Would be interesting to ask the contribution the Pakistani side has put into the project. Also clarifying rumors about western avionics (Thales, griffo ect).

I won’t be that interested to ask any question at all, because I know I would be getting a political answer that does not really answer anything. Time is the one that better answers your questions. What happens is what is more important to me than what is said. What is said always changes because of fluid situations and circumstances.

If left with one question, is that how does the plane fly, handle?

Its an unusual design for a TAS, being cylindrical, though it can be done that way. The Russian TAS on their subs have always been a teardrop shape.

It may also be a communications buoy that can be floated to the surface which can enable the sub to receive satellite and datalink signals from a depth.

I studied the Xia in drydock image again, and come to come conclusions based on how the sub is “opened”.

1. The upper bow section has been opened up suggesting that sensors in that area might be upgraded.

2. Missile tubes are being changed, probably to JL-2.

3. The section behind the missile compartments has been opened up, suggesting serious work (or replacement) of the reactor and turbine area.

4. The propeller is now shrouded, suggesting this is also being replaced. A model of the Xia 406 has been publicly shown with a skewed propeller.

All this suggests they plan to keep the sub for at least another 12 years or so. Since the work began in 2005, which is the date of the imagery, such work can last for at least two years. 2004 GE images still show the Xia in the pier on water. The time is also ripe that the make over Xia be released, though because of its shorter length, it won’t be any of the subs seen now at Huludao in GE.

Potentially we can be seeing 4 SSBNs in the PLAN.

While you’re at it, Xian-Yanliang is now visible as well.

Will do.

Don’t forget to recheck up on Huludao, which now has the shocking image of having two 094 SSBNs.

Major update on Dingxin airforce base.

GE coordinates

40.24 N 99.47 E

There are now at least 18 J-11s along with six J-10s plus a variety of J-8IIs. Plus some Y-8s that might be High New types.

This is CFTC testing base, I am assuming a major surge in J-11B.

So what would of happened if Grumman was told to adapt the F-15’s wing to the F-14 fleet; could it still remain carrier capable?

That won’t be possible in the first place. If you want to “fix wing” the F-14, you need to take the aircraft and look at it with the wings on a lower speed position. In that way, the wings are fairly spread out and the glove is now formed and blended into a LERX. I will then chop off the wing span but lengthen the length of the wings to create a lower aspect ratio in order to retain the aircraft’s top line speed.

The problem is that the aircraft would lose lift, which is something the VG gives. In a way, VG did serve its purpose back then. Back then, aircraft thrust to weight ratios are not very high, and the VG helped in taking off. But when more powerful engines become available, that also made VG a moot point.

To assist in the take off of a “fixed” wing F-14, you would need more powerful engines. Canards are probably something to be looked at too. Remember the moving vanes near the engine intake?

L-15 has problems with the engine, namely the problem of having the lack of proper engines. The afterburner version of the engine failed to come through which seriously crimped the delivery date of the second prototype. The first prototype only had non afterburning engines.

8 planes is not just for developmental testing, but also for tactical testing. That means you need a number of planes that you can use for wargames against other fighters that you can deploy in flights of four. If you reached that point for China, then the PLAAF may be seriously considering the plane but not before running the plane through a serious of engagements.

The 500 engines is a proposed buy, not a solid contract that has been signed. Second, at one point, the Chinese may have been that serious about getting their share of JF-17, but things can change time to time as decisioning can evolve. WS-13 is something that may have been originally conceived for a twin engined J-10 derived fighter.

Chinese development projects are treated differently, like those sponsored by the PLAAF and those that are privately sponsored. If PLAAF has real interest in the aircraft, they would sponsor it, and the testing can occur in places like the CFTC, which is a center for flight testing, and the FTTC, which is another center for training and tactical development. Privately sponsored aircraft like the L-15, JF-17 and even JL-9 has yet to make their appearance on the CFTC, which hosted planes like the J-10 and the JH-7 during its prototype stages.

Another sign of acceptance would be a formal PLAAF designation with a “J-“, not “JF-“.

As J-10s and JF-17s are made in the same factory and lines in China, producing one can affect the other. The idea that PLAAF must acquire the JF-17 comes from this notion that the plane must be volume amortized to keep the price low.

In reality, the JF-17 is just amortizing J-10 technologies. It really does not matter for the factories, AVIC1 and CAC, whether you are buying one or the other, since one or the other already helps pay for the rent of the counterpart.

Lets add to that the PLAAF is busy accepting at least four types–the J-11B, the J-10, the JH-7A and the J-8F—into its ranks. That’s quite a number of types.

Whether or what AVIC1 wants, does not mean the PLAAF shares the same opinion. The PLAAF can be very conservative and hard headed sometimes, for example, XAC had a very difficult time marketing the JH-7A to the PLAAF which dragged its foot on this case, despite the plane being well accepted to the PLANAF. I also find predicting the PLA can be quite unpredictable, and yes they can make abrupt changes on their long term plans. Not too long ago, the Russians were banking that the PLAAF would have long term acquisition plans for the Su-30s with evolving stages and variants, then suddenly all that is changed.

IF the PLAAF wants to get serious with the JF-17, it would have done this already, which is to produce a batch of preproduction planes, start putting them on the FTTC for some real tactical testing against J-10s and J-11s.

I personally like to see the JF-17 into the PLAAF ranks, as I see some potential for a lithe, light tactical support fighter to fill in the meat between the bones. The PLAAF is trending towards bigger planes though, they don’t seem to have any plans to replace J-7s and Q-5s directly.

…just from the current issue of the IAPR no. 22 !!! 😀

Good work Deino!