crobatoOn the expected numbers of JH-7A to be built, Fisher mentioned in his article about 154, but I think that’s his own estimation, and I don’t know whether it will come true or not. You see both the PLAAF and PLANAF future does not appear to be made with a clear and strict roadmap, and instead there are twists and turns, and decision changes, as leadership changes or have a change in opinion, the latter can be caused by certain events, such as completion of various projects and negotiations with the Russians. It may depend entirely on the negotiations and acceptance of the SU-30MKK3—the success of this plane may mean less JH-7A, and its failure can put more JH-7A into the line.
crobatoOriginally posted by Indian1973
nobody would seriously write off the F-16 as a POC , but there are undoubted advantages in air to air of a faster, longerranged and more agile airframe. the F15 has proven it time and again by decimating anything it came across. A chill ought to go up anyone’s spine seeing the white contrails of 8 x F15/Su27/Su30 loaded for bear and flying high above.
That’s an absolute terrible aerial strategy there.
Nothing but interceptors would love eight high RCS turkeys flying high in the sky, totally exposed to everything and in stark contrast to an empty cool sky. Its even worst if these fighters are actually scanning the sky, beaconing their position to everyone in the area.
This is a perfect scenario that would salivate most interceptor pilots in small low RCS fighters coming low from the deck, raising their noses up and radar painting the belly of big huge fighters against the deep blue sky with no radar clatter.
At the same the big fighters will have trouble discerning the nose first look of small low RCS fighters climbing low from the deck amidst ground clatter.
When the BVRAAMs fly, guess who will get toasted.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
Yeah, Zhemchoug is a bit too big for FC-1, and too small for J-10. That would be an interesting story if it were for the J-8IIs, or at least ordered to study and improve on the radar for the J-8IIs. Was it ever confirmed that 100 sets of the Zhuk-8II were ordered?
No it was not fully confirmed.
Unlike the J-10, J-8II issues are not part of the PLA secrecy umbrella, so anything about the J-8II should be out in the public. We have seen pics of the J-8II Type 1471 radar, pics of the J-8H being built and even prototype J-8IIs in the wind tunnels. That is to me, J-8IIs are an open book.
but I have yet to see a J-8II that is verifiably carrying a Zhuk. The Zhuk could work with PL-8s too, as the F-8IIM has shown, so sightings of J-8IIs (or J-10s) with PL-8s do not disprove the use or disuse of the Zhuk.
But I do think it’s a waste of imported radar of the Zhuk’s capability if you’re only going to use it with a PL-8. Given the Zhuk’s potential, a J-8II could support pretty much the same weapons an MKK has—R-73 with helmet sight, R-77, R-27s, KABs, Kh-29s, and even Kh-31s. The resulting plane is more versatile than the basic SU-27SK, and nearly that of the SKM. If that is so, we don’t see J-8IIs mounting these weapons either, which would have been the strongest visual evidence of a Zhuk mounting. Again these weapons would not part of the PLA secrey umbrella as it has been shown. If they had it, they would have flaunted it, just as they did once on the F-8IIM.
I figured that the project may have been put on hold, and quite possibly the Zhuk-8II order may have been canceled, and possibly to be replaced by Zhemchugs, which is a much more capable radar, yet derived from the Zhuk. The Zhemchug is in fact, a second generation Zhuk, almost physically alike as the Zhuk-8II, with equal dimensions but lighter.
And once again the name Zhemchug is Russian for ‘pearl’ or “jewel”—and ‘pearl’ is the code name for the J-8II upgrade, as in the aborted Grumman Peace Pearl project. It is based on the Chinese loan word “zhen chu” or “zhem chu” of the same meaning.
But I also think they may be spending so much money on the MKK, SU-27s and J-10, that it pretty much leaves out the J-8II program into a tight budget situation, leaving the only budget path towards SD-10 compatible J-8IIs using indigenous radars. However, while these indigenous sD-10 capable radars greatly improve the J-8II’s air combat role, they do nothing to improve the J-8II’s ground role capability beyond dumb bombs and rockets.
If SAC decided to fit LETRI’s JL-10A radar (used on the second batch JH-7s and JH-7As) on the J-8IIs, it would greatly improve the J-8II’s air to ground performance, and even add anti ship capabilities as well. We know this radar is capable of supporting Kh-31, C-802/803, Blue Sky pod, possibly C-701 too, and SD-10 is a possibility (according to some rumors in DS). It would be interesting if this radar is fitted on the J-10 too.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
The Zhemchoug can’t be for the J-10 because its diameter is too small, ~ 680mm, whereas the J-10 would appear to have a large diameter ~ 900+mm nose. This is from my estimates using the PL-8 diameter as a base reference. IMO, it is more likely that the Sokol testing was for the J-10, and Zhemchoug for FC-1.
More than 900mm and you’re almost as big as an SU-27 nose. If that is the case, it won’t be much effort to put the J-10 radar into a J-11 either. Another possibility that was raised before, I think it was Fisher in his earlier writings, was that the Sokols was for the JH-7.
I heard some clip, I don’t know where if its Kanwa or Fisher, that did suggests Zhemchug was being proposed for FC-1. But Phazotron is also proposing Kopyo-F for FC-1, and that radar is about 500mm.
Another possibility is that Zhemchug may be proposed for another version of the J-8II like the F-8IIM, or simply superceded the like-sized Zhuk-8II.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
More to the point- I think the JH-7A has an uncertain future.
I think PLAAF may not adopt this plane, but I don’t think the PLANAF would adopt the J-10 either. It still begs the question if you can make the J-10 a better antiship platform than the JH-7A.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
I guess it hinges somewhat on whether or not the Zhuk-MSE has finished testing and integration problems.Has the Zhuk-MSE been decided as the radar of choice for the MK3s, or is there still competition from the “new NIIP-produced fire-control radar (JDW Jan 2003).”? I assume they’re referring to the NIIP Pero complex.
Re: China’s import of 20 Sokol sets, I wanted to confirm that it is the image shown here- the Zhuk-MSF?
Generally it would be easier to bank on momentum. The N001VEP is a tested radar. That’s one thing about it, you do not need to run a battery of tests again. Adding Pero to it would bank on proven hardware. But it may need a new battery of tests just to be sure.
I was looking at the news on the Zhuk MSE, and it appears that its development has also been recently completed. In fact the plane it has been testing on—the SU-27KUB—is now equipped with the Sokol. The KUB has gone into testing the next radar, so it should be done. (The SU-27KUB is the carrier borne twin seat side by side seater SU-33 KnAAPO built as a combat trainer). This puts the Zhuk-MSE quite ahead of the Panda radar in terms of development stage.
Since the SU-27KUB is a naval plane, it’s easy to figure out that the Zhuk-MSE has been running a lot of naval related tests and development. Which fits the SU-30MK3 program to the tee, if indeed the program would be of a naval nature.
With the recent Chinese stalling of the SU-27SKM program, it occurs to me that the PLA is suddenly shifting emphasis to the MKK3, and the PLA may instead opt to make the remaining balance of its SU-27 license program to the MKK3, in addition to acquiring some straight off KnAAPO. The SD-10 equipped J-11 program may have to wait for now, perhaps after the MKK3s were built, when the entire license is renegotiated again, perhaps with a due date around 2006.
I have a strong feeling that the PLAAF, in an attempt for rationalization, may concentrate only only two airframes in the future—the MKK and the J-10—rather than have different redundant types. J-11, J-7G, J-8IIH, FC-1, may indeed face a questionable future with the PLAAF.
crobatoOriginally posted by GoldenDragon
Looks like Fisher’s quote from Sukhoi officials claiming 300 PLAAF Flankers is correct (give or take 27 J-11s).Let’s see if they are correct about the 800-1200 J-10 production run.
I do think its too much. The J-7E never amounted to more than 300, nor do the J-8II in all its variants. Come to think of it, the total number of Flankers are rapidly approaching to a point they will exceed the J-7E or the J-8II one on one.
Unless the PLAAF plans on expanding, rather than contracting, I see both Flanker and J-10 trying to fill in the shoes of about 1200 aircraft that may need replacement in the next 10 years—mainly the Q-5 (around 250), the J-7s (which may total around 600-900) and the J-8IIs (around 300). So that market may roughly end up being divided for both. If the Flanker program stalls, or is canceled abruptly, then you may leave a vaccum big enough for 1200 J-10s to fill.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
China imported 20 sets of the Sokol/Zhuk-MSF in 2001? Or did someone mix up the Zhuk-MSF and Zhuk-MSE?The Panda would probably be NIIP’s contribution to the effort, no?
Sokol/Zhuk-MSF seen below.
My guess is that the media got mixed up there. Both Sokol and Pero were indeed approved for export to China in March 2001. The said Sokols were said to be, by some reports, for the J-10 project, e.g. “Zhuk-10PD”. Perhaps its a miniturized Sokol or something.
I’m likely to think now it’s probably a batch of both Zhuk MSE and Zhemchug combined, with the former likely to have been used for testing on the SU-30MKKs stationed in the CFTE, while the latter for prototype use on the J-10s.
crobatoAlso the claimed SU-30MK2 base at Datopou AFB, Changsha seems in contradiction to what the article in Strategypage points out, which is also highly based on Internet rumor. In that article, it points to the PLANAF SU-30 reg as being in Dachang AFB, Shanghai, which is also where the JH-7s are located.
crobatoOriginally posted by Hydropod
Well, more details comming out. The people are saying the 3.16 accident is not a MKK, but a brand new MK2 just delievered to PLANAF…
Ouch…they should get a refund if its a compressor blade problem.
Frankly I like to hear about news that are more official.
The base in Changsha you mention where the MK2 accident might be, is a PLAAF base, not a PLANAF one. That’s possibly where the SU-30s of the 18th reside.
crobatoOn the ship designs, no. I think China has enough experience and design on ship platforms to design by their own. China is the third largest ship builder in the world by the way, and it has a merchant marine several times larger than Great Britain.
On systems, yes. Like CODAGs from the Ukraine, radar units from Russia and control systems from France. The PAR on the 170/171 most probably came from the HT-233 unit used to support FT-2000, HQ-9 and KS-1A. That in turn is suspiciously similar to the Raytheon unit used to support the Patriot.
You can tell a JH-7A from the JH-7 by looking at a few details, like rounded clear canopy with no frames, twin nosewheels, and no fences on the wings.
The Spey engine has lots of room for improvement. Its thrust to weight ratio is rather low. Before it was discontinued there were projects back in the seventies intended to beef up its power. So yeah, an uprated WS-9 can allow a JH-7A to carry six C-803s instead of four, greatly increasing its lethality.
9,000kg payload is even more than an MKK.
crobatoMiG involvement is suspected. There is good motive for that too—revenge. To take the Chinese market away from Sukhoi.
crobatoj-7g radar.
crobatoI can’t remember what was on the thread but free feel to ask anything.
State enterprises like CAC and SAC fear and respond to the challenge of the gradual capitalization of the Chinese economy and the removal of state sponsored umbelical cords. Cal it the swim or sink attitude.
You can also see these companies moving into other avenues—Chengdu makes fuselage components for Boeing 737s complete with Western style machinery and quality management. The same kind of manufacturing and technical expertise that goes into those fuselage components will be going into the J-10 and the FC-1.
XAC is moving into the civilian field. The AJR-21 is its baby, and it is as significant to the Chinese civilian aviation industry as the J-10 is to the Chinese military aviation. So yes, I do think XAC has its future mapped out. In the meantime it’s still making JH-7As and the latest version of the H-6.
SAC may actually be chained by the Sukhoi deal. When you make products for the State, you won’t make as much potential money as you can if you sell to civilian and export markets. That’s why CAC is counting on the FC-1 to bring home the bucks. Planes like the K-8 and the FTC-2000 are looking for export markets. The FC-1 is a first for China as it is the first mainland Chinese weapon system designed exclusively for the export market and not for the PLA.
My take is that these companies would much prefer to turn a profit making products for civilian and export customers or subcontracting, instead of being forced to manufacture planes at a fixed government mandated price.
I think this explains what is happening with the shipping industry right now. China’s shipyards are booked with orders up to four years in advance. Making the new destroyers, frigates and subs actually distract from this capacity. With this shortfall in capacity, the PLA may be offloading its needs by contracting the Russians directly on some sub and surface ship needs.
crobatoOriginally posted by PhantomII
I just think it’s rather unattractive.Plus the fact that it’s yet another MiG-21-esque clone.
I’m ready for China to get away from the MiG-21 design.
I’m also ready for China to make more indigenous airplanes.
This is part of the reason I like the JH-7.
And what is the other part? Is it because it also has the chunky brute look of an F-4? Something that has to be shared with the Q-5 and the J-8II. Honestly I think you have a passion for planes of that particular terchnological vintage.
Sign In
