Oh don’t give that carriage shot. I know the exact webpage you can find that (http://www.aviation.ru/Missiles/)

I am talking of pictures like these, which are plentiful and quite easy to find:

Note how such planes are said to be spec’ed for the Kayak, but the pictures don’t show it.

Heck, you can bring in helo pictures, Tupolev and MiG 29 pics too, as long as they carry a Kh-35 or Kh-41. Its either that or give me the actual news article.

You are the one with a double standard.

PICs please?

Is that hard to find?

There are plenty of pics of SU-30s with Kh-31s and Kh-29s.

Why no Kh-35s and Kh-41s?

I can find the newsclip of the launching of the C-803 so easily through the search. But not the Kh-35 or the Kh-41.

Face it. You can’t provide me actual information other than outdated Jane’s info.

So don’t give me more of your vaporware BS.

At least the Chinese stuff are supported by news clippings and numerous photographs.

Give me PROOF.

The pictures look shot from a close distance.

Furthermore, they look kind of magazine scanned.

Did they came from that Chinese magazine article?

Pictures that are not clear eh?

Originally posted by SSPzGr
[B]give me a break, goldendragon, to put it in the chinese way, you have been brainwashed by western media. certainly, there are weak points and defects in russian weaponry, but most of them are effective, if not world leading.

This is true. The one thing I like about Russian weapons is their robust simplicity. Usually when crap hits the fan, it will all boil down to the basics.

Even today, American GIs prefer to use Ak-47s in Iraq, as the weapon does not jam in a sandstorm like an M-16 does.

so who are you to criticize equipments that we can’t produce. why don’t you criticize our own defense industry instead? instead of provide with advanced weaponry, it forces us to pay billions to purchase some “junk weapons that are outdated and no good”. unless one day that the russians need to import our weapon, then you can start bashing russian equipments. [/B]

The problem is actually, the opposite. The Chinese defense industry complains that too much has been spent on Russian weapons when such funds could be used to developing indigenous resources. A lot of indigenous systems have come a long way.

If you keep buying imported weapons, your indigenous weapons will remain junk.

Having said that, Chinese leadership wants to play the Russian card in order to gain a friend in the border. If you want to talk about geopoltiical benefits, I would say Li Peng’s deal to buy the SU-27s in 1990 paid off every cent and much more.

Originally posted by Vympel
[B]Complete anti-physics nonsense. Modern ships carry negligible armor to speak of, and in terms of pure thickness, even an Iowa BB can be penetrated by a common anti-tank missile.

which has an armor piercing head.

Assuming of course the C-803s aren’t shot down in droves as they cruise beningly towards the target.”

At 5m in height and maneuvering?

An SU-30MKK on an attack vector at 120km with Kh-31As is a lot easier target for an SN-2 than four C-803s at sea skimming range.

Don’t try and change the subject: I do remember what you said, and you were referring to poor serviceability in the RuAF, which you attempted to use as proof that Russian aircraft were unreliable, which is uncontroversially explained by the dire lack of funds. In addition, I notice you have not responded to my request that you back up your claims about Indian Russian aircraft service rates.

Oh my god, it’s been posted in this board before.

“The induction of the Su-30 was’nt without its share of problems. The average servicibility of the 10 Su-30MKs fell to 69% during 1997-1998 and further reduced to 62% 1998-1999. Similarly, the average availability of SU-30K aircraft for operations also declined from six aircraft in 1997-98 to four aircraft in 1998-99, out of total strength of eight aircraft. This happened because the MoD did not order spares for the aircraft and the IAF was using spares supplied at the time of induction – supplied back in 1997. The MoD finally signed the general spares contract in January 1999.

Problems were multiplied due to the poor poduct support from the manufacturers. Apart from delivery of eight SU-30K aircraft during 1997 the manufacturer was required to supply 72 associated equipment like tyres, brake parachutes, specialist vehicles etc. valuing US $ 347.85 million, equivalent to Rs 1252.25 crore during 1997-2000 in a phased manner. The contract explicitly stipulated that equipment to be delivered by the manufacturer would be new, unused, of current production and serviceable. However, the a large percentage of the equipment delivered by the manufacturer between 1997 and 1998 was old, used, corroded, defective and unserviceable, though full payment had been made. For example, the specialist vehicles supplied were old, corroded and inoperable and others items like parachutes were torn and damaged. Aircraft tyres were found to have cut marks during initial inspection. The IAF made 48 claims from sukhoi but only 15 were cleared as of July 1999.”

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html

[quote
Supposition- and how does it’s predecessor fly?[/quote]

Like a Harpoon. 10 to 15m in midphase, dropping to 3 to 5m in terminal.

Hair-splitting. The principle is the same; merely because the radar can be and will be improved does not mean the original is lacking.

Oh bull. The original BARS was intended to have a full complement of sophisticated air to surface weapons to go with it. That is the part that turned out to be the problem.

The AGM-65 was originally concieved for air superiority.

If it didn’t meet its original intentions, it’s lacking.

And this is relevant how? It’s still a Russian CPU. It ain’t Chinese now is it?

It proved inadequete for the purpose.

FYI information, Chinese semiconductor manufacturing is about many generations ahead of the Russians, and only two years behind the US. They have already begun 0.13 micron process, and already has 8 inch/300mm wafers. You’re looking at chips that comprise the mainstream for PCs other than the processor.

No, that’s your preferred interpretation. If processors are so cheap, and planes are so few, I can quite easily say that there’s no reason not to do it.

Sorry, but there is.

Ground target differentiation requires processing power because the CPU or DSP has to filter extraneous information and amplify relevant information. And if you need to do it in real time, the more CPU it needs.

Or it’s clearly an opportunity to use indigenous technology in need of a boost to improve the capability of their most important quality fighter type. Furthermore, I see you once again have gone far and away from the original topic, which was China.

Don’t worry about the Chinese. They have the basic semiconductor technology to create embedded CPUs for the task.

Which is why overtaking Russia in the radar and avionics department is inevitable, or is already taking place.

So what? FACT: The arrays were installed on the Baku and Gorshkov 20 years ago. I guess that must mean they’re excellent! :rolleyes: And what’s more, these ships, unlike the 052C, have actually been commissioned.

The arrays didn’t work They were a failure.

Rollseyes.

Furthermore, they’re only air search radar, not fire control. They do not track, they do not guide, nor do they lock.

Classic appeal to ignorance fallacy. You know nothing about these arrays, because it’s “secret”, but you’re certain all the same that they’re excellent. Can you see what’s wrong with this kind of argument?

We know enough of the HQ-9/FT-2000, which is no secret. One array in that system can alone, track 50 targets. Check sinodefence.com. And that is quite possible since this smells like Patriot tech, and the Patriot system could actually track even more targets (up to 120).

Why is Skywatch nothing like Chinese PARS? Can you explain how? Like you said, it’s “secret”, so you don’t know at all, do you? You’re just assuming something to be true because it’s what you want to be true. Furthermore, all the Kuznetsov pics out there still have the 3D arrays on it. Not to mention that the Russians have had passive electronic scan arrays on the S-300 system for over 20 years (you know, the ones China bought), I find it highly unlikely that those on the 052cs are 100%, hell, 50%, indigenous Chinese.

Oh my god.

Skywatch is a 3D air search radar and a failed one at that. The FT-2000 HT-233 system is not just air search, but a tracking, locking and guidance. It is already in service.

S-300 arrays like Tombstone are only single function. Each component of the S-300 system are seperate from each other, so one unit does air search, the other does tracking, the other does guidance, etc,. The reason why you can’t put all in one unit is the mutual interference which the Patriot system solved.

Those in the 052s are made by Chinese. Who would sell such arrays to the PRC? The tech is so staggeringly ahead of any previous Chinese and Russian attempts that the tech had to be borrowed from somewhere, and with the resemblence of the arrays, it all screams “Patriot”. For the Chinese to have resolved all the sidelob and mutual interference issues is a staggering leap in radar technology that will lead to other things like arrays for AWACS.

The tech is certainly NOT from Russia.

Oh, they “appear” like another PAR, so they must have the same characteristics.

The HT-233 pics do not appear like another PAR. You don’t know what PARS looks like when it hits you. YOu can see different arrays and a pattern set across the grid. Anyone who has seen this and has seen the Patriot system can easily see the connection.

Firstly, the S-300P also relies on one “control vehicle” and is fully combat capable with it’s Flap Lid, though Clam Shell (added on S-300PMU) helps. At regiment level, Big Bird comes into play. The FTC-2000 uses one central sensor post (which I assume is what you were talking about when you said “control vehicle”) and three auxiliary ones to reach full capability- and that’s not including a regiment level system.

The HT-233 is only one vehicle, period. It does not have seperate search and fire control radars.

Even in this exercise in pure speculation is correct, it is quite plausible that the Chinese PARs are so grotesquely heat inefficient they need cooling systems. This is why evidence and testimony is great. But, unfortunately, like you said, it’s “secret”, so everything you just waxed poetic about is pure guesswork, correct?

You really don’t know anything do you? SPY-3 active arrays for the newest AEGIS are also liquid cooled.

No, see, what would put it ahead of a Russian effort would be actual evidence and testimony as to its capabilities, rather than just best-case scenario, completely uninformed guess work about systems mounted on ships that aren’t even commissioned.

Systems that physically exist on ships that are already launched.

We’re talking about reality.

Where is the Russian effort?

Nada.

No photograph, no ship. nothing.

I fail to see on what planet it’s better to just make up stuff as you go along based on poor pictures that circulate around the internet and then just say “it’s secret” when called on it.

More bull from you.

Most of the pictures are pretty detailed, enough to see pictures faces of workers taking a break and having a smoke.

Not according to the evidence published by one of the most prestigious military review journals (jane’s) it isn’t. I’m sorry if you find it incovenient.

When the actual details of the ship isn’t released yet?

Even rudimentary in the relative AEGIS sense is still head of what the Russians ever did.

Why don’t you give me some examples of this hyperbole, and how it’s different from Western manufacturers, who also hawk their stuff like it’s the best thing since sliced bread? That is how you sell weapons.

Western weapons on the other hand, has a combat record and a satisfaction record that more or less, tends to ultimately back up what they say.

Did it occur to you that maybe noone will want it? It would take decades for new Chinese aircraft and weapons to carve a niche in the already saturated marketplace- long enough perhaps that the SD-10 won’t be a threat to the R-77s position.

I’ve never seen comments more delusional.

R-77 is hardly being bought by anyone except India and China, both of whom have indigenous projects. China can expect to export the SD-10 and they won’t be restricted like the way AMRAAM is.

Given the fact that the SD-10 is being studied to make work on such radars like the Italian Grifo, French Thales and the Israeli ELTA—all radars being actively considered for the FC-1— it seems less and less likely to be a Russian seeker or datalink.

And? France has sold to both China and Taiwan, I guess that means all those French peices of kit in China are a delusion.

It’s a dumb argument. Russia is not France. So I guess France can sell to Pakistan too, is that it? Selling to both sides puts you in political ho****er. The French has a very mercenary approach in arms trading. The Russians are more or less consistent. If they back one side, they back one side. They back the Indians, so don’t expect them to sell systems that may end up being used against the Indians, or the Indians will really cut buying from the Russians. France is not the primary supplier for China and Taiwan; there is no ambiguity about Russia and the US as to who and who can sell in this and that side of the straits.

Considering that the seeker is from Belarus, shouldn’t they be complaining to them?

Isn’t AGAT’s main office is in Moscow?

A Jane’s Air Launched Weapons entry doesn’t count as evidence? It’s ‘inneuendo’? It counts far more than the musings of someone on an internet forum, I’m sorry to say.

Jane’s has been wrong before. I believe when it defies obvious politics, obvious facts, it has to be reexamined.

I mean please—the seeker is the most technologically sensitive part of the missile. You want to give it away?

Which will change. However, it’s still far more impressive than anything the Chinese have on their fighters now isn’t it?

Yes.

You were discussing the use of twist-cassergrain antennas; I was referring in reply to the new-generation stuff they’ve got ready or in the works.

No. The Chinese already got planar arrays operational and for quite some time.

The J-8II uses a planar array code named Type 1471, factory name KLJ-1.

The F-7MG uses a planar array inspired by a GEC-Marconi design. This has been adopted into the J-7G.

The newer JH-7s use a planar array called JL-10A, which supports use of AshMs like the C-802/C-803.

No details on the Type 1473 radar on the J-10, other than a 160km search range, 4 target engagement, and 10 or 15 targets on TWS. One source points to being a phase array, although the version shown on Y-8 test bed is a planar.

Of course, you think as long as you can see something that looks like a phased array, it must be the best thing since sliced bread! Who cares how it performs- or if it performs at all? Right? That’s an insane point of view. If Russians thought like you were thinking now, they’d think the Kuznetsov had the best PAR ever.

But we know it didn’t work, right? They also pulled it out.

And once again, you completely ignored my request as to the altitude at which the missile was fired, it’s flight profile on the way- not unlike your hand waving about your utter lack of any concrete knowledge about the arrays on the 052Cs, which you, with no evidence, characterize as being all sorts of things. [/B]

YOu know you’re really a lot of bull. You’re so beaten in these arguments you;re looking for cracks.

The Chinese did that test in secret but it was caught by US intelligence. The Chinese will certainly not disclose details, nor will the US, if such details will compromise US intelligence.

Absence of public details do not constitute lack of evidence.

The point is that it did happen. The test did took place.

The arrays exist. They have been installed on ships that have already been launched. We know from the HT-233 array, that the HT-233 could at least scan 50 targets, and the naval arrays are an even newer development. The arrays have been tested on another ship along with the YJ-12 AshM.

The point is that both EXIST, when the Russian equivalent does not beyond the brochure proposal.