crobatoI don’t see how you can have a face off yet since SAC’s “J-12” and CAC’s twin engined “J-X” have yet to be flying. In the US, the prototypes actually compete in the air, not in the discussion table.
crobatoOriginally posted by matt
I want to know what handle the writer of the Original AFM article goes by on this forum, their are some things id love to ask him.As for the F-7’s nose cone debate, its not completely imposible for the CAC’s to (re) engineer a larger air intake and facilitate a bigger radar.
That’s been done in this experimental prototype.
crobatoThis is my take of it.
As China becomes more capitalistic, so is its defense companies.
So Chengdu AC has to compete with Shenyang AC for sales and profit. It cannot and should not sit idly by as contracts are given by default to SAC. There must be some competition.
Chengdu’s new twin engined fighter is not based on the J-10 directly, but uses its general principles. So it is an all new aircraft and it is not the J-10. But people just popularly call it a twin engined J-10 nonetheless for convenience reasons. This plane actually looks a lot more like the MiG 1.44.
Understand this too, that MiG, after losing the Chinese market to Sukhoi, needs to compete back and get contracts. What better way but to team up with Chengdu—the competitor of Sukhoi’s Chinese partner SAC. MiG has worked with CAC before on the FC-1.
The new proposal looks suspiciously like the MiG 1.44. At the same time, there is no guarantee that Shenyang’s project would succeed, so a backup project is needed. Also remember that in the US, companies bid with competiting projects, like the YF-23 vs the YF-22, the YF-35 vs. the YF-32. China may be moving into the same system.
So yes, I think it’s a serious proposal and project, but in the meantime, China may opt to license the MKK. These new projects do not compete with the MKK but are plans to go beyond that. It takes a long time to develop a new fighter so you have to start now if you plan to get it in to service in the next 10 to 20 years.
crobatoOriginally posted by sharmaji
Actually I stand corrected, the F-7PG should be more manouverable than a Bis airframe, I was confusing this version with the older MiG-21 clones of China, sorry, yes you are right, in a dogfight the F-7 should have the advantage, however helmet mounted sights should take care of a few inconveniences.
And since both these fighters are mainly for air defence, they will probably never face each other.
They still could. Remember there is such a thing called external fuel tanks.
I don’t believe the MiG-21UPG is just for point defense. It’s clearly a multirole aircraft made so by fitting a multirole radar like the Kopyo. The IAF is clear to identify that surface threats are just as threatening as airborne threats, and the best way to deal with such include versatile multirole aircraft capable of performing SEAD missions. The Bison could carry two Kh-31P ARMs in the inner pylons for such missions.
And to PhantomII, yes the Pakistanis do have PL-9s, though the ones I know are mainly the SAM versions. But it’s not hard to believe they could also have acquired the AAM version. Or that the exportable PL-5E missile may also have been worked for helmet sights as well.
crobatoOriginally posted by saf2000
This goes to show that these days radar and missile technology has reached a state whereby close in dog fights r very not likely to occur in future.Instead of building and acquiring highly manoeverable and expensive fighters it would ibe better for country like Pakistan to concentrate on simple and pure air defence aircraft having a powerful engine and long range radar with bvr missile. A few simple close air defence fighters like F-7mg could be kept just in case. Does it really matter if a BVR missile is fired from a boeing 747 or F22? As long as the target is destroyed it shouldn’t. These days its the radars and bvr missiles that ensure victory not any air show routines.
You might as well go for a SAM based air defense network, as that would be more cost effective than a network of point defense interceptors.
If you want to talk about simple inexpensive BVR platforms, why not just get a J-8II?
Better yet, something like the F-7MF or J-7FS project. The point of the F-7MF is to tack a radar as big as the J-10’s into a modified J-7 double delta airframe. That could potentially house a radar with an antenna size whose theoritical range could be greater than something fitted on the nose of a MiG-21bis or the FC-1. The F-7MF is an interesting counter alternative to the FC-1 and J-10 dilemna.
When the Kopyo was marketed for the FC-1, this clearly suggests that the size of the FC-1 antenna should be about the same as the MiG-21bis, which is upgraded by the Kopyo to the now UPG standard.
The Zhuk M however was the one marketed for the J-10, and this radar is bigger than the Kopyo. The size relationship of the Zhuk-M to the Kopyo is similar to the APG-66/68 to the APG-67. Even though the Zhuk-M was not ultimately accepted, it gives us vital clues to how the size range of the J-10 radar should be. This is something near the 700mm size, compared to the 500mm of the Kopyo.
Chengdu has access to a MiG-21MF airframe through the J-7III. But their bypassing of this airframe, then worked their way to the Corsair nose like J-7FS, and to the J-10 nose like F-7MF, clearly suggests they’re looking to fit a considerably larger antenna.
crobatoOriginally posted by jtms
What about the blue sky pod? Doesn’t it have an IRST?
I’m not sure what Blue Sky has. The IRST on the MiG-29 was meant for air combat. If Blue Sky has an IRST, it would be for a different purpose, ground attack.
More likely it would have FLIR for infrared night vision, SAR for ground mapping and target identification, and a laser target designator.
Take a note of this picture from the other J-10 thread. Note the things hanging—these are too small to be fuel tanks and lack the fins to be bombs. They also resemble the pod on the JH-7. I suspect these are Blue Sky pods.
crobatoThere was at one point the JH-7 was facing almost certain cancellation. China could not get additional Spey engines, the WS-9 program is slow and uncertain, and there were concerns about the reliability of the avionics. Other planes looked more interesting, like the MKK and the J-10, and there are proposals like making an attack version of the J-8II (JH-8?).
Then it made a turn around. Blair approved the transfer of the remaining surplus Spey engines, the new planar array radar JL-10A was done along with a new digital cockpit and improved fly by wire, and capping the last, the WS-9 Qinling engine was finished. JH-7A is now in production.
So yeah, it got lucky.
It’s nice looking on its own right, but not as sexy as the MKK, which would make better impression on communist officials who are not aviation inclined. Still, the PLA’s perchant for redundancy means that this plane would be around.
Back to the IRST on the J-10. I would like the J-10 to have one, and I believe the advantages to be obvious, but I also think that the program is also facing thrift and cost measures, given all the money being thrown to buy Flankers. It’s not hard to design an IRST, copy or even license one from the Russians, such as the very same one from the MiG-29, and I would think the Russians would welcome the opportunity to get more sales.
At this point, I just think that a decision was made to cut some corners, that’s all. Remember its still sort of a mid tier aircraft, compared to the Flankers being high tier.
crobatoWow that is six J-10s, not five, since the wing of the sixth J-10 is protruding from the side of the frame. It’s obvious the camera could not capture the entire line, which could even be longer.
Hello nighthawk, and welcome.
Pictures of “yellow” J-10s and prototypes 100X (1002-1009) appear to be that of Chengdu, given the cloudy skies and dark, richer colored vegetation around them.
But pictures of the light blue J-10s (101X or 1010-1016, maybe more) appear to have a different environment, one with much clearer and open skies, less trees, and far more sparse grass. The environment reminds me much more of the CFTE (Caijing Flight Test center) near Beijing, of whom we have seen many pictures of.
The recent pictures of 02 and 05 show an environment different from the two. The formation of a whole group of men in uniform jogging in formation suggests more of that of a regular air base. The skies remain clear and blue and the grass sparse, but there are a few trees around, whereas the CFTE seems almost cleared of trees. The kind of trees seem different from that we have seen in Chengdu.
crobatoElectrooptical trackers (IRSTs) are not a rocket science. The PLA uses an IRST for the Type 730 CIWS for example. It’s not difficult to copy either. They just decided it’s just not worth a bother for them to use on fighter aircraft apparently.
crobatoThe Navy are getting the brand new MKK2s. But the PLAAF will get their MKKs upgraded to the MK2 standard.
And you’re right about the Navy not getting the SAPSAN and M400 pods, but the Air Force won’t be getting the KH-31As either.
crobatoIs the price correct in this article then?
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004…/03/01/041.html
Monday, Mar. 1, 2004. Page 5
Makers of Sukhoi Lead Arms Exporters
By Lyuba Pronina
Staff Writer
Reaping more than $2 billion in revenues last year, Sukhoi fighter jets maintained their position as the country’s top arms export item, according to a report to be released Monday.
State-controlled Sukhoi tops the list of 20 defense companies that agreed to provide their 2003 financials to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based independent defense think tank that has compiled annual ratings since 1999.
Despite the strong showing of Sukhoi, which capitalized on contracts with China, this year it is likely to be bumped from that spot by fighter manufacturer Irkut Corp., the authors of the report said.
“The top five companies remained roughly the same and Sukhoi continued as No.1,” Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of CAST, said Friday.
The companies, in descending order, are Sukhoi, tank maker Uralvagonzavod, Irkut, and aircraft engine makers Salyut and Ufa MPO.
The MiG corporation dropped from No. 5 in 2002 to No. 14 in 2003.
Both Sukhoi and Irkut manufacture Sukhoi fighters.
Sukhoi reported $1.5 billion in revenues for last year, up from $1 billion in 2002.
Privately managed Irkut ranked third, reporting $502 million in revenues, down from $528 million in 2002.
But thanks to contracts with India, Irkut may well surpass Sukhoi as the No. 1 exporter this year, Makiyenko said.
In 2004, Makiyenko said, Irkut can expect sales of approximately $800 million from deliveries of 10 Su-30MKIs to India.
Irkut will also benefit when India begins assembly of 140 of the same jets under a $3.3 billion license agreement sealed in 2000.
This month, Irkut, which is majority-owned by its management, will bring 20 percent of its shares to the MICEX and RTS exchanges in the first initial public offering by a defense firm.
Next year it is aiming for a listing on the London Stock Exchange.
Unless new contracts are signed, Sukhoi can look forward to earnings of about $600 million for the delivery of 12 Su-30MKKs to China and four Su-30s to Vietnam, Makiyenko said.
Last year arms companies continued to depend on exports for the bulk of their earnings. For example, 95 percent of Sukhoi’s revenue came from sales abroad, the report said.
The company delivered only five Su-27-SMs to the Russian Air Force last year.
Yelena Sakhnova, an analyst with United Financial Group, agreed Irkut has a chance at coming in at No.1 this year, but estimates its earnings at $700 million.
Sakhnova said that while both firms will sustain export volumes in the short term, there needs to be serious investment into the research and development of new-generation systems to provide for a continuous growth in sales.
In a fourth straight record last year, Russia earned $5.4 billion from arms exports, but both Makiyenko and Sakhnova said they expect revenues to fall in 2004.
Uralvagonzavod, which came in second in the CAST ranking, earned $749.7 million in 2003.
This year it could drop out altogether, Makiyenko said, as the company has just completed a major delivery of tanks to India.
Aircraft engine makers No.4 Salyut and No.5 Ufa MPO earned $420 million and $406 million, respectively.
MiG, which dropped nine places to No. 14 in 2003, saw earnings fall from $281 million to $110 million.
MiG delivered 25 MiG-29s, including to Myanmar and Yemen, in 2002, Makiyenko said, but exports last year were considerably smaller.
Notoriously tight-lipped about exports, Tula-based Design Bureau of Instrument Building, or KBP, which makes anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems, for the first time agreed to provide information to CAST. It ranked No.7 with $250 million in sales.
Apart from Sukhoi fighters, Russia is scheduled to deliver a third Project 1135.6 frigate to India.
Two Project 636 diesel submarines will be delivered to China this year under a 2002 contract, Interfax quoted Vladimir Alexandrov, general director of Admiralteiskiye Verfi, as saying.
After Russia and India in January finally signed a $1.5 billion deal on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, no more contracts of such scale are expected, Makiyenko said.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
Actually, 13 tests were conducted since ’95. The USN is considering buying more from R&G International.
What i heard is that the program was dropped long ago, and the USN has switched to using Vandals. I never heard of anything more than five launches.
crobatoOriginally posted by Indian1973
the IRST can be used in a “limited precision bombing” using a shallow dive – atleast on the su30s. I recently see photo of a su30 unleashing 18-20 small bombs in a diving attack during a iaf exercise.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040314/ids_photos_wl/r127092231.jpg
That’s only for LGBs and laser guided missiles. The IRST must have a straight line of sight to the target. It’s also in the wrong place, because it’s much more effective to be in the nose and under the plane. That’s why SU-30s are getting pods such as SAPSAN.
The kind of exercise of dropping 250kg bombs on a saturation pattern like the photo is showing can be done with bombsights.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
The USN successfully intercepted MA-31 drones during tests.
Thats not what I heard. The first few times, not only was there no successful interceptions, but the MA-31 missile range was too short to accomplish the test properly Then Boeing engineers made suggestions to improve the range. Furthermore, the importation of the drones were stopped before more tests were made, and the improved ones were never tested by the USN.
crobatoOriginally posted by Hyperwarp
Mig-29M1/M2 – J-10…………well what else??The FBW system:
Mig-29 M1/M2 Digital Triplex (I think)
J-10 Digital QuadruplexDunno, how significant that is though..
Not much. Just an additional safety margin.
I think the optoelectrical system (OEPS) in the MiG would give it an advantage in heavily jammed environments though. It’s something I always felt gives the SU-27 an advantage over the J-10.
Sign In
