crobatoSo they’re still going ahead with the Zhuk-MSE?
At one point I thought they may be abandoning plans for using the Zhuk-MSE, preferring instead to evolve the N001VEP radar, eventually fitting it with the Pero in the proposed “Panda” radar (N001VEP+Pero).
After all the work and certifying that’s been gone into the N001VEP, I would have thought they would have pursued this course, instead of another new round of testing.
It appears at this point, the new orders of SU-30MK2 will be limited to the 24 planes, while the older MKKs will be upgraded to this standard. Future batches will be MKK3, and I suspect it will be quite a volume to make it all worthwhile, maybe even a co-license.
It also looks like PLA may be putting more emphasis on the MKK program than the SU-27/J-11/SU-27SKM, with the emphasis settling for the MKK on the main bomber role, and the J-10 on the fighter role, although both will remain to be multirole.
crobatoIt’s in IL2 and Forgotten Battles, but if you really want to discuss it, go to the historical section or the IL2 forums themselves. There are also other tank busters in that game such as the J-87G.
crobatoOriginally posted by troung
“currently, china doesnt have many indiginous PGM projects working. that means that whatever PGMs the PLAAF have are russian or licenced russian stuff. so it makes sence to just use russian a/c that are (or soon to be) compactible with those weapons to deliver them, as opposed to wasting alot of time and money trying to intergrate the weapons on a chinese fighter that would probably be better off doing purely AA stuff anyways.”Well the J-10 is kind of lacking in the air superiority load out only using 2 BVR missiles and 2 PL-8s and the Su-27SKs/J-11s are far better for that role in the first place with their bigger missile loads, longer range and high top speeds.
You can load 2 IR AAMs, and four BVR AAMs with a fuel tank or ECM pod in the center. That’s an average layout for most modern fighters.
It may hang as much as 6 BVRAAMs, even on the outboard wing. PL-8 is big and heavy for an IR missile, and if you can hang something like this, you can probably hang an R-77, MICA or Derby sized BVRAAM. A PL-8 weighs like 115kg already, an R-77 about 120kg, the R-73 or AIM-9L, or even a PL-5 weighs only 85kg. The outerboard hardpoint reminds me of the same for the J-8II, which normally is seen with PL-8s, but has shown to be able to hold small bombs and fuel tanks.
crobatoThe problem of the “spinal” Fishbeds is that you truly can’t use the remaining fuel left due to shifts in CG. You see, fuel is stored in the spine, and as fuel is consumed, the CG of the plane shifts. So when you only have half fuel left, it’s time to go home, since you can only probably use a quarter more.
In the double delta J-7E, there is more fuel stored in the wings, and fuel reduction in those areas would produce much less pronounced CG shifts. So more fuel can be consumed. I think the whole reason of going back to the original no fuel spine MiG-21f design was to deal with this issue right from the root, given the clear dissatisfaction the PLAAF has shown on the MiG-21MF based J-7C and the improved J-7D. The J-7C/D radar seemed to work well enough though, enough to confine the J-7C and J-7D into an all weather/night fighting group protecting the airspace around Beijing.
crobatoThe squares on the tail of No. 26 here, appear to be an attempt of censorship to hide the unit badge and numbers.
crobatoOriginally posted by phrozenflame
whats that ‘Boeing’ poster doing there? and any info which plane it has??
The Boeing display is on the other side of the display. Note the othe display on the other side. I believe I have the picture of that too. It is a cardboard model of Insitute 607’s new K-band radar unit, which is intended to fit I believe on the nose of J-7s.
I agree with PLAwolf’s observatrion that the AG stuff would be left to the Russian aircraft, as the options for Chinese PGMs are currently quite limited except for antiship warfare. But just as the SKs might be upgrading to the SKM level, further down the road, they may be upgrading to the “J-11B” level which will use domestic radar and SD-10s. This means the air superiority role is still there, complemented with aircraft capable of using PGMs.
However people assume that compatibility to PGMs must be a prerequisite for a multirole aircraft or fighter bomber. The current SKs in the PLAAF actually perform a fighter bomber role even without PGMs. The main staple of the PLA air to ground attack has always be saturation attack with unguided bombs and rockets. That is why the SKs and the UBKs are both beefed to an enormous 8000kg payload, even without the PGM capability—they are meant to carry all sorts of bombs and rockets, often in multiple ejector racks. The PLA has vast quantities of such ordinance, and I believe they intend not to waste them.
It is very likely the J-10 will follow the same dive bomb roles as the SKs.
I still however, have not ruled out in the near future of an attack version of the J-10, sort of like a mini MKK, a twin or single seater J-10 with Zhuk-M/Zhemchug radar and equipped with Russian PGMs.
crobatoThis seat showed up in the last major Chinese airshow, as well as various other equipment that may be related to the J-10.
crobatoThere is a longer version of this picture, without being cropped on the left side. Right next to the HUD on the left, was a helmet with a built in targeting sight. I suspect the helmet may be part of the J-10 also. I think the HUD works with the helmet too.
crobatoBy the way, does anyone have access to Kanwa’s paid section which has an article like “J-10 Production Reaches Peak”?
crobatoOriginally posted by flex297
Thanks God we got you so you can correct them… 🙂
After the fairly embarrassing 100 Zhuk-8II report, or the Zhuk MS fitted after the 20ist MKK report, J-10 using Zhuk reports, China buying Kayak report, or the Technocomplex report of 100 SM upgrades to China, yup I’ve learned to be sceptical, especially of Russian sourced reports, even if they go to Janes, Kanwa, AFM, or Flight International.
Thank god, we got reports from the Chinese themselves to correct them.
crobatoOriginally posted by SOC
Nice try, but none of those HT-233 images are clear enough to discern a pattern on the face of the arrays themselves. And where have you read that the HT-233 is the radar mounted on those destroyers? I’ve seen HT-233 associated with the KS-1 (where a towed version was designated ZD-12), FT-2000, and the HQ-9. So which is it? The radar set for the KS-1 and the HQ-9 both look very similar, but the array faces are different. On the towed radar for the KS-1 the circular antennae are above the main array, while on the face of the HT-233 they are below.
You can see the pattern clear enough. The shape of the arrays may be changed but the configuration is similar.
One major array in the center
Two or Four small arrays on the corners
A series of smaller arrays on the bottom.
Check with the Raytheon unit on the Patriot, and the configuration is quite similar. Of course, its not an exact copy ala J-10 is to the Lavi, or C-801 is to the Exocet, but the general configuration, similarity, and even the size is there.
The naval array is very similar in size and configuration to the HT-233 array. Chinese sources have described the missile as HHQ-9, which stands for the navy version of the HQ-9 as indicated by the an additional H prefix.
The HT-233 is not associated with the KS-1 but with the improved KS-1A. Don’t confuse the two.
crobatoOriginally posted by troung
“Since the plane lacks Russian radar, I doubt it would carry stuff like Kh-29s. If the plane has a Russian radar”The IrAF Mirage F-1EQ-6/7 could use the Kh-29L with the ATLIS II LDP so I see no reason the J-10 could not support the Kh-29L at least.
“but you can be sure about the typical Chinese saturation rockets and bombs which are seen from Q-5s to PLAAF SU-27s. The unguided stuff is always the staple of the Chinese air to ground attack, not to mention its cheap, easy to manufacture, and plenty available. Remember, the PLA does not put a premium on reducing collateral damage as Americans do.”
True. I can expect lots of cluster bombs and such to be held on the J-10.
With the 7 loading points and with at least 2 being reserved for fuel tanks and another 2 for the PL-8s and there of course is the center point which could go F-16 style and carry an ECM pod that leaves like two places for either BVR missiles or bombs. Its going to be interesting to see the J-10 carrying air to ground ordinance.
“if the FC-1 doesnt do well on the market, then it increases the likihood that the J10 will be make available as CAC bosses start to really push to get to make money from the plane.”
Well the J-10 may do better then the FC-1 on the export market who knows…
Supporting laser guided munitions is easy. It’s the TV guided stuff that is a bit harder. Creating a second version dedicated for attack and slapping a Russian radar would be much easier and quicker if you wish to support Kh-29/31/59/KAB/FAB in one full swoop.
It’s unlikely the J-10 can support Russian TV guided munitions without some reworking of the domestic radar, if such action is not being done already.
I am looking for verification if the PLAAF has imported Kh-29L; only the clear evidence has shown they imported Kh-29TE for the MKKs. There is a report of an import of KAB-500L, so KH-29L is a logical possibility, but both is not likely to be used on the MKKs until the MKKs are equipped with SAPSAN. This means the import of LGMs can open the possibility of being used in any of the domestic planes instead.
crobatoJane’s have also said crap like China licensing the SMK when it was only the SK version that was licensed.
So yeah, Jane’s make mistakes, and this could easily be one of them.
Simply said, if the Kayak or the Kh-41 is truly in sellable or operating condition, there would be no shortage of pictures. I’m only asking for the same level of proof (easy) that the other truly commercial missiles have like the R-77 or the Kh-29.
crobatoOriginally posted by Vympel
The B-1B isn’t that agile- it’s a myth that’s arisen simply because it uses a flight stick.
Well, have you ever seen one fly? Do a fast low flight pass, with a bit of a half roll as it banks into a turn?
I’ve seen one and I’m quite impressed.
crobatoThat picture is from an airshow. Russians stage stuff like displaying Kh-41 next to SU-30s and SU-33s even though both planes (the SU-30s at that time) could not even come close to being able to technically support those missiles through their radars.
Find me a pic, man of a pic of ANYTHING actually flying and carrying them. Urans and Sunburns are no big secret and sellable export commodities. You have no reason to find it hard to find air version pics of these missiles if they actually exist in sellable form (e.g. something more real than a mockup). Pics of R-77s, Kh-31s, Kh-29s, Kh-59s, KABs, R-27s and R-73s are plentiful . They are truly without a doubt.
Sign In
