, the difference in seeker size between the R-77 and R-27AE is quite negligible. (260mm body diameter vs 200mm diameter).
That’s still more than a 20% difference difference.
crobatoSorry Harry, but that needs proving against in the light of publicly released factory information.
crobatoSo pulling 9gs instantly saves you from any missile?
Flying at Mach 2 make you pretty much uninterceptable by F-16s in your rear hemisphere and a very difficult target by AA missile. Receeding targets are difficult to track and are generally flying high… meaning a climb and catchup for your missile…
That’s BS. You have a geniunely twisted you of aerial warfare you know.
Flying at Mach 2 will quickly make you run out of gas, not to mention it’s extremely difficult to achieve if you don’t have a a clean (read UNARMED) configuration. The heat alone against the metal skin of your airplane makes you a nice beacon target for IR AAMs.
Very difficult target for an AA missile? Most IR AAMs go at Mach 3, and some BVRAAMs go at Mach 4.
Oh, please… don’t insult my intelligence. You should know perfectly well the JSF and F-22 are not mach 2+ capable because their air intakes are fixed and their engines have BPR that favour supercruising speeds rather than top speeds.
Oh puhleeze, you just insulted people’s intelligence with that stupid situation you mentioned above.
The JSF in particular has a very advanced inlet design called a diverterless approach that approaches the efficiency of variable inlets, perhaps even more. Supercruise is actually more important than top speed, for the reason you could maintain distance, while in top speed you quickly ran out of gas, which the MiG-29 cannot afford to with its limited fuel capacity.
Dumb dumb dumb.
If the world thinks top speed is so important, the evolution of fighters would have focused on that, rather than other things.
I think not being able to view things in your rear view mirror is just as dangerous as a non operational AB. In fact it is worse… you can adjust your driving for the loss of power, but how do you make up for the lack of visibility?
Your original analogy was a crack in the mirror. How does that affect your rear visibility.
Get it in your head… the minor amounts of fuel that a single does save in fuel… and it is not 50% or anywhere near 50% goes up in flames when you meet a bird or a cannon round hits home. Twin engine means bigger aircraft with more fuel and more avionics and more loiter time.
WWII was not won with big complicated heavy tanks. It was won with the simple medium tanks who keeps running and running and break down less.
The air was not won by big strategic bombers or two engined zerstorer fighters. It was determined by the actions of single engined fighters.
I think you will find the main reason the Germans had such an easy time of things taking most Europe was because everyone else was preparing for another WWI. Are you suggesting that WWIII or any future wars will be anything like WWII?[/quote[
But which tank was the workhorse of the Germans? Fairly small tanks like the Mark II and III, while the French and the British actually had bigger and stronger tanks. The Germans would not have gotten teh success they had if they didn’t had reliable equipment.
When they fought with superior but unreliable equipment, they lost heavily, as Panthers, Elefants and Tigers broke down.
That is what you say. The capability advantage is rather more real than the fuel economy advantage.
Except that who says that single engined fighters are not incapable?
Who was recently whining about performance differences between generations?
YOu are the one making outrageous comparisons with engines at least four to five generations apart.
But of course all the inbreeding in the US means that they couldn’t possibly maintain an aircraft as complicated as the F-14… no… it is an evil twin jet… they spend all of their time in hangars while super singles go out all the time.. sometimes even when they are not needed to perform all the real jobs.
The US made some of the most capable twin engined aircraft and the F-22 may be the king of all if that was ever done.
But guess who is the fighter workhorse?
But guess what, that twin engined capability came at a price when applied in numbers.
[quote[
A CEP of 20 metres is perfectly adequate for a warhead travelling at about 4km/s.
It is not enough to take out hardened bases. Far from enough.
How many runways do you think there are that AWACS aircraft can use?
And how far do you think they can fly? How many landing options they can have? A lot.
Hahahaha… how many hardened bunkers does it take to launch an AWACS aircraft?
How many bases do you think AWACS can launch from?
Hmm?
They can be launched right across the Atlantic, or from carriers, or from island bases in the Atlantic. They take off well behind the lines. How many of those bases you can take out? You can’t build SSMs in the quantity needed, in the accuracy needed especially at that range.
Yes, quality airforces that would get their a$$e$ handed to them by the US. Do you really think it matters in the end how many engines you take into combat? Most of a single engine fighters advantages are economic and therefore are felt most during peacetime. Sure you could say that a single is cheaper so you could get more. The reality is that the politiicans will just buy fewer and save some money. With the cost of radars and avionics these days the cost savings are minimal.
Huh? You’re just blabbering.
The US cannot afford thousands of F-15s. There is something about numbers that quality cannot define. You know that. The Russians know that well. Look at the Germans in WWII getting overwhelmed by numbers.
There is something to be said about simplicity and economy. When the **** hits the fan, it’s actually the more complex aircraft whose advantages you can feel more in peacetime—a nicer spec sheet. In times of war, supplies are rationed, or are more difficult to obtain, mechanics are overworked and stressed. Many aircraft will be damaged. The one who will prevail is the one who can keep more of its aircraft up and running. Simply said it has been the common experience that single engined types—mainly one fighter type—are able to maintain higher levels of operability and maintainability. And then again, there is the cost factor. Quantity works. Operability works. Quantity+Operability and you nearly have a winning combination. Both were factors that ultimately decided why the JSF must be a single engined type.
At the same time, realize this, when it comes to ACM, single engined types are no second to anyone. One thing they excel over twin engined types is transient performance, how quickly they can move from one energy and turn state into another. What in laymen’s terms call nimbleness. Smaller also equates harder to eyeball, as well as a small radar profile.
In the end it does not matter where the missile is launched from; regardless its a twin engined or a single engined fighter, that missile still has the same effectiveness.
When you talk about capability, it’s not capability per aircraft, but as the collective whole of the force.
Oh and your Ebola statement is in poor taste. Combat engineers are ready against biological and chemical warfare, not to mention the ability of the US to retaliate in such.
crobatoWell, the R-27AE is based off the long-burn versions of the R-27, so I assume it might have had greater range, but really, there’s no reason why the R-27AE should have a superior seeker. I also understand it couldn’t deal with targets maneuvering as hard as the R-77 can (awkward sentence, but you know what i mean).
But still, the R-77M is sure to outperform the R-27AE.
Actually, there is no reasony why the R-27AE should not have a superior seeker over the R-77. The R-27AE allows a larger seeker and antenna than would be possible with the R-77.
The whole point of the R-27AE is to upgrade existing stocks of R-27 with a simple change of the seeker-warhead body since the missile is modular.
crobatoPics of the C-701 is not hard to find. There’s even one in globalsecurity.org.
Sign In
