Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chinese air power thread 18

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TomcatViP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2011
    • 5865

    The BZK-007 looks like a drone to oversight civilian population center. There is no logical way this thing could be what it is otherwise (design wise).

    Comment

    • QuantumFX
      What?
      • Dec 2008
      • 1771

      Originally posted by ClanWarrior View Post

      You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost.
      It was definitely not better. I believe it was much worse. It was slightly bigger and the tri-plane config ballooned the RCS. A later proposal removed the canards but that was at the expense of maneuverability. I am not sure whether it had an advantage in maneuverability even with the canards. CAC won over the PLAAF despite SAC having a lot of political clout. In fact, SAC managed to force their way into the J-20 program as a sub-contractor when it was selected. I am wondering whether this is the reason we got to see a big improvement when going from FC-31 V1 to V2, whether SAC actually managed to get some 'know-how' CAC.

      ATF example might apply to PLAN. Navalized J-20 would probably be too big and too costly for the PLAN. And even if CAC came up with a technically superior alternative to SAC FC-31 based fighter, China might not have been too comfortable with giving CAC such huge monopoly.

      Comment

      • QuantumFX
        What?
        • Dec 2008
        • 1771

        ...

        Larger-


        Larger-

        Comment

        • Scooter
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 11912

          Originally posted by totoro View Post
          Not thousands of J-20s instead but it's looking VERY likely that both J-16 and J-10 will be procured for some time to come, alongside J-20. Some half a decade for J-16 and probably over a decade for J-10, possibly even longer. FC-31 based plane for PLAAF might indeed happen, and if it does it does seem logical that it's build instead of any flanker variant that's made today. But that still will take years to come.
          Actually, the J-20/J-31 are very much like the F-22/F-35. With the former two being dedicated to Air Superiority Type Missions. While, the latter two in the Strike Fighter Role. (Tactical)

          In short the PLAAF and PLAN will need vast numbers of the latter to support both the Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN). As without such a fleet it has no "hope" of even putting up a "credible defense" against the US and her Allies.

          Unless, some think the Chinese are spending trillions on their military for nothing??? As without Air Superiority it's useless.......
          F-35 Lightning II

          Comment

          • Scooter
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 11912

            China must produce the J-31 in large numbers to make the project viable. (cost effective) While, being competitive in the Export Market. Something China desperately wants.....

            Which, is why I believe it will be produced in large numbers and even eclipse the J-20 in many respects.


            Mark my words I said it here first......
            F-35 Lightning II

            Comment

            • QuantumFX
              What?
              • Dec 2008
              • 1771



              Larger-

              Comment

              • totoro
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Apr 2006
                • 1018

                Originally posted by Scooter View Post

                In short the PLAAF and PLAN will need vast numbers of the latter to support both the Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN). As without such a fleet it has no "hope" of even putting up a "credible defense" against the US and her Allies.
                Sure, China does need big numbers and it's been procuring new planes at a pace that outpaces the actual size of its air forces. For a few decades now China has been procuring roughly 80 (give or take a dozen) combat planes per year. That figure hasn't actually changed much over the time, despite China having a much larger budget nowadays. Of course, what's different is that the planes today are all 4th and 5th gen planes. They're big and expensive. So in a way it's quite something that China managed to stick to same figures per year but now with much more capable planes.

                And it's likely the planes today, such as Flankers, J-10 and J-20 last longer. 6000 flight hours or more shouldn't be hard to achieve. Which means these planes produced today are likely going to be used for 30-something years. Which in turn may suggest Chinese air forces numbering 2400 combat planes in active service. (80 times 30) That figure is bigger than what PLAAF and PLANAF operate today in their active units. So we are probably seeing a gradual increase in numbers.

                That being said, expecting just J-31 and J-20 to be produced is not realistic for the forseeable future. Perhaps from 2025 onward, when J-31 is ready for full scale production (assuming PLAAF uses it) the number of 5th gen planes produced will eclipse the previous gen. And perhaps from 2030s we will see J10 procurement cease. Either to be superseded by another new gen fighter (single engined?) or larger number of some new J-20/J-31 variants? But I'm pretty confident we'll see at least another 300-400 more J-10s before its production run for China ends.

                Comment

                • Scooter
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 11912

                  Originally posted by totoro View Post

                  Sure, China does need big numbers and it's been procuring new planes at a pace that outpaces the actual size of its air forces. For a few decades now China has been procuring roughly 80 (give or take a dozen) combat planes per year. That figure hasn't actually changed much over the time, despite China having a much larger budget nowadays. Of course, what's different is that the planes today are all 4th and 5th gen planes. They're big and expensive. So in a way it's quite something that China managed to stick to same figures per year but now with much more capable planes.

                  And it's likely the planes today, such as Flankers, J-10 and J-20 last longer. 6000 flight hours or more shouldn't be hard to achieve. Which means these planes produced today are likely going to be used for 30-something years. Which in turn may suggest Chinese air forces numbering 2400 combat planes in active service. (80 times 30) That figure is bigger than what PLAAF and PLANAF operate today in their active units. So we are probably seeing a gradual increase in numbers.

                  That being said, expecting just J-31 and J-20 to be produced is not realistic for the forseeable future. Perhaps from 2025 onward, when J-31 is ready for full scale production (assuming PLAAF uses it) the number of 5th gen planes produced will eclipse the previous gen. And perhaps from 2030s we will see J10 procurement cease. Either to be superseded by another new gen fighter (single engined?) or larger number of some new J-20/J-31 variants? But I'm pretty confident we'll see at least another 300-400 more J-10s before its production run for China ends.
                  Never said the China would stop producing 4th Generation Fighters. As a matter of fact I would assume they would continue with the J-10's and Flanker Series. While production ramps up with the J-20 and then the J-31.

                  Yet, point here is China will need a good number of 5th Generation Fighters. In order to compete with the US and her Allies. Otherwise, her Military Build Up over the last decade would be for nothing and a waste.......(my point)
                  F-35 Lightning II

                  Comment

                  • MadRat
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2006
                    • 5030

                    They do not have fuel logistics to sustain that many active units unless they scale down to a majority J-10 fleet.

                    The PLAAF has overstretched its food chain since its origins. Old habits die hard.
                    Go Huskers!

                    Comment

                    • Deino
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 4163

                      Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                      They do not have fuel logistics to sustain that many active units unless they scale down to a majority J-10 fleet.

                      The PLAAF has overstretched its food chain since its origins. Old habits die hard.

                      pardon, but why do you think so? Just a negative comment only to comment or do you have any source and facts? Even more why retire J-10 if there are still hundreds of older J-7/-8s around?
                      ...

                      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)

                      Comment

                      • totoro
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Apr 2006
                        • 1018

                        Comment is beyond silly. There are many issues with PLAAF but being unable to sustain the fleet due to fuel (shortage?) isn't one of them. Fuel costs are negligible compared to other costs of sustaining and operating a fleet. And overall military usage of fuel even if in a total war scenario is again negligible compared to overall potential fuel inflow, even if China gets down just to own oilfields, let alone if various over the border inflows from Asia are accounted for as well.

                        Comment

                        • djcross
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 5381

                          Fuel costs are NEVER negligible. Fuel is typically 15-20% of O&S cost. If fuel budget is cut, then training sorties get cut and pilot proficiency suffers.

                          Comment

                          • MadRat
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 5030

                            If you scale fuel against fleet numbers both the PLAAF and PLAN have grown considerably over the last two decades and continue to scale over the next. China is oil dependent yet see no issue with growing usage beyond imports growth. Further add their domestic consumption growth. They have an unavoidable problem. Their only hope is too get Western countries to scale back consumption... which explains their carbon agenda support.
                            Go Huskers!

                            Comment

                            • Deino
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 4163

                              Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                              If you scale fuel against fleet numbers both the PLAAF and PLAN have grown considerably over the last two decades and continue to scale over the next. China is oil dependent yet see no issue with growing usage beyond imports growth. Further add their domestic consumption growth. They have an unavoidable problem. Their only hope is too get Western countries to scale back consumption... which explains their carbon agenda support.
                              Again; what's your source for this? especially since the overall fleet by pure numbers of tactical fighters has been reduced in recent years compared to the hundreds of J-6s, J-7s and J-8s.
                              So what makes you believe that there is an issue and even more please explain why the PLAAF should retire the J-10 even if there are still too many older J-7s and J-8s operational.

                              Your post simply does not make sense.

                              ...

                              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)

                              Comment

                              • MadRat
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2006
                                • 5030

                                Do the simple math. It is not rocket science to extrapolate fuel burn across a fleet assuming 100% availability rate. They are taking light fighters and replacing them with much heavier burn rates (and in reality we are ignoring what should be a sharply better availability rates) you see a major scaling of necessary fuel potential. Logistics are everything.
                                Go Huskers!

                                Comment

                                • QuantumFX
                                  What?
                                  • Dec 2008
                                  • 1771

                                  Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                                  Do the simple math. It is not rocket science to extrapolate fuel burn across a fleet assuming 100% availability rate. They are taking light fighters and replacing them with much heavier burn rates (and in reality we are ignoring what should be a sharply better availability rates) you see a major scaling of necessary fuel potential. Logistics are everything.
                                  I thought the old turbojet powered Q-5, J-7/J-8 and H-6 are much worse when it comes to efficiency.

                                  Comment

                                  • TomcatViP
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2011
                                    • 5865

                                    Wiki:
                                    Attached Files

                                    Comment

                                    • halloweene
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2012
                                      • 4105

                                      WU Qian Ji, head engineer at CETEC officially confirmend that in 2013, metric radar could follow a F-22 at 450 Kms. This type of radars now cover the entire coast of China and are precise enough to target.

                                      Take it with a pinch of salt, sill...

                                      https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/st...29126636376064

                                      Comment

                                      • St. John
                                        Rank 4 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2018
                                        • 554

                                        Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                        WU Qian Ji, head engineer at CETEC officially confirmend that in 2013, metric radar could follow a F-22 at 450 Kms. This type of radars now cover the entire coast of China and are precise enough to target.

                                        Take it with a pinch of salt, sill...

                                        https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/st...29126636376064
                                        Not that impressive, the radar on a Type 42 destroyer could follow an F-117 at 240km. But all these figures are without jamming and pertain only to detection, not targeting. So in hypothetical future war scenario, a stealth aircraft will simply fly in, fire an AARGM-ER and remove these radars.

                                        Comment

                                        • halloweene
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2012
                                          • 4105

                                          Things aren't that simple, it is not a video game. Noone likes to be dtected at 450 Kms. Detection from a radar can be sent to other radars working in higher bandwith that wil energize more the intended box. I have (and swedish also btw) seen F-117 from a ground radar in France (Evreux). Of course not precise enough to lock, but sufficient to send a patrol. Which in defensive mode will certainly lit up their radars that will be detected by F-35 (or any other modern "red") etc. etc. Even a well manipulated antiquated SA2/8 can be and are real threats. One do not play pilots lives on gambles...

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X