crobatoCrobato that is not accurate
In fact on 6 december 1996 China and Russia signed a five year contract for the assembly of 200 Su-27s worthed 2.7 billion dollars
If China completes these they will have a total number of 370 including those bought directly from Russia.The number specify is due to the numbers of airframes going to be built, why you are trying to present is two things, the Russians were fooled and the Chinese own the copy right of the SU-27, can China violate the agreement yes it can, will it affect it, yes it will.
The info is outdated and should be seriously questioned. Unless you can produce the actual wordings of the contract, I have to say the contract for a limit of 200 planes per se is only limited to the Su-27SK, not for all Flankers produced in China of all types, and it clearly does not apply to the J-11B.
The J-11s appeared to have been produced in five batches, given their factory serials (01XX, 02XX, 03XX, 04XX, 05XX). I believe the first four were the ones in kits (105 delivered total). The J-11B started with 052X, of which we have seen 0523, 0524, 0525 and a production finished aircraft, probably 0526. Likely there could be 0520 to 0522 as prototypes too. They possibly could not have skipped on 0501 to 0519, which is likely to be more early prototypes and evaluation aircraft, with at least one stress and shake static airframe.
crobatoYou are right. The MiG-21 has after all more power.
But I think most thrid world a2a combats take place below 20000ft, where the enemy’s fighterbombers and targets are. Radar for both is not suitable for independend search for hostile fighters. Either they make contact visually, or a ground station gives them a rough vector.
F-5A and F-5E does not really have a radar as you know it in the common sense. What they have originally is a ranging radar, which is useful for guns and bombing. Few small fighters actually have a longer range radar for airsearch in the sixties (think Starfighter and later MiG-21s). The MiG-21Fs and the Mirage IIIs, like the ones the Israelis use, all originally had ranging radars only. (Later upgraded with radars with true ranging air search capability late in their life cycle).
The F-5’s nose is an awful place to put a radar—right in front of two guns. The guns limit the size of the radar you can put on the nose, as well as the space for the back equipment, and all that vibration behind the firewall does wonders. And all that muzzle flash should help with the pilot’s vision too.
crobatoStill the AN/APG-70 have far better antenna design (slotted array with possible higher gain thanks to better efficiency factor inherent to slotted array) and should have better receiver and transmitter equipment (80s vintage) compared to Panda (N-001VEP, 70s vintage)…
N001VEP has newer processors, 486 type 32 bit chips compared to the 8/16 bit processors used in the APG-70. The N001VEP also has a late 90’s vintage digital signal processor. In terms of sensors, MK2 still has a very competent OLS-31E for the IRST, unless the Strike Eagle has JHCMS and AIM-9X, its in a disadvantage in WVR against the R-73 with HMS.
crobatoI would agree with the comment about the MK2 being overrated but I would like to see some evidence for the JH-7A being a better aircraft?
Its hard to say if the JH-7A is a better aircraft but in my book, the avionics are more adaptable, and the Chinese have much better control in what they can put in the aircraft. For example, recently the JH-7A are all now sighted with the same satellite datalink systems as the J-10. That can mean not only can the aircraft satellite geolocate themselves, but can also communicate through the sat link, since Beidou has a secondary communications function. With this, the JH-7A can use Beidou guided bombs like the LS-6 and the FT-2.
Overall the JH-7A, when compared worldwide to other strikers, attackers and multirole aircraft, strikes out quite favorably, because overall in one package, it is capable of, operationally right now I should add and in increasing numbers:
* antiship missions with AshMs
* SEAD duties with ARMs
* standoff duties with TV optical SLAM type weapons
* LGB support with FLIR/IT
* satellite positioned munitions
* terrain following
It would not have taken alot for the Venzuelans to have got alot better aircraft than these from purely Russian sources. For a start they could have gone with the proposed but cancelled Su-30MK3 (maybe upgraded it with the Zhuk-MFSE instead of the MSE). Then there is the engines, the 117S will soon be available, and at least the AL-31FM1 and possibly even the AL-31FM2 are available now with full 3D TVC.
The thing about the Su-30MKK/MK2 is that it is a thoroughly tested system. Just because something sounds more advanced in paper does not mean in real life, it got niggly bugs here and there. Proven systems are always worth more than advanced systems. Su-30MK3 would need a whole cycle of expensive certification tests and operational valuations to get its systems honed down to the extent the Su-30MK2 has. For all the expense, the radar is better, but not that much better.
The greatest cost of the aircraft is in the airframe and its labor driven assembly. The avionics are only a small fraction of it, even with AESA. Suffice to say, once you reach a certain cost point, you really should be going for the best avionics system money can buy. Once these systems are mature enough of course.
This is not to say Su-30MK2 can be upgraded to Su-35 levels later with IRBIS and so, as Sukhoi has previously proposed.
crobatoThese aicraft are not ‘on par’ with F-15E’s, there sensors are miles behind. Fact is these planes are about as poorly equipped and configured as Su-30s come.
Only the F-15E with the APG-63V1 has the up to date sensors. But that’s only a small minority of the planes. In general the Strike Eagles are in need of an update.
Please note, the F-15E isn’t capable of using antiship missile or SLAM type optically guided stand off weapon or ARM in one package, unless you have the Korean variant. The Su-30MK2 can do all that.
crobatoCare to bring up some figures?
The YJ-83 launched by a JH-7 has been observed by US satellite to have flown as much as 255km. Unless the new Uran airborne version comes out, or the Kh-59MK (looking for a new customer), that’s not going to be matched. Currently PLANAF Su-30MK2 is equipped with 70km KH-31A for antiship roles, and I have not seen anything besides that in both Vietnamese and Venenzuelan MK2s.
crobatoThe MiG-21 is mostly inferior in WVR dogfight, especially under third world conditions (no dense radar network and ground controlled intercept). That is not surprising given the design considerations of the MiG-21 and the F-5E. The -21 was designed with Mach2 in mind, as short range interceptor.
Of course, well flown MiG-21 can outperform any F-5E and vice versa, like always, but for the requirements of a third world country the F-5 is much better suited, in my opinion the best ever supersonic fighter for those conditions.
Actually the MiG-21 can hold itself very well in WVR, but the early radar blows in low alt, with ground clutter and all those issues. The F-5 on the other hand, is never a high flyer, always fighting down low, not a good situation for the MiG-21’s radar.
crobatoThe Russians set a number of airframes to be build, these are cover under their agreement and payments, it is true China can upgraded them but they are not top notch, the Japanese for example are going to equip their aircraft with newer missiles, that is enough to get parity but parity in technology can be broken with disparity in training and numbers, logically these nations simply can ask the US to station a few F-22s, upgrade their aircraft and send a few F-18E to limit the Chinese air power projection.
There is no set airframes as Sukhoi never iterated it formally even up to now. They have already more than a few years to “complain” since they knew about the Shenyang project, which is not so secretely displayed in the corporate office hall of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation since 2001. Frankly, Shenyang had a full size Su-27 mockup with Chinese missiles and pennant 2001 on the side of the mockup.
The original contract was to include an option to acquire 200 kits to assist in the production of the J-11. It is not a limit.
China would not have extensively developed the J-11B if they are going to be limited for less than a hundred. They have a bigger ambition than that.
The J-11, J-10 and JF-17 are deterrent and a step of modernization by the PLAAF but in reality only gives them parity if the surrounding nations do not buy new equipment something that is unlikely.
Parity is an important step for the PLAAF considering what they had before.
Also consider their training. If the PLAAF is to train under a more modern environment, they need modern aircraft to match. You can only go so far in pretending to do modern training with not so modern aircraft.
Compared to the surrounding nations, PLAAF has some fundamental advantages though. They got bigger budget matched with a lower cost of acquisition, and a more active defense military complex developing all sorts of things. It does not need to import as much stuff, so there is less govermental export bureaucratic hinderances and negotiations. For this reason they can produce and acquire planes faster and in greater numbers.
crobatoSometimes depends on whose flying it or how it is flown. Before the Shah fell, the Iranian Air Force had an exercise with their F-5s against Pakistani F-6s. The Pakistanis came out on top, no mean feat since the IRIAF pilots were US trained.
Pakistan does not have an F-5. They have an “A-5”, which is something different completely as the “F-6” is.
crobatoFor the Russians if China later changes the engines to the already sold Su-27s does not matter, by the time the Chinese indigenize the Su-27 already it will be obsolete either in the international market or in the domestic one since potential enemies will be armed with F-35s and F-22s, now already in 2007 the J-11 is an easy pray of the F-22 stationed in kadena, as time passes the Indians have been quit smart respecting the licenses as they have done. this has given them the russians` trust in fact see the Indians can participate in the fifth generation PAK FA.
I don’t see Japan or S. Korea equipping F-35s and F-22s till the mid 2010s, and even with that, there is no reason why you should not do intermediary upgrades. Even then F-22 exportability remains doubtful with USAF objecting. Which is why Japan is seriously looking at the Typhoon among other options. S. Korea is buying more F-15s for example, and Singapore is also buying F-15s. Taiwan is looking to buy more F-16s. India will keep producing Su-30MKIs till 2014 and keep them in service long afterwards. Australia is buying more Super Hornets and so is Malaysia. Even in the US, the appearance of F-22 and F-35 does not mean the hundreds of F-15s, F-18s, and F-16s will disappear overnight. In fact, the still more hundreds of F-15s, F-18s and F-16s around the US and around the world will still be there, and F-15s will remain operational until 2025.
Because someone has 5 gen fighter is no argument against upgrading 4th generation ones. You still need to upgrade your 3rd and 4th gen fighters to deal with their respective equivalents. Against a fifth gen fighter, you need to develop one of your own.
The J-11B is already here, and it appears to be in small series production since early this year, with planes going into training and evaluation regiments. Better yet, the plane can serve as a template to upgrade existing planes, as the old Su-27SK avionics simply does not cut it anymore in terms of survivability. What’s really more important than having a new radar, cockpit and engine, is the defensive measures suite, the integrated ECM/RWR/MAWS/Chaff first introduced on the J-10s and now with the JF-17 too.
J-11B isn’t for sale, and Sukhoi is not threatened with it in international markets. They only don’t feel good because they cannot sell more Su-30MK2, Su-27SKM and Su-35 to China.
crobatotrue, but notice those are pods rather than being integrated into the frame (or am I wrong here, I WONDER
The thing about pods is that it makes it easier to change later. Other than that, it will be like fitting small phase arrays or AESA patches into the aircraft that steers jamming beams into an opposing aircraft. The tail of the JF-17 seems to have an array on top.
I did a small comparison on the RD-93 / WS-13 and, basically it turns out that the WS-13 might be slightly smaller as well (on a tangent, this could mean it was designed from the ground up for a fighter OTHER than the FC-1). Interestingly it is still heavier and yet gives more dry thrust and even afterburning thrust, while the latter not proportionately higher (all this if my figures are right). See my article’s section on the RD-93 / WS-13 comparison table for hypothetical percentage differences in various parameters.
Which is very interesting. My thoughts are in alignment that the Taishan may be intended for a Chengdu twin engined medium weight fighter.
that is true but the PAF tends to ask for a higher standard than our Taiwanese brethren did for the IDF. And the PAF values maneuvreability more – notice how Taiwan prefers the mirage2k over the F-16, perhaps more of a slash attack general philosophy to the PAF’s. It remains that a heavier missile is less suited for a super light class fighter, and the PAF would probably prefer the AMRAAM not only because of this but also because the latter is a known quantity.
In that case, you are probably better off with the R-Darter, which is something like the Derby.
30kg of weight difference between the AMRAAM and the SD-10 do not amount to much.
Using M2K does not suggest a slash and attack philosophy otherwise, I can suggest the PAF also shares the same philosophy for using the Mirage III. As a matter of fact the ROCAF had also lived on the F-5E, which is a very maenuverable plane, while using F-104s, which is slash and attack. But then the PAF also had F-104s once too, right? Make no mistake the Ching Kuo is very maneuverable, tight turning plane. And as for the M2K and the f-16A, the F-16A has a better TWR, which makes it the better slasher of the two. What the M2K has is an enormously fast instant turn rate, and the first turn into a dogfight may be the most important turn of all.
The JF-17 isn’t really that “super light”. The JF-17 should be heavier than a MiG-21UPG, which should be around 5800 to 6000kg empty. Yet that fighter can fit two R-77s, each of them weighs about the same as an SD-10.
crobatoI think the way it is intended to be used by the PLANAF, it is very effective as a maritime striker. Its role is primarily focused for it rather than a full on multi role aircraft. the benefits? seems like it is much cheaper than the more advanced Su-30MKM, and produced in faster larger numbers with less complications.
for China, they have a number of other aircraft for fighter support, J-11, J-10, etc.
maybe some other countries that cannot afford more numerous types, may settle for more expensive, and advanced, but multirole jack of all trades, if that makes sense.
Most of the integration complications for the Su-30MKM has already been worked out. Thus it is not a problem anymore. The problem is, the differently sourced parts can be individually be vulnerable to sanctions. Malaysia is a country that is okay with everybody, but Venenzuela may end up facing sanctions. If India for example, HAL makes some parts of the aircraft sent back to Irkut to be part of Venenzuelan Su-30MK, the US may lodge a protest. Vendors may have contracts with the US, and can face consequences on these contracts.
Thus, for insurance, its better to source every part to one supplier. Irkut of course can do it with an all Russian Su-30MK, but surely KnAAPO will counter with an Su-35UB of its own.
Since 2004, the cost of the Su-30MK2 could have gone up from 37 million the cost PLANAF bought theirs, to 50 million by now. Inflation of the Russian ruble and deterioration of the US dollar are factors. It really closes the gap towards the Su-35 and the Su-30MK, knowing the greatest cost of their aircraft is in the airframe along with the all the tedious manpower going to its assembly. If you’re over 50mil a unit now, you should be paying for better avionics, all of which contribute immensely on the combat survivability of the aircraft.
On the PLANAF, integration of the Su-30MK2 seems successful enough, but the PLANAF has moved on to the JH-7A and other domestic jets because of the much better support for domestic weaponry like YJ-83 and PL-12 missiles, as well as their own EW, datalink and defensive sensor suites. The introduction of two seater version of the J-11B seems just around the horizon.
crobatoThe RWR is of note in that it is not only part of an integrated system, but also gives 360 degree range for missile approaching warning system with infra-red and ultra-violet spectrum detecting with a detection range of > 20km. It can not only detect but also track and position approaching missiles.
This system has been shown more clearly in relation with the J-11B. It has been displayed as seperate (with four eyes) and on the tail of the J-11B. There are similar ports on the J-10—all three aircraft, J-11B, J-10 and JF-17 have the rear pair of the MAWS set on the same spot of the tail, which is just behind the RWR at the boom.
The front MAWS can be working on the infrared while the rear MAWS, set just above the engine nozzle, is ultraviolet.
Potentially MAWS can also give warning against enemy aircraft within WVR range. In effect, its like giving the plane extra eyes in the back and in the belly.
A computer controlled infrared interference system, calculates the right timing to release countermeasures. A “focused interference system”, that can directionally beam energy is included and creates the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction. In comparison, only recent combat aircraft like the Rafale and the F-22 have anything similar. Going back half a generation to the F-18E/F and F-16 E/F, these planes do not come with anything similar.
Actually this is a fairly common type of ECM where you use a small phase array to steer an interfering beam at the target. The ECM pods commonly seen on the Su-27 and J-11 use this principle.
On the empty weights of the aircraft, the J-10 should be around just under 8000kg and the JF-17 around 6400kg. Both can expected to go up if more avionics are added or if shift to phase array or AESA. Domestic WS-10A might be heavier than AL-31FN, so that could add 100 to 200kg more per engine.
On carrying a heavy missile. It should be noted that the TC-2 from the ROC is even heavier than the SD-10 by 20kg. Yet the Ching Kuos, fighters which are closely approximate to the weight and power of the JF-17 carry them well, and can carry as much as four. So SD-10s, even as many as four, should be not be bother on the JF-17.
The SD-10, despite its weight, should be fairly maneuverable. A large part of this is the sawtooth wings on the rear. Although this may create additional drag, it increases the control authority of the vanes so that less deflection is required to make a turn, and the lesser the deflection, the less drag it causes.
On the radar, the redesign of the nose to for the DSI meant an opportunity to make the nose larger, while reducing RCS through inward canted sloping. With the nose larger, that means a larger radar. It was for this reason Grifo followed up the proposal for the Grifo S7 with a bigger version of greater range. The original Chinese radar for the JF-17 may have been the smaller KLJ-6F (the KLJ-6E is used for the J-7G), but the revised version of the JF-17 could have called for a new and larger radar, which is probably the KLJ-7.
IMO, the revamp of the plane, with LERX, DSI etc,. and on the electronics (cockpit, larger radar, EW/RWR/MAWS suite) has made the aircraft a much more serious threat and survivable aircraft, especially when compared to older fighters. The final element is the communication links, which is where the PLAAF and the PAF will differ. The PLAAF would surely use their HN-900 and Beidou links.
crobatoNo. 16m2 is an arbitrary number pulled from somewhere, the question is where it came from and why that number is given. Look at the three potential targets: B-1B, AGM-86B, and B-52. You’ve got an RCS of 1m2, less than 1m2, and around 100m2. Talking about performance against a 16m2 target does an analyst no good, right? Because the weapon system probably isn’t going to engage a 16m2 target operationally. You can make the same argument for Western weapon system published specs as well, they’re no different in this case, really, unless they get pretty specific and detailed.
That still doesn’t mean that the system isn’t going to work as intended, though. FOXHOUND is a mean bird. Even the choice of SARH for the R-33 seems like the better choice for the mission given that the Zaslon can support simultaneous SARH engagements, allowing the better-equipped Zaslon to handle the engagement details rather than the missile seeker were it an ARH weapon.
!5 or 16m2 is something you would expect of an F-15, Su-27, F-14 class fighter. And as you might expect, the MiG-25/31 itself.
3 to 5m2 is the classic norm as it refers to a MiG-21/F-16 RCS sized target, that is without any RAM or RCS measures applied on both aircraft.
crobatoThere is no clear way to tell from these pictures here if the plane is naval or not without seeing their number codes. The red marking though seems to be one that PLANAF uses, while PLAAF uses an orange. Hui Tong is suggesting from his revamped articles that the J-8H is actually the upgraded J-8D, perhaps with the J-8F avionics but without the double wing fence wing. Not without some precedent though, as J-7H is basically an upgraded J-7B with the J-7E avionics but still retaining the classic airframe and wing.
Sign In
