crobatoOperational range of 1650KM? i doubt it can even go 400km with external weopons let alone at low altitude.
That is the stated range by the manufacturer with standard armament 6000-7000kg of load.
and at low altitude aircrat cannot fly further and can be ambushed by enemy fighters from high altitude.
And you think that an Su-30 flying with a heavy high RCS profile like the Klub would do any better.
higher altitude is for benefit of aircraft to get decent range and is in position against BVR fight with other aircraft. but i dont expect slow lumbering JH-7 to do that. It is simply not multifunctional aircraft.
It is not slow, but it is not high flying.
so how u assume it is from low altitude. u cannot even assume there is full warhead weight inside it.
Wrong. It has standard warhead.
and how that is directly related to operational readiness?
Where is your proof that China has low operational readiness? They have all the budgets and domestic resources to improve that.
offcoures it would be stealth if that AWACS cannot find it at decent range but it does not mean it is stealthy under all conditions.
shipborne radar finding a missile at 400km? finding does not mean lockon on small fast moving target and when terminal trajectory is unpredicatable.
Iskander-M is bigger than Sunburn and can fly around 27km but it is claimed to be stealthy and no antimissile system can destroy it despite its mach 4 terminal speed. I have yet to see operational supersonic missile downing.it is for those who even understand science.
You don’t understand science at all.
crobatoAgain there is nothing in the report that test was conducted at low altitude and what will be the JH-7 range will be with such low altitude mission?( reduce to half so whats they point of missile range). modern missiles u can drop from high altitude and take low flight path later.
The JH-7 has an operational range of 1650km. And while there is nothng in the report that says it is conducted at low altitude, there is nothing that says it is at high. The JH-7 is a low altitude mission striker, so we have to assume it is launched at its mission profile.
There is no benefit to modern air breathing missiles being launched at high altitude and expect them to fire their engines at low. The range gain is minimal, since the missile is in a free drop, lacks big enough wings to glide as opposed to true standoff weapons, and the engine is not optimized high altitudes especially when they have small intakes. The only reason why you launch the missile at high is for a totally different reason, a high flying jet can radar peep through the horizon better and find targets at a greater distance.
so it becomes low speed and low altitude plane without any evidence?
And you don’t have any evidence at all that it is high. Both plane and the missile are simply both intended to be used at lower altitudes.
making engines inhouse is irrelevant to the operational readiness of fleet if u think a little harder. and why such small number of JH-7 if u got license. India has more Jaquars for low altitude.
India has 80 to 100 Jaguars?
And yes being able to make engines inhouse is relevant because the mother country could easily manufacture the parts, as well as have replacement engines handy.
Stealth is relative term. not some fixed target. If AWACS cannot detect sunburn at decent range so it has relative steath against that AWACS. and ground radar can spot at what range? there is S maneours at Mach 3 with Brahmos at last stage which confuses the antimissile system and make it difficult to react at proper time. not sure about Sunburn.
Lol. What a definition. I doubt anyone would buy this.
By your account, a Boeing 737 flying low enough to avoid the AWACS would be stealthy.
AWACS is only part of a radar net, and a missile like Sunburn, the least it should concern about is an AWACS. Long range ship born radar can easily extend 400 to 500km into the air, and OTH capabilities may mean the launch ship is being detected long before it gets into firing range. This is worsened because the Sovs lack the radar cross section reduction used by more modern Western and Chinese ships. There also naval patrol aircraft and helicopters and you can be assured, they don’t have the low altitude blind spots of an AWACS. The Sunburn only is only 120km in a low to low flight, for it to get 240km it has to fly high enough to reduce drag, which makes it easily detectable even by AWACS.
For an AWACS to compensate against its blind spots, all it needs to do is move back further away so the dish can have a direct line of sight to the areas being scanned. Put it a certain distance so the LOS is not obscured by wings and fuselage, it can still detect the incoming missiles.
so one have to be journalist to know the scientific potential of country.
And you do? You have not shown an ounce of scientific competence at this board. All you show about your articles of scientific potential are nothing but hot air.
crobatoreally? he just put a report of 255km range of missile. which is meaningless. there is no mention of JH-7 altitude and speed to achieve that range. and it will take a good amount of time for an externally loaded, underpowered and aerodynamically obsolete aircraft like JH-7 to achieve decent acceleration and altitude. by that time target would have either moved on or taken the defensive measures. (read alittle in depth about Su-34 to see the difference).
and i cannot imagine aircraft powered by 70s era engines have more than 50% operational readiness of fleet. thats why there no takers of this thing anywhere in the world.
Look whose talking? 255km means a lot, especially if the plane is underpowered, which means that range is achieved by not climbing high or and not flying fast. Air breathing cruise missiles and AshMs are not launched from high up, their engines and intakes are not designed to function well at high altitudes. They have to be launched low.
The JH-7A is a low speed interdictor, its performance is roughly lilke the British F-4 Phantoms it shares its engines with. Since it is a low flying plane, the missile launches should not be in high altitude.
As for readiness, China now makes the engines under license, and that means they have the facilities to maintain them.
depends on target radar. untill recently AWACS could hardly picked up crusie missiles at decent ranges. and with Sunburn speed and manveours. there is less time for react.
Lol. You think Sunburn is a stealth missile? You have gone off whack. None claims the missile is stealthy.
1. It is composed mostly of metal.
2. Angled intakes will tend to amplify radar reflections.
3. The entire body is cylindrical, which tends to create highlights.
Disk mounted AWACS or AEW never traditionally do well on low flying targets because their wings and fuselage has a tendency to obstruct scanning at low angles. That does not mean low flying objects are stealthy. These objects can still be spotted by other aircraft as well as ground radar.
crobatocan kanwa representative speak the technical language of interest with professors , phd students, attend scientific conferences/conventionsand part of cross functional research team. and there is alot more to this.
kanwa is only good for issuing statements nothing to do with science.
And you do? Obviously you cannot. And you don’t have the inside track to the Rusarms industry as he does. He’s not a very smart guy, and he’s english isn’t perfect, but he also happens to be a Jane’s correspondent and contributor. And what is your qualifications huh?
crobatoYes, you are correct.
The inboard pylons looks cleared for tank use. If the plane has to carry four TC-2s, two will have to be in the center, two midwing, and tanks on the inner pylon.
Here is a great gallery of pictures you can study. Still a very sleek looking jet. Note the way the canopy opens.
crobatohow many JH-7A and H-6K are operational? what is terminal speed , and warhead of YJ-83? Club range limitations is due to MTCR.
Is there any systems of articial intelligence inside it. russian are masters in this field for weopons system. the only thing in favor of YJ is cheaper price.
You can check a lot of the stuff in sinodefence.com. At least 80 to 100 JH-7/7A is operational, H-6M is operational with at least one or two PLANAF regiments, and the H-6K is a known project with prototypes already flying.
Range of YJ-83 is 250km as recorded by US reconnaissance.
http://www.navlog.org/prc_missile.html
Chinese Missile Surprises West
(c) K.B. Sherman, 2003
The Peoples Republic of China recently startled the West when a JH-7 (“Flying Panther”) aircraft (Xian Aircraft Industry Company) fired a YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missile over Bohai Bay, demonstrating twice the range of which the weapon had been believed capable. This weapon is widely believed to be part of Beijing’s efforts to develop a long-range strike capability against the US Navy and the Republic of China Navy.
According to sinodefense.com, the YJ-83 flies within 15 feet of the water’s surface. It is equipped with a 365-pound warhead and a monopulse terminal guidance radar possessing high anti-jamming capabilities. It uses a semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead, which relies on the missile’s kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the ship’s interior.
Defense specialists say the YJ-83, sometimes called the C-803, also has the capability to receive target information in flight. Richard Fisher of the Jamestown Foundation was quoted as saying that the YJ-83 will probably be outfitted on the upgraded JH-7a fighter-bomber. A 155-mile range would put the launching aircraft outside of the range of Standard SM-2 missile that will be mounted aboard the ex-Kidd-class destroyers recently bought by Taiwan.
http://www.rense.com/general31/missle2.htm
Chinese Missile Has Twice
The Range US Anticipated
By Bill Gertz
The Washington Times
11-20-2
China recently test-fired a new cruise missile with twice the range U.S. intelligence agencies initially estimated, intelligence officials say. Top Stories
The test comes as Chinese Communist officials last week appointed a top general in charge of China’s missile buildup to a new post within the leadership that runs the military.
China fired a YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missile from a JH-7 fighter-bomber earlier this month over Bohai Bay, off northern China.
The test results surprised U.S. intelligence officials. Until recently, the estimated range of the YJ-83 had been assessed to be about 75 miles. The new missile test showed that its range is about 155 miles.
The last time the missile was tested was July 4, when the People’s Daily, the official Communist Party newspaper, announced the testing of a beyond-visual-range anti-ship missile. This weapon is believed by Pentagon officials to be part of Beijing’s efforts to develop a long-range strike capability against U.S. aircraft carriers and ships.
Officials say the missile represents a new capability for the Chinese military in conducting “over-the-horizon” attacks on U.S. or allied ships in any conflict with China. The YJ-83 is believed to be a derivative of the C-801 anti-ship cruise missile but can travel at supersonic speeds, making it very difficult for ships to stop.
Defense specialists say the YJ-83, sometimes called the C-803, also has the capability to receive target information in flight
Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military with the Jamestown Foundation, said the new YJ-83 will probably be outfitted on the upgraded JH-7a fighter-bomber.
“With a range of 250 km [155 miles], it gives the PLA and its export clients a new anti-ship missile that can fire beyond the reach of U.S. Naval anti-aircraft missiles like the Standard SM-2, which will soon equip Taiwan’s Kidd-class destroyers,” Mr. Fisher said.
“This test also indicates that longer-range land-attack cruise missiles are just around the corner,” he noted.
so do u think nations buy arms based on public statements to unknown entity like Kanwa.
I am pretty sure that KANWA has a lot better connections to the Russian arms trade industry than an armchair internet fanboi like you. At least, the guy actually flies around visiting people, for example, talking with the PAF generals.
crobatoI doubt they got new engines or more power. Is there even an engine that offers more power that will fit in the IDF?
Back to the subject of the TC-2…..I’m somewhat confused.
So the airplane could theoretically carry four of them, but the computers won’t allow more than two to be fired during a mission?
According to Bryan in the CDF, I think he said they didn’t want the system to rival and compete with the F-16. Hence it was artificially limited. From what I gather, export F-16 with APG-68 are only able to engage two targets simultaneously until APG 68V9 came out. It could be a deliberate export feature downgrade, but then considering the processing power of chips back in the late eighties, its better to engage two with a higher potential kill percentage, than to engage four with a lower potential kill percentage.
So the number of targets being engaged is something I don’t consider to be that important, vs. other qualities like ECM resistance, fast and more secure lock, etc,. Always better to have more confidence on the two targets rather than a less confident four.
Or are we talking about how many TC-2’s the FCR can target to different aircraft? In other words, can the IDF now engage up to four targets at once as opposed to two?
Yes.
Also, can the TC-2A be carried under the fuselage as well as on the two outboard wing hardpoints?
That was exactly how the TC-2A was demoed.
crobatoYou really need to read up. The PLAAF and PLANAF is certainly not looking for any air launched Klub missile. Their JH-7As can pack four YJ-83s and an H-6K can potentially pack as much as 8, literally the firepower of some destroyers. They would probably prefer some kind of integration package that would let the MKKs and MK2s use the YJ-83.
An exporter has much more credibility unless it is proven otherwise than some arm chair general.
You really need to learn more about the arms business. This is a business that openly preys on the ignorant and the technically inept.
crobatoAccording to this article the name is goshawk.
Taiwan unveils upgraded home-made fighter by Benjamin Yeh
Tue Mar 27, 11:29 AM ET
CHINGCHUANKANG AIR BASE, Taiwan (AFP) – Taiwan Tuesday unveiled an upgraded home-made fighter jet which President Chen Shui-bian said demonstrated the island’s determination to defend itself against rival China.
ADVERTISEMENT
A prototype of the sleek twin-seater fighter, an improved version of the Ching-Kuo Indigenous Defence Fighter IDF-II, scrambled for take-off at the Chingchuankang airbase in central Taiwan.
Hundreds of guests and engineers from the government-owned aircraft maker Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) applauded as the fighter looped and banked to show off its maneuvering capability.
“The success is not only the latest achievement of our defence industry, but it also demonstrates Taiwan’s determination and efforts to defend ourselves,” Chen said at the end of the new fighter’s 10-minute test flight.
Chen named the new jet “Hsung Ying,” or Goshawk — an indigenous bird renowned for the speed of its attacks on prey.
The AIDC unveiled the prototype of an upgraded single-seated upgrade late last year.
Costing the military seven billion Taiwan dollars (212.12 million US) in a project launched in 2001, the Goshawk had increased its endurance time with the installation of two additional fuel tanks, the AIDC said.
The new fighter has upgraded mission computers and an advanced fire control radar system, and will be armed with four medium-range air-to-air missiles, it said, adding service entry was scheduled for 2010 if further development was successful.
Despite the completion of the upgrade project, the military has yet to decide on whether to upgrade the island’s existing IDF fleet.
“Due to the US restrictions imposed on the original IDF design, the upgrade is limited as to the enhancement of the fighter’s combat capabilities,” said Chang Li-te, of the Taipei-based Defense Technology Monthly.
With the aid of the United States, Taiwan produced 130 IDFs during the 1990s to replace its ageing Lockheed F-104s and Northrop F-5s. But the US has restricted Taiwan from developing offensive weapons that could be used to attack the Chinese mainland.
“If the air force decided not to upgrade the IDFs, it may be forced to ground the whole fleet 10 years from now,” Chang said.
He said if Goshawks could be armed with “Wan Chien” (Ten Thousand Swords) cluster bombs that could be used to attack China’s coastal military installations, 300 kilometres from Taiwan, they would pose a greater threat to China’s military might.
Taiwanese arms researchers have reportedly successfully developed “Wan Chien.”
Beijing has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan should the island declare formal independence, prompting Taipei to develop and buy advanced weaponry.
But most arms exporting countries have been reluctant to sell Taiwan sophisticated weapons, to avoid irking Beijing.
The United States is the major arms supplier to the island, providing it with defensive weapons in accordance with its Taiwan Relations Act.
***
To Don Chan, which I assume may be reading the HK dailies, it’s “Male Eagle”.
So what’s the real name? Male Eagle? Goshawk? Imposing Eagle sounds rather weird.
crobatoThe old plane has the physical capability to carry four missiles, but the fire control system can only manage two TC-2 missiles, hence the other two hardpoints can only be used with different missiles. So obviously the new FCR can now engage and guide four missiles.
crobatoHsung Ying or Xiong Ying, it sounds the same, though I like to see what is the actual intonation. I think “Male Eagle” just sounds way too weird.
crobatoI thought the name was meant to be “Goshawk”.
crobatois that buldge supposed to be a gun on the aircraft’s underside? If not, the thunder may be screwed if it came up against india’s su-30s in a knife fight
Of course its a gun. The same gun is placed in a similar position on the J-10 and J-8II as well.
crobatoThe light smoke trail doesn’t show in the video, and I don’t think its visible enough to be an issue anymore.
With the plane doing half rolls where you can see the planform, the F-20 Tigershark resemblence seems to disappear as well.
crobatoJust a question : some posters (mainly french I acknowledge easily 😉 lol) say that range of detection/tracking is not all, because one needs as well to avoid being detected. In the case of the Captor, due to its non ESA mode, they kind of say “this is not a LPI radar, so everyone around will know for sure where the EF is because of its radar emissions”. What do you say of it ?
Thanks in advance
To say that MSA radar cannot be LPI is a myth. You can generate long duration low PRF, and it probably won’t trigger a RWR, and if it does, would probably think its a long range ground based search radar. Using modern day SAW devices, echoes will then be converted and amplfied via pulse compression into something readable. Another is to use frequency modulated CWI, to make sure you don’t have those sharp power peaks that trigger RWRs. Some modern TWTs are capable of frequency agility, so it does not necessarily mean only T/R MMICs are capable of that.
Sign In
