Chinese Air Power Thread 16

[Tigershark]

I for one have always been very curious as to why the Chinese have never purchased and fielded the likes of the Mi-24 Hind and Su-24 Fencer!!


Regards
Pioneer

China 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.

[Berkut]

I love these Chinese trolls.

[Deino]

China 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

[J-20 Hotdog]

China 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.

Z-10 and Mi-24 are different helicopters, not truly comparable.
Jh-7 and Su-24 could be more interesting. always felt like the Jh-7 was like a fixed wing version of the Su-24 with weaker engines.

[SGW06]

Not exactly about fighters, but close:

On China's Department of Defense's official web site, there is a news about a new radar concept or something, called single-photon radar.

They claims the such radar can spot stealth fighters thousands of miles away.

http://www.mod.gov.cn/wqzb/2012-04/1...nt_4359787.htm

A quick google-scholar can lead you get the conclusion, that China, USA and Switzelands are current front-runner in the single-photon detection related research, but thats for academic world only, dont know much about military industry.

If this research can lead to fruitful results, then next generation stealth fighter need to be optically stealth...

[edi_right_round]

hi guys sorry for off topic question.
im kindly asking for some info about the first production examples of F-7 in early 70s.I think they were exported just to Albania and Tanzania.From a former pilot of AAF who did the type qualification in PRC at the time i know that there were quite some markings in chassis and places in cyrillic.Is there any chance that before producing them from raw materials they worked on russian kits?Is there any public info about this?i think Deino mentioned this possibility some time ago

[Quickie]

Z-10 and Mi-24 are different helicopters, not truly comparable.
Jh-7 and Su-24 could be more interesting. always felt like the Jh-7 was like a fixed wing version of the Su-24 with weaker engines.

The JH-7 is different from the Su-24. Otoh, the Su-24 is quite similar to the Tornado in its design.
JH-7/7A actually fares better than Su-24 in some of the performance specs.

[Sens]

The JH-7 is different from the Su-24. Otoh, the Su-24 is quite similar to the Tornado in its design.
JH-7/7A actually fares better than Su-24 in some of the performance specs.

The JH-7/7A used a layout similar to the Sepecat Jaguar for similar missions.

[haavarla]

The JH-7 is different from the Su-24. Otoh, the Su-24 is quite similar to the Tornado in its design.
JH-7/7A actually fares better than Su-24 in some of the performance specs.

Well, consider the new production date for the JH-7A, its performance still are below the Su-24.
Both in range and payload, which are the two important specs for an deep striker.

I find it strange that we have not yet seen any thing new on this front..

The troubled Su-34 history included, the Fullback does come as a hint of fresh air for VVS.
The way i see it, China should aim higher than their current JH-7A fleet.

[edi_right_round]

Havaarla Jh-7 maybe little underpowered by i dont think Al-21 on Su-24 offer better range with same load than Licensed Speys on the Jh7.

[Sens]

Havaarla Jh-7 maybe little underpowered by i dont think Al-21 on Su-24 offer better range with same load than Licensed Speys on the Jh7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_JH-7
http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/

I see it similar. The ferry-range is the yardstick for every striker a mission planer can deal with for the best payload. We have to keep in mind that the practical weapons-load seldom will surpass 3 tons and in the most cases stay ~2 tons.

[haavarla]

Ok, i stand corrected. But it just add to my point.
PLA need to aim higher than the Su-24 with its old AL-21F3A engines..

It seems they have somewhat similar pewrformance.

[J-20 Hotdog]

The JH-7/7A used a layout similar to the Sepecat Jaguar for similar missions.

but the JH-7 is much bigger... but using the same type of engines..

[Fedaykin]

Same type of engine? Aside from both being Turbofans the WS9/RR Spey powering the JH7A is far larger and more powerful then the RR Turbomeca Adour in the Jaguar. They are in entirely different performance classes!

[Sens]

To avoid confusion about size between JH-7 and Jaguar they share a similar design layout for the main mission. A high wing-load for low level capability and Tfs for best range there. Both offer a better range capability by that compared to the Su-24. Maybe the Su-24 will have an edge in dash-behavior in the transonic range.

[emile]

Something I felt terrible after the "high wing-load" was seen.
The JH-7 was not a high wing-load aircraft indeed and was not "same type engine" as well as SEPECAT Jaguar used.

[Quickie]

The S. Jaguar is also in a smaller class than the JH-7 - the main reason why the JH-7 has about twice the payload range of the S. Jaguar.

[Sens]

Something I felt terrible after the "high wing-load" was seen.
The JH-7 was not a high wing-load aircraft indeed and was not "same type engine" as well as SEPECAT Jaguar used.

The JH-7 has a max wing-load of ~550 kg/m² and the Jaguar of ~650 kg/m².
Both have high by-path ratio Tfs of 0,7 and 0,8 giving a dry sfc in military of 0,68 and 0,75 each. I have to agree that the max wing-load of the JH-7 is on the lower side and by that less ideal for high-speed low level flight behavior compared to the Jaguar and the Su-24 with up to 800 kg/m².

[Sens]

The S. Jaguar is also in a smaller class than the JH-7 - the main reason why the JH-7 has about twice the payload range of the S. Jaguar.

Double the size and payload for MTOW but a similar range capability.

[haavarla]

What kind of ordinance can the JH-7A carry under its wing?
The same weight as the Su-24?

[Quickie]

Double the size and payload for MTOW but a similar range capability.

By payload range, I meant payload X range, OR the range at maximum payload. This is notwithstanding that they both have similar maximum ferry range.

[totoro]

jh7a was seen carrying ten 250 kg class bombs under each wing (20 total) and 2 yj83 missiles (4 total). I guess that is also the practical maximum, alongside a pair of self defense missiles.

[Sens]

By payload range, I meant payload X range, OR the range at maximum payload. This is notwithstanding that they both have similar maximum ferry range.

I understand. Here are some data for the Jaguar about that just to compare that to some of the JH-7/7A.
AR in hi-lo-hi mission profile and weapons-load:
600 km with 3628 kg/8000 lb
1160 km with 1800 kg/4000 lb
1425 km with 900 kg/2000 lb

AR in lo-lo-lo mission profile and weapons-load is just over 60 %.
Max. weapons-load can be 4763 kg/10500 lb.
Internal fuel 4200 l or 3360 kg (specific weight 0,8 kg/l)
It has an inflight-refuelling capability too.

[emile]

The JH-7 has a max wing-load of ~550 kg/m² and the Jaguar of ~650 kg/m².
Both have high by-path ratio Tfs of 0,7 and 0,8 giving a dry sfc in military of 0,68 and 0,75 each. I have to agree that the max wing-load of the JH-7 is on the lower side and by that less ideal for high-speed low level flight behavior compared to the Jaguar and the Su-24 with up to 800 kg/m².

The theoretical comparison is supposed to be established on empty weight.

[Sens]

The theoretical comparison is supposed to be established on empty weight.

You can do that. ~8 tons, ~14 tons and ~24 tons respective.

[Quickie]

I understand. Here are some data for the Jaguar about that just to compare that to some of the JH-7/7A.
AR in hi-lo-hi mission profile and weapons-load:
600 km with 3628 kg/8000 lb
1160 km with 1800 kg/4000 lb
1425 km with 900 kg/2000 lb

AR in lo-lo-lo mission profile and weapons-load is just over 60 %.
Max. weapons-load can be 4763 kg/10500 lb.
Internal fuel 4200 l or 3360 kg (specific weight 0,8 kg/l)
It has an inflight-refuelling capability too.

The Wikipedia has the JH-7 combat radius at 1,759 km. Assuming the combat load = 60% of max payload, the figures come out to

1,759 km at a payload of 5400 kg. (4 YJ-82/83 plus 2 short range AAM is about 5100 kg)

which is much more than the above nearest comparable figure of the S. Jaguar.

[Sens]

The Wikipedia has the JH-7 combat radius at 1,759 km. Assuming the combat load = 60% of max payload, the figures come out to

1,759 km at a payload of 5400 kg. (4 YJ-82/83 plus 2 short range AAM is about 5100 kg)

which is much more than the above nearest comparable figure of the S. Jaguar.

Wrong guessing. The claimed AR of 1759 km is a guess close to the theoretical max from estimated ferry range. For max ferry range most of the payload is fuel and the weapons-load zero for every fighter. Under optimum conditions for a high mission profile it gives a modest weapons-load and max ETs. The bigger Su-24MK has just 3 tons of its payload for max combat range, when for the outbond leg the two ETs are over 5 tons or 2/3 of payload at MTOW.
The Su-24 MK with 3 tons bomb-load and two ETs have an AR in lo-lo-lo of 615 km which becomes an AR in hi-lo-hi of ~1025 km.

[Quickie]

Wrong guessing. The claimed AR of 1759 km is a guess close to the theoretical max from estimated ferry range. For max ferry range most of the payload is fuel and the weapons-load zero for every fighter. Under optimum conditions for a high mission profile it gives a modest weapons-load and max ETs. The bigger Su-24MK has just 3 tons of its payload for max combat range, when for the outbond leg the two ETs are over 5 tons or 2/3 of payload at MTOW.
The Su-24 MK with 3 tons bomb-load and two ETs have an AR in lo-lo-lo of 615 km which becomes an AR in hi-lo-hi of ~1025 km.

That's only a specific case of a Su-24 loadout. You can't assume all the rest of world's jetfighters must follow it.

In any case, the definition of payload in aviation specifically does not include fuel. Otherwise, with the fuel portion being arbitrary and unknown, the payload specification would be as good as useless.

Also, if fuel was included in the payload in a specific case, it will already be stated as such in the specification with appropriate info on its portion or quantity.

In the end, the way you apportion your "payload" doesn't change anything. The S. Jaguar's "payload" would then, potentially, also have a large portion of it being just fuel.

[Deino]

[JSR]

Wrong guessing. The claimed AR of 1759 km is a guess close to the theoretical max from estimated ferry range. For max ferry range most of the payload is fuel and the weapons-load zero for every fighter. Under optimum conditions for a high mission profile it gives a modest weapons-load and max ETs. The bigger Su-24MK has just 3 tons of its payload for max combat range, when for the outbond leg the two ETs are over 5 tons or 2/3 of payload at MTOW.
The Su-24 MK with 3 tons bomb-load and two ETs have an AR in lo-lo-lo of 615 km which becomes an AR in hi-lo-hi of ~1025 km.

3700km ferry range of JH-7 is just paper specification.
JH-7 empty weight about 14.5 tons
JH-7 MTOW 28.5 tons
At most 6 tons of internal fuel. See it has very small wing area compared to F-15.
Now it has only been seen carrying 3 small ET. At most 3000kg of external fuel.
so total fuel of 9 tons. Ferry range of 3700 simply unrealistic.