RickNr18
RickUnlike you, I put a date on my collection of J-10 pictures.
This shows you basic problem. Making assumptions you have no way of knowing anything about. You couldn’t possibly know how I store my photos, not to mention the computer will date them for you and show you when the photo you are storing was created at the location you got it from. Also, if the photo was taken with a digital camera, it will ofter have the photo date. Like the one with 1013 on the ground at Chengdu with the Y-5s. It was take on 3/28/2003.
FACT: The light blue 101X series were never seen or photoed in any time in 2002. Rather, we see a series of yellow primered aircraft with the enlarged RWR that were pictured in the late half of 2002.
FACT: The first pictures of the light blue 101X series appeared in February 2003, which means the pictures could have easily been taken before. The planes have an enlarged RWR compared to the 1006 and above prototypes. (1005 is the first J-10 to have an RWR fitting).
You’re right, the photos could have been taken prior to Feb 2003, even in 2002 that you claim in the statement above didn’t happen. You have no way to know whether the photos existed in late 2002. You can only say YOU didn’t see them.
FACT: Hui Tong wrote that the finalized production spec of the J-10 went into production in the end of June 2002. This is no doubt the aircraft with the enlarged RWR.
The production between June 28, 2002 to December 2002 is no doubt spent on the evaluation batch numbered 1011 to 1016 (or up to 1019) which were only seen starting early 2003, so the two digit numbered J-10 could only have been produced starting in 2003.
June 2002 would be the logical time the first aircraft delivered went into production. So you now have 8 months to produce these 5 aircraft, not the two months you state. To produce 5 aircraft in two months is a production rate of 60 per year. Your timeline is wrong.
The photo of #18 (which I can’t find at Huitong’s by the way) is a foil photo. That could have easily been photoshopped to add the number and then foiled to hid the photoshop. Number 18 would need to belong to the 44th who did not have the planes in May 2003. There are many photoshopped J-10 photos that are believed to be real. The one with the red box blocking the 5 digit number is a prime example.
Rickwere only seen starting early 2003, so the two digit numbered J-10 could only have been produced starting in 2003.
Be consistent in your arguments. During our debates over J-11 numbers your position that it could be years before we saw internet indications of a J-11 regiment. Now you want to use the argument that since we didn’t see the 10xx J-10s until 2003 that the two digit J-10s had to be built in 2003. You are now saying that 10 J-10s were built in 2 or 3 months. That means the production would have been 30-60 per year already.
RickPLAAF people is saying this plane can beat the Su-27 and Su-30
Pretty good information for a plane not officially acknowledged. Then again, the J-7E has beaten the Su-27 and I don’t think that makes it a better plane.
The 250 engines is for six years. Assuming one engine will be spare, about 125 aircraft using the AL-31FN is planned to be built in the next three years from 2005 to 2007, while shipments from the next three years after that will be consigned as spares. From the 2007 and on, maybe, the J-10 hopes to switch to the domestic engine. 125 aircraft in three years is a very respectable number for a modern fighter.
So you think the first 125 engines will be put in J-10s with NO spares available until 2008. That makes no sense at all. You have to have at least some spares as you are flying the planes.
The PLAAF has kept one spare engine per plane in the past. Being a better engine they may not use that ratio. If they do, that is only 125 planes in 6 years (NOT THREE), barely over 20 per year. 24 per year can only be speculation anyway or desired level since when that number was first floated there weren’t even that many J-10s. Until it is proven it is only hypthetical. Ramping up to 40 per year, if even possible, would not give the PLAAF enough spares.
Shenyang can’t put together 125 J-11s from kits in three years what makes you think Chengdu is any better?
RickCrobato
How can it be “standard” when the standard PLAAF plane is incapable of long range flights (J-6, J-7). Self contradiction.
You can fly any plane on 10,000 KM round trip. The only question is, how many times do you stop an refuel. Read training articles on any of the Flanker units and you find them in long range nav flights early in the units training. Read training articles on any unit and you will see long range flights with multiple stops is common. It would have been a self contradition if I said non-stop.
The 18th Div was combat ready a year after they STARTED recieving the aircraft.
That was my point as well. I didn’t intend to insinuate, if I did, that it was after they received all of them. Some of the Su-30s were delivered as full regiments since there are only 18-19 of them. After a quick search I find the first report of the Su-30s in Guangzhou spoke of 12 of them in early 2003. The article telling of them combat ready was Jun 2004 and mentioned they were “several” months ahead of schedule. I estimate the transition period was to be 18 months. Upgrading a unit with pilots who are trained in aerial refueling to the SU-30, an aircraft already in the inventory, will still be less time than the intial J-10 unit, IMHO, especially being 44th Div pilots.
flimsiest straws
You can call it that. I call it 25 years of experience watch the PLAAF integrate new aircraft. I was there for the introduction of the J-8I and everything after.
RickCrobato
Are you sure it is even in the 44th?
That is what all the indications are, including AF newspaper articles. If you look closely at the photo with the 5 digit tail number altered it does look like the fourth digit is a 5. The digit can’t be any of the other possibilities unless its a 6 and the only possibility then would be the FTTC where we already have photos of J-10s without 5 digit numbers.
Crobato
Ordering 250 engines from Russia does say a lot of things about the J-10 progress. It means “full speed ahead”.
Unless the order is over a five year period. I don’t think the length of the contract was stated. It does mean the aircraft will be produced, with a number of them going to Pakistan. Another indicator the aircraft is not all it was expected to be, at least in the begining.
Crobato
Planes that carry three large fuel tanks are not there for short test rides. Usually when planes carry three fuel tanks, they are doing extensive ranged or loiter flights. You’re putting a lot of time in each and every flight—likely to be major exercises.
Standard PLAAF tranisition training includes long range navigation flights very early in the training. This photo supports transition training in early stages.
My statement
It took the 18th Division almost a year to become combat ready in the Su-30. It will take longer for a J-10 unit to be combat ready.
Crobato’s response
This is nearly 2005 already. The transition of the first J-10 regiment woulld have already begun 21 months ago. That’s already more than a year and lots of spare time.
No, the 18th Div was combat ready a year AFTER they recieved the aircraft. The transition would have started earlier than that.
I think you base the 44ths transition training on some aircraft development milestone. The early internet reports showed the 9th Div was in transition training (non-flying). I believe this to be true and there was a change in the unit to recieve the first J-10s, yet another indicator of lessor PLAAF satisfaction. The flying transition would not have begun until after the FTTC had the aircraft for at least a short time. In any case, the period of time for the 44th to be combat ready will be over a year, probably nearly 2 years, after they received the aicraft, somtime in 2006.
RickThe fact that the J-10 is inducted and in an operational unit does denote a certain degree of satisfaction with regards to the product and its systems
Not even close. The J-8I was considered an aircraft in “operational development” (I think was the term used) even after a number of regiments had them. The PLAAF hated the plane but took it anyway. I doubt they had a choice. I’m sure they don’t have choice on the J-10 either. In no way am I comparing the quality of the J-10 to that of the initial J-8s. The J-8s were crap and the J-10 isn’t. I do think there are issues though that have to be worked out before it will be one of the PLAAF’s “front line” planes.
RickThe PLAAF would hardly consider the 44th Division as being a prime operational unit. Sticking the J-10 in that unit says some important things about the progress of the J-10 program, and they aren’t postive.
As far as the FTTC goes, it started out as an advance air school that trained the first pilots in many new PLAAF aircraft. All but the most recent of additions to the orbat of the center still wear the 5 digit number of the 11th Air School. Acting as agressors is the one way you can validate tactics and training and seems a strong indicator of the unit being “there to sort out tactics and training.”
It took the 18th Division almost a year to become combat ready in the Su-30. It will take longer for a J-10 unit to be combat ready.
RickThe 9th Naval Division is in the South Sea Fleet.
RickHyperwarp posted this on the last page:
rumor time
PLAAF added one regt of J-10A, J-8H, J7G, Q5D and H6h
PLANAF added one regt of H6X, and Jh-7A
5 J-6 regt ~130 left ……..
军机失事记录：
合肥，摔SU30MK2一架.
武汉，摔J7B一架，
蒙自，追尾互撞J7H两架
长春，摔CJ6一架.遵化，摔J8一架
惠阳，摔J7B一架（未经证实）
长沙，摔SU30MKK 一架（未经证实）
辽宁，飞行员提前跳伞,摔J7E一架
辽宁， JJ5迷航摔两架
军机换代加快：
空军新增J10A、J8H、J7G、JH7A、Q5D、H6H各一团
海军新增H6X、JH7A各一团
目前J6战斗团紧剩5个团，约130多架。
由于涉及太多机密，只小泄一把，乃冰山一角。
鼎盛考古
2004/12/8
The omission was that the ‘rumor’ stated the PLAAF had added a regiment of JH-7A. There is a scan of a newspaper article that supprts that in Nanjing there is a regiment (or at least the beginings of one) of JH-7As.
RickCrobato’s speculation photo is of the Commander of the 1st Division, Wang Wei. He is wearing a helmet used by J-11 pilots, which he is surely one. They probably wanted the PR photo in front of aircraft but didn’t want it in front of the J-11s. So they used the other J-8s from the 3rd Regiment. When a USAF delegation visited Anshan nearly two years ago they were even allowed to ask about the J-11s.
The Q-5 is a test aircraft. The nose is wooden, so I’ve been told. If you see the aircraft from the other side you can piece together the aircraft number, 31124. It is an old 11th Division Q-5.
RickCrobato
The hardpoints on the MKK are 4 per wing rather than 3 as in this wing.
Is there four on this wing?
RickThe old saying, “If you can’t keep up, take notes” comes to mind with the fury of posts in these threads the past few days.
Crobato
Su-27SK or J-11 #30. A major find for watchers.
Saw a post in Dingsheng forum suggesting UBK #30 from the 19th Div crashed.
Golden Dragon
We know that neither the SK nor the MKK could carry one so this could be our first look at a J-11B.
My only comment is I think this is an MKK. Notice the planes in the background. This is almost certainly Wuhu. Look at the shelters in the background and the layout in this photo.
Finally, The Con number on the last photo is 7MG1612. Have to do some checking to see where this fits in on the J-7 timeline.
RickAs I know, China received over 100 (two months ago I heard from KnAAPO people 105) Su-27 kits [not upgrade kits] to be assembled in China.
Posted by Pibu on 8 February 2004.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20876&highlight=pibu
I don’t buy what the Russians say. I don’t get into the nitty gritty details of these contracts and things. I stick mostly to orbat info that I can see and don’t stand much on speculation of orbat. Pibu stated in Feb that KnAAPO people told him in December 2003 that 105 kits were delivered. A nugget detail that comes along once in a while. Could he have been lied to by the KnAAPO ‘people’? Absolutely. That is part of this drill, what to beleive and what not to believe.
I find it very amusing you cite the strategy page article. Don’t let the name of the website full you. That article is a joke and you should know that. If I recall correctly he had 100 J-11s and another 40-50 J-11Bs. That article doesn’t even warrant looking up, even during one of these heated discussions.
I hope I don’t offend you, I don’t intend to. I just enjoy the heat of the battle. Could you email me, [email]rick@china-military.org[/email], I would like to pass on some info that is not appropriate in open fourm. Get a one-time use yahoo or hotmail if you don’t want me having your normal email.
RickI never cited the Russian Press. Pibu (okay, could be considered Russian press if you like) got his information directly from Knnapo, he said that. The latest Sukoi official also stated 105 kits. Those are the two sources I referenced. There was the Sukoi rep at MAKS2003 who put out a bunch of stuff that many wanted to buy lock stock and barrel. I called the guy nothing more than a car salesman. If needed, I can go find those exchanges. My problem is your analysis is presented like you have been reading the contract. You have no idea weather the initial contract had any infomation about the 95/105 kits and phases.
Then you have the Technocomplex thingie reported to Janes about the 100 or more so avionics upgrades delivered since 2001.
What did you have to say about these? You were quick to jump on the 100 J-11s already built that was in the same article. If you recall, you and I went round and round over that. Obviously I didn’t buy the Russian press – You did.
Yes. Read the Jane’s article.
Read it closely, and you will see who has been spilling the beans. Its that Russian company, Technocomplex, who is doing the upgrades on the SU-27s and J-11s.
I guess they pretty much know the inside much better than we do. After all, they’re the ones who got the mechanics and engineers working to upgrade those planes
On 4 Oct 2003 you seemed very happy to use the Janes article about the Technocomplex. Guess they didn’t know. Probably more acurately, Janes and all of us didn’t make the right analysis of the information.
This is quite hypocritical, considering how much you rely on the Chinese forums to find out PLAAF orbats, how we all rely on the Chinese forums to get our latest pictures of Chinese destroyers and tanks, J-10s, your beloved J-7s, your unit numbers on PLAAF planes and so on. While the Chinese forums are not 100% accurate but nothing is. But the Chinese forums have a remarkable record of saying things that pop up months later, as well as confirming and de-confirming things said by a rather ignorant Western, including Russian press.
I don’t think there is any hypocritical about my using the Chinese forums. I just don’t buy everything they say. Photos tell you what units have what planes. Nothing special there. The Chinese forums have something I do want, the Chinese press information they bring. You have to be able to discern posting of published information from opinion. I don’t always get it right but I have a background that helps me tremendously. I don’t get into aircraft avionics much at all so the forums are not that risky to me. I go to the forums for photos that give me aircraft info and for people who post what they personally see. Valuable information. I spent many years in the intel community. I KNOW where the stuff is, I just need an open source to be able to say it…….
Chinese intenet forumers also stated the following:
Suixi lost an Su-27SMK in May 1997.
The 33rd Div lost a J-8II when it collided with a Y-6 (Yes Y-6)
April 2001 the 9th Naval Division lost J-8II 81192
Aug 2001 the 3rd Div lost a SU-30MKK when it crashed and exploded on the runway while landing.
The guy posting this stated he had access to PLA records.
These where all taken from the same post. Can you find one that is correct?
One of my personal favorites, the crash of the JJ-8B.
You’re right, there is a lot of garbarg in the Chinese language forums. I try not to pick and choose what I like. I try to choose what is accurate.
Sign In
