GoldenDragonWhy would China use Russian components when Western components are so readily available and so cheaply? They would likely get the advisory knowhow from AGAT, then use the components they can easily obtain.
Western electronic components are actually mostly “Far Eastern” components from Japan, Taiwan and S Korea.
The USSR used to set up front companies in Singapore for chips and basic hardware components.
Here’s the report at the Zhuhai 2002 from Richard Fisher on the SD-10:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=zhuhai2002
Sources noted that the PLAAF has conducted about 20 test flights for the new Louyang SD-10 (Project 129) active-guided air-to-air missile (AAM). The tests included full missile self-guided to target missions. Louyang vociferously denied reports that the SD-10’s radar and data link are from the Russian AGAT bureau, insisting they were indigenous. Louyang also said that they are considering SAM and naval SAM variants of the SD-10.
The SD-10’s radar and data link is indigenous. That’s from the horses’ mouth. The tests were also done from a J8II which has a Chinese radar not a Russian one.
GoldenDragonThanks!
there it goes, the Y-12 on FAP’s service with Grupo-42, right at the Peruvian jungle.
by the way…that Y-8? (from the An-12) with PW engines, man!!! i’d love to fly it, how much did you say it costs?, i want 1 😀
i hope it retains the flight engineer station. 😎
Camaro.
A great picture I haven’t seen before.
The Y8F600 will have the PW engines and six-blade propellers. It is a development of the Y8F400 (shown below) with the solid nose so the nice front view for the navigator/engineer is gone!
Also, the crew for the Y8F400 has been reduced from five to three.
I haven’t been able to find a price figure for the new Y8F600 but with 4 imported PW engines and imported avionics, it would be much more expensive. Maybe around $20-25m?
But still a lot cheaper than any other new medium transports. The C130J price was already stated above at around $65m.
The An-70 is $50m and the A400M is around $80m according to http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-16131.html
GoldenDragonAnyway, should you be Pakistan now turning off the China? They got the FC-1 for sure (if the funds are available) and the promise of a J-10 is much more realistic than any other kind of hi-tech aircraft. EF and Rafale are out of question due to their prices and US got troubles selling more rusty Lawndarts, not speaking about Block 30 or better.
Even if the hell froze over and Pakistanis got the Gripens, that would be some downgraded version of the JAS-39A and its limitations would be so much severe that it would no longer make any sense to acquire them.
I don’t think China would mind it at all. Pakistan is already committed to the FC-1 not just as an off-the-shelf plane that they would buy but as a cornerstone of their aviation industry. This is a plane that Pakistan will not just buy but build.
China isn’t pushing to sell the J-10. In fact, the J-10 hasn’t even been made public officially, never mind being touted for export. The PAF had mentioned the J-10 as possibility if they couldn’t get a western fighter. If they do get a western fighter, the need for the J-10 wouldn’t be as great.
I believe the PAF will receive the J-10 at some point even if they do have a fleet of Gripens or another western aircraft. The PAF has always received Chinese equipment they’re interested in.
Aside from the J-10, the Gripen affair is quite a deal and a great study for people interested in geo-politics.
A month and half ago, before Pakistan was made a major non-NATO ally, the Gripen was not even talked about because the chances of it receiving an okay from the US was practically nil.
But suddenly this has changed in the month since and Musharraf is in Sweden to talk directly about the aircraft. This would not have happened and the Gripen would not be mentioned if the MNNA status was never given.
I say the chances of the Gripen actually being bought is rather good. Pakistan would not take this step, and it didn’t for the many years that the Gripen had been on the market, unless they know there is a possibility of success.
The one problem is the okay doesn’t come just from the US but also a pacifist Swedish government. So there is that extra step.
GoldenDragonBoth HKDragon and I have written on it on already in this thread but to recap, this is a very critical article.
Author compares it to the planes he considers the FC-1 major rivals, the F-16C/D and the Gripen, and finds the FC-1, as it is now, on the short end in comparision.
The first 3/4 of the article is basically a walkaround the plane and he commented on everything from the canopy to the wiings to the engine. He found it lacking in things like a true bubble canopy, homegrown engine, range and load capacity when stacked against the F-16C/D.
Also, SD-10 aside, there is a need for a comprehensive set of weapons.
In conclusion, he feels that the FC-1 would have a hard time with Gripen and F-16C/D on the world market. But he urged the the PLAAF to buy the plane because its potential is great.
Part of the problem but also part of the promise is that FC is designed under price and international pressure and things were left open. Engine, weapons and even things like flight control (originally it was considered to have only partial FBW to save on costs.)
The design is still very bare so it could remain empty or it could be developed into something formidable but the domestic market must buy it to bring it to its full potential. With PLAAF involvement, the cost per unit could stay low while capabilities are raised. For example, the plane is mostly metal and the weight factor could be lowered immensely if lighter, but more expensive, material is used.
The design is open to improvement, hence its great promise and therefore it needs commitment.
So a highly critical piece that ends with a plead for the PLAAF buy it.
GD’s notes: Comparing a $12-15m plane to the Gripen and especially the $60-70m F-16C/D is a bit overdone, I thought. It never had a chance at those markets anyways in my opinion.
He does makes a good point in that this is a open design that could be left bare as it is now or be developed into something much better. Things like a weapons fit takes time and commitment.
But of course, we’re only into the second prototype and the weapons fit won’t come in until ptype 04. So of course, the cupboards look bare.
GoldenDragonBoth the Y8 and the Y7H form major lift components of the 15th and the newly established 16th Airborne Armies.
Unlike major western paratroop formations, the Airborne corps are air force, not army.
GoldenDragonthx comrade…
yeah i know about the Y-8F200, Y-8F400, Y-8F600 only.
China has sold two Y-8F200 to the Tanzanian Govt., and the Y-8X is the military transport version of the Y-8F600
hey have u heard anything about the Y-8 AWECS? does it use a Y-8F400 platform?
The Y8 airborne radar/search/early warning systems are pretty much up to conjecture except that we know there many of them.
The Y-8J with the big nose and sea-search radar (pictured above) and the Y8MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft – normally called Y-8X but this causes confusion with the latest Y-8 development.)
There are at least four but maybe even projects that are grouped into “High New” and “High New Two.”
There were posts in the Chinese forum that the main Y8 projects are Navy funded and they are looking for an airborne system that could be mass produced in large numbers. This is different from the seemingly much more expensive A50 AWACS platform being developed for the PLAAF.
But most of this is conjecture. The AWACS based on the Y8F400 platform you mentioned is probably from a Flight International article a few years back. This a “balance beam” type radar configuration.
But there hasn’t been any confirmation. Nor has there been any confirmation of a Y8 with a rotating/saucer radome though we’ve seen models like the one below.
GoldenDragonJust wondering, what exactly would be the difference between a standard An-12BP and Y-8F200, I don’t see any visually differences
Sammie, the easiest way to tell the difference between the basic Y8 and An-12 variants is by the nose and the fairing of the rear ramp.
The Y8F200 is a little bit longer than the An-12BP with a length of 34.4m (figure from Shaanxi; many sites just list the An-12’s figures) by virtue of the longer nose. The An-12 is 33.1m long.
GoldenDragonAnyways i messed up with the names.
Anyways the Y-8F-400/600 is not up to par as the C-130J or the An-70 but it’s way more cost effective. I would expect the Y-7H-500 to be around 10mn, it’s pretty safe to assume though.
The An-70 is a new and rather revolutionary design. It’s larger and carries a much larger load than either the Y-8 or the C130.
China could go for a larger lifter in the future or a turbofan one for ligher speed. But I haven’t seen any new design proposals so it seems they’ll continue upgrading the Y-8. Otherwise, they might go for the An-70 in the future.
GoldenDragonThough there is a few people out there saying “Gawd not another Chinese thread” this one is rather well done, very informative and very nicely put, well done mate!
Now Ja, you should know that there aren’t really that many Chinese threads just a few really long ones 😀
But thank you!
The Beach 1900 is no longer being made the last 1900 off the Raython Production Line went to Air New Zealand as a feederliner, but these planes rock, I flew to NZ last year in one and I’d do it again if I had the chance! I love the 1900D’s with the under belly storage, the plane has heaps of thrust and adding the under belly pod hasn’t changed the flight characteristics that much.
The Twin Otter hold special place on my fiances heart, especially since it was one of these that we got engaged on 😉 They are a good plane but starting to get on now, IIRC that line closed a few years back.
The Y-12 is a very interesting plane indeed, it has the performance of the 1900 with the capabilities of the DHC-6-400 of which it looks like! Tell me mate does Harbin offer an under belly pod to their customers? I think that customers in the transport market could use this offer especially moving combat troops around; stow your kit in the pod and jump in the plane, you’ll have about 20 troops moved in no time!
Interesting! You’ve actually been on the two planes of the three planes mentioned. Like our good friend, Troung, I’m only an internet professor on the subject. Studying the planes from afar and through reports 🙁
I’m sure Canadian Aerospace would eventually ask for one. The thing with Chinese aircraft like the Y-12 is they are far more readily accepted in places like Nepal, Peru, Laos and other third world countries than in Western ones.
So they need a Western firm to vouch for them. “This commie plane will not fall out of the sky” 😀
But you figure that for them to do well in places with less developed support and maintenance structures then they should do even better in wealthier places with good maintenance.
But it’s like the old CJ6A in the warbird market. It takes people to fly them first before there’s trust.
GoldenDragonHere’s a pictorial of the Y-7 family 🙂
GoldenDragonWow, i do agree if anything the Chinese transports are the most cost effective. I mean I would rather get the 15mn Y-15 than the 35mn An-70 or the 60+mn C-130J even if they are superior to it, for 1 An-34 you can get some 2 Y-14s or for 1 C-130s you can get 4 Y-15s.
As for Y-12, it’s twice as cheaper than their Russian counterparts and in some cases 3-4 times cheaper than their Western counterparts.
Also how much does the latest Y-7H-500 sell for(copies of An-24/26)??
Srbin, the Y-15 designation was never used. The Y-14 was used for the Y7H (or rather was thought to have been used for the Y7H.) But that particular plane is now known simply as the Y7H 🙂
The MA60 (the latest version of the civilian Y7) is around $11 million(1) and has P&W engines. But like the Twin Panda, it’s a westernized version for the civilian market and will be much more expensive than the Y7H-500 which uses Chinese WJ5E turboprops.
I don’t have an exact figure for the Y7H-500 but it would be quite a bit cheaper than the MA60.
One of the reasons why these planes are cheap is that they all come from giant firms – Harbin, Xian, Shaanxi – with large overcapacity. And they are all from old lines that are already in place.
When potential supply far outstrips potential demand, things become very cheap. An entirely new plane like the ARJ21 would not be two or three times cheaper because the new lines and components needed would be more expensive and closer to world-wide norms.
GD’s footnotes:
(1) Laotian customers loyal to the MA60 turboprop
http://www.flightdailynews.com/singapore2002/feb27/airtransport/ma60.shtm
“The MA60 sells for about $11 million each. Xian Aircraft may get competition from ATR, as Lao Aviation also has two ATR 72-200 turboprops in its fleet, says Shen”
GoldenDragonThe 747 was actually intended for military use. It was beaten by the C-5 Galaxy.
The best loss ever for a plane builder. Lockheed won and went military with their entry and Boeing went commercial with theirs. The world’s commercial market was infinitely bigger.
GoldenDragoni’m not familiar with commercial planes
so did a ARJ-21 flown yet?
The ARJ-21 could fly as early as 2006. This is a pure commercial jet, though some of the biggest military firms like Xian and Shenyang are involved.
The above mentioned turboprops are all originally military planes that China also sells in the commercial markets.
GoldenDragonEeeh ?
The Beech 1900 is some (ugly!) King Air derivative
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/610164/M/
The Twin Otter is the De Havilland Canada DHC-6 (Which rather looks like the Chinese plane)
You’re right. I got my 19-seaters crossed while scanning through multiple reports. The Beech 1900 is one of the leading sellers in the class but it’s the DHC-6 that Canadian Aerospace is trying to replace with the Y-12.
Thanks for the correction.
GoldenDragonShaanxi Aircraft
Producing the Y-8. The model shown is the Y8F200.
Shaanxi, like other other huge Chinese state companies, has a lot of overcapacity since the Cold War days. The assembly line is probably working at under 50 percent.
Under communism 20 years, it would be humming at high speed producing planes for the state-run airlines and commercial carriers and the Air force. But Chinese airlines today are capitalistic and their massive fleets are mainly Western.
Sign In
