crobatoOuch.
I would go with Rick and say the SU-30 regs are 19-20 aircraft each.
Here is my “adjusted” version if the data behind the article is true.
“First Anshan Shenyang First 26 J-11”
No need to comment.
“Second Suixi Guangzhou Fourth 26 Su-27”
Probably more like 24 SU-27s.
If there is a 2nd regiment with SU-30s, it would be 19-20.
“Third Wuhu Nanjing Ninth 26 Su-30”
Probably another 19-20 SU-30s. If a second regiment is formed here with J-11s, put 24-26.
Though unpredecented for the PLAAF, this modernization trend is not surprising since it allows the new regiment to be built on an existing logistical and base infrastructure setup for the earlier existing regiment.
“Sixth Yingchaun Lanzhou 16/18 or 139 26 J-11”
No need to comment.
“Seventh Beijing? Beijing 19/20/21? 26 J-11”
No need to comment.
“18th Changsha Guangzhou 54th 26 Su-30”
Should be 19-20.
“19th Zhengzhou Jinan 55/56/or 58 26 Su-27”
24-26
“29th Quzhou Nanjing 85/86 or 87 26 Su-27”
26. Planes probably used to belong to the 3rd.
“33rd Chongqing Chengdu 97th 38 Su-27”
This is not really 2 regiments, but more like 28 SU-27UBKs (last delivery from Russia) plus 10 J-11s for pilot certification.
This is a training regiment.
“6th Naval Shanghai Dachang 16 or 17 18 Su-30”
This division has 2 JH-7 regs. Is this being supplemented by a third SU-30MK2 reg? However there is also indication that a third JH-7 regiment that may be formed, this one being the first to use the JH-7A. I just wonder if there is some confusion with regards to this.
“Flight Test Center Cangchou Beijing 18 Su-30”
A regiment intended for the development of tactics.
Based on this, we’re looking at
38 SU-27SKs
40 SU-27UBKs
125 J-11s
95-96 SU-30s
With variances around 5 to 10 more or less aircraft.
Which does put the aircraft nearly 300, a number coincidentally mentioned by a Sukhoi official to Dr. Richard Fisher of the Center of Security Policy.
The next is interesting.
J-11 100 0 100
J-11A 20+ 80 100
Su-30MK2 20 20 40
Su-30MKK 60+ 20 80
Su-27UBK 40 20 60
Su-27SK 50 0 50
What is the J-11A?
Are we going to presume this is the Chinese version of the SU-28SKM?
The numbers here show additional orders of SU-27UBK, as well as SU-30MK2.
crobatoPero is from NIIR Tikhomirov. It is unlikely to see service being part of a NIIP Phazotron product like the Zhuk, as much chance as a Chevy engine on a Ford pickup.
Phazotron would pursue its own phase array tech. They have already publicly displayed their Sokol phase array for SU-27/37 type aircraft, and the smaller Pharaon (Kopyo-F), which was offered to the PLAAF FC-1 contract (as indicated by the rather optimistic display of the FC-1 in the Kopyo-F brochure).
This leaves the midline Zhuk series. Previously there was talk of the “Sokol-X” which is basically a Zhuk/N019 sized derivant of the Sokol, or the Zhuk adapted to the Sokol nonequidistant phase array. There were rumors, even reports, that such units were even exported for the J-10 project (as the Zhuk-10PD) though these reports were never substantiated. Given that Phazotron tried to market Kopyo-F to the PLAAF FC-1 project, it would not be hard to believe they tried the same tact on the “mini-Sokol” to the J-10 project, thouch China never eventually adopted a Phazotron equipment on the J-10, and its not likely they would do so for the FC-1 as well.
crobatoPero right now appears to being positioned as part of a package offering to the Chinese government in a project called “Panda”. Panda radar comprises of Pero + N001VEP, which is the current radar on the MKK. Pero appears to have been cleared for export to China.
I have a suspicion that the Chinese and the Russians are in loggerheads over a technical issue. The new version SU-27SKM N001V features a new digital signal processor that improves the range, detection speed and resolution over the existing radar without any change in the antenna. This greatly saves money. However, the chip may not be cleared (at the moment) for export, and until this chip is cleared, the Russians are not willing to export it but instead, ship only the current version of the N001VEP radar to China, albeit now with improved processors to support AshM duties.
Instead the Russians are pushing a much more expensive solution, which is to use Pero on the N001VEP without the new chip, which also greatly improves performance but at greater cost. As you know, Pero may already be cleared for export, so there is less bureaucracy to go through.
The loggerheads issue explains why the SU-27/J-11 upgrade talks seem to be conducted at a fairly high level. The Russians are also trying to prevent the Chinese from upgrading the planes with their own Chinese radars, since the Russians would also lose out in the money.
it all depends. We will see how developments turn out.
crobatoActually I begin to see less and less how important the antenna is, but more and more how important the electronics behind the antenna is.
For example, note how NIIP managed to greatly improve the performance and utility of the N001 with its antique twist cassegrain antenna by adding more powerful CPUs and digital signal processors.
Like wise too, we have seen great improvement of the APG-68 (planar array) from one version to another, with better electronics as its main upgrade. I think V9 would even outrange the AESA radar on the F-2.
crobatoOriginally posted by huitong
The one sent to China is currently on display at the AF Museum in Beijing. I saw several bullet holes outside cockpit when I visited the museum several years ago …
Is it still there?
I heard there are a few Hinds on top of the Minsk in the theme park in Shenzhen along with MiG-23s.
But these could be surplus bought from the Russians only for the purpose of display.
Where did the “Hollywood” Hinds also came from? The ones used in the filming of at least one Rambo movie among others.
crobatoOriginally posted by Multirole
Well this thread really went south in a hurry.To get back on topic. I’m surprised the analysts here think PLAAF planned one engine per jet. It just opens itself to all sorts of handicaps and exploitable vulnerabilities.
It seems to me the J-10 estimate should be smaller. We can’t assume the number of Russian engines delivered translate to the number of aircraft in production. At least half the engines will probably be held in reserve.
Look to my examples again, and you will see that as of now, they do. Maybe that explains why PLAAF/PLANAF does have low turnover. But the ratio of J-7 engines are 1 spare out of six, and that’s for a short lived engine. I don’t see a large number of AL-31F spares either, both in PLAAF and IAF service, a reason which accounts for their low serviceability. The number of Spey engines vs. the number of JH-7 planes and prototypes are almost an exact match.
Let met tell you something in the USAF, and true in many airforces as well, among others, the ROCAF. There is a lot of cannibalization going on.
And there’s an even simpler explanation. The engines delivered are part of the production schedule, and hardly the last. There maybe more engines that were ordered, and the reserve engines will probably come among later batches. So for now, the ones delivered are not meant for reserve but for production. This may make the first J-10 regiment a little thin for spares (why do you think China is pushing its own engine hard in the first place), which can also explain why the first J-10 regiment is in PLAAF backwaters (in Yunnan province) where operational demands are lower.
The Salyut plant making the AL-31FN is a brand new production line near Moscow. That’s a mighty huge investment for one engine. The garden stock AL-31Fs for the SU-27s and SU-30MKKs are made by UMPO in the Urals. The Russians are not going to put up money (and it seems that Chinese money is involved) for putting up an entirely new factory for an engine that isn’t going into RuAF service. If GE is going to make a new engine variant just for a brand new EU fighter, you better expect a large quantity to justify their costs and profit.
I don’t expect all the 300 AL-31FN engines that China may have ordered to all go into J-10s. At some point before all the AL-31FN engines are used up, WS-10A may come into service, and the J-10 production line will shift to the new engine. That will still leave a healthy surplus of AL-31FNs for those J-10s already having the AL-31FN.
crobatoOriginally posted by Multirole
[B]You can change the engine of a F-16 in 30 minutes. This require 6+ operators. The Israelis invented rapid turn around time. The secret is having lots of trained techies and lots of spare parts. Worry about maintinenece after the war.
In times of war, your F-16 should not be in a maintenance position so that it would necessitate an engine replacement in the middle of combat in the first place, unless it was damaged during combat. All the critical maintenance should have been done prior to that.
One of the big draws of 5th gen fighters like the Typhoon is sub 30-minute turn around times. Which translates to multi sorties per day instead of once every other day. If Chinese J-10s are supplied with one engine each, the Taiwan air force can buy a very small number of 5th gen fighters and match PLAAF sortie rate.
Maybe so, but the numbers are not showing that the PLAAF is keeping a lot of spare engines. Like I said, J-6 and J-7 engine spares were generally 1 out of 6, not 1 out of 2. And those were fairly short lived engines.
I don’t hear the SU-27s having a lot of spare engines either, if any at all, as there is no record of such considerable exportation of engines from Russia to China. It is possible they were included in the contract though.
The total numbers of the Spey engines—around 90—easily fit the numbers for the two JH-7 regs, plus prototypes. There could be additional orders, but I’m not sure as I have no data recorded of more Spey importations.
http://www.taiwansecurity.org/News/2002/FEER-012402.htm
We know there is two JH-7 regiments. This is fact. Bort numbers support the existance of a second regiment, which was filmed right in CCTV with at least one aircraft having its planar aray radar exposed. Each JH-7 regiment numbers 20 aircraft.
We know for a fact, there is four prototypes, 081, 082, 083, and 084.
So this accounts for 44 airplanes, and that seems to leave one more pair, which could probably went for a prototype or used for study.
That does not leave you much of spares, do they?
So either 40 engines were kept as spares for the first regiment, or the second regiment is using domestic made WS-9 engines.
I don’t know why you’re so defensive on the aircraft sniping issue. Raids on enemy airfield with ground troops is standard procedure. Look up the SAS raid on Argentine airfield during the Falklands. That sort of mission is only made easier today with long range anti-material guns. And I’m sure you if you can sneaking in to take photos of a J-10 you are well close enough to take it out. Especially when there is no language or physical appearance differences.
Frankly it’s a hell lot easier for Taiwanese agents to do sabotage on the mainland than vice versa. And Taiwan has a history of doing these penetration raids. [/B]
Photos of the J-10s only occured from CAC’s private airfield, and many of those were internally leaked, meaning they were not taken by outsiders but by insiders.
Shots into PLAAF airbases are much more rare and most PLAAF photos are from offically taken by allowed publicists.
If snipers are a problem, engines are only among the list of things you have to worry about. Bullets can crack the composites in planes, and composites are very difficult to repair. Wires and aviionics can be damaged in the process. Fuel tanks can be ruptured or exploded.
The problem of snipers is dealt with increased security around the base, not keeping more spares around the base, which they will only shoot at as well. You shot one engine, replaced a new one and have the new one shot as well. So what gives? This is actually a strawman argument.
crobatoOriginally posted by Multirole
I am under the impression that to get the high sortie rate required by modern wars you need multiple engines to keep the fighter flying. Doing a 60 hour maintnence does not bode well for 30 minute turn around times.
And you think you can switch engines within 30 minutes?
Do you realize if the Taiwanese sent a sniper team with .50 cal rifles they can put an entire squadron out of the war with one disabling shot to the engine a piece?
I like to see them try in the first place. They would probably be dead long before they could get close.
crobatoWhoever told you the engines were to be stored in the first place?
When they were delivered, they were not meant to be stored but to be used into the production line. So they were not prepped to be stored.
crobatoOriginally posted by aerospacetech
Actually, with the JH-7 they ordered at least 3 Spey engines per airframe built, I believe, which is a 50% overorder.
I don’t know. That’s about 90 Spey engines that was ordered. You got two operational regiments of about 20 aircaft each, plus 4 prototypes. That’s nearly 90 engines. If a third regiment is to be made, and it seems one could be preparing for such, the third group of JH-7s (now on the JH-7A standard) would have the domestic engines instead.
You can’t store engines for a long time without expecting that that they would have to be overhauled again prior to use. Lubricants expire, freeze, solidify; the engine has to be reassembled and overhauled. This is very expensive.
The Chinese would probably and inevitably replace the Speys on these JH-7 with their own engines when the time comes for these Speys.
In short, it’s too early to consider spares, and when the time comes, it’s likely the Chinese will fit their own.
Same with the AL-31FNs. I think the 300 engines that may be ordered includes spares for overorders, but I sense that the Chinese would replace the existing engines with their own engines much later when the planes are ready for an overhaul. The newer engines can also be considered an upgrade considering the paper rating of the WS-10A is a higher than the AL-31FN (13,200kg vs 12,500kg).
China appears to be taking the “inevitably replace” approach on the SU-27s and J-11s too.
In the old days J-6s, J-7s and J-8IIs had a 5 to 6 ratio. Out of 6 engines made, 5 goes into the planes and 1 held as a reserve. Even with Chinese made improvements, the life of these engines were incredibly short. They were taken out and replaced. It was cheaper to build the engines new rather than overhaul and fix them. The concept “throwaway engine” comes to mind.
These newer engines on the other hand, are much more expensive and have much longer lives.
crobatoNo, you don’t need spare engines for new planes, at least not yet anyway. They only become an issue when—much later and a long time at that—you will need to overhaul the engines, and long before then you can order spare engines.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
Too bad no one has a Kanwa subscription. His article entitled, ‘J-10 production at peak’ sure sounds juicy.
Indeed, but I don’t expect to offer anything new from what has already been discussed, and I doubt it’s anywhere close to the peak.
Assuming a Korean article was right, that you can expect 4 squadrons of J-10 to be ready by 2005. We can assume each squadron is 12 aircraft and that will be 48 in all.
This is consistent to the 54 engines ordered and just recently finished deliveries last year. The balance of these engines can be set aside for prototypes. Previously a contract for 10 engines were signed around 1996 and deliveries of those started around 1997. We can believe these 10 engines went to the early prototypes. This explains J-10 white plane 01 (probably repainted to 1001), and all the prototypes 1002 to 1009. 1010 to 1016 marks the first batch of the production standard, and after 1016, the number may be been marked back to 01. So 1010 to 47 represents usage of the 54 engines, plus two seater prototype 01.
Since the deliveries of the new batch of 54 engines was signed around 2001, and perhaps began in late 2001 or early 2002. its quite safe to presume that serial production of the final spec aircraft began just abotu the same time. There is some haze on the exact time frame, but Hui Tong has an entry the first production standard J-10 first flew on June 28, 2002.
This is still an early spec and I don’t believe production is full blast. J-10 production will only go full blast once WS-10A and the SD-10 enabled radar goes online. Since J-10 entered service before SD-10 did, we can presume the installed radars are not SD-10 enabled although that can be resolved with an electronics or software based upgrade later. So you’re looking at best, an early production standard.
Given the number of engines, we are looking at around 2 regiments, probably one already being formed, one in the near future, and maybe around 17 developmental aircraft in Chengdu (planes 1001 to 1016 plus two seater 01).
crobatoAre you talking about no. 16 per so or 1016?
If you have “16” not “1016” post it as surely I like to have it please.
It’s possible that there is a 1017-1019, but I doubt there is any aircraft numbered 1020 and beyond.
From that point on, the numbers were rolled back to 01. Of this new batch, I got numbers up to “10”, mainly “02”, “05” and “10”. I believe these to be the start of the serial production line, with the “10-” removed. “01” and “05” were featured in the J-10 handover ceremony to the PLAAF dated March 30, 2003.
I cannot be certain of the pics with “21” and “32”. I suspect the first numbers were photo manipulated, and the numbers were really “01” and “02”.
J-10 twin seater also sports the “01” number. This tells you that the bort numbers are repeated.
crobatoI don’t know. It’s hard to tell. I like to wait for more pics.
crobatoYes, some of these pics does appear to be part of a video. Might even be TV, but there is no CCTV logo on them. I don’t think it’s an MPEG or VCD, since the graininess of the images do suggest TV, not a digital video which would have square grains.
One of the pics isi interesting because it shows again, PL-10/11 hanging under the wings. Again this is more of ndicative of a domestic radar being installed in the plane.
If J-10 goes into service before SD-10 does, this is also an indication that the current Type 1473 is currently only capable of using PL-8s, PL-5s and PL-11s for AA, much like the Type 1471s used in J-8IIs today. An improved version of the Type 1471 has to have been developed if J-8IIs were used to test fire SD-10s. Likely the J-8IIs would get the new SD-10 enhanced Type 1471s first, while the improvements would be applied in parallel to the Type 1473 to create an improved batch of Type 1473 for the J-10 and fixes applied to the existing aircraft.
Sign In
