Chinese Air Power Thread 16

[Trident]

Su-24's swept wing is a outdated design, coupled with its low efficiency turbojet engines make their range considerably shorter than J/H-7, whilst the payloads of the two are estentially the same.

The VG wings are certainly not the problem, when unswept they provide the Su-24 with a much higher aspect ratio and lower induced drag. It's the turbojet engines, period.

Therefore I see no points for China to get Su-24, and I think Su-24's production line has already been closed decades ago

Well, that goes without saying.

[emile]

Nowadays the electronics for figher-bomber is more important than their airframes, thats why in PLAAF's domestic military excerises, J/H-7 consistently out-performance Su-30 in ground-attack missions despite of the latter has agurable an much better airframe.

Out-performance? Why PLAAF still want Su-30MK version then?

Su-24's swept wing is a outdated design, coupled with its low efficiency turbojet engines make their range considerably shorter than J/H-7, whilst the payloads of the two are estentially the same.

Consider the range, because of dry-wing design, the Su-24 has a sort leg not only comparing with JH-7 but also F-111. But that purposeful design for survivability among anti-air fire-power.

Althrough due to its engine and its airframes, Su-24 may enjoy some higher top speed and high-attitude speed comparing to J/H-7, but none of these advantages matter much for today's ground-attacking missions.

What's kind of advantage the JH-7 have then?

[SGW06]

Out-performance? Why PLAAF still want Su-30MK version then?

Which version of Su-30MKK PLA want? I guess SAC's new "Su-30" is a little bit more than a standard Su-30MKK.

Consider the range, because of dry-wing design, the Su-24 has a sort leg not only comparing with JH-7 but also F-111. But that purposeful design for survivability among anti-air fire-power.

What's kind of advantage the JH-7 have then?

In PLA's internal military excerises, J/H-7 can take down air defense and ground targets much better comparing to Su-30 thanks its far better electronics.

And we all know in terms of ground attacking abilities, Su-30 is still better than Russian current Su-24 fleet.

Better range, better electronics and better ground-attacking abilities, so I guess J/H-7 score at things that matters for today's fighter-bombers.

You know, kind like comparing a specialist who is good at their special area to a specialist who is good at almost everything but his own special area...

Of cause in the end, you may simply prefer a classic 1970-era ground attacking tactics (e.g. high but not high enough speed at a low but not low enough attitude) on today's air defense system since I know you may have a very strange sense of humor.

[emile]

In PLA's internal military excerises, J/H-7 can take down air defense and ground targets much better comparing to Su-30 thanks its far better electronics.

What's kind of "far better" electronics which will unable be fitted in Su-30 series version?

[Thornado]

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.

[Deino]

Out-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

[emile]

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.

After 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.

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.
Deino

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?

[Deino]

After 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

[emile]

Completely 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?

[haavarla]

The question is, had Russia any pods for Naval role at the time when they exported those Su-30 to China? I doubt it..

VVS most certain has pods in present time.
Part of the contracted Su-30SM will go directly to AVMF to replace Su-24 role in Black Sea region.
Not even sure they need any pods for this role.

[Deino]

Completely 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.

[Deino]

latest from CAC !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FBn2h1CnnZI

[emile]

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.

*** removed by moderator***
The question follow will test you:
Can Su-30 do precise attack and anti-ship attack?
Any POD JH-7 equipped the Su-30 don't have sth with similar function?
Any sort of weapon the JH-7 has but Su-30 doesn't?
Is SGW06 a human or just a post machine?

[Thornado]

I'm perhaps rude, because you stand with the most brainless I ever saw.
The question follow will test you:
Can Su-30 do precise attack and anti-ship attack?
Any POD JH-7 equipped the Su-30 don't have sth with similar function?
Any sort of weapon the JH-7 has but Su-30 doesn't?
Is SGW06 a human or just a post machine?

Su-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

[Thornado]

latest from CAC !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FBn2h1CnnZI

Is it me or does J-20 look highly ungainly. The design doesn't seem to blend very well IMO.

[over G]

JF-7 is an old 1980s design

1970's...

JF-7 is still a interesting, capable and practical design.

Of cause in the end, you may simply prefer a classic 1970-era ground attacking tactics

Must agree, wonder why a ground attack version of Mig-29 was never thought.

[Thornado]

JF-7 is still a interesting, capable and practical design.

I beg to differ. JH-7 never truly had a capable air to air capability and its design looks butt ugly IMO.

[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

[Deino]

Su-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

[J-20 Hotdog]

[TR1]

I think there is a language/translation barrier, emile is a pretty on the point guy most of the time, and I guess he thought you were defending something SGW said.

Anyways, let's move on.

[swerve]

I beg to differ. JH-7 never truly had a capable air to air capability and its design looks butt ugly IMO.

So what? C-130 has never had any real air-air capability, but it's certainly a capable & practical design. Horses for courses. JH-7 was designed as a dedicated strike aircraft, not a fighter.

And looks are 1) subjective, & 2) more importantly, irrelevant to capability & practicality.

[JSR]

In PLA's internal military excerises, J/H-7 can take down air defense and ground targets much better comparing to Su-30 thanks its far better electronics.

what kind of weopon and external jammer that JH-7 uses that make it better.
Su-30 atleast can fly higher and with more mach#

And we all know in terms of ground attacking abilities, Su-30 is still better than Russian current Su-24 fleet.

Su-24 carries ET which Su-30 cannot. There plus and minuses in each platform.

Better range, better electronics and better ground-attacking abilities, so I guess J/H-7 score at things that matters for today's fighter-bombers.

underpowered JH-7 has better range?. It hasnt been seen with bigger ET than 1500L. I have doubts about its internal fuel capacity due to small wings.

[SGW06]

What's kind of "far better" electronics which will unable be fitted in Su-30 series version?

Then why wasted many on Su-24 or importing Su-30?

[SGW06]

what kind of weopon and external jammer that JH-7 uses that make it better.
Su-30 atleast can fly higher and with more mach#

Su-24 carries ET which Su-30 cannot. There plus and minuses in each platform.

underpowered JH-7 has better range?. It hasnt been seen with bigger ET than 1500L. I have doubts about its internal fuel capacity due to small wings.

Ground mission excerises at Dingxin, west China, including standard ground attacking mission and some mission on take out "enemy"s ground air defense systems.

And since when under/over power( in terms of thrust-weigth ratio) has some strong correlation with range or even speed? last time i recall the current longest ranged aircrafts are usually "underpowered" comparing to fighter, and world fastest manned aircrafts are also pretty much very very underpowered.

So lets quit being amatuerish and employing amatuerish reasoning methods OK?


Also, with a stone-age tubrojet engine, its quite understandable why Su-24 is short-legged.

[SGW06]

I beg to differ. JH-7 never truly had a capable air to air capability and its design looks butt ugly IMO.

Yes, it looks like some fat ass bird, but it still is BVR-capable and can launch BVR and launch-and-forget type AAMs which give them some chance against 4th Generation fighters and a significant advantage against 3rd generation fighters as military excerises show :diablo:

[Thornado]

But it still is BVR-capable and can launch BVR and launch-and-forget type AAMs which give them some chance against 4th Generation fighters and a significant advantage against 3rd generation fighters as military excerises show :diablo:

I've never heard of JH-7A being armed with PL-12s. It might have the capability though. JH-7 is essentially a bomber H with secondary air to air J. It is in the same series as H-5 and H-6.

[SGW06]

I've never heard of JH-7A being armed with PL-12s. It might have the capability though. JH-7 is essentially a bomber H with secondary air to air J. It is in the same series as H-5 and H-6.

Yes, it can carry active-seeking AAMs, as says by its pilots.

Actually thats the exactly reason how in Dingxin, they have beaten the crap out of some 3rd generation figthers (J-7, J-8, some J-8 with BVR), and the PLAAF has been quite surprised by the results, initially they dont expect much with the A2A performance of J/H-7, they think J/H-7's AAMs is just like a woman carrying a knife, you know, something you can throw at the offender before you flee.

Since they are totally suprised and impressed by J/H-7's A2A performance, so they then pit J/H-7 against some 4th generation fighters, however the results of it against 4th generation fighters doesnt come out, i guess it is not as pretty.:diablo:

[Thornado]

Since they are totally suprised and impressed by J/H-7's A2A performance, so they then pit J/H-7 against some 4th generation fighters,

It's JH-7 not J/H-7. It's not dual role. It's bomber with a secondary air to air capability. The latest of the H series: H-6K God of War.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qfX6iGUSq5...10K+CALCMs.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hoDTF.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/Xian-H-6K-BC-1-1S.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Wki-udL6g...-6K+BOMBER.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tTv8btzlTf...25282%2529.jpg

combat radius 3,500 km or 2,200 mi carrying CJ-10A cruise missiles which have a range of about 3,000 km giving it total striking radius of about 6,500 km

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJ-10A[/url

Interestingly, the export designation of H-6K is BC-1 or Bomber chu ko (Export) - 1

[JSR]

Ground mission excerises at Dingxin, west China, including standard ground attacking mission and some mission on take out "enemy"s ground air defense systems.

you need special weopons and jammer and those jammers need power supply. THere is no way those engines are capable doing it with that airframe.
JH-7 is simply too slow compared to Flanker.

And since when under/over power( in terms of thrust-weigth ratio) has some strong correlation with range or even speed? last time i recall the current longest ranged aircrafts are usually "underpowered" comparing to fighter, and world fastest manned aircrafts are also pretty much very very underpowered.

So lets quit being amatuerish and employing amatuerish reasoning methods OK?

range and speed has direct connecition with power. If you want to take decent amount of weopon load and internal fuel for strike. try to lift 3 Tons fuel tank with JH-7 Plus 3 ton weopon load. There is no evidence JH-7 can carry 6 tons externally.

Also, with a stone-age tubrojet engine, its quite understandable why Su-24 is short-legged.

stone age. First try to create 25000 lbs turbo jet in China. Infact Su-24 is one the most successfull export bomber from 1970s. More than Tornado/F-111.