Deinoan interesting source on Chinese Flankers
Sorry again for being critical, but Kopp’s analysis are no anylysis but simply collections of information based on other sources, while he often intentionally uses only those parts of informations that fit into his “view” ….
One of Carlo Kopps’s analysis’s, interesting enough especially as he wasn’t ranting about his pet hate the F35.
One notable mistake on the other hand is stating the WS10 is an AL31 clone, whilst the Chinese engine certainly benefited from technology insertion from the Russian engine it is not based on the latter. The WS10 has a different configuration with 3 fan and 9 compressor stages vs 4 fan and 9 compressor stages on the AL31 and is technically a clone of the GE-F101 via the civilian CFM56 thus making it a half brother of the GE-F110.
… to persuade the Australian government that Australians are an endangered species, encircled by Chinese and other Asian powers, fully armed up to their teeth with either super-Russian weapons or indigenously developed – but surely based on Russian – CHinese ones, which can only be saved if Australia gets the F-22. :diablo:
Deino
DeinoHow many J-11BS have been spotted so far?
As far as I know each of the J-11B regiments have four of them ! … but again they are only used as trainers ! (at least for the moment)
Su-30MKK/MK2 are upgraded to J-11BS standard equipped with Type 1474 radars, WS-10 series engines, much better glass cockpits, and with R-77 replaced by the much faster PL-12.
Honestly, You are actually “oil” into all fires of those who call “Chinese Aviation Enthuisiast” simply “fan boys”. 😡
Therefore I kindly ask You to give proof of such “stupid” claims especially since both aircraft are substantially different.
Fact: so far one of the old J-11 has been converted to the WS-10A but none of the older Su-27SK or even UBK and even no S-30MKK.
As such plesae give proof or otherwise check Your sources.
Deino
DeinoSu-30MKK / Su-30MK2 which are in the class of F-15E and J-11BS which is in the class of F-15K are multi-role jets and are armed with YJ-83s
No they are not ! ANd these cassifications are honestly quite stupid, especially since the J-11BS is currently simply used as a trainer.
Besides that there is not a single operational Flanker so far, which operates both missiles (even if the J-16 is expected to do so). I’m not even sure if any Flanker was tested with Chinese missiles. If YES, please show me.
Deino
Deino*** removed by moderator ***
The question follow will test you:
1. Can Su-30 do precise attack and anti-ship attack?
2. Any POD JH-7 equipped the Su-30 don’t have sth with similar function?
3. Any sort of weapon the JH-7 has but Su-30 doesn’t?
4. Is SGW06 a human or just a post machine?
1. Yes … but Inot the PLAAF Su-30MKK, only the MK2 … something I never questioned. Therefore I don’t know what You want to proof ?
2. Maybe my or Your English is not the best, but that sentence is unclear: Anyway I try. Yes, a pos equipped JH-7 has a similar funktion, but again the Flanker uses only Russian PGM’s and the JH-7A only Chinese ones, which are ost likely less expensive. As such even if You might think it’s useless, sensless or whatever, it’s simply a fact. Ask the CMC or PLAAF HQ, why they are so stupid and operate both types in similar roles even against Your better knowing.
3. YES, see above, but maybe You can’t read or You don’t want to understand: Even if the Flanker surely can use LGB’s, the PLAAF never bougth any Russian ones. As such You can call me stupid or even more … since there are no LGB’s claered for the PLAAF-Flankers, they don’t use them. Othersise in return, the Flankers can’t use the KD-88 or YJ-83 ASM … and even if they surely have other comparable systems on market, in PLAAF service they are not used. Period.
4. SGW06 ?? is this relevat to that topic ??
Deino
DeinoVaryag returning home from herf 4. cruise:
Deinolatest from CAC !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FBn2h1CnnZI
DeinoCompletely irrelevant, no matter what’s kind of radar or avionics that JH-7A was replaced by, what’s kind of evidence could be used to prove the Su-30 series as platform are unable to do sth like anti-ship mission?
On the other hand, Russian Su-30 series certainly do not equip any electronics made by China, however how do you know Russia do not have laser guided pod?
Are you able to recognize this?
Actually I don’t understand why You are getting so rude … and maybe You still don’t get it since You don’t want to ?! And finally why do You post a photo of a Russian LGB – which surely can be used by the Flanker – but simply isn’t part of the weapons package, China bougth with their MKK ?
I never said that the Flanker could not use LGB’s or could not perform anti-ship missions. FACT … it simply does not in the combination You suggest.
BUT … and again please try to read carefully what I say … You need to look at each version alone and what weapons they could use in the PLAAF/PLANAF. So please don’t blame for things the PLAAF and PLANAF decided (maybe for some reasons we don’t fully understand):
JH-7
– the first serial JH-7 were simply only wired to to anti-ship missions and dumb-bomb dropping … no LGB’s !
– the updated JH-7 Block 02 and JH-7A featured different radar, which made AG-missions and presision strikes possible … albeit only with Chinese weapons like YJ-83K, KD-88, YJ-91 ARM, LS-500J / LT-2 LGB + K/JDC01 targeting pod.
Flankers
-Su-30MKK (PLAAF) were only delivered with Kh-29T, Kh-31P ARM, Kh-59ME, KAB-500Kr & KAB-1500Kr + propably the Sapsan-E tageting pod … no Russian LGB’s and no Chinese weapons.
– Su-30MK2 (PLANAF) the same but also the Kh-31A AShM m… again no Russian LGB’s and no Chinese weapons.
Again, why the PLAAF/PLANAF did not integrate Russian stores to the JH-7 (maybe the Russians refused to do so) or in reverse why the PLAAF/PLANAF did not integrate Chinese weapons on the Flankers (maybe again the Russians refused to do so) I actualyl don’t know, but it is simply that way.
DeinoAfter some stupid said that electronics on JH-7 is “far better” than Su-30 series, up to you it changes to no capability for precision strike.
No that doesn’t contradict.
If You look closely at the JH-7’s development, it was initiated as a combined PLAAF/PLANAF project, but after the anti-ship and naval interdiction roles were set priority the PLAAF lost interest, esp. in mind of the fighter Flankers introduced. As such it was more than a logical step to order the Fighter Bomber-Flanker too.
As such, the early – first serial block – JH-7 delivered to the first PLANAF (81x6x-serial numbers ) unit laced that capability simply since their Type-232H ‘Eagle Eye’ lacked that capability.
This changed a bit with the introduction of the second Block JH-7 () which replaced the old Type-232H radar with upgraded avionics including the new JL-10A multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar with enhanced air/air and air/ground modes and was finally solved with the current JH-7A, which has a full precision strice capability.
I still don’t get it what’s kind of sensor or pod that Su-30 series will be unable to load? Too big or too heavy or too complex or too ***** to equipped on Flanker? Don’t you feel too much metaphysics here without specific?
Simply the Flankers were not able to carry any kind of Chinese PGM’s like the KD-88-series, the LT-2 LGB and Chinese AAM’s. Even worse, the Flankers carry in PLAAF-service only EO/IR-guided weapons and no laser guided ones.
But that’s not due to their weight or complexity, but since the Russians refused to integrate / or the Chinese did not paid for that development work since the JH-7A has that capability.
I hope that is now a bit clearer for You … truely no “metaphysics”.
Deino
DeinoOut-performance? Why PLAAF still want Su-30MK version then?
Simply as the high-end part for their strike force especially at a time, when the JH-7 was simply a naval version without any precision strike capability.
What’s kind of advantage the JH-7 have then?
It was cheap in comparison to additional Flankers and in mind of the vastly improved JH-7A with the upgraded sensors and now a decent precision strike capability … even more it can use Chinese weapons, what the Flanker can’t do.
JF-7 is an old 1980s design. It is not longer manufactured and is being replaced by J-11BS which is in the class of F-15K.
That’s wrong ! The JH-7A is still rolling off the production line at Xi’an and just recently another regiment has been converted. Overall not an “unsuccesful” bird in PLAAF service.
Deino
DeinoThe Il-76 and MiG-31 are essentially powered by the same engine…
“Essentially” … but they are not interchangable and as such a D-30 fitted to a MiG-31 won’t fit to an Il-76. In the same way an AL-31F from a J-11 won’t ever power the Y-20 and as far as I remember there’s no airliner-derived version of the AL-31 so far. 😉
My money would be on some form of nav-attack pod, my only question mark would be poor field of view.
Actually I’m not completely sure. Huitong calls this pod the WMD-7 laser-designator/targeting pod, which however looks completely different.
IMO that’s simply a camera-pod while the FC-1 was acting as a chase plane for the J-20 the last days esp. since we’ve already seen the same pod on the J-10AS, which flew with the J-20 during its maiden flight (see below).
Deino
PS: from “greenspark” via SDF
As regards to the 1st image i think it is pretty clear that it is a camera pod with data link as evidenced by the words BFSK-01 written on the pod, which point to Frequency Shift Keying or Fast Frequency Hopping demodulator . So it is most likely a camera with secure frequency hopping , jam resistant radio communication device as the FC-1/JF-17 is being used as a chase plane for China’s top secret Jet .This is also augumented by the fact that the pod in question had a UHF antenna popping out.
Deinothey couldn’t get enough Flanker engines to power it yet.
Especially since each modern military transport is be powered by a fighter engine !
Deino😀
DeinoChina make better helicopter call Z-10. it is size of Tigar helicopter but power of Ah-64 from America. JH-7 is better than Su24. no need for Russia any more but for small things.
Honestly … which such statements You completly ruin everything ! 🙁
Even if I have to agree that several “Russians” tend to underestimate the Chinese cpabilities, we should be so realistic not to overestimate them too.
Deino
Deino:p You guys are really funny: first a rumoured/reported Chinese interest in the Su-35 with all the hype on clones, stealing, inferior Chinese and superior Russian technology ! 😀
Then the denial of such talks by the Chinese ministry and right after the situation calmed down a bit a new rumoured report from Russia with once again all the hype on clones, stealing, inferior Chinese and superior Russian technology !
China’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) has denied emphatically that such a deal is in the works, stating the press coverage is “not in accord with the facts” and the Su-35 “does not fit China’s national situation” (Caixun, March 12; Global Times, March 12).
Why is it so beyond any belief – and simply because the Chinese Defence Minister could probably be more reliable than a nasty Russian news agency, which repeatedly posted false reports – the the Chinese version is the correct one ???? :confused:
Sorry, but if I have to decide on reliability and who’s more thrustworthy – http://www.jamestown.org & Chinese Defence Ministry or RIA Novosti/rian.ru ?! – then that’s not even a matter of seconds to decide !
Deino
Deino1. The PLA has now started to convert its second Regiment (now restructured as a Brigade !!) to the Z-10A (some reports say that this unit was even the first one but only now identified !?). Following the 5th Army Aviation Brigade (1st GA) in Nanjing-Tushan also the 8th Army Aviation Brigade (38th GA) in Baoding received its first Z-10A.
2. And together with the Z-10 at 8. Brigade at Boading the Z-19 was also introduced as a light recce-type.
Deino
Sign In
