crobatoCrobato,
Thanks for filling in some of my knowledge gaps!I might not agree with all that you have said, but I see credibility in your statement that to protect strategic national interests, many countries decide not to export certain systems crucial / pivotal to their own security.
This policy is exercised by the Western countries too. But I would hasten to add that there seems to be a clear cut methodology in place here in the West. Firstly, there are projects known as skunk works – totally secret projects, which naturally can not be exported, as officially they do not exist. For the declared projects – like F-16s for instance, there are specifications and capabilities for each constituent sub system component. Some of these sub systems may be denied to certain countries, but allowed for some others. There is no cloud of mystery, as each importing country knows where it stands with respect to what is being supplied. There is no such thing as ‘F-16 export version’ & ‘F-16 USAF use version’.
To illustrate this point, recently this method has been exercised with Pakistani Block 52+ F-16s, where DFRAM has been explicitly withheld. And AMRAAM AIM-120C5 contracted (not the latest production version AIM-120 C7). However, Pakistanis knew where they stood. Yet, at the same time, Block 60s have been supplied to UAE, far more superior to any F-16s that USAF flies even now.
Now, by introducing this notion of every Chinese product having an export version and a parallel PLA/PLAAF version raises one serious issue though:
that perhaps by saying that China only exports ‘abc’ system (i.e. Monkey export version), but does not export ‘xyz’ system (the parallel PLA/PLAAF version), because it is so very advanced and it is for internal use only, adds a sort of mysterious cloak over the real achievement of the Chinese Industrial Military Complex. Hence, a country may export its very best stuff (in order to win an export order against tough competition from top Western, more advanced, firms – like for JF-17 post batch 1 avionics) yet claim that its (the export version) was in fact not its best, AND at the same time claim that another version of the same product in use by PLAAF (may be FC-1 in future?) is a lot more advanced than the exported stuff for JF-17!! In my opinion, no one would be fooled by this fantacy.
There are many things you cannot permit the export, most especially with ECM and EW. The US is selling you a good F-16 Block 52+ but cut out a part that involves ECM (the part about digital memory read). Likewise, you would expect that the Chinese would not expose their best hand when it comes to EW and ECM equipment. You can be assured that while the UAE F-16s have superior radar performance to the PAF F-16s, their ECM/EW capabilities are probably not any better. The USAF needs to keep an ace card and ECM/EW is where its usually at. The Russians do the same thing, e.g. export MiG-23s and MiG-29s without internal jammers.
The JF-17 cannot have the best what the Chinese could do, and partly has to do with the plane’s own size (limited space) and limited electrical power. The array size of the JF-17 cannot match that of the J-10’s or the J-11B’s, and size is everything for angular resolution. Smaller aircraft cannot carry the generators and power transformers to support bigger radar emitters, and once again, that limits the emission range of the radar. Ditto with ECM and EW because these two are also power extensive.
Not to mention that the JF-17 still has a budget ceiling, which means you cannot put everything because you cannot afford everything. The J-10s and the J-11Bs not only have the size, the space and the power, but also built to a higher budget.
And you cannot mission “creep” a JF-17 by so many requirements that it ends up being as expensive as a J-10 or even an F-16, as that would be destroying its purpose.
So you have an alignment of different factors that prevents you from getting the “best”.
Therefore, although I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and significant contributions in many forums, I would re-assert what I said in my previous post that, being in catch up stage China has to do its utmost, and offer its best to compete against the west – as is the case with JF-17 presently, and with J-10 in the next few years. Otherwise, very large orders running into hundreds of millions, if not billions, may be lost to the West. JF-17 and then J-10 are defining moments for China to showcase its newly acquired advanced Air defence technology to the world. The best way to do this would be to win the FIRST export order from Pakistan. JUST LOOK AT IT FROM A THIRD PERSON’s perspective:
Sorry but Chinese arms exports are only an immensely tiny fraction of the country’s export output. Thus for the Chinese it is not that important compared to their national security. Chinese aviation industries are far more interested in the prospects of selling civilian aircraft e.g. ARJ-21 or Y-9.
If Pakistan co-produces airframes for JF-17 / J-10 with China, but then buys advanced avionics from the West – what message would it send to the future prospective customers/ especially to the cash rich Gulf countries?
Nothing really. As a matter of fact, provides China with an opportunity to study someone else’s work, rather than have someone else study theirs.
Only one message – that China has not quite arrived yet! China brand has already been successfully established in low to medium end products, but it NEEDS TO offer its very best to enter the higher end of the defence market – Pakistan would not accept anything less, as it did not with J-7s, choosing to install Griffo radars instead.
I’m sorry but AVIC is not displaying the same policy. It knows the potential export market for arms is very limited and this is not where its trying to aim at.
Actually from another view, that Pakistan likes to have changes in order to assert some identity over the product, plus mission creep and localized demands.
By the way, are the Grifo radars any better? In a way, compared to the J-7E’s radar, they have a more advanced array design because they use a slotted array. However, the J-7E’s radar can use the upgraded PL-8 missiles, which with its wide off boresight capability, makes it superior over the PL-7s and even the PL-5Es exported elsewhere.
By the way, the SY-80 radars sold with the Bangladesh F-7BGs? They have Ku band capability, which gives them a higher tracking precision and data rate than X band radars like the Grifo.
The slotted array KLJ-6E radars used on the PLAAF J-7G can be upgraded to the KLJ-6F, which would have given the J-7 the ability to use a PL-12. However the PLAAF didn’t give it a green signal.
China’s military tests sophisticated real-time data system
13 hours ago
BEIJING (AFP) — The Chinese military has begun a two-day drill testing a system that provides commanders real-time battlefield data, signalling the continued modernisation of the nation’s massive armed forces.
The exercise is part of an ambitious effort to improve military information collection systems, one of the main shortfalls of the otherwise rapidly modernising People’s Liberation Army, the Xinhua news agency reported on Wednesday.
“We are trying to catch up with the advanced countries. It’s a very complicated system, as it involves every military unit,” Xu Guangyu, a retired Chinese general, told AFP.
“I think we need at least ten years to catch up with the world’s most sophisticated nations,” he said……….
[/quote]
The Chinese general is stating it mildy. A lot of countries don’t have what the PLA doing—soldiers carrying lap tops, PDAs, messaging devices that connect to satlinks, and electronic cards. When they exercise, they put card readers on selective areas of the battlefield, and if you arrive on the site, you slip the card right in. This enables observers to monitor the units in real time and collect reusable digital data. The reason why they wired the battlefield in the first place is because the scene is so ECM’ed, data collection by radio would not be that easy.
crobatoI don’t believe China is still offering its best for export by the way, or else they would be selling their ZTZ-99Gs instead of MBT-2000s. Neither are the Chinese ERA systems that now make up the look of the 99G and the 96G tanks. The AEW aircraft being offered to Pakistan is a Y-8 with a mechanically rotating rotodome—not as advanced as the phase array balance beam of the KJ-200, nor the Phalcon inspired three faced phase array system of the KJ-2000. The Y-8 High New series, which is a series of aircraft that provides C31, SAR/MTI surveillance, ELINT, ECM, and surface ship targeting abilities, are not in the export list either. The 053H3Gs frigates may be built for export, but not the 054 and 054A. Stuff like the high rate, Type 364 naval radar, does not appear to be in the export list either.
While the FC-1 gets a better cockpit arrangement than the J-10, it does not get the J-10’s satellite links. While it has the J-10’s rather sophisticated defense suites (automated optical MAWS-RWR-Chaff-Jammer response) some of the J-10’s EW systems may not be there in the JF-17 as well in fear that the US itself may take the opportunity to examine these systems through Pakistan. Yes it cuts both ways, while it has been said that Pakistan may have provided Chinese engineers opportunities to study F-16s, likeiwise well before it was also said that the US had an opportunity to study the J-6s back in the sixties where it was discovered that the maneuverbility of the J-6 causes a major reassesement of the threat potential of the aircraft.
People don’t really talk much about the J-10’s EW and ECM systems, but the open sourced reports we are seeing about the J-10s, as well as blogs and comments, describe a plane that has much attention paid to its electronic warfare aspects, one of the reasons why it decisively betters the Su-27 in DACT. I don’t believe the export material will have the same signal library on their EW systems as the domestic counterparts do.
As for now the JF-17s don’t have the new wide screen holographic HUDs now being featured in the J-11B. But at least the JF-17 did manage to get one thing ahead of the PLAAF and that is a new multifunction pitot nose probe that makes a lower radar obstacle than what the PLAAF is currently using now.
For that matter, Chinese export AshMs also don’t have the range of their domestic counterparts.
The domestic JH-7A appears to have electro-optical TV channels to support TV guided missiles like the KD-88. It does not appear that the export FBC-1 has them.
crobatoProbably, but there are other issues related to that too. Everyone talks about hours, but no one really describes what you actually do with those hours. It does appear whatever hours the PLAAF uses, what they do with those hours seems to be rather intense, and includes stuff like frequent night flying, low level flying and worst yet, a combination of both. 2003-2004 had some rather high attrition, and if I remember what KANWA claims, some pilots were complaining about the excess stress. From what I heard, the PLAAF stopped penalizing pilots who refused to fly at certain low altitudes if he feels he is not up to it. Consequently, the PLAAF also stopped a tradition of penalizing and replacing commanders should training accidents happen in their unit.
For tactical training, the PLAAF is relying more and more on simulators now.
crobatoAll these does not matter anymore. China and Russia have neatly agreed on these matters of border and treaty.
crobatoFire control systems of the Al Khalid is from China. The preference to use Ukrainian engines is political; China isn’t using Ukrainian engines on its tanks, but licensed German designs. So, is the cannon on the Al Khalid a Chinese “monkey product” or what? Why get the JF-17 in the first place if that’s a reason.
By the way, this armchair generalisimmo-khan-supreme dictator for life is going to predict you’re not going to get anyone’s else missiles, FCS, or radar on the JF-17 not just in the first 50 planes, but in the entire production run.
crobatoDo those references state that the entire squadron pulls the same hours, and for that matter, delineates the amount of hours flown by experience or type qualification, seniority?
Otherwise, those certificates would only be valid viz a subset of pilots, the elite.
The certificate maybe for an elite. However, in 2003-2004 KANWA was reporting the PLAAF clocking very high hours (over 200) with some very intense training at that time. This however may have softened in the succeeding years.
However, we do have a solid reference for 160 hours for a J-7 pilot. This is in reference to the J-7 pilot that was killed in November 2006. His plane was over a populated area when it developed trouble and he had to flew his plane into a safe zone before he crashed. However he didn’t make it. The newspaper made a reference that he had flown over 140 hours for the year and is 10% away from reaching his quota. This is also an indication that crashes are reported and people don’t have to make up stories about them.
The third reference is what the PLAAF 1st Division commander told General Pace. 140-150 hours per year.
crobatoIt sounds not as extremely small like the Rubis, which is already on the larger side of a conventional at 2500mt surface displacement
crobatoI surely do not doubt that …
1) the FC-1 is capable of fireing the PL-12
2) the SD-10/PL-12 and that BVR-capability was one of the driving reasons for the FC-1 developmentBUT … we havn’t seen even a J-10 fireing the PL-12 nor have we seen so long any pictures of a FC-1 carrying a live PL-12 (and not a mock-up) … so I am – and I would be – very surprised that these fireing tests were currently under way. Nothing more ! Even the PL-5 test was a surprise to me, but not that I had any doubts on that capability.
Deino
Seeing has no relation with the actual testing. AVIC showed video of J-8F test firing PL-12, only after at least five years from the initial event (PL-12s were already being flight tested in 2002-2003, and the video was like, only this year?)
J-10s were first sighted with PL-12 on late 2003 and 2004 with the J-10s assigned to the FTTC in the now famous pictures of such. The FTTC does not do developmental missile testing, and if you see missiles with FTTC aircraft, they are developing tactics how to use the missiles rather than testing.
crobatoFrom AWST(orginally posted by Arun_S @ BR)
😮 ?
Very old stuff being regurgitated as if they’re new. I’ve heard of the alleged 15 planes being lost, that was what, way back before 2002? The sources were questionable, being Taiwan dailies. Five of them were lost by a typhoon. (Actually only three proved to be unrecoverable). Jane’s reported 5 aircraft overall were lost by 2000.
Nonetheless, the two regiments that have these older planes appear to be in full strength (the 2nd and the 19th Divisions). Some of the planes allegedly “crashed” turn out again in later pictures, among them Su-27UBK no. 02 and Su-30MK2 no. 01.
I have two very solid references that the current PLAAF flight hours is between 140 to 160 hours per year as of 2006-2007. It was actually higher around 2000 to 2004 (185 hours at least) again, very solid source (photo of PLAAF pilot certificate with hours mentioned and the time where there hours are achieved.)
crobatoThere is a lobby in Australia that seems to exaggerate Flanker threats in order to push a buy F-22 agenda. Carlo Kopp seems to be one of them. Must have been mighty disappointed if Australia goes for the JSF or Super Hornet.
OTOH, the SHornet (bombtruck) is going to find it v.difficult to match the flanker or Typhoon in most A2A regimes.
Actually no. This is a problem with these theorists that like to compare things in paper. The Super Hornet actually did more than hold its own in exercises against the Typhoon.
crobatoChina lands first export deal for ARJ21 regional jet
By Leithen Francis
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ional-jet.html
AVIC I Commercial Aircraft (ACAC) has secured a landmark first export deal for the ARJ21 regional jet from Lao Airlines for two aircraft.
The agreement is the first commitment for the 90-seater from a non-Chinese airline, and comes as completion of the first ARJ21 nears at the final assembly plant in Shanghai.
The Laos government has signed a memorandum of understanding for two ARJ21-700s, with delivery to state-run Lao Airlines tentatively set for 2010. The national carrier has also ordered two more Chinese-built Xian Aircraft MA60 turboprops, which will increase its MA60 fleet to four.
Lao Airlines’ deputy commercial director Noudeng Chanthaphasouk confirms that the ARJ21 MoU was signed last month, but a firm contract has not yet been agreed. Lao Airlines now operates only turboprops – two ATR 72-200s and two MA60s – and Chanthaphasouk expects delivery of the ARJ21s “maybe in 2010”.
The all-new, General Electric CF34-10A-powered ARJ21-700 is due to begin flight testing in March 2008, with certification planned for September 2009 ahead of first deliveries to launch customer Shandong Airlines.
Chanthaphasouk says the airline plans to operate the ARJ21-700 from Vientiane to Bangkok and is considering using the aircraft’s range to launch a service from Vientiane to Guangzhou in southern China.
The carrier will add the third MA60 “at the end of October”, with the fourth following in “April 2008”, says Chanthaphasouk. The carrier plans to use the additional aircraft to increase services on existing routes and next year launch a service from Vientiane to Luang Namtha in northern Laos and a service to Jinghong in China, says Chanthaphasouk.
crobatoI usually can’t stand the threads that start ‘what if…’ but, ahem,
What if the Fw-190 had been used by the Nazis in 1940 during the Battle Of Britain how would that have changed the outcome?
I’m not talking about all Bf-109s being substituted for 190s just 50%, would that have allowed the Germans to win enough dogfights and possibly allow more of their bombers through to bomb towns, cities and airfields in Southern England?
Bringing in FW-190A2s and A4s alone may be decisive. No, don’t give me Mk 9 Spits or we should include D9s then. But if you include 109Fs and allow the Brits to have Mark V Spits, its still going to favor the Germans. But even in the face of German air superiority, I would doubt the Brits would surrender that easily.
crobatoNo he’s not Russian but uses a Russian pen name and appears to be able to talk Russian and Japanese fluently. It is published in Canada and I think Chang is Canadian-Chinese. But he also knows publishes in Hong Kong where you can buy copies off the street. He also publishes a Taiwan and a Japanese version.
crobatoVery cool, if not odd looking, sub.
The guys who designed the BAE website should be taken to a gulag and get “re-educated” on proper web page design.
crobato“Mission computer”? That’s very F-16.
Sign In
