crobatoJ-7G radar.
Its quite different from the J-7E radar which is parabolic, or the F-7MG radar which is also a hexagonal planar, but has a white silvery color. It somewhat resembles the Grifo S-7 radar though.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
Sorry, but that report is fake. It’s just a rehashing of one that was floated around a few years ago, with some updated equipment mentioned.
I would side with this opinion.
Current PLAN leadership appears to have the “squids” dominating, and the current doctrine is “brown water” control, which can be supported by subs, frigate-destroyers, and land based aircraft. At best we may see some ASW helo carriers in the future.
The only serious thing about China’s study on carriers is the “study” itself, and not much more. At the moment, China wants to gather as much technology as possible.
The 44K mt size of the carriers is clear indication that the article was rehash of some very old articles. The 44k mt size is very close to the Kiev class carriers which aroused a lot of attention when they were acquired for “scrap” purposes, which brought about a lot of healthy speculation China would build their own versions. As you know, the acquired carriers were turned into amusement parks instead. The “three” in the three carriers is also suspicious, since that is exactly the same number of Russian carriers docked in Chinese ports today—the Minsk, the Kiev and the Varyag.
crobatoXinhui posted a report of an eyewitness account on the flight of the two seater J-10.
Some points.
1. Date is December 26, 2003.
2. The plane is covered with yellow primer with 2 red PL-8s on the wings. The serial number is 01. I think this proves beyond a doubt that some pics we have seen were PS forgeries, since the real two seater J-10 will have the number 01.
3. Unlike the single seater J-10, the canopy rim now goes down to the pilot’s elbow joint, enabling an F-16 like arc of visibility.
4. The canopy hinges in the same way as an SU-30, as opposed to the JH-7 style.
crobatoMr. Hamburger,
The 2030 series are supposed to come in different antenna sizes and wattage, along with varying weights. It’s a prolific family intended to fit a wide variety of aircraft so antenna sizes will differ.
I forgot to add that 2032s may have been sold to India for use to upgrade IAF Jaguars. This is again, an indication that this radar is pretty good in the attack role.
As for Israel getting AESA radar, it’s obvious that Israel wasn’t cleared it while the UAE is. This is probably in view because the UAE is far less likely able to digest and absorb the technology for its own designs, and proliferate them elsewhere. Also, because the UAE has much deeper pockets.
crobatoThe homegrown 1473 radar system fitted on J10A fighter proves that China’s own advanced radar development has walked out of the stage of experimentation, probing or absorbing foreign new technologies. China is entering a period of self-confident application of her own cutting-edge technologies. Meanwhile, China is also researching/developing the radar system capable of tracking 15 targets and attacking 6 simultaneously.
Very interesting statement, which I shall place in bold.
Since the parameters above are for a new radar under development, the specs for the 1473 should be just under that. Safe to say, 1473 may be able to track while scan around 10 to 12 targets, and attack about 4. This is somewhat similar to the Zhemchug/Zhuk-M. Although China did not eventually adopt that Russian radar, the Zhuk should still give us a good impression of the general parameters of the candicate specifications.
This gives you greater multiple targeting capability over the N001VEP used in the MKK and SU-27SMs, which can only engage two targets simultaneously. This can give the J-10 a situational awareness BVR advantage, and I do wonder if improved Type 1471s which might be used on the later J-8IIs would share this feature. Frame this in the light of China’s surprising rejection of the SU-27SM template upgrade, and it starts to make greater sense why China is intent on pushing a larger form of the Type 1473 radar (1474?) for its own J-11s.
crobatoThe Americans are naturally trying to protect their own markets when they insisted the F-16s must come with the APG-68. Of course.
The radar the Israelis wanted on the F-16I was ELTA M 2032. It would have made the plane compatible with the DASH, Python 4/5 and the Derby, so the resulting plane would have been better than your average F-16.
The 2032 was based on the 2035 which was originally developed for the Lavi. It has been offered for various markets across the globes, from Singaporean to Chilean F-5 upgrades, to the MiG-21 Lancer upgrade, to the Burmese J-7 upgrade, candidate offers to the J-8II and J-10 projects, and even as prototyping radar on the FC-1.
crobatoWhite Fantans are Chinese Navy, while camoed Fantans are Chinese Air Force.
This green one represents the latest version which contains a laser target designator under the nose for laser bombs.
crobatoOriginally posted by PiBu
Look at these UN data:
The data offers nothing new, nor does it offer any differentiation. It ends in 2002. And it does not include SU-27s built in China.
Example, Russian deliveries of combat aicraft to China:
2000 18 aircraft
Easily this is
10 SU-30MKK, 8 SU-27UBK
2001 38 aircratt
Easily this is
28 SU-30MKK, 10 SU-27UBK
2002 29 aicraft
Easily this is
19 SU-30MKK, 10 SU-27UBK
So the question is, what is 2003?
The delivery of the second 38 SU-30MKK order is now complete on 2003, while there is no delivery of UBK in 2003 since the order of 28 UBK aircraft is complete in 2002.
So 2003 should be
29 aircraft, all SU-30MKK. Note an interesting pattern—an average of 28-29 aircraft a year for the last four years.
This brings us to the last question Is there any deliveries in 2004? I’m looking for more news that an order has started delivering this time on navalized SU-30MKKs to the Chinese Navy to create a regiment. If 29 aircraft is expected to be delivered this year, this completes one regiment and goes half way in completing a second one, with the balance of completion in 2005.
On the UN registry, the part that drives the greatest curiousity for me is what all those hundreds of missiles the Chinese were importing from Russia?
crobato…ugh… this is making me hungry.
Must resist sinful and fattening food…
crobatoNo, the only reference I have is from SIPRI. They divided the packages into two groups—the first 50 and the second 150. This implies differences between the two. Or it may be an 80 vs. 120 split, which seems to be what the early Jane’s article could be hinting.
Each SU-30MKK reg should be about 20 aircraft, but may be operational with 19. I suspect each order is actually 40, with 2 set aside for prototypes (making the Chinese pay for the prototypes), and the 38 balance sent to China. The prototypes are on “loan” to Sukhoi, used for the development of the MKK systems, but will eventually and destined to be returned to China once their purpose is completed. This explains why there are four prototypes we have seen so far—501, 502, 503, and 504.
You don’t think the Russians would pay for the prototypes with their own pocket would you? And for that cost, you wouldn’t think the Chinese would let the Russians keep the prototypes in the long run either.
Anyway, with two orders completed, you have about 76 aircraft, which we divide into four regiments of 19 aircraft each. One of this regiments is stationed in the CFTE (numbers 21 to 38). You have seen the orbats, so I won’t repeat that anymore.
So where is the fifth regiment comes in?
Traditionally, the orders are delivered like clockwork—early Summer, in July and August, and in winter, in December to January or February. The first 9 of the second order began deliveries around December of 2002, with around 10 possibly by January 2003. The balance of the second order was fulfilled in July-August 2003, creating the fourth SU-30 regiment. However it seems the regular deliveries of SU-30s to China has become routine and the press no longer deems them newsworthy to cover it. Only after the fact the deliveries were made, did we know later they were delivered, as evidenced by photos of the first SU-30MKK after serial 56.
This could means around December ’03 to January ’04, there whould be another possible SU-30 delivery, this time, based on the thiird order which is for the PLANAF. You can check with CDF for that matter, as it seems there are news that the first PLANAF SU-30 reg with the antiship weapons is forming.
So this makes it five now in all.
Given the reg numbers, for the first time in months we have the most accurate possible number of Flankers in the PLA. Given the 11 regs as reported, the 11 regs are broken down as:
5 regs of SU-30MKK – 19 aircraft each.
1 reg of SU-27 – 24 aircraft
1 reg of SU-27 – 26 aircraft
1 reg of SU-27UBK – 28 aircraft (this is the one in Chongging).
3 regs of J-11s – about 24 to 26 aircraft each.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
OK, so we know one thing then, that Knaapo delivered 105 kits in the past two years. Does that mean that since then, all 105 kits have been completed? Hewson also mentioned in his article that some 100 J-11s have been completed, so I presume this is what he was referring to….
That’s 105 kits—from 2001. What about the kits before that? My impression from SIPRI is that up to 2001, about 50 kits were delivered. These earlier kits are almost completely knocked down kits. and all they needed to do was assembly, riveting and welding.
The next 150 kits beyond that are kits with gradual decreasing Russian content to allow for gradually increased Chinese content. If RAND is correct, up to 70% of the plane will be Chinese made, with 30% remaining to be Russian. That 30% is likely to be mainly up of two things:
1.) The engines and engine management systems which are supplied by Urals based UMPO, which makes AL-31Fs for Salyut under contract. (Salyut directly makes the special AL-31FN engines for the J-10 in an assembly line near Moscow).
2.) The avionics, which includes the cockpit (Ramenoskoye for instruments), the radar (NIIP), and the fly by wire (ELARA). I think this is where Technocomplex comes into the picture, integrating all three and more into a kit.
The rest of the platform is made in China, including the airframe.
So I think the Technocomplex person may be talking of #2 here.
Based on my assumptions that since 2001, we are seeing a conversion rate of at least one regiment per year, or 24-26 aircraft per year. The production rate may be adjusted to this quota. The news about the Lanzhou regiment confirms the third conversion for 2003, following the first conversion (a reg in 1st div in 2001) and the second conversion (a reg in 7th div in 2002). That means we’re looking at about 75 J-11 aircraft operational or entering into service.
This also means we should be expecting a fourth regiment conversion to occur sometime this year. AT this point in time, another 25 aircraft should have been completed or in the end process of being so. These aircraft will still have to undergo a certification process before being officially accepted by the PLAAF, while the candidate unit will have to be prepared and trained for this migration.
So yes, I think this supports about 100 airframes being physically completed, with the last 25 still in the process of entering certification, while 75 may already be fielded in operational service.
With the news that PLA now has 11 Flanker regs, it breaks down to this:
5 regs of SU-30MKK, the fifth a very possible recent conversion of a Navy air unit with the first naval capable SU-30MKKs.
3 regs of SU-27 that are Russian made.
3 regs of J-11s, the SU-27s assembled or made in China. The last unit is the Lanzhou MR reg.
Of the 75 J-11s that may be in service, the first 50 are probably from almost complete Russian kits, while the last 25 to 50 may have increased indigenous construction.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
Isn’t this awesome crob.? A real guy from Jane’s on the AFM Board.
Indeed.
Now let’s try to get the rest of the staff onboard and clarify some issues.
crobatoOriginally posted by google
I’m not talking about the scanned images- I’m talking about the J-10 images mostly.
Like I said, the J-10 images are open game. No one is willing to claim “copyright” on them. Just about every website, and every international publication that published an article on the J-10 has used the Internet images.
crobatoOriginally posted by PiBu
how why it’s easy to misunderstand Technocomplex spokesmen? Just curious, thanks!
If we talk about the same guy, Yuri Petrov, he speeks very fast, interrupt sentences, do not looks in your eyes [/B][/QUOTE]
Someone who can’t express himself very well, and he’s chosen to become a company spokesman? Is there something very wrong with this picture?
crobatoThe complaints on Kanwa images looking like the ones from the Internet centered on pictures of the new Chinese destroyers sitting in the harbor in Shanghai.
But of course, the pictures would look very much alike—it is the same content, same subject, same background. No matter who actually took it, they would all like alike.
On J-10 images, there is no question every publication used the leaked pictures off the net. But then the pictures were regarded as open game.
Many Chinese netters have a habit of scanning from Chinese military magazines then posting the pics in the forums with the netter’s signature to “claim” this pic is theirs. But who does the pic actually belong to? The guy who scanned or posted them or the magazine that published them. Everyone is so zealous of who and who owns the pictures that even CCTV and the PLA itself puts their signatures on their images.
Sign In
