crobato“i thought the PLA had abt 80 Su30s on order already?
but the point is if the PLA does need alot more Su30s, why are they buying them in such small batches? usually unit price goes down as number purchased increases, so wouldnt it be wiser to just make one big order as opposed to several small ones? (yes, the PLA may need the planes urgently, but in that case, they would just buy, say 40 this year and dont buy any next year, its not like china needs to save up to buy them now.)”
They’re being ordered with a rate of delivery equal to one regiment per year—around 19-20 aircraft. It seems that’s how far the rate the PLAAF as an organization with limited resources is capable of absorbing and integrating these aircraft. For this reason, I’m also presuming the rate of J-11 production and integration is roughly around a regiment a year—around 24-25 aircraft per year. It also seems to me that Shenyang is also manufacturing around 24 to 25 J-8IIs a year, which is enough to convert a typical regiment of the same numbers.
The fact that orders are based on regimental sizes are also reflected on the JH-7s, with about 19 to 20 aircraft in the first regiment and assuming the same number for the second regiment. It appears that a third will also be formed within the year, upping the numbers to 60 operational aircraft (not counting prototypes).
crobatoOriginally posted by SOC
Did China buy one or two of the old Kievs? I know one was scrapped in South Korea and the Gorshkov is still in Murmansk, and one is a muesum in China. What of the fourth?
Pretty old news. Surprised you didn’t know this. They even have web pages.
Minsk is in Shenzen as a successful theme park called the Minskworld. it was the one originally intended to be scrapped in South Korea.
One good commercial success seems to beget another, so the Kiev was also acquired, and now parked in Tianjin being restored. It too is in the process of being turned into a theme park and is looking for investors.
The Varyag is parked in Dalian, with very little activity going on however.
crobato“yeah, good point. but if that was the case, why bother with an order for new MKK2s in the first place? 26@36 new MKK2s isnt really going to make a big impact. it would be alot cheaper to just upgrade the existing MKKs and wait for the MKK3.”
They bothered to build more because they also need more airframes. Simply said they need more planes.
Upgrading does not alleviate their quantity requirements.
I estimate that PLANAF would need at least 60 SU-30MKKs (for three regiments—one north, mid, south). It may add more to 120, for two regiments each in the north, mid, and south. That is all separate from the PLAAF requirements, which probably isn’t done yet.
crobato“just because u can manufacture cars does not mean u can make the enteprise.”
In China, nothing is regarded as impossible if you put your mind to it.
China has a very good record these days is blowing one “can’t do it” myth after another with remarkable consistency.
By the way, it has directly studied aircraft carriers for years, including the former Melbourne, whose deck and catapault is still preserved; the Kiev and the Minsk; and not the least, the Varyag.
The only reason why it’s not fielding a carrier now is because of politics—many people do not agree that it is time to field one now and aggravate an arms race with Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
crobatoOn the MKK2 nosegear, all the MKKs always have twin tires that are different from SU-27s and most SU-30s.
The small number of MKK2s ordered can be explained in another context—all MKKs will be upgraded to the MKK2 standard with software and electronic enhancements.
crobatoOriginally posted by SOC
Do you honestly think that building a supertanker and fielding an aircraft carrier are equatable? And you might want to go and research just how long it takes us to build our Nimitz-class ships. One to two years it ain’t.Vortex is right, this is pretty funny 😀
That’s true too.
There is a lot involved with making a supertanker by the way. A 300,000 plus metric ton ST would even dwarf a 90,000ton AC. The Supertanker club is a club even more exclusive than aircraft carriers—Japan and South Korea only, and now China has only recently broken into.
A Japanese supertanker is a true marvel of engineering. These monsters are so automated that only a single person could drive them.
crobatoOn the J-10 twin seater being intended for carriers et all, I kind of doubt it.
JH-7 maybe an old airframe but there is no signs at all that it will be replaced soon in the naval capacity. The signs are in fact to the contrary—there has been a major reboost in the JH-7 program with the new JH-7A in production for the PLAN and XAC trying to sell the plane to the PLAAF. It’s possible that a second JH-7 regiment is now operational and a third one is being formed.
It’s clear that China could build ships that can easily dwarf a Nimitz class carrier—China builds 300,000mt supertankers. But the point remains, how many navalized planes you need to justify the creation of a new variant. If China is only to build ONE carrier, I don’t know if you can justify an expensive navalization program just to “mod” around 3 to 4 dozen J-10s without any export prospect of said carrier J-10s.
Such a project would end up costing more per unit, if let’s say, China decides to procure an equal number of SU-33UBs instead. In fact, I think China would initially procure a said number of SU-33UBs to set as a technology standard before developing a carrier based plane of their own, which remains the eventual Chinese goal. I also think that for a carrier project, the Chinese would be very conservative, following a proven design first and would likely prefer to use a proven airframe to go with it, rather than a new airframe like the J-10.
And I do suspect that the SU-33UB/SU-27KUB project with KnAAPO has Chinese connections or funding—KnAAPO being the supplier of the MKK and components for the J-11s.
crobatoOriginally posted by GarryB
Subsonic cruise missiles are trivial low level targets to shoot down (even a skyhawk or LIFT could do it, let alone properly positioned MANPADS… even the old SA-8 has proved quite good at bringing them down). A missile flying at mach 2.5-3 flying at low level however is a much more difficult target. (How many intercepting fighters can fly at mach 2 at low levels? …flying at medium to high altitudes and trying to shoot at a low level target isn’t that easy either.)
Yeah right Garry.
Tell me of an instance when a Tomahawk was shot down by a MANPADS or SA-8.
Also tell me how easy it is for a missile to have terrain avoidance, heat management, and having enough fuel, going mach 2 at treetop height.
crobatoOriginally posted by Rick
The upgrade issue to the Chinese Su-27SKs seems to be very convoluted.Reports from October has 100 upgrade kits delivered that reportedly took the SKs to the SM standard.
Now Sukhoi is trying to sell the Chinese the SKM upgrade.
1. What is the SKM upgrade?
2. Can it be applied to aircraft already upgraded to the SM standard?There seems to be some redundant upgrading going on. If so, it doesn’t make sense.
Janes Defense Weekly reported in its October 1, 2003 issue that J-11 production continues at 15 aircraft per year. That would support the numbers of J-11s we have actually seen.
There is a possibility of belated news or getting news not in the right chronological order.
I don’t believe we are getting news both in the right chronological order and in the right time. For all you know, events being reported already happened months or even years ago.
crobatoThis drone Lakshya is actually a much better and superior choice for becoming a cruise missile than the Brahmos. I already told you the reasons in the other thread.
crobatoOriginally posted by h177
MOSCOW. Dec 22 (Interfax-AVN) – Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan was shown Sukhoy’s new makes and upgrade offers as part of his official visit to Russia, a competent source in the Russian Defense Ministry told Interfax-Military News Agency.“On Monday the Chinese delegation headed by the defense minister visited Sukhoi’s airbase in Zhukovsky near Moscow. At the airfield of the Gromov Flight Test Research Institute they were shown Sukhoi’s new makes and upgrade offers,” the source said.
“The emphasis of the demonstration was on the upgrade of the SU-27SK Flanker jets into the SU-27SKM version, which Russia offers to China and other countries operating the aircraft,” the source also said. According to the source, the aircraft was also demonstrated in flight, piloted by test pilot of the Sukhoy Design Bureau Yevgeny Frolov.
The source added that Chinese Air Force operates about 200 SU-27SKs. According to him, the upgrade will imply longer service life, all-weather day/night capability, and wider range of weapons. There are several option packages, he said. One basic option package upgrades the fighting performance, while the other emphasizes multifunction capabilities. It will be economically reasonable to apply these packages to different parts of an operational fleet to get a diversified force. The SU-27’s new weapons will be the air-to-surface Kh-31P Krypton, Kh-31A Krypton, Kh-29T(TE) Kedge missiles and the KAB- 500KR, KAB-1500KR guided aerial bombs.
That line seems to support or repeat previous reports that China now has at least that much SU-27SKs or J-11s combined.
crobatoThe only thing I can be sure is that it uses the more powerful WP-13B engine as opposed to the WP-13F used in the J-7s. The radar may be similar to the same as used on the J-10.
This project is not officially supported by the PLAAF and is an entirely private venture by CAC. With J-10 variations and FC-1 coming along I doubt CAC has resources to spare developing this, which I think was meant as a backup plan in case the FC-1 fails. With the FC-1 looking better every passing day, I think possibilities for the F-7MF diminishes.
crobatoInteresting artwork, especially the way the artist could depict the upper front part of the nose and the rivet lines—all of whom could only pertain to the existance of a closeup photo of the nose of 1009 from which this painting is based from.
The HUD detail is interesting because it is consistent to this HUD shown in Zhuhai. Also note the various MFDs and the helmet targeting sighting system next to the HUD.
crobatoWork on a Chinese fifth gen fighter has been reported by other publications and journals, and also by the DOD.
The picture of the model with the wind tunnel work however, may or MAY NOT be actually connected to the project. For all you know they may be testing different configurations or a different proposal altogether. While the intakes seems F-22 or F-35 like, also note that the FC-1 has V shaped intakes as well as a flattened bottom. The wing aspects and the general configuration of the planform also has resemblence to the FC-1. For me, it may even be a two engined evolution of the FC-1 (I’m not sure if the picture is actually Shenyang or Chengdu in origin).
crobato“01” picture probably goes back last year or early this year, since there has been others reported—“02”, “05”, and “10” among them with possibles “21” and “32”. Yellow primered planes isn’t going to stay yellow for so long. “01” sounds like a serial production serial number rather than a prototype, although there was another J-10 prototype called “01” with the whilte paint and blue and red stripes. The silver blister under the canopy is indicative that this plane belongs to the production version as opposed to the prototypes which does not have this blister (which could be an RWR device).
Like the CAC “1013” picture on top of the thread, the J-10 “01” picture isn’t new per se as being recently taken. More like taken some time ago but only recently leaked.
Sign In
