crobatoSupposed to be 200km. It’s the only way I think would justify any interest for it, or for improving the radar. At 70 to 100km, a ship sized target would not pose any problem for the unmodded N001VEP radar. The improvements meant for the MK2 suggest a considerable greater range.
The Kh-31A is not a cruise missile. It just flies straight to its target like a bullet, relying on sheer speed to break past defenses. It should not be hard to extend its range with a more efficient engine or launched from a height from a supersonic launch platform.
Note: the naval MKKs should be practicing making attacks from the greatest height as possible to ensure the earliest and farthest detection of the ship beyond the curve of the horizon, and to give the AshM maximum range. Once again, the attack profile of these jets are from high, not low level.
crobatoOriginally posted by Himanshu
Development is over..http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/04fisher_report/7_air_force_systems.htm
The report seemed like a summary of all the stuff you can pick off from the Internet, especially from the CDF.
Note that the Kh-31A that may equip the SU-30MK2 may likely to be the 100km Mod 2 version.
crobatoOriginally posted by SSPzGr
su-27sk been assemble in xinjiang? i thought it’s shenyang.
It’s a major editorial goof up.
crobatoHowever, sources suggest that Beijing now aims to switch from direct purchase deals to technology transfers, allowing local manufacture of the Su-30MK/MK2.
China bought 50 Su-27 fighters worth $1.7 billion from Sukhoi over the period 1991-97, including 38 single-seat Su-27SKs and 12 twin-seat Su-27UBKs.
In 1996, Beijing paid $2.7 billion to acquire a licence to produce 200 Su-27SK aircraft from component packages and the Xinjiang assembly facility has so far received 95 of these component kits. However, a contract covering the additional 105 kits has yet to be concluded.
Maybe the numbers have to be 102 recieved as per Piotr Butowski, but this constant change of numbers do show you just how uncertain Russian numbers can be, even from reputable sources.
Still the quoted part is important because it shows the Chinese Flanker program to be in a flux, or an unclear roadmap.
It is important because suddenly the MKK license program has been switched on again after fading out in 2001-2003. This is because of an alternative that Sukhoi apparently thought or was confident that China would acquire—the SU-27SKM. The SKM was designed in view of Chinese requirements—which also indicated a strong Chinese interest on this plane that was enough to cofund the development program. I believe the original program was to upgrade about 100 previously recieved and made SU-27s and J-11s, then build the unused portions of the contract to the SKM standard.
I think the decision to go with the SKM may have something to do with the MKK’s roadmap supposedly getting the Zhuk-MS by the second half of 2001 “after the first 20 planes”. But problems in the radar may have not just delayed but set back the confidence level in this scheme. This led to the upgrading of the N001VEP as an alternative.
So it all surprised Sukhoi that the Chinese stalled on the SKM. This is followed by a flurry of high level negotiations that started soon after MAKS2003. I think its like a transitional crisis of some sort.
Now again the option to license the MKK was put into the table again (the Russians have previously in spirit agreed to license the plane but not in written contract). This time, it’s probably the MKK-3 form.
So what happened? Was there a faceoff between the SKM and the MKK-3 prototypes? Did they really fix the problems in the Zhuk-MSE radar? It seems speculative at this point, but it looks like something may have turned the Chinese minds again. It could be that the MKK3 proved to outperform the SKM, and that China is looking once again to move the remainder of the license to the MKK3 standard, which was actually the original plans around 2000.
Despite improvements and navalization of the N001VEP system, it looks like Phazotron really worked hard to finish the Zhuk MSE in the naval environment, perfecting the radar on the SU-27KUB, and its smaller sibling, the Zhuk-ME on the MiG-29K.
The KH-31A with N001VEP is just a stepping stone or a stopgap, perhaps to a Zhuk-MSE combined with the Kh-59MK (under development in Raduga) for a 285km ranged AshM. The Russian press has positioned Yakhont-M and airborne Clubs as alternatives too. The Zhuk-MSE should be more than adequete to detect small to destroyer sized targets up to 300-400km away.
crobatoI actually think the Kh-31A thing is a back job that the original MKK failed to properly accomplish.
Note that all the early MKK pictures, including MKK 501 prototype, show the plane carrying the KH-31A, and it is spec’ed as such in KnAAPO’s own publicity brochure on the “real SU-30MK”.
This also includes the datalink to allow the plane to be used as a mini-AWACS; the SAPSAN pod; and the M400 pod which should resolve problems in the N001VE to sharply resolve small ground targets at a distance.
If you think of it as a backjob, they would be getting only brand new planes (probably a reg of 20, plus 4 going into the evaluation center or spares), then upgrade the remaining delivered MKK.
So it’s like an upgrade. Maybe more like MKK v2.0.
crobatoThose are old sources that state the Zhuk-M for the J-10, and the main source is actually Kanwa. It was also Kanwa that revealed, on a later date, that it was the Type 1473.
Since the source is the same, it’s likely the Zhuk-M was actively evaluated or used in some of the prototypes, but was eventually switched to the Type 1473 later in the production series. The lack of Russian fire control system is reinforced in the pictures, which does not show the J-10 carrying any sort of Russian AAMs like R-73 or R-27s, both of which are abundant in PLAAF inventory.
I still would not rule out the use of Zhuk-M in a later, possible attack variant of the J-10, sort of a mini-MKK. There is no question that Russian AGM support is much more extensive and ahead of the Chinese, whose similar efforts are still in an infancy stage. In which case, if the PLA wants an extensive ground attack version soon—-sort of a replacement to the Q-5—it would need to rely on a Russian fire control system that would be generally compatible with all the Russian PGMs already acquired for the MKK, things like the KH-31, KABs, and KH-29.
Such a plane would be dependent on many factors, the crux of which is that the PLAAF road map is still not very clear at the moment, whether to stick and license the MKK (in the MKK3 version with Zhuk MSE); upgrade and license the SU-27SKM variant; or this. I don’t think the PLAAF has enough money for all three but it may implement all three in various degrees.
The fact that the PLAAF is still going ahead with the MKK3 program—using the Zhuk-MSE—rather than an further evolved MKK2 program using the Panda radar of N001VEP + Pero—may stimulate a J-10+Zhemchug program once again.
crobatoOriginally posted by Indian1973
UT = United technologies , the parent co of Pratt and Whitney.PTAE is the new turbojet engine of the lakshya drone. I threw in
these mini engines as well – for drones, cruise missiles..Williams Inc is the world leader (supplies engines to tomahawks).
http://www.williams-int.com/index.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/24/stories/0224000y.htmits deceptively difficult to develop these small engines.
whoever makes the engines for KH55 series also has my deepest respects.
Well, it is for only one use only. That helps cut out the work a lot.
It would still be easier than producing a fighter jet engine, and a commercial jetliner turbofan. Jetliner turbofans makes the most sheer thrust, although military engines have the better thrust to weight ratio.
China, for example, managed to develop and comission missile turbojets way before its first indigenous turbofan, which is the WS-11 engine for the JL-8 (K-8). These are the engines for the Kraken (YJ-61) which is like a Silkworm/Seersucker with a turbojet, and for the C-802/C-803 series. There are also engines for drones, target drones, and for cruise missiles like the Red Bird series.
The list of wannabees failed to include Taiwan and Japan, which both have cruise missile jet engines already, the HF-2 for the former and the ASM-2 for the latter.
RD-93 is said to be manufactured locally in China as the Tian Shan 21. That’s according to the Chinese internet boards, but I like to see more direct information first.
crobatoRe: Did they mistaken with other planes?
Originally posted by dirtyharry
Maybe the ppl viewed all twin engines aircrafts as the Sukhois.You see some ppl were so enthusisastic with the Sukhois but their lack of knowledges may mislead their claims.The low level flying is so dangerous and it wasnt known much by the PLAAF.It was the Gulf war that triggered the PLAAF to rethink the purpose of airpower. Before then,PLA just know strafing rockets and carpet bombings those simple tactics. There was necessay to fly low attitude over terrians but many PGMs can reduce that to minimum.
Whether those Sukhois were over used, that wasnt appropiate because LIFT cannot simulate the real combat aircrafts, it can reduce human errors to minimum but not avoidable. And some error was caused by mechanical errors, that was the matter of manufacturing quality. But those exports’ quality were even better than Soviet-era. Bird strike happens around all airforces and the attrition rate of Sukhois was much lower than F-16s.Feel pity China loss some Sukhois, but hopefully they gained much knowledges from it. Since China is learning modern airpower in only ten years equivalent of the west in 30 years experiences. China didnt involved in any large conflicts( vietnam) with the use of heavy contributions’ airpower in the past 50 years was the cause of those attritions.
Low level flying has been with the PLAAF for a while. Much longer than you think.
In fact these ideas are the ones that help spawn the conceptual foundation for the Fantan and the JH-7 two decades before the Gulf War, seeing pretty much all those MiG-23/27s, SU-24s, Tornadoes, and F-111s the other countries have.
Ironically, it was the Gulf War that invalidated the concept of low level attack, not perpetuated it. The Tornadoes took considerable casualties from that war, all because low level flying made you vulnerable to low level SAMs. So you send in the B-52s instead to do high level carpet bombing free from SAM reach.
Thje whole premise of the MKK is quite the opposite of the low level attack. The plane, armed with the KH-59ME missile, is supposed to fly high and shoot the missile at long stand off range.
crobatoOriginally posted by SOC
There’s another good point-the aircraft may have been assigned to the same unit or base that has Su-30MKKs and the reporter jumped to the conclusion that it was a FLANKER that crashed.Regarding that statement though, why the J-8II? It makes about as much sense to be flying low-level sorties in a FINBACK as it does a FLANKER.
To start with, the Finback simply has greater range and payload than either the J-7 or the Fantan when it comes to such roles. There has been a few pics of the Finback with rocket pods and with bombs on multiple ejector racks.
crobatoMy thoughts too that it may be a JH-76 involved, or even Q-5s, since there is a PLAAF Q-5 unit. But if MKKs were being lost for engine failure, there’s going to be a lot of screaming in Sukhoi’s ear. Still, AL-31F series 3 are being produced since the late nineties, and these are supposedly more reliable than earlier AL-31Fs.
It makes zero sense for planes to do low level simulation strike mission on their first flight.
Wuhan is a base for transports. SU-30MKKs are not posted there. Changsha, not Wuhan, is the base for SU-30s in the Guandong area, or perhaps, it may be referring to the Wuhu base which is in Nanjing. I doubt people can confuse Wuhu with Wuhan.
Low level flight training are often performed with different aircraft, J-7s, JJ-7s, JJ-6s, and J-8IIs included. Some major airbases that has MKKs may also have these aircraft. Changsha hosts J-7s and J-8IIs also. It should be added that PLANAF does have a Q-5 group in Qingdao, another type of plane that practices low level strikes.
Nonetheless, if lives are truly lost, these are far more valuable than the MKKs themselves and it does not matter what plane they are in.
crobatoThe Minsk ticket is the equivalent of 9 US$.
crobatoOriginally posted by Hydropod
Well, the guys from Wuhan said that they were not suprised to hear of a crash, to them, it is bound to happen. Some went as far as to say that they see Su-30s in ones and twos pass by and make turns around a certain hill top at very low altitude (under 20 meters) at high speed daily, so I would believe that. But 3 lost in ayear is still a bit, not to mention the PLANAF copy was during the first flight by the unit after receiving the 30s.There are about 2 or so Su-27Sk/J-11 crashes in the rumour page, along with a UBK in the past 2-3 years as well. To me, PLAAF should really get some LIFT as soon as possible, the UBKs and MKKs are getting terribily overused, not only in advanced air combat training or ground training, but also been used more that 50% of the flying time in navigation, HOTAS, terrian familiarazation trainings… what a waste of UBKs and MKKs…
P.S. Now you mentioned it, it is still preferable to lose planes in real trainings when the planes and the pilots are pushed to limits, rather that what happened a few years ago, when Sukohis are lost in typhoons, blue on blue and running out of fuel (reportedly a J-11 went down with that) I suppose … :rolleyes: Still sad though.:rolleyes:
Unfortunately I’m still on the observation that the PLAAF still babies their planes. The average hours of even the SU pilots don’t seem high enough, and I remember a remark from a Sukhoi official in Zhuhai that described the use of the planes as being frequent, but the mileage is still low.
The problem in the PLA officer culture is that recriminations are swift and career ending. Base commanders, squadron commander, even generals, admirals or the head of the entire division or fleet could get fired if you get serious accidents. The 361 sub accident caused the removal of the head of PLAN’s North Fleet. So the PLA would err on the side of caution.
crobatoWhere did you get this information? Chinese BBS is not exactly a pristine source of evidence, like one SU-27 towing a target decoy was said to have been shot down by an S-300 by mistake.
While there has been intense low level flight training, there should still be minimum height requirements to remove the possibility of bird strike, especially from pigeons, and to give sufficient allowance in case of events such as a stall. If you remember the J-10 handover article, soldiers even shot down birds to clear the air of any possible hazards. Besides, why is the MKK doing low level exercises in the first place when its munitions were all supposed to be used from a certain height?
It would be good if this is backed by actual articles—Chinese media has reported accidents previously, and even showed photos of the crashes. I remember a said crash reported by the Taiwan press and the engine was said to be at fault, but Sukhoi has denied these allegations.
A bird strke could knock out one engine, but it could leave the other engine flying enough to make a safe landing. Previous accidents could have caused flight restrictions to have tightened up. Usually if there are serious crashes, there is clear recriminations in the entire PLAAF right to the top. In 1994, the head of the PLAAF was said to have been removed after one said SU-27 crash.
crobatoIt occured to me that the choice of the Zhuk MSE may be reinforcing what is possibly a strong naval orientation for the MK3—the fourth MKK order may also be naval. We have previously known that the Zhuk-MSE has been extensively tested with the SU-27KUB platform, and its smaller sibling, the Zhuk-ME, is the default radar for the carrier MiG-29K.
crobatoYou mean, what could be adapted to the PGm as the PG could not fire any BVR missile at the moment.
The most likely would be a BVR missile about the size and weight of a PL-8 or Python 3 class missile, which is easily seen in PLAAF J-7H and J-7E in the inner pylons. The outer pylons could not support the missile and must use the lighter 85kg PL-5E (the PL-8 is 115kg).
This would give us two missiles—the Derby which is often mentioned in Israeli ELTA based upgrades for the MiG-21, and the very similar R-Darter, which has been mentioned in active negotiations and may just be the one.
Any mention of BVR for the J-7/F-7 would have to be mentioned in the context of the PAF, as the PLAAF appears to view the J-7 now as a sunset product and won’t invest much to enhance its ability than what it already has. The only forseeable upgrade may be HMS, but BVR may be ou of the question for PLAAF J-7s.
Sign In
