Chinese Military 2005

[gf0012-aust]

That is what they are planning on doing. I think Any F-22 where ever they are will be somewhere on the oter side of the world. 55-60 F-22 is not a possible aircraft with the air bases america has near taiwan. The F-22s are not impossible to detect and more so from the sides and behind.

a squadron is already based in alaska. along with AESA kitted F-15's

The RCS of the F-22 is rumoured to be the shape of a bumble bee at 120km or so. At 60km it would be significantly large and at 50km(the current rnage of the Aim-120C). But the difference is the NEZ (no escape zone). So when the F-22 shoots it has to come a lot closer to get a kill which will lead to it getting detected by normal radar at what ever side or long wave radars which can probaly pick up their location

F-22's won't be travelling without AWACs and Compas nn packages.

Currently if the PLAAF but 50% of its flankers in the nanjing military region and put what other 4th generation fighters they have combined with MRBM it in theory could achieve air superioty. That combinded with the taiwanese airforces lack of Aim-120 (120 of them last time with no deliveries yet) will let the PLAAF have superioty.

no it doesn't. superiority is about more than just numbers of aircraft in a location.

In one airbase alone taiwan keeps something like 50 of its F-16s. It in a mountian range and is built at the base of the mountain with one accurate missile strike or a cruise missile strike it can take out of the main opening and leave the PLAAF with more of a lead. Im not yet sure of the exact state of taiwans air defence but it is not impossible to beat.

the PLAAF doesn;t think that it will have absolute dominance until circa 2008-2010 - they apparently think differently

The timescale being said on the internet is 2days air superioty and 4th day a invasion. Or both at the same time. The PLAAF has enough transports to air lift on division over

and you're not looking at a real wargame where attrition and base losses get factored in. you're assuming absolute availability and unmolested access. You're also assuming that the bases are left inviolate.

While it will be hard to because the only competition the US has have is againest iraq twice with a friednly nation right next to it. The PLA has enough transport to lift its troops over while it can also use civillian ships which their is no lack of in china.

I somehow think you're optimistic when I've seen wargamed data using the largest civilian fleet in the world against the Soviets.

How would you figure that a aircraft carrier will be defended againest a new wave of anti-ship missiles. I dont think a large surface carrier will servive that long in a major engament in the future. There will always be misiles that can intercept it but will they be able to detect ultra-low ultra-stealth Anti-ship missiles?. Stealth is the future and a Aircraft carrier is huge

again, I point out that the USN trained for over 25 years against Mach 6 anti-shipping missiles and with scores of supersonic launch platforms. China has nowhere remotely near the capability that the Soviets could bring to bear on the americans - and they were using technology then thay China still doesn't have access to

And desert storm is the best example?. It was limited in scope and limited in intencity owing to lack of resistence. A massive consentration of US armour and troops in one small area. compare to a large area with less concentration of troops with low intencity gurilla war or a air/sea based war

Interesting that you dismiss GW1 when it is the verty vehicle of impetus that made the Chinese Govt take up an RMA to parallel US developments in precision warfare, space based management systems, stealth aircraft and modern cruise missiles. In fact if you've paid attention to GW1 you'd realise that every major military on the planet accelerated their own RMA's after GW1

The IL-76 can lift 47tons and china has 14 of them. Use 10 and you have 470tons. And in the near future 30 more

The Y-8 can lift 20 tons and china has over 100. Use 50 and you have 1000 tons.

And the smaller Y-7

yes, and you are still internet wargaming. Real wargames factor in base losses, availability rates, air space contestants, space based ISR etc...

you can't mass the kinds of aircraft and ships required for a divisional uplift without every satellite on that racetrack screaming its head off.

we'll just have to dissagree. but I've yet to see a proper wargame yet which shows China being able to dominate Taiwan before 2008. and every month up to end 2008 (post olympics) is seeing more F-22's rolled out, more SSGN's coming online and more Arleigh Burle FII's being located out at Yokahama. The small US fleet out at yokahama is now bigger than the 5th Fleet - and that doesn;t include the ESG assets as well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You win the air you win the war.

I guess thats why the US, Russians, Indians and RAN make the Falklands a case study at their respective military colleges - because it disproves that "truism"

I know the PLAN studies it - and it is the defacto model to use on the study of opposed landings and how smaller forces without air dominance on paper can sieze and hold and win.

Iraq is not the model used to study opposed landings.

 

[Gollevainen]

I have to agree whit you aust, and the serbian 1999 campaing proved aslo how innefctive air campaing migth be when considering the destruction of ground troops. NATO never deared to enter ground battles against VJ thougth the bombing did force Serbians to negotation board. But i severly doupt that China could be forced or force any of its likely opposites to do so.
Munitions are another thing but to conduct air dominance in scale of US they need little more than just good smart weapons. Air forces cannot conguere and advance. Fire and movment. You seem to forget that, chinawhite. Air can deliver the fire but it cannot give the movment.

 

[tphuang]

Im sorry for a misunderstandng here. I copied most of ths from a post i made in a war games and didn't read the information just general PLA information and where it is going.

And please excuse these quotes becase i am typing on a laptop. frustrating

no worries

All of the J-8IIs have been upgraded?. This is for 2005

Any J-8II that can be upgraded (ie: airframe not too old) will be upgraded. I don't know how many have physically being upgraded by the end of 2005, but I think the upgrade should be pretty fast.

China has no been offered any of them. Su-30MK3 is the destination it will recieve once it ends up in PLAAF servie.

PS: If the Platypus was offered, dont you think the PLAAF would have jumped at that opputunity.

Read what I posted on SDF before, sukhoi told China that su-35 and su-33 are both being offered. China clearly has no interest in mk3. China was approached multiple times after the China-Russia war game, but showed no interest. Su-35 is a possibility, but hasn't arose that much interest. su-27kub (su-33ub) is the one that is getting the most interest, because China wants to put it on the carrier.

Retire? the J-7s need to be retired. Not these

They are retiring J-7s too, but some of the early flankers got abused too much (way over used) in the early years, so their airframe took a huge toll.

I thought the whole purpose of the J-11B upgrade was to give it a multi-role capability and make the product indegenious. I think a radar is in development to utilze the Su-27s bigger radar dome.

THe WS-10A should have completed its testing by now. It was in testing since 2003

J-11B upgrade was to make it indigenous, yes. It's capability is supposedly at the proposed skm level (I don't know). WS-10A is completed, it's production rate is to be 50 to 60 next year.

maybe you should tell me the capabilites of the block 30.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16cd.htm

The J-10 as i know have not got guided missile capablity or persion strike. while the only equipment that china has which comes clos is on the Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2

The J-10 has better wet thrust while the F-1 has better dry thrut. You cannot use after burner for extended periods. I trust Kanwa as much as janes or newsmax. Anyway please link the article

I visited www.f-16.net for all the information on block 30. J-10's multirole capability at the moment has not being really tested all that much. Most of the guided missile and precision strike avionics have been put on JH-7A. Which has better precision strike capability than the MKKs. J-10 is just not used for that kind of task right now. It's current job is purely air superiority, that's why I'm only comparing it's air combat ability.

As for the engine, according to the latest JDW. J-10 is using AL-31FN-M1 which has a wet thrust of 133kN and 3D TVC (similar to the one on Mig-29OVT). If you look at block 50/52's engine, it's at around 17,000 lb and 29,000 lb respectively. So, that's 75.7kN and 129.1kN using (2.2 lb = 1 kg and 1 kg = 9.8 N). It's actually the opposite, the dry/wet ratio for AL-31FN is actually greater than the dry/wet ratio of F-100. Trust me on this, one of the major reasons why people say that WS-10A is more similar to the F-100 is because it's dry/wet ratio is similar to that and lower than that of AL-31FN. Think about this block 30 and 40 still uses F100-PW-220 rather than 229, so the thrust are 14,590 lb.and 23,770 lb.

As for your distrust toward JDW, it is probably founded on its inaccurate reporting of Chinese secretive news. But most of the time, when the news is from a Russian industry source (like the engines that the Russians are export) or if the news is from a Chinese air show, then it is quite accurate. Especially with Kanwa, Pinkov has a lot of connections with the Russians and Ukrainians.

And what are you basing this on? Engine purchases?. The J-10 design on got certifed in 2003

Actually, most of my info on the number of J-10 comes from reading off people that are close to CAC on Chinese forums. But I do use the number of engines and past Chinese behaviour as a guide too. As I said before, the 100 new engines are to be delivered by the 3rd quarter of 2006. Chinese do not leave spares around in the beginning, they are normally ordered later. You can imagine how many J-10s are going to be produced by now based on that.

There are at least two full regiments of J-10 right now + possibly some J-10s in mixed regiments. Even J-10B got certified in 2005.

 

[Totoro]

So... ws10a also has tvc? if its superior to al31fn in terms of dry/wet thrust but dosent have tvc - which one is better overall? which one will be used for j-10 and which one for j11b?

 

[tphuang]

So... ws10a also has tvc? if its superior to al31fn in terms of dry/wet thrust but dosent have tvc - which one is better overall? which one will be used for j-10 and which one for j11b?

The Chinese people originally claimed that WS-10A had AL-31FN beat on all the major categories including service time, cost, dry/wet thrust, T/W ratio and such. It appears to me that the dry thrust of AL-31FN is greater. I would say that at the moment, AL-31FN-M1 probably has better functionality, but WS-10A beats it in reliability and pricing. The reliability part is based on the really horrendous service time for the imported AL-31 engines. According to some on Chinese forums, WS-10A's original goal was to reach the specs of F100-PW-229, but it slightly overachieved that.

J-11B is definitely using WS-10A. Due to the limited production rate of the engine, J-10 probably won't get more than 10 for the next couple of years.

 

[Hussain]

I think its premature to determine the use of F22's in any conflict between the US and China as the F22 hasn't been fully inducted into the US airforce. The air dominance question will (in air to air warfare) revolve around how good F10's and SU27's are against US F18's. Add to this Taiwan's Mirage 2000's and F16's.


At the same time I think the the US is reliant on air dominance in all theatre's of operation. Even in situations of non conventional warfare the US is able and willing to use F16's in targeting confined areas such as houses, schools and open ground. If a conventional battle broke out over Taiwan and the Chinese have developed/purchased large numbers of SAM's and AAA systems it would be extremely difficult for US the to use warplanes in this scenario. I am also quite sure that the Chinese have laser blinding weapons similar to the ones the British used against the Argentinians in the Falklands War. A blind pilot cannot fly a plane. Such weapons are apparently illegal yet in a such a conflict would probably be used by both sides.

Add to the above VERA type of anti stealth radar's then total air dominance of the US over China will be highly questionable. In this scenario China can be in a position to use upgraded J7's/Q5c's/J8's (of all variants) to ensure the US and Taiwan air forces are exhausted.

I am quite certain that Chinese military planners know that the US airforce has not been fully tested against cruise, ballistic missile attacks from the ground. The US airforce has also not been involved in operations where multitudes of sophisticated SAM's have been used. The longer the Chinese military stays out of a local conflict the more the will be able to develop their anti aircraft capabilities to check mate the deployment of the F22. This will also almost be be a certaintity.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think its premature to determine the use of F22's in any conflict between the US and China as the F22 hasn't been fully inducted into the US airforce.

Thats not so. The F-22's were cleared for full war fighting late 2005. There are now 55+ F-22's that are cleared for full combat.

The air dominance question will (in air to air warfare) revolve around how good F10's and SU27's are against US F18's. Add to this Taiwan's Mirage 2000's and F16's.

The USAF already knows how Su-27's will likely perform as they've got their own data from their own Su-27's used for Red Hat training (2 of them bought in the late 90's and originally cited by APM and JDW). Plus they've got situational data from exercises such as COPE nn

At the same time I think the the US is reliant on air dominance in all theatre's of operation.

No, the emphasis is on battlespace dominance , there is a subtle but distinct difference. The former only involves sanitising combatant air space over a contested area - the latter is far more complex.

Even in situations of non conventional warfare the US is able and willing to use F16's in targeting confined areas such as houses, schools and open ground.

Actually the ROE's for attacking targets are quite clear. Military lawyers are part of every mission planning event to ensure that they comply with Hague Convention issues. Confined areas that are populated will be avoided as much as possible. If however, the "host" decides to place weapons in an urban area (against the Hague Convention decrees) then those areas lose their sanctuary status and can be legitimately targetted.

If a conventional battle broke out over Taiwan and the Chinese have developed/purchased large numbers of SAM's and AAA systems it would be extremely difficult for US the to use warplanes in this scenario.

I'm not sure why thats the case. Under the Hague Convention, any country that places military assets amongst the civilian population to try and minimise military losses becomes responsible for thise losses. The prosecuting country does not take legal responsibility for attacking them as they are still a legitimate target. The onus is on the country involved with placement.

I am also quite sure that the Chinese have laser blinding weapons similar to the ones the British used against the Argentinians in the Falklands War. A blind pilot cannot fly a plane. Such weapons are apparently illegal yet in a such a conflict would probably be used by both sides.

The problem with a dazzler is that it identifies source - it also is no guarantee as its spectrum specific. Ever since the Russians used dazzlers on RAAF, RNAF Orions and RAF Nimrods there have been developed work arounds. It's a limited weapon of opportunity - and that fact that its also illegal now makes the likelihood of an overmatch response by a cranky OPFOR something to avoid.

Add to the above VERA type of anti stealth radar's then total air dominance of the US over China will be highly questionable. In this scenario China can be in a position to use upgraded J7's/Q5c's/J8's (of all variants) to ensure the US and Taiwan air forces are exhausted.

But you don't need air presence to dominate. Robust and offensive air may be used to decapitate and dislocate - it is not however a pre-requisite for controlling the battlespace of interest as there are other ways of sanitising the area.

I am quite certain that Chinese military planners know that the US airforce has not been fully tested against cruise, ballistic missile attacks from the ground. The US airforce has also not been involved in operations where multitudes of sophisticated SAM's have been used.

If thats the case - the the Chinese certainly do know that the USAF and USN train for saturated cruise missile attacks - they've done it 50 years ever since STANAVFORLANT was created (as a real example)/ As for training against sophisticated SAMS - I guess you aren't aware of RED FLAG? RED FLAG is one of the few training sites in the world where full contact is played out and where pilots go up against the full range of SAM's as part of their training. The SAMs are sim'd - and they are saturated to reflect likely scenario's. Short of going into a training session where you actually see a missile coming for you - then it can't get much more complex. It is the only training complex of its type in the world.

The longer the Chinese military stays out of a local conflict the more the will be able to develop their anti aircraft capabilities to check mate the deployment of the F22. This will also almost be be a certaintity.

actually, the longer that war is deferred, the better off we'll all be. In the greater scheme of things, checkmating the F-22 is only part of the technical solution.

 

[MIGleader]

but typhuang, with the kjl-4, the flankers could then fire pl-12/sd-10, which it could not do using the old timikoroov radar. swapping the r-77 for pl-12 isnt so bad. they both perform about equally well(the pl-12 may have mroe advnaced guidance than the export r-77s), yet the pl-12 is probably cheaper(as it is indegedous).

i beilive the j-11A standard wasnt exactly too up to date yet. it features 2 mfds(not alot compared to the f-22's 6). but it was modified to fire r-77, and supposedly kh-31 too.

as for the j-8 issure, i dont know if existing j-8s are actually getting upgraded. shenyang has just been rolling out newer models.

if china wants to equipe large numbers of fighters with new engines, it would be ws-10a. the al-31fn-m1 cost like 300 million for 100. for 100 flankers, that would be 200 engines, and 600 million dollars, on top of any j-10 engine purchases.

its unreasonable to say chiense j-11s, after all their radar, avionic, and engine upgrades, will perform the same as 1990s basic su-27sk's.
thats why the u.s seeks to perform exercises with india and other advanced flanker users.

 

[tphuang]

but typhuang, with the kjl-4, the flankers could then fire pl-12/sd-10, which it could not do using the old timikoroov radar. swapping the r-77 for pl-12 isnt so bad. they both perform about equally well(the pl-12 may have mroe advnaced guidance than the export r-77s), yet the pl-12 is probably cheaper(as it is indegedous).

i beilive the j-11A standard wasnt exactly too up to date yet. it features 2 mfds(not alot compared to the f-22's 6). but it was modified to fire r-77, and supposedly kh-31 too.

as for the j-8 issure, i dont know if existing j-8s are actually getting upgraded. shenyang has just been rolling out newer models.

if china wants to equipe large numbers of fighters with new engines, it would be ws-10a. the al-31fn-m1 cost like 300 million for 100. for 100 flankers, that would be 200 engines, and 600 million dollars, on top of any j-10 engine purchases.

its unreasonable to say chiense j-11s, after all their radar, avionic, and engine upgrades, will perform the same as 1990s basic su-27sk's.
thats why the u.s seeks to perform exercises with india and other advanced flanker users.

I was saying that it's probably at the skm level, which is basically a single seat version of mkk. Personally, I think if CAC was in charge of flankers, it would be able to raise J-11 to the mki level, but SAC is just incompetent. Honestly, I'm really concerned about the entire WS-10A situation. Clearly, J-10 will be getting this engine only if SAC cannot use it up. Therefore, China will continuously be forced to import AL-31FM for J-10. It's never good to rely on foreign engines in time of war. Even though China has developed turbofan engines, it still has trouble mass producing turbofan engines. That is huge problem. You can bet the Russians are not going to help China with this.

 

[chinawhite]

a squadron is already based in alaska. along with AESA kitted F-15's F-22's won't be travelling without AWACs and Compas nn packages.

And how far is that? 5000miles?. You expect the americans to send the F-22s on a 10,000mile trip to engage in 10 seconds of battle time?. Im not going to judge in the F-22s capabliilties or say something is impossible but you cannot rule out chiense passive radars which they have been working on since the 90s

The Superhornet is being built for the very purpose to stay ahead of the crowd. If it was not that capable we would see a better interm solution

no it doesn't. superiority is about more than just numbers of aircraft in a location.

Well the airforcce which will have a large ratio with other support like MRBM and cruise missiles will be superior because they can destroy ground based radar and AWACS. And a airforce which can arm their forces with weapons. I think it gives you a superioty or a lead

the PLAAF doesn;t think that it will have absolute dominance until circa 2008-2010 - they apparently think differently

I like to think of it as a overwhelming superioty

and you're not looking at a real wargame where attrition and base losses get factored in. you're assuming absolute availability and unmolested access. You're also assuming that the bases are left inviolate.

Can you direct me to a real wargames?. I like to factor in the people in the army which is mostly Pan-blue oriented.

again, I point out that the USN trained for over 25 years against Mach 6 anti-shipping missiles and with scores of supersonic launch platforms. China has nowhere remotely near the capability that the Soviets could bring to bear on the americans - and they were using technology then thay China still doesn't have access to

The difference is that the Moskit was developed to avoid those systems and pop-up to avoid the CWIS systems. While the eloved sea sparrow is Only being developed now to counter those missiles, No one is yet certain what type of RCS the moskit has but compare the size to a fighter and compare the basic shape and tell me why a anti-ship missile cannot be made to have a smaller RCS than a F-22. Now does the US have the capability to find a stealth target let alone track and destroy one which it does not have a counter yet?

The Shipwreak is a different missile completly. It did not skim the water nor did it try to avoid the differences but tried to get as close as possible so its nuclear warhead would be effictive. It used simple guidence. Follow the lead type of thing. They all followed the leading missile. when that was destroyed the next one took over unitl it hit its target. The AEGIS was designed to counter those type of satuated attacks

In fact if you've paid attention to GW1 you'd realise that every major military on the planet accelerated their own RMA's after GW1

I was refering to the iraqi style of combat to the original quote you made. Not about the american style

yes, and you are still internet wargaming. Real wargames factor in base losses, availability rates, air space contestants, space based ISR etc...

I never wargamed. I just complied a list for them as a brief discription of the forces of china

you can't mass the kinds of aircraft and ships required for a divisional uplift without every satellite on that racetrack screaming its head off.

Well those planes are under civillan braches. And the amount of air traffic in chinese airspace is something that could mask it. I would have to say easiliy. And chinas martine fleet is massive. During the typhoon 6 months ago. chinas south east areas had 20,000ships in harbour. that is serval days traffic in china

we'll just have to dissagree. but I've yet to see a proper wargame yet which shows China being able to dominate Taiwan before 2008.

What is the most recent wargames you have seen and can you lead me to it to look at the forces of both sides.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well those planes are under civillan braches. And the amount of air traffic in chinese airspace is something that could mask it. I would have to say easiliy. And chinas martine fleet is massive. During the typhoon 6 months ago. chinas south east areas had 20,000ships in harbour. that is serval days traffic in china

satellites and elint don't care about whether the asset is civilian or military registered. Intel looks at total uplift presence and capability - not who owns them. Chinas domestic air assets are under PLAAF control in a conflict - so civ registration means nothing

What is the most recent wargames you have seen and can you lead me to it to look at the forces of both sides.

all of the US wargames are loaded heavily against blue force.
as an associated example - in all of the wargames run out at aberdeen, in the entire history of training and wargaming, blue force has only beaten the red force once. they train against superior forces so as to force blue to be challenged.

and no, I'm not going to give you specific wargame data.


we're actually going around in circles. so I'm quite happy for you to believe that you have Force overmatch. It's neither here nor there for me.

warfighting is about force compression in a holographic battlespace - if you seriously think that China is in a superior position to fight within the battlespace at a combined arms level - then so be it.

 

[chinawhite]

Read what I posted on SDF before, sukhoi told China that su-35 and su-33 are both being offered. China clearly has no interest in mk3.

I stated that the MK3 is the name which will be given to the fighter which china purchases. Sorry but i cannot see SDF post it here

the early flankers got abused too much in the early years, so their airframe took a huge toll.

Any links to this information?. I dunno but it doesn't sound believable to me. I know their manufracture was crap but I would think chia can replace their bits or re-build the airframe.

J-10 is just not used for that kind of task right now. It's current job is purely air superiority, that's why I'm only comparing it's air combat ability.

Whats the point of comparing on a bit of the area of two aircraft. Im am comparing the overall capability of each fighter and looking at Chinese Military Avation for the information about the radar and its equipment onboard.

From this information(which is considered the most accurate). THe J-10 is at a lost compare to Block 30s and only comparable to block 25s

As for the engine, according to the latest JDW.

Here is what i got.

F100-PW-229 has 17,800 pounds dry thrust and 29,100 pounds on afterburner
AL-31FN has 17,857 lb dry and 27,557 lb on afterburner.

So you were right it does have more dry thrust. I must have been thinking about another engine

 

[chinawhite]

satellites and elint don't care about whether the asset is civilian or military registered. Intel looks at total uplift presence and capability - not who owns them. Chinas domestic air assets are under PLAAF control in a conflict - so civ registration means nothing

Yes, But when you have aircraft movement you will check which aircraft it is. When it is registered to a civilain brach is the alarm bells going to be ringing. Or does every chinese civillian plane have to be checked where they are moving to. As you said before the PLAAF controls all aircraft. They could move it in a 707 or a 737 it doesn't matter.

I still would factor in Pan-blue side in taiwan

all of the US wargames are loaded heavily against blue force.

You are comparing apples and oranges. If the PLAAF was at such a disadvantge why would china stop buying the Su-27 variants?

and no, I'm not going to give you specific wargame data.

Why not

we're actually going around in circles.

I agree. So i'll stop now or if you answer this post

 

[gf0012-aust]

Any links to this information?. I dunno but it doesn't sound believable to me. I know their manufracture was crap but I would think chia can replace their bits or re-build the airframe.

they can replace airframe parts - ever since they acquired the Cincinnatti 5 Axis Press purchased under Clintons release.

That equipement was tracked - itw as supposed to be used for civilian aircraft work but was tracked to a military aircraft factory. The Russians were also cranky with Clinton as it meant that China had the capcity to make complex airframe shapes.

Soon after the balance of the Sukhois was stalled and the contract went into variation.

 

[tphuang]

I stated that the MK3 is the name which will be given to the fighter which china purchases. Sorry but i cannot see SDF post it here

No, Sukhoi has specific designations. If it is offering su-30, it will call it su-30. In this case, su-35 and su-33 are offered. Check Sukhoi's bid for the Brazilian and South Korean contract.

Any links to this information?. I dunno but it doesn't sound believable to me. I know their manufracture was crap but I would think chia can replace their bits or re-build the airframe.

Check CDF, the recent postings in su-27/30 section is on this. Although, what I read came from Chinese forums.

Whats the point of comparing on a bit of the area of two aircraft. Im am comparing the overall capability of each fighter and looking at Chinese Military Avation for the information about the radar and its equipment onboard.

From this information(which is considered the most accurate). THe J-10 is at a lost compare to Block 30s and only comparable to block 25s

Using information from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html
Okay avionics: J-10 uses HUD + 3 MFDs + HMS, HOTAS, GPS/INS, air data computer, ARW9101A RWR, Type 634 digital quadruplex FBW, digital fuel management system, 1553B databus, and an IFR probe + a lot of stuff not mentionned. Block 25 uses quadriple digital FBW, HUD, 2 MFDs + a bunch of stuff. Block 30 added multi-targetting capability using AMRAAM. Block 40 added GPS, used v5 of APG-68, night vision, holographic HUD and new ECM. Block 50 looks awfully like 40, but seems to have increased processing power. 50+ uses v9 instead of v5 + increased multi-role capability + better processor. Let's put it this way, F-16 did not have multi-targetting capability until block 30. J-10 clearly has multi-targetting capability with PL-12. That alone should make J-10 at least block 30 capability. Then, if you compare the tracking number and lock on range, 1473 consistently does better than early versions of APG-68. What J-10 looses out on is that we do not current know what kind of multi-role capability it has. But as I said, if plaaf wants, it can put different types of pod on it (just as USAF did on F-16C). It's just not, because it has JH-7A doing that, but J-10B will most likely be equipped with it too. As for the electronics in general, J-10 should be better than pre 50+ F-16s, because that's how far the computing technology has advanced in these years. The computer processing technology in China can't be more than 5 years behind USA. I read that the processor on J-10 is capable of playing counter strike.

Do I really need to get into manuverability and such? Canard + 3D TVC should end the discussion already.

Here is what i got.

F100-PW-229 has 17,800 pounds dry thrust and 29,100 pounds on afterburner
AL-31FN has 17,857 lb dry and 27,557 lb on afterburner.

So you were right it does have more dry thrust. I must have been thinking about another engine

AL-31FN has been upgraded, it's thrust is increased by 10%, so it's dry and afterburner thrust are greater than that of 229.

 

[KGB]

AIm not going to judge in the F-22s capabliilties or say something is impossible but you cannot rule out chiense passive radars which they have been working on since the 90s....

.... tell me why a anti-ship missile cannot be made to have a smaller RCS than a F-22. Now does the US have the capability to find a stealth target let alone track and destroy one which it does not have a counter yet?....

You have me stumped. First you assert that China (which doesn't deploy any stealth aircraft) might have a credible anti-stealth technology in the form of passive radar. Then you say that the US (which has had stealth technology for years) doen't have anti-stealth technology. I can't see the logic there, nor I bet can anyone else.

 

[armage]

PLAN vessel numbers in end of 2005

Destroyers (DDG)
2 x Type 052C Luyang II class
2 x Type 052B Luyang class
2 x Type 956 Sovremenny class
1 x Type 956EM Sovremenny class
1 x Type 051B Luhai class
2 x Type 052 Luhu class
16 x Type 051/G Luda class

TOTAL DDG = 24

Frigates (FFG)
2 x Type 054 Jiangkai class
14 x Type 053H3 Jiangwei I/II/III class
32 x Type 053 Jianghu I/III/V class

TOTAL FFG = 48

Conventional Submarines (SSK)
2 to 3 x Type 041 Yuan class
2 x Type 877EKM Kilo class
2 x Type 636 Kilo class
4 x Type 636M Kilo class
Between 10 to 14 x Type 039/G Song class
17 x Type 035E/F Ming class

TOTAL SSK = Up to 42

Nuclear Submarines (SSN)
1 or 2 Type 093 class
5 Type 091 Han class

Nuclear Submarines (SSBN)
1 Type 094 class
1 Type 092 class

TOTAL SSN & SSBN = Up to 9

Under Development (Acknowledged)
1 x Aircraft Carrier (Vargay)?
2 x Type 051C class DDG
1 x Type 956EM Sovremenny class DDG
1 x Type 054A class FFG (or more?)
6 x Type 636M Kilo class SSK
More Yuan and Song class SSKs?

PLAN Airpower in end of 2005
24 x Su-30MKK2 fighter-bombers
10 x JH-7A fighter-bombers
19 x JH-7 Block 02 fighter-bombers
18 x JH-7 Block 01 fighter-bombers
100 x J-8B/D fighters
120 x J-7EH fighters (Navy's J-7E)
?? x H-6D/M

Thanks to PLAMC for the navy section

will this help?
never mind it's too small....

 

[gf0012-aust]

hinese Military 2005

You have me stumped. First you assert that China (which doesn't deploy any stealth aircraft) might have a credible anti-stealth technology in the form of passive radar.

Not to put too fine a point on it - but if China in 2005 was getting an american company to design and develop a regional aircraft tracking system (and based on the australian model) - then I somehow doubt that they have a passive acquisition solution. I can name 4 different acquisition systems which are not chinese but are in use - that is a critical indicator of assessing capability and latency. It just doesn't show up on the radar screen (no pun intended). If china lacks the technological expertise to develop a national tracking system - then that raises big questions about more sophisticated technologies. One only needs to look at the well travelled path to acquire digiital AWACs (let alone MSA) to be curious about any jump in capability.

Then you say that the US (which has had stealth technology for years) doen't have anti-stealth technology. I can't see the logic there, nor I bet can anyone else.

The US has had stealth combat aircraft since 1979. They are now into their 3rd or poss 4th generation publicly declared platforms.

At the R&D active platform level they have since the launching of Have Blue, delivered some 5 generations of publicly declared platforms

At the UAV level, they're on their 2nd generation platform.

One of the basic tenets of development is that when you field a battle event changing system, that you have also developed a counter to it.

Bearing in mind that the US has a working copy of VERA, has access to capability data on JORN and the SWR system - then I think they might have a bit of a clue as to what acquisition systems are in place so as to develop counters to passive collectors.

Does this mean that china can't get it together? of course not - but it does show that there are big holes in some of the claims of capability and counter systems that get flagged on here every so often.

Analysis of Latency is critical if people make claims about any nations capability - when none is publicly evident through demonstrated platforms.

 

[gf0012-aust]

will this help?
never mind it's too small....

Couple of queries...

my understanding is that the Ming are going out as 1 for 1 replacements with the Song. The Mings are basically inop - even though the notion was to use them as active members of a hunter killer team

the SSBN's are non functional - ie they've never successfully launched anything (incl training shots) - training shots are warshots where the warhead is replaced by ballast - typically concrete.

varyag is not being built up. she essentially has been Ewarfare mocked - but there is no working drive train and to do so would require cutting the ship open on the flight deck. the flight deck is relatively intact and shows no activity around the notional engine area where an insertion/extraction would need to be made.