Yet again, 8 targets attacked for planar array… doesnt matter which fancy generation it is – downright lie. And if you want to suggest what chinese somehow building AESA… well, thats another wishfull disinformation. COTS will not help here at all. Moreover, the proccesors what are used in russian radars are very comparable to western ones in power, lagging may be 4-5 years behind at MAX – and only in some products. For example, the US fighter radars of later 90x origin use 486x equivalent processors – same as 2001-2002 origin Baguet. In most cases COTS dont work as well as you might think due to various reasons. But whats more important, many key technolgies used in radars just isn’t available as COTS. For example, phase shifters for PESA. Or ESA elements for AESA. You must remember, processors itself are only like 10% of entire radar, and many other elements are just as impoprtant. In same of these areas Russians are world leaders, even ahead of USA. As such, its very unlikely what Chinese could develop something what surpass current Russian technology, or even match it. And the current state of russian fighter radars is pretty well known – its advanced PESA in production and AESA in later development/testing stage.

And for that reason, why do you think China now has ESA scanning AWACs and fleet defense destroyers with data fusion. I say ESA because there are some reports these platforms are using AESA. On ground, the PLA has an AESA radar called the SLC-2 which is an artillery spotter, used to spot artillery shells (which are small enough), track their direction, and reveal where they are being fired from. Ferrite phase shifters are not cutting edge, and please note, Russia does not have the capabilities to manufacture a TTL module. You cannot build fabs and refineries alone just to build miltiary TTLs or the cost is extremely prohibitive because the cost of the TTLs will have to pay for the plant and its overhead. That’s why you need a civilian commercial infrastructure that already paid the cost of the fab manufacturing TTLs and MMICs for commercial use.

And no, no matter what good your phase shifter or TTL emitter is, it does zilch on the recieving end. Processors, ala DSPs, become all important in order to analyze all the signals, tell them apart from the noise, compare the different signals, even jamming clouds, and come up with an answer—presence, bearing, velocity, etc,. The true complexity of a radar is not on the emitting side, but on the receiving side.

Even with MESAs or mechanical radars, there is a big difference between what a radar can do in 1985, then in 1995, then in 2005. The ability to process signals, or the computational power is exponential. Many of the cheap processors you see now embedded in commercial devices are more powerful than the 486x stuff you see in military hardware back in the 1990s.

Then there is the advantage of hindsight. Given what you know about the EW capabilities of your potential threats, there are things you can build into your radar and FCS, things that that are not obvious like array type (which is overrated by the Internet fanbois), tracking and engagement numbers (also vastly overrated). The truth is, the most important quality to any radar right now is EW resistance, and no matter how fancy your array or your numbers are, if its jammed, its jammed.

This is from Tom Cooper of ACIG. He posted this.

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4996&start=0

I do recal having participated in some discussions – involving the then local Russian air attache here in Vienna – that touched this topic too, several years back. The attache in question used to work in the development of avionics for Su-24s, for example.

Anyway, the matter was actually about the Russian aviation industry, especially Su-27s, and their development. And, eventually, we’ve touched also the philosophy and drive behind what the Russian designers do, how and why.

Basically (and this came out only after I think the second bottle of vodka), the matter was such that all they wanted to see were manuals of various Western aircraft and equipment. That’s what – just for example – Sukhoi should be ready to pay small fortunes for. Their designers do not care about practical experiences of their pilots or ground crews in Chechnya, or in various African conflicts the least. They also don’t care about possible requirements of their potential customers (foremost the Chinese and Indians). All they wanted to see were manuals – especially those of US aircraft – or related reports about future developments. They wanted the most basic, as raw as possible, data about technical capabilities, so they could analyse them.

And, once they’d get these into their hands, they’d sit down and read them carefully, trying to find out what are the Americans fielding. Then they’d do their best to develop things that is either a) better (in sence of being larger/faster/reaching further), b) more powerfull (in sence of having longer range, more power output etc.), or c) could successfully counter US or European systems in their fields.

That should be the main driving power behind their development.

Interestingly, the Russians were also working very little on tactics or finding out best ways how to deploy these systems in (potential) combat. This was what the Chinese were doing. The attache explained how once they’ve got two highly-qualified Chinese Su-27-pilots as guests (for a month or so at least), to work with them on some system he wouldn’t go into any details about, and how these supposedly were true experts in US equipment, tactics and operational thinking. So much so, the Russians were completely surprised by sheer amount of knowledge and what kind of things these two Chinese did know (but the Russians didn’t know).

So, interestingly, one does not get to hear much about Russians teaching anybody on EW/ECM-deployment, but others – especially the Chinese and the Ukrainians (or their Israeli counterparts) – doing this.

Let me translate what I meant. It could be a “pure marketing bullsh!t” to quote a classic-in-life of US planes bashing. I can’t say because I don’t know for sure. However what I red about the E is that because it was beefed-up to carry 11 tons of goodies and 15 tons of fuel in the same frame of the F 15D, the structure was strengthened. Titanium was more extensively used (compared with the D). So, it could be that the mentioned 16,000 hours represents a by-product of this strengthening process. However, I red this figure in many sources

The amount of titanium does not really count, otherwise based on that, then the Soviet planes should indeed live the longest of all planes, especially the Flankers..

Clue, the strength of the airframe is not on the strongest part, but on its weakest link.

Close up of the HUD

Unless your engines really really suck, I think thats good enough.

That too. MiG-17s to 21s have pretty short fuel. Does not matter how maneuverable you are if your fuel bingoed.

Its 13.2kn apparently.

Some excerpts from the Jan 11, 2006 JDW article on the matter.

“Super J-10 Fighter”

Will feature- Passive PAR, TVC, Strengthened Airframe, Russian help.

The J-10 was originally designed to use the Zhemchug, a mechanically scanned slotted array by Phazotron, but some critical components were made impossible to copy.

The other Bureau, Tikhomirov, recently resumed a working relationship with the PLAAF, after having submitted an early prototype of their Pero in the late 90s but with no followup by the Chinese. They are now submitting a derivative of the Pero (is this the Panda?). The Pero was originally designed for use on the Su-30KN.

Recall the recent large order for engines in late 2005. Most observers assumed it was for more of the AL-31FN, but this is not so. It was for a new engine, the AL-31FN-M1. The M1 features an enlarged fan with inlet diameter of 924 mm instead of 902 mm, which improved thrust from 122.6kN to 132.4 kN. Also features a swivel nozzle developed by Salyut in conjunction with Zavod imeni Klimova. Similar to the KliVT used on the RD-33OVT of the Mig-29OVT- it’s improved over the IAF’s Su-30MKI in that it deflects in BOTH pitch and yaw, rather than pitch only.

Expected to have a MTBF of 1000 hours, the requirement set by the PLAAF (which perhaps will also be the MTB of the WS-10A, if and when it enters service), and a lifetime of 2000 hours. Future upgrades include the M2 and M3, with the M3 having a new cooling system, combustor, and LP compressor that boost thrust to 142.2 kN, and give it a longer lifetime.

Why are you asking for the engines of the 1990’s Flanker? We already mentioned that the 180 engines should be spares for the most part.

Article in 1999 showing China has negotiated with UMPO

Ufa records 21.7% improvement in production in 1999
Business growing for Urals aero engine maker
Published: 2/21/2000
Production volume for Urals-based Ufa Engine-Building Production Organization (UMPO) rose by 21.7% in 1999, giving the company sales of 2.5 bn rubles ($89.2m). It is reported that, since April 1999, the company has eliminated ten months of wage arrears and, surprisingly, has reduced its costs by 126m rubles. UMPO was therefore in profit for 1999, under Russian accounting, with only two of its divisions making small losses, according to General Director, Valery Lesunov. Lesunov added that, in 2000, he expects all divisions to make a profit and plans to boost production by 23%. The primary product for the plant is the production of the Salyut Al-31F engine for the Su-27 and the Su-30. The engine has been further modified, as the AL-31 ST, as a gas-pumping unit. Both products are also the subject of agreements being negotiated with China, according to reports in November 1999, including a deal with Shenyang Aviation Corporation for the Al-31 for China”s licenced Su-27, the J-11 and talk of 70 pumping stations, worth $3 billion. In cooperation with Motor-SICh of the Ukraine, the factory has also been involved in the development of the An-70 power plant, the D-27 as a member of the consortium building the aircraft. Other aero engine products include the ZMBK Progress D-436T, used on the new Tu-334 and the Be-200 amphibian. The company, along with its competitor, Rybinsk, has also developed another line of business through the production of snowmobiles, under the brand name Rys, with three models. The company is looking to increase its production substantially in 2000, given growing demand in Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, and Omsk regions, where UMPO has its own dealer distribution network. Rys machines have also been exported to India, Slovakia, China, and Slovakia. Associated articles: http://www.concise.org 16th September 199;24th November 1999

from where this 13.2ton figures come from. and u made a contract with Salut (which is now a design bureau) which in turn gave to umpo. and any way those in 1992/1996 planes need alteast 100 engines and there is no evidence anything is supplied for them untill this point.

The 13,2t figure comes from the AL-31FMN-1 being sold to China for the J-10. Same engine core, just different gearbox location plus Klimov nozzle.

Oh and yet these 1992/1996 planes are still flying and operational, so they must have been receiving engines.

Lol. Salut is not just a design bureau, it manufactures its own engines. Engines for the J-10s are all manufactured by Salut in a special facility south of Moscow, and not in the Urals like UMPO. YOu must be referring to Saturn as the design bureau, and Saturn-Lyulka and Salut are not the same entity, pretty much have feuded with each other over the J-10/AL-31FN and the FM engine core issues. And that’s why Salut and Saturn/UFA/UMPO has a major tiff, each in fact proposing competing upgrades for the PLAAF engines. Because UMPO has no access to the FM core design, and has designed and proposed something called 1147 for the Indians to upgrade their AL-31FP cores.

http://www.salut.ru/news_.html
FM1-1 is 13.5 ton. and in 2006 only 20 some thing of 180 engines are supplied.

That’s funny because they said the FM1 core for the J-10 engine is 13.2kg. We like to make sure there is no article typographical errors. Salut does not speak for UMPO’s side of the contract, and I take it only 20 of the 100 engines contracted to them are supplied. That means just how many of the 80 engines that were contracted to UMPO has been delivered.