Do you really believe that bull**** about Type-1473 ? I remember even 2-3 years ago chinese advertised it with “An assessment of potential multi-function fire-control radar systems for
the new stealth fighter is also under way, with candidates including Chinas
indigenous Type 1473 design. According to an industry source, this has a
search distance of 150km and can track up to 15 targets, attacking between
six and eight of them simultaneously. The design is currently undergoing
upgrade to allow for the integration of a phased-array antenna. “
So, planar array radar with 8 target attacked? The disinformation starts right there. I could have believe it about phased array, but planar… As such, any chinese claims about Type-1473 perfomance dont worth the papier they are written. Moreover, even IF chinese somehow managed to develop Type-1473 with PAR in the last 2 years, it will be still inferior to MKI (and MKK3) radar for obvious reasons like size and general constructing expertise. Please, bring some more believiable lie here.

You must be reading crap from KANWA, who after discovering the existance of Type 1473, thinks its the only radar in China. 1473 (for the J-10) is a slotted array planar considered first generation for the Chinese, along with 1471 for the J-8II. This corresponds to the factory designation KLJ-3.

The current J-10 radar is now KLJ-7, representing the second generation slotted array planar design. The array itself is not important but more importantly, the COTS based systems behind it. Newer radars simply avail of faster CPUs and DSPs than their predecessors, and even without any change of the array design, still results in better range, signal processing, tracking and resolution. Frankly, what’s behind the antenna is more important than the nature of the antenna itself.

Even in the post SU era, Russian radar designers still insist on using their own outdated homegrown processors and DSPs (Baguet etc,.) as they are used to working on them or because their assembly language code are so tied to these processors, but these are so outmoded by commecial Western equivalents. By the time the Russians figured out how to use COTS, the Chinese were already way ahead of them using such in walking down this convenient route.

A search distance of 150km is actually typical of a radar as you might expect with an array of 700mm. APG-68, Zhuk, EL 2032 should meet that easily. The APG-67, a smaller radar, used on the F-CK-1, goes up to 147km.

The thing, is, do you know that search and tracking radar distances are not the same? It is tracking ranges that are often most quoted, not search. The N001 might have a tracking range of 100km against a 3m2 RCS target, but the search range may be double of that against a 5m2 RCS target and larger. Note the examples above should have correspondingly shorter tracking distances. A radar with a search distance of 150 to 160km, should have a tracking range of 80 to 100km depending on the target RCS, higher if its a larger target. It also depends on alttiude and the movement of thei aircraft relative to the target, higher altitude gives better range than low, head on gives better range than receding.

and that 130m is based on 183 aircraft it is not based on 3000 aircraft.

That’s because not even the US can afford 3000 F-22s. For that matter, F-15s in US service only totaled in the mid hundreds.

and that updated is even better than what J-10 represents. Su-30MKA is in different class.

What? You don’t know what you’re talking about. The J-10 is a far more elegant design than any MiG-29. J-10s appear to consistently beat J-11s and Su-30MKKs in the PLAAF during exercises. I don’t think updated MiG-29s and Su-30s will provide you that much of an advantage once the J-10 development cycle keeps going.

and the problem is that those who have these bombers also have Iskander-M (IIR warhead 2m), Tocka, Smerch. they can pulverize any arm formation at standoff distances. and have the airlift capacity to the battlefield. bombers are for destroying hardened structures like droping FAB-3000 bombs.

BS fantasy. Russia’s current bomber fleet lack precision ISR equipment and support to deal with mobile fine grained targets, and furthermore, are not equipped with their own latest PGMs, which goes to the Su-34.

thats why u have multirole Su-24/Su-34/Su-27SM. One Su-34 can simultaneously engage 10 ground targets.

And how many Su-34s are in service now? I can’t see more than sixty a decade from now. The RuAF precision bombing capability is far less than what the US has against Serbia, and Taiwan is a far more formidable target than Serbia.

and do u even know how many billions it cost US to keep those airbases round the year. there is no such thing as make shift and have to appease host nations in various ways. like hand outs/trade agreements/intellectual property etc. It is better to have hundresds of supersonic long range bombers for one time wars than maintaining foreign airbases with out of station costs.

Oh, and suddenly you’re smarter than the professionals in the USAF eh?

MIG-31 job is not air to ground. Its role is for supersonic high altitude destruction of aerial targets from cruise missiles to bombers/awacs/refuellers. thats why it gives Strategic edge.

Its only an interceptor. Its not even an aerial superiority fighter. Once the other fighters are there, it can only run. You expect bombers, AWACS and refuellers won’t be guarded? By the time it uses its radar, everyone in the hemisphere knows its location. Its an amazing waste of resource for intercepting bombers, when today, “bombers” are more likely to be fighter bombers than anything.

and where is ur proof that there even 200 fighters in PLAAF operable.? there are 150 backfires with long range aviation, 50 with naval and 93 in reserve and 10 in upgradation. Other countries neither have the skill nor the fuel for these kinds of bombers.

We know that fighters in the PLAAF are operable because they for one thing, have the budget to afford so. This is in contrast to Russia, whose effective GDP is only as big as Mexico’s.

The RuAF could barely afford their upgrades. They chose the MKK systems for the upgrade instead of more technologically better ones because the Chinese have already paid for the expensive testing and certification process. How many Su-27SMs are being upgraded every year? I can’t see more than a dozen. Russia’s Flanker fleet is practically mothballed inside hangers and storage places while China’s is always buzzing about in exercises, some of whom can be scanned and verified by long range radars in Taiwan.

World does not work on ur thinking. Those MMIC is foreign.

MMIC are made in fabs in China. You should read more about the telecom industry.

here is some history lesson for You. when China couldnot even make its own toys

Really? Here is a history lesson for you. Trading and playing cards was invented in China soon after paper money was invented there.

Offcoures Pentium was discovered in China.

Not really but the head of Intel’s elite Architectures division in charge for developing new processors was a Chinese guy for a long time. He oversaw the development from 286 to Pentium III before he retired. Oh and both ATI and nVidia are founded by Chinese.

where is sign contract and deliverdy of EL-2034 and where is certification of of it? and why it is not on CATIC official page. and there was no export order of J-8 in mid 90s like FC-1. So any order is for benefit of Chinese indigenous development as state funds have been used for its development and China was poor at that time for radar development export extravagance.

EL2034 is mentioned in Hui Tong’s page, and this is part of the Israeli proposal to upgrade the J-8IIs. AVIC is only in charge for exports and the Israeli upgrade for the J-8II is for domestic use. The reason why F-8IIM is using Zhuks because the domestic Type 1471 radar is not approved for export that time due to secrecy reasons, so it had to use a Russian radar for export planes, possibly eyeing for an Iran buy that never happened. Which is why the Zhuk equipped F-8IIM comes with an F, because that is an export plane. It is for the same secrecy reasons whey the FC-1 was originally not offered with a Chinese radar because the latter requires the PLA to clear it.

F-22 price is already known. $130m fly away for 183 aircraft. it will go substantially down if u order 3000 like JSF.

the same can be said about JSF.

50 million fly away is a lot cheaper than 130m.

Libya, Algeria etc. If some one can afford a new fighter of new generation it does not make a difference if it is single engine or twin engine.

None of them bought a fighter of a new generation. Rather, an update of an old one.

they are built for that purpose. for concept to operations. they can be refuelled and stationed far away from the conflict zone. u can load extensive EW equipment into and gives more flexibiliy in weopon choice.

The problem is that you cannot turn large bombers fast enough. Response time is essential. By the time your air support gets there, the troops you are supposed to support are either dead, or the target has disappeared and moved on.

Large bombers are only good for fixed site infrastructure destruction. They are poor against mobile surface targets, including what by definition is your land army.

Maintance complexity? everything has scheduled time and it is known to operational planners and around those they develop strategy of war. they are not some kids that they dont know about there own equipment.

Seems to me you are the only person (and nutjob) who thinks large bombers are not high maintenance.

Sorry but even the pros in the USAF still rely on the most proven and simple solutions to get the job done. Why do it with a B-2 when you can do it in an F-16 at bases much closer, much faster, lower the cost? The response time of an F-16 flying from Saudi Arabia in a makeshift base to a target in Iraq, is much much faster than a B-2 flying from Diego Garcia. FYI, there is only two bases outside of the US that can support large bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2, and that is Diego Garcia and Guam, all in the middle of the ocean. In contrast, fighter bombers can literally be stationed in any makeshift base around the world, much closer to areas of conflict. The F-16 especially, because infrastructure to support the F-16 can be found just about in most parts of the world.

there is no place for useless junk like J-7. u have to pay for pilot, fuel and maintainance and at the end lose the pilot to commmerical aviation due to low pay. It is better to have less, highly paid, highly skilled pilots with no fear of losing them with full simulator support.

A MiG-31 costs you a lot more in fuel and maintenance than a simple J-7. A MiG-31 can only drop bombs and run away. Its wing loading is too high to loiter around, and is not very maneuverable. Once SAMs are launched when the MiG-31 is at low altitude the plane is dead, as it is unlikely to even turn past 4G.

these 200 are the least figures from globalsecurity. Russia is the only country that have the fuel for supersonic bombers.

And where is your proof that all of them are operable?

i dont think u can even do manufacturing research also.

Sorry but they do that too. China can manufacture a MMIC from scratch, from refinery to foundry. I don’t even think in Russia you can make a single LCD screen even for the HUDs.

no one is going to believe that. why develop Zhuk-8 for J-8 in first place in mid nighties other than paying money for tranfering technolgy? without Chinese money they would not have been able in certifying Zhuk-ME nor they would have started work on AESA back in 1998 or designing more radars after 1991 than in past 40 years.

Why did the Israelis develop the ELM-2034 for the J-8II? It just like any other contract, you offer fairly to outside contractors and bidders. In the end, one Chinese company won (at least two aspired for the same contract). Its called competition.

we already know the answer of $50 to $60m JSF flyaway cost. but we dont know the answer to 3000 F-22 flyaway cost.

And who can afford 3000 F-22?

i have clear idea but u are living in dream world.

Anyone who thinks you can afford to build 3000 F-22.

countries in Africa can afford heavy fighters. I am not even going into middle income countries.

Really, which ones? And I’m not talking about used fighters. And how many can they afford.

More fantasy lala from you.

those were jammed by more advance airborne radars which is not the case here.

u will be lucky to get back in high intensity conflict.

Lol, where is your proof that big bombers like the Backfire will serve in a high intensity, high mission rate requirement conflict?

The variable wing design is another negative. F-14s and F-111s are not capable of pulling the same mission rates as fixed wing aircraft due to the maintenance complexities of the variable wing. Much less those of the Tu-22 and Tu-160s.

low operability compared to what? there is big difference in spending time in MIG-31 and J-7.

You don’t know that a J-7 in the air is infinitely more useful than a MiG-31 on the ground. That’s what operability means.

so what they did in the last six exercises in one year?

Show ME the 200 Backfires that are operable.

u fall for it.
china is also one of the biggest suppliers of microwaves but it does not mean that u can create science. u will always need some one else knowledge to produce things. so what comes after GaAs that will be suitable for 4th generation Aesa modules. what research China has done in that field?

Idiot. Manufacturing technology is a science. Once you have learned it from outside sources, you are on your own to develop, refine and evovle that technology.

China has invested a lot of research in refining both GaAs and GaN in order to supply the domestic and export market. This is the largest potential telecom market yet. This is not a process you can get away with cheap labor. In fact, it is the OVERSUPPLY of GaAs and GaN from China that is causing prices of what is otherwise a supposedly expensive commodity to drop.

show me a single thing that China made with its own Intellectual property. it is more likely that J-10 radar is derived from this one. and no one is going to buy ur arguement that since J-10 radar has different look so it must be indigenous just like that false J-10 Glass cockpit

What an idiot. Show me the J-10’s radar is a copy of the Zhuk. There are pics of the J-8II radar for example, compare the servos on the back of the plate compared to the Zhuk’s. The servos is one of the most important thing in those radars, they are responsible for the mechanical scanning. In fact, neither does the servos of the JH-7A’s slotted radar also resemble the Zhuk’s, the ELTA’s and even the J-10’s.

If you check the Type 1471 radar in sinodefence.com, you will see the servos are not the same as the Zhuks. Now show me how the Chinese radar is a copy of the Zhuk, get some real proof.

PLA never releases information on its on-going project, so don’t expect any image available openly. What we have is one image of WS-10A with bottom located gear box, the original AL-31F’s gear box is located on top, in order to suit J-10, Russian vendor had to relocate the AL31F’s gearbox to the bottom, the model is called AL31FN. However, in order to fit WS-10A into J11B(or Chinese Flanker), the gear box has to be located on top just as any common AL31F, Now you witness one J11 test flied with WS10A, so this WS-10A must be with top located gear box, now you see the clear image of bottom located WS-10A, of course it’s Not for J11, so what choice left for you to choose?

No necessary to see J10 with WS-10A, even you see it, how you can tell just with Nozzle outside?

J-11B and J-10 headed for showdown over a limited quota of WS-10A engines. Basically the J-11s have had some political priority and favoritism (I wonder how many of the CCCP leadership are from the Beijing/Shenyang area); getting the WS-10A is a reflection of that, resulting in J-10 having to source from the Russians for engines.

But this can change if the J-11B loses over the J-10 in mock air battles, which already has seriously broken the confidence of the PLAAF for the Su-27SK/J-11 and Su-30MKK. One may decide, if I am building a quota of 60 WS-10A engines for the year, would it better to build 60 J-10s out of them rather than 30 J-11Bs?

I expressed my self wrong. I don’t meant the J-10 hasn’t a datalink, but that I doubt its capabilities could fully match that of the MIDS or TILDS or other compareable western datalink systems. And I think its the same problem with various other systems, also its impossible to say more about it as there is to much unclear about the J-10. I think however that the chinese haven’t made such an advance in such a short time and that the J-10 lacks behind new european designs in terms of technologies. But I think they could catch up now relative quickly. Maybe we’ll see in future.

The Chinese made a massive advance in the nineties thanks to a few factors, including a growing and competent domestic electronics and IT industry and a maturing often Western trained engineer base, the massive influx of dual use technologies, from closely studying Western sources—there is certainly no lack of open source information, and not the least from the Israelis and to a degree, the Europeans, all eager to get a slice of the Chinese market. Heck even American firms thought the Chinese a thing or two. Look at the HUD in the FC-1, that’s not too different from Israeli designs.

Sounds reasonable. I’m no expert here, but some suggest you can see the lack of composites by the nature coulor of the unpainted aircraft. I’m sure there are some advanced construction methods in use, but it looks like they are not that advanced as in the west.

Whatever their construction methods are—which are basically Western trained by the way—it’s certainly good enough for Boeing and Airbus, both of whom has subcontracted composite components from this very Chengdu concern.

how is that not correct? things were very simple in the past. it is just common sense.

Wrong. It shows _you_ have no common sense because no one in their right mind would say that. Why don’t you do some actual study on an airframe design like the B-29?

but they build alot of others things. they didnot have the kind of resources like West or China.

That’s wrong. The Soviet Union had plenty of resources and appropriated an extremely large section of their GDP to military development.

I am not arguing changing for sake of changing. u havent produced anything beside copying. if u have done some thing else. I would not raise the point.

Tell me where the Han and the Xia is copied from? Or the JH-7? Sometimes your accusation of copying comes from a feeble mind because copying does not solve anything. Copying only gives you an outline to fill, which you have to do on your own self. This only shows your lack of understanding of the development process.

It just show China was not capable of producing Wvr weopons thats why it has to improve J-6 for close combat. MIG-21 were built in thousands because it has to fight in middleastern wars and supplied to satellite states. China does not have that many obligations.

Sorry, but China was making the PL-2 and the PL-5. There was nothing wrong with China sticking to close combat—considering how the Russians and the Americans reemphasized close combat due to the Vietnam War.

the same question arises. there was nothing else built besides continuing with the old. that raises the question.

so u got the weopons from foreign intellectual capital so the old platform becomes useful. why didnot it happened at first time?

Tell me when Russia has equivalently matching ong range standoff EO weapons of the same range and warhead that is actually in service. These weapons are at least twice or more the range of the Kh-59ME.

u dont know enough about financial situation in Russia. just Sukhoi RRJ R&D is at $1.6B. and that is fully digitally created.

Digitally created? What kind of RD is digitally created?

Where did the 1.6 billion come from? Show me the sources.

I am not even going into Tupolev and Illysian certifications according to International standards. they are spending billions just on civillian sector they upgrades MIG-31 radar for twice the range of previous ones.

And where did the billions come from?

Upgrading isn’t hard at all. Designing something brand new is different.

why u think this Irbis is so expensive that u seem to imply.

And what makes you think development of an FCR is cheap? Tell me the cost of live fire testing for example, of each and every AAM and PGM, doing so in batches and in different alttiudes, speeds and launching conditions. Tell me about the salaries of engineers.

they havent done anything on there own. so from where the beliefs come from. u import equipment for industrial purpose.

so on what this has to do with Military grade.? on what process APG-77 MMIC were built a decade ago.

It means MMICs now are better, and the DSPs meant to process their signals are far more capable now.

What do you know about military grade? This means among others, passing a required certain failure before hours benchmark. This means EMF and ECM resistance as well as cosmic radiation. What does the Soviet Union know about “military grade’ because military grade is very relative—and SU equipment won’t even come close in passing what is military grade in the West.

u can click the review section of http://www.missiles.ru with translator and see the whole story of Phazotron AFAR and it isnt that expensive to certify. just $18m

And read this again exactly—

1.3.3. The analysis of block diagram АФАР has shown, that “Phasotron” has the industrial-technological potential, capable to develop and make(produce) all structural elements АФАР except for the send-receive module.

Lol. It means you can do anything except build what is the most essential building block of an AESA array, the recieving-transmission module, the MMIC, which is the heart and soul of the entire concept.

this just show ur knowledge. TD-90 is the civillian counterpart of IL-76MF. this one has 60tons payload and structural modifications. u cant do this at any other place for now. it will take 2 to 3 years to built that capabilities in russia.

Wrong. If that is back in the old Soviet Union, it would have been done in an instant. The fact that it now takes what—3 long years to do—show you the lack of both engineering and skilled labor to actually do it in quick time.

u raise the point that factory does not work. that was ur statement in AWACS thread. and i have proven u wrong. u havent explain why China want new built aircraft with obsolete engines? and that is totally unfit for AWACS. Simple answer PLAAF wants Cheap and obsolete things. No wonder Uzbek side has refuse to take the contract for such low price.

Who ever told you they are unfit for AWACS? You have not proven me wrong, not the very least. For a simple modification to take three years show you don’t have the labor infrastructure anymore. Back in the SU days, they could have built 38 IL-76s in a matter of months. Now they have not done a single one.

The proof of the pudding is where is the planes?