Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 826

Thread: Chinese Air Power Thread 16

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    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.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    I love these Chinese trolls.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    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
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    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.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    94
    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...
    Last edited by SGW06; 22nd April 2012 at 23:24.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    226
    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

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Quickie; 23rd April 2012 at 15:53.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Quickie View Post
    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.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Quickie View Post
    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.
    Thanks

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    226
    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.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by edi_right_round View Post
    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.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,760
    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.
    Thanks

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    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..

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,878
    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!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    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.

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    554
    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 truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    117
    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.

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    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/m˛ and the Jaguar of ~650 kg/m˛.
    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/m˛.

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Quickie View Post
    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.

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,760
    What kind of ordinance can the JH-7A carry under its wing?
    The same weight as the Su-24?
    Thanks

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    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.

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    710
    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.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Quickie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sens; 25th April 2012 at 20:53.

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    The JH-7 has a max wing-load of ~550 kg/m˛ and the Jaguar of ~650 kg/m˛.
    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/m˛.
    The theoretical comparison is supposed to be established on empty weight.
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    The theoretical comparison is supposed to be established on empty weight.
    You can do that. ~8 tons, ~14 tons and ~24 tons respective.

  26. #326
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    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.

  27. #327
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Quickie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sens; 26th April 2012 at 14:13.

  28. #328
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Quickie; 26th April 2012 at 16:11.

  29. #329
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,224
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  30. #330
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES