GoldenDragonGolden Dragon 😎 Jane`s article is clear as water, and they say according to China…..Corporation …….FD-60(PL-11)
Nope, the Jane’s article is “clear as water” as the SD-10 has a AGAT seekerhead story was “clear as water.”
This is why I brought it up.
It is another error based on assumptions of what a Chinese export press release really said.
GoldenDragonHi,
The Pictures are of PIA group testing SAAB-2000s ….remmeber i said PIA has bought them..16 unitsCheers
MiG_Master
Thanks, I totally forgot that PIA is also looking into SAAB-2000s. The first thing that entered my mind was the Erieye 😀
GoldenDragonNope, there is nothing in the Jane’s article that actually “quoted” China Machinery Export and Import saying the FD-10 is 20-25km or even that the FD-60 is the PL-11. In fact, even the quote from the link you posted is confusing as to the author was talking about the LY-60 or the FD-60.
It was a mistake based on Jane’s own assumptions not the Chinese export press release.
This is why the FD-60 subject is brought up after Google gave us the correction on another Jane’s error that the SD-10 has an AGAT seekerhead which many Chinese including the manufacturer, Louyang, said was incorrect for two years.
The ludicrous aerial range of 20km for the FD-60 as an air-launched version of the LY-60 that already has a range of 18km when launched from the ground is obviously another mistake.
GoldenDragonInteresting if not a PS.
There were postings of the PLAN looking for mass-produced radar platforms based on the Y7 and Y8.
We saw a lot of different Y8 AEW/ELINT/EW variants. The one Y7 variant I recall was the one of the MA60 with the big nose called the “Heroic Gull.”
GoldenDragonIt was built without a license, but blueprints and pattern aircraft (including one surviving at Datang Shan) were delivered. It’s not a one-on-one copy of the common MiG-21F-13 Fishbed-C though: the J-7 has two 30mm cannons, while the MiG-21F-13 has one. The original -21F had two guns, but that one was built in only minimal numbers.
It was basically an equivalent of a license. Blueprints and sample aircraft were available. There was no reverse engineering or redesign at this stage. A pedestrian base design was compounded by horrible CR production values.
The J-7II was still little more than the original MiG-21F-13, but thankfully Chinese production standards had improved by then. The main difference from an operational point of view between the original J-7s fromt the late 1960s and the post-CR J-7s is the fact that you can actually change parts from one J-7 to another with the later machines. There were some minor redesigns (like the canopy), but the first J-7IIs were still extremely basic and pathetically equipped aircraft.
Of course the J-7IIs are extremely basic and pathetically equipped machines. MiG-21s and copies were and still are. That is why you can buy a brand new J-7E for three million bucks.
That’s not even part of the argument. Basic crap or not, China hasn’t begun building the F-7 in numbers until the F-7II.
Parts for J-7II were redesigned and the components were standardized. There were postings on this in the Chinese boards for years. The vast bulk of the 1000 J-7 made were after the J-7II.
I think the number you give is too low. I think at least two regiments operate(d) the bignose J-7s (one J-7III and one J-7IV?), with a few spares/trials machines i’d say some 50 to 70 were built.
Maybe 30 for the C and 30 for the D but the difference in number out of 1000 J-7s is so small to be irrelevant. The J-7 equivalent of the MiG-21MF was a dead end, pure and simple.
I’m not entirely sure on the details, but i think Pakistan’s order for -7Ps (which was an improvement over the still primitive J-7IIx exports made earlier in the 1980s) was actually the breaking point.
A breaking point for what? Exports? Maybe. But not the turning point for Chinese production of J-7 came with the J-7II.
The J-7II was one that China began producing its MiG-21 clone in numbers and that began well before the rupture with the West in 1989. The F-7P is nothing but a development of the J-7II.
In fact, the next version of the J-7, the J-7E, appeared in 1990.
Duh – the J-7 went away from the MiG-21 because time tends to be not a static thing. I think it’s both a combination of Western cooperation with China until 1989 AND the breakup afterward kept the J-7 an important fighter for China. The airframe itself was always a very limited one, and i’m pretty sure that if something more viable was available (which there simply wasn’t), J-7 production and development would have been canned some 10-15 years ago already.
I already mentioned westernization as one of the main reasons for the J-7 becoming viable. You really aren’t saying anything that different from what I said, Comrade Hu.
And you bet that China was moving to something more viable than the MiG-21 design with the “Peace Pearl” and the “Super-7” projects with the US, along with the Aspide main armament from Italy, during that period.
The PLAAF was well on its way to leaving the Russians designs behind when the embargo put a stop to it. Without the rupture, the MiG-21 design would have been canned without any doubt whatsoever. The J-7E would been a final minor production run instead of the large one it became.
GoldenDragonEven as late as the first SIno-Vietnamese war in 1979 the J-7 was still a problematic aircraft being considered for the scrap heap. There were no more than three or four regiments of J-7s at the end of 1979.
Quite true. The J-7II (F-7B) which flew in 1978 was the first viable J-7. It was redesigned with Chinese components and changes everywhere. Even the canopy hinge position was moved from front to back.
The J-7II differed greatly from J-7I which was a licensed production plane. China had all the blueprints for the MiG-21F-13 and the J-7I is no different from a Russian MiG-21F.
The J-7II, OTOH, was very different and was the basis for today’s J-7s.
The J-7III or J-7C/D was a reversed-engineered Mig-21MF which came from Egypt (along with a MiG-23.) It was never a major program. There were only about 30 in total.
So the turnaround for the J-7 was NOT the Soviet MiG-21Fs that China supposedly took during the Vietnamese war in the 1960s and which are nearly identical to the crappy J-7I and NOT the MiG-21MF which led to the dead-end J-7C/D, it was the J-7II redesign.
Another great factor in the J-7’s history was Westernization – westernization of both the manufacturing equipment at Chengdu and also in the plane’s design and instruments during the late 70s and early 1980s. IFF, RWR and ECM were put in during this phase.
The F-7 Airguard (export name, not NATO designation) which came out then had Skyranger range finder, HUDWAC and Magic and Sidewinder capatibility.
The J-7E of today incorporated more changes with a different wing type.
The history is clear, the further the J-7 went away from the Russian original, the more viable it became.
GoldenDragonConsider the kill/loss ratio of the MiGs in the Vietnam War.
MiG-17: 32/100
MiG-19: 8/10
MiG-21: 36/86
There were also PLAAF/PLANAF F-6 kills of US A-6s, F-4s and a F-104.
GoldenDragonThe pilots look like they are in civilian airlines uniforms tho.
GoldenDragonI see the PAF are testflying the SAAB-2000 which will carry the Erieye AEW system!
Nice posts, PLA.
GoldenDragoni feel for the moment you either can believe the 25km range quoted at Jane`s and Chinese Military Aviation or believe China Defense Today or other webpages that claim a range of 55 or more kilometeres. but i feel the Jane`s quotation of the China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation is the most authorized at the moment.
Huitong, the developer of Chinese Military Aviation already responded in this thread:
well, I did quote that story from Jane’s, not the other way around!
Jane’s is still the source of evil ….
So you shouldn’t use Chinese Miltary Aviation as supporting your argument any more.
And as Huitong said, Jane’s is the source of all evil in this debate, just like the AGAT seekerhead BS.
Jane’s never “quoted” China National Machinery Import & Export, I already pointed this out.
“The weapon is described as an air-launched version of the LY-60 surface-to-air missile. It uses semi-active radar homing and has a range of 20-25km.”
Not only is there confusion as to whether Janes is talking about the LY-60 or FD-60, there is nothing to tell me that it was quoted from a Chinese official.
This is the same misunderstanding and bad assumption we saw in the AGAT seekerhead case.
And all logic rule against 20-25km range if the FD-60 is an airlaunched version of LY-60 since the LY-60 has at least a 18km range from being fired from the ground.
GoldenDragonThere is nothing in that article that tells me that descriptive sentence that is actually quoted from a Chinese official and not something that Jane’s had put in to describe the LY-60 to its readership.
What’s more, according to other Janes stories, the SD-10 is supposedly “mated” to a superior Chinese motor for longer range.
Now, if a ground radar can direct the LY-60 SAM to 18kms and China has motors with extended ranges like that of the SD-10, then the airborne version of the LY-60 should have far, far longer range. Since the range is neither limited by motor nor radar.
Both radar acquisition and missile flight envelope are greatly enhanced in the air. These are simple common truths for any practical analysis of missiles and radars.
The air launch version WILL also have much greater range and aquisition because you don’t worry about surface curvature or boosting missiles to altitude.
This is the SD-10 AGAT mistake all over again. Except in this case, the numbers are so glaringly wrong under practical calculations that it’s idiotic.
GoldenDragonin fact i will give you the whole link so you can see they said 25kmJane`s PL-11 range is 25km read it and you will find they say the Air launched variant of the LY-60(PL-11/DF-60) has a range of 25km.
Quote from your link:
Development of the FD-60 (PL-11) began in 1987 and was completed in 2000, according to the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation (CPMIEC). The weapon is described as an air-launched version of the LY-60 surface-to-air missile. It uses semi-active radar homing and has a range of 20-25km.
Is the article talking about the LY-60 or the FD-60? The descriptive sentence comes right after mention of LY-60 SAM.
Simple common sense would tell you that even if we take the low end of the LY-60’s range, which is 18 km, the air-launched version would net the missile far more than 2 km.
GoldenDragonNope, Jane’s never quoted a Chinese official on range.
The range and even the association with PL-11 is based on Jane’s assumptions.
This is what China Machinery Import and Export basically said:
1) they have a new missile called the FD-60 which is being offered for exports to planes able to use Sparrow capatible AAMs (F-16),
2) it is currently used by the PLAAF,
3) it is related to the LY-60 and has been in development since 1987,
4) it was completed in 2000 (though this could be the version up for export)
There is nothing on range and it isn’t even in the Jane’s report I posted.
GoldenDragonJane`s never said that was an assumptiom but they quoted China National Machinery Import & Export corporation, in fact not only Jane`s but other links such as Chinese military aviation are saying the same, you are asserting that because the PL-11 was based upon the Aspide it should have the same range as the Chines Defense today page for the PL-11 Link but Jane quoted the Chinese and they said 25Km of range.
Janes was never able to “quote” CPMIEC as saying “25km.”
I’m actually asserting that the CPMIEC never stated explicitly that the FD-60 is PL-11. The was done by assumption at Janes.
CPMIEC did say that the FD-60 is related to the LY-60.
But the LY-60 definitely has a Sparrow background which is why I used the Sparrow and Aspide considerations.
Now even if we take the LY-60 with a 18km slant instead of 25km, we could still calculate a Sparrow-like range for the FD-60 since the Sea Sparrow (not the ESSM) has a 15 km range.
Now Janes might even have revised their findings in this article. There is nothing about range in this one and it said the date of completion is 2000, not 2002. The 25km aerial range is ludicrous, imho.
Google could check out the latest Janes’ entry.
Chinese missile may be for Pakistan’s F-16s
ROBERT HEWSON Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
Bangkok“China is about to bring a second beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missile (AAM) to the export market. The new weapon, to be known as the FD-60, is already in service with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force as the PL-11.
In China it equips the Shen- yang J-8II ‘Finback’ interceptor but, according to the manufacturer, the export version is intended for the F-16 – a clear signal that Pakistan could be the lead customer.
Development of the FD-60 (PL-11) began in 1987 and was completed in 2000, according to the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation (CPMIEC). The weapon is described as an air-launched version of the LY-60 surface-to-air missile. It uses semi-active radar homing.
The missile borrows heavily from Aspide technology supplied by Italy before an arms embargo was imposed on China following the Tiananmen Square massacre.
China also had access to early-model US-built AIM-7 Sparrow missiles acquired via Vietnam, from which the Aspide itself is derived. Since the late 1980s Chinese technicians have been developing a Sparrow-class missile.
“Until now most observers had assessed the PL-11/FD-60 programme as a largely unsuccessful effort that had been overtaken by the more advanced PL-12/SD-10 active-radar AAM, developed under the leadership of the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corp (CATIC). However, it now appears that work on the PL-11/FD-60 has continued, perhaps to provide a back-up capability in the event of problems with the PL-12/SD-10 but also because CPMIEC has identified an export market for the missile.
As the FD-60 is based largely on the Aspide/Sparrow design, integrating it with US-built aircraft should be relatively straightforward. Such a missile would be of great interest to existing customers of Chinese equipment, such as Pakistan and Iran, that have inventories of US fighters for which they cannot obtain advanced weapons – chiefly BVR missiles.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is already working on acquiring a BVR combat capability through the SD-10 and JF-17 Thunder (CATIC FC-1 fighter) combination. However, the opportunity to add a BVR AAM to its inventory much sooner (via the F-16) would surely be seized by the PAF command, which has already identified such weapons as one of its highest acquisition priorities.”
GoldenDragonFollowing the Kiwi lead? :p
Seriously though, who is going to buy their Chinese built F-5s, F-6s and F-7s?
To some rich American collectors, who else?
Two of their F-7s and a dozen F-6s could still fly according to AFM.
I think Romania recently retired their H-5s which I think would be great collector/museum items. How many Chinese warplanes has flown in Warsaw Pact exercises like those? 😀
Sign In
