XXJ - Chinese fifth generation fighter programme

[m4a1]

Are you certain that Chinese posses the capability to field PESA radars?

[Rod]

So when our secret agent steals this Chinese "Firefox" must he "think in Chinese"?

[Scythe]

Are you certain that Chinese posses the capability to field PESA radars?

 

Well, they've been fielding S300xxx SAMs for a while now, and other Russian equipment with PESA radars. I'm positive that they've made attempts to reverse-engineer them. But as for fielding them, yeah, AFAIK they've been in service for a while in their Flankers or surface-to-air missile batteries.

[RETAC21]

Well, they've been fielding S300xxx SAMs for a while now, and other Russian equipment with PESA radars. I'm positive that they've made attempts to reverse-engineer them. But as for fielding them, yeah, AFAIK they've been in service for a while in their Flankers or surface-to-air missile batteries.

 

 

See here: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/10/hq-9-sam-system-site-analysis.html

 

THE HQ-9

 

The HQ-9 is a modern mobile strategic SAM system roughly analogous to the Russian-made S-300PMU (SA-10B GRUMBLE). The HQ-9 has a range of 100 kilometers, an increase over the S-300PMU's 90 kilometer maximum range but less than that of the S-300PMU-1's 150 kilometers. The containerized missiles are carried in groups of four on the back of wheeled TELs very similar in design to that of the S-300P's 5P85. Target prosecution is handled by the HT-233 phased-array radar system, mounted on a wheeled chassis in a configuration very similar to that employed by the S-300PMU, which mounts the 30N6 (FLAP LID) engagement radar on a MAZ-7910 chassis. The HT-233 radar is likely capable of engaging multiple targets thanks to its phased-array construction.

 

The similarities between the S-300PMU components and the HQ-9 components may be the result of a limited reverse-engineering effort. China had no prior experience in developing a modern, high-performance strategic SAM system, and it is likely that the S-300P was examined as either a possible starting point or at the very least a general roadmap for component design. Espionage efforts may have aided the development effort as well, as the HT-233's radar array bears some similarities to the MIM-104 PATRIOT's AN/MPQ-53 phased-array radar. Were the HQ-9 to be an amalgamation of S-300PMU and PATRIOT technology, it would have to be regarded as a very formidable weapon system, although there is no reason to doubt the system's effectiveness were this not to be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

[pikachu]

Are you certain that Chinese posses the capability to field PESA radars?

 

The Chinese KJ-2000 AWACS (Il-76 airframe) uses a mechanically static triangular array AESA radar in a round radome. It's already in service from at least 2006 and was shown flying in formation with J-10As during the air parade segment of the 2009 Chinese Military Parade in Beijing. So, not just PESA radars but also AESA has been in service for a while. At least 5 KJ-2000s are known to be in service.

 

The smaller KJ-200 AWACS, designated ZDK-03 (Y-8 airframe) has even been exported to Pakistan as of last year. It also has an AESA radar.

 

I think a better question would be "Do the Chinese have a fighter-sized AESA radar?" - for which I believe the answer is, "Not yet."

[TRYTRY]

The Chinese KJ-2000 AWACS (Il-76 airframe) uses a mechanically static triangular array AESA radar in a round radome. It's already in service from at least 2006 and was shown flying in formation with J-10As during the air parade segment of the 2009 Chinese Military Parade in Beijing. So, not just PESA radars but also AESA has been in service for a while. At least 5 KJ-2000s are known to be in service.

 

The smaller KJ-200 AWACS, designated ZDK-03 (Y-8 airframe) has even been exported to Pakistan as of last year. It also has an AESA radar.

 

I think a better question would be "Do the Chinese have a fighter-sized AESA radar?" - for which I believe the answer is, "Not yet."

The KJ-2000 was with 8 J-7s. Two KJ-200 were with 6 Su-27s. One HH-6 was with 2 J-10s(the other one was with 2 J-8s).

Edited February 3, 2011 by TRYTRY

[pikachu]

The KJ-2000 was with 8 J-7s. Two KJ-200 were with 6 Su-27s. One HH-6 was with 2 J-10s(the other one was with 2 J-8s).

 

 

Nitpicker!

 

Fine, my memory's a bit rusty there.

Edited February 3, 2011 by pikachu

[LeoTanker]

Ok not J-20 related, but.. How manny J-7s are (probbably) still in active service with PLAAF? When will they be replaced and with what?

J-10, J-11 and J-20 just seem way to complex and expensive to replace the hordes of J-7s and J-8s one-for-one. So is the plan to cut numbers drasticly, or to fill the gaps in the line with something less advanced and less costy? Maybe JF-17/FC-1s Made In Pakistan... What an irony that would be.

 

And the Badgers.. They cant have manny flight hours left in their old frames by now, or?

[Josh]

Ok not J-20 related, but.. How manny J-7s are (probbably) still in active service with PLAAF? When will they be replaced and with what?

J-10, J-11 and J-20 just seem way to complex and expensive to replace the hordes of J-7s and J-8s one-for-one. So is the plan to cut numbers drasticly, or to fill the gaps in the line with something less advanced and less costy? Maybe JF-17/FC-1s Made In Pakistan... What an irony that would be.

 

And the Badgers.. They cant have manny flight hours left in their old frames by now, or?

 

Considering how long many other obsolete types were kept in production, never mind opperation, I suspect you'll see a F-7/F-8 component for some time. They still can shoot at patrol planes and whatnot, and they still are enough of a fighter that they'd rate an AIM-120. I know the PLAN has considered using its older D/Es as bait while the newer ones hunt SSNs; it wouldn't shock me if PLAAF had intensions of using waves of F-8's to soften up an air defense so that more modern aircraft can follow up and exploit a winchester'd CAP.

 

EDIT: The Badgers I believe are modern indiginous copies; I forgot the designation, but I think they are relatively new in production and have modern avionics. I don't see them be retired any time soon either way.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Josh

[KV7]

Considering how long many other obsolete types were kept in production, never mind opperation, I suspect you'll see a F-7/F-8 component for some time. They still can shoot at patrol planes and whatnot, and they still are enough of a fighter that they'd rate an AIM-120. I know the PLAN has considered using its older D/Es as bait while the newer ones hunt SSNs; it wouldn't shock me if PLAAF had intensions of using waves of F-8's to soften up an air defense so that more modern aircraft can follow up and exploit a winchester'd CAP.

 

EDIT: The Badgers I believe are modern indiginous copies; I forgot the designation, but I think they are relatively new in production and have modern avionics. I don't see them be retired any time soon either way.

 

Xian H-6 is the Chinese copy, the latest version, H6-K entered service only in 2009, it can carry 6 JC-10A ALCM (~2000 km range)

 

see http://www.webcitation.org/5mOTUakb7

 

and http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2007/09/08/analysis_china_attains_nuclear_strategic_strike_capability/2924/

[Archie Pellagio]

Ok not J-20 related, but.. How manny J-7s are (probbably) still in active service with PLAAF? When will they be replaced and with what?

J-10, J-11 and J-20 just seem way to complex and expensive to replace the hordes of J-7s and J-8s one-for-one. So is the plan to cut numbers drasticly, or to fill the gaps in the line with something less advanced and less costy? Maybe JF-17/FC-1s Made In Pakistan... What an irony that would be.

 

And the Badgers.. They cant have manny flight hours left in their old frames by now, or?

 

The H6K's are new build and a bit like comparing a P8 with a 737-200 WRT comparing H6K with the old Tu-16's we know and love.

 

As for F7 replacement, given how cheap the J11 JF17/FC1 is the PLAAF shouldn't have any trouble replacing them, that is what they are designed as, the bottom tier with the J10's filling the middle gap and Flankers and XXJ at the pointy end.

 

Anyone else get a kick out of the new Asian military power relying on H6K maritime patrol bombers?

Edited February 9, 2011 by Luke Y

[LeoTanker]

As for F7 replacement, given how cheap the J11 is the PLAAF shouldn't have any trouble replacing them, that is what they are designed as, the bottom tier with the J10's filling the middle gap and Flankers and XXJ at the pointy end.

 

 

Sorry for nit-picking here Luke, but as far as I know the J-11 is a Flanker (domestic Su-27 knock off). Or do you mean the top end segment will be J-20s and imported/license built Russian Flankers (Su-30MKK)? Thats probbably a good guess. But mass produceing J-11s as a low end replacement for J-7s and J-8s? Because its cheap?? I bet the fuel bill alone for a hour of J-11 flying could make even Chuck Norris cry like a baby.

 

And your points about H-6 are absolutely true of course. Must learn to do some Googling before asking stupid questions..

[Archie Pellagio]

Sorry, brainfart on my part, J-17 (Its still the FC1 in my head )

[Gabe]

Sorry, brainfart on my part, J-17 (Its still the FC1 in my head )

 

It's still the FC-1 according to Chinese designation, JF-17 is what the Pakistanis call it. There's no such thing as the J-17.

[RETAC21]

FC-1 is strictly for Pakistan, it seems J-10 is the real replacement for the J-7, which makes sense, just like MiG-29 replaced the MiG-21 in those places that didn't got the MiG-23.

 

 

[Archie Pellagio]

It's still the FC-1 according to Chinese designation, JF-17 is what the Pakistanis call it. There's no such thing as the J-17.

 

Jesus Fucking Christ - THIS thing.

 

 

 

FC-1 is strictly for Pakistan, it seems J-10 is the real replacement for the J-7, which makes sense, just like MiG-29 replaced the MiG-21 in those places that didn't got the MiG-23.

 

The Chinese are putting the JF17/FC1 into service as well, and at roughly half the cost of the J10 it makes more sense as an F7 replacement.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Luke Y

[pikachu]

FC-1 is strictly for Pakistan, it seems J-10 is the real replacement for the J-7, which makes sense, just like MiG-29 replaced the MiG-21 in those places that didn't got the MiG-23.

 

Technically, FC-1 isn't just for Pakistan, as it's available for export to anyone. Heck, since AVIC is already offering their choppers for Marine One, even the US might be able to get some FC-1s in the future . Also, while PAC-Kamra is technically the sole designated producer at the moment, Chengdu was the actual producer of the first batch and is in fact the designated producer for export (non-Pakistani) orders, so it's not like China won't be able to build FC-1s if they want to. J-10 production seems to be on halt pending completion of the WS-10A engine, AESA radar, and J-10B flight testing. There are also those who claim that J-10B flight testing is technically finished (for airframe certification) but the engine and radar aren't ready yet. There has been a dearth of J-10B photographs this past year which may indicate that the prototypes are flying less. The WS-10 engine itself is technically certified, but only for twin-engine operation (J-11B and the prototype J-20).

 

In a way, because of the way J-10B is designed, its entry into service will provide the best indicator that the J-20's technologies are maturing. The J-10B will have a Chinese AESA radar, Chinese engine, Chinese IRST, and integration with the latest batch of Chinese weaponry. All these are technologies the J-20 would need for maturation. There is also the possibility that Chengdu might want to mature both planes nearly simultaneously; Chinese fanboys are suggesting that the PLAAF might want to wait for the WS-15 engine instead for both J-20 and J-10B. If true, this would push the J-10B's thrust-to-weight ratio closer to the level of the F-35, making it in effect a single-engined competitor to the Eurocanards. More likely, though, for the J-10B to enter service earlier and a J-10C developed later on with trickle-down technology from J-20. After all, Pakistan would still want their FC-20s (J-10B) before the next round of conflict with India.

 

Rumors are also still floating around of the existence of a J-16 "Silent Flanker" project by Shenyang AC. This may be a LO-version of the J-11B (thus cheaper than J-20), possibly on offer as a carrier fighter or dedicated air superiority fighter. This one supposedly looks a lot like the Russian T-50 PAK-FA and might be revealed some time in April if it exists. A glass cockpit display in the 2010 Zhuhai airshow might be indication that the plane does exist:

 

Mystery Cockpit

 

As can be seen, the representation of the plane on the left hand side shows a conventional layout that is clearly incompatible with the J-20 (but looks suspiciously like the F-35), with allotment for six missiles carried internally. In contrast, the J-20s supposed cockpit will look like this:

 

Possible J-20 cockpit

 

The plane's representation indicates a delta with twelve hardpoints (six internal, six external).

 

I guess we'll see. If there is in fact a J-16 project, it might indicate that China's MIC is entering a new level of maturity that allows multiple competing designs to be fielded simultaneously. Certainly worth some consideration.

[TSJ]

A Sons of Nippon website featuring Anglo American writers:

 

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/02/07/us-drones-trump-china-theatrics/

 

A bit optimistic I would think,

Edited February 9, 2011 by TSJ

[RETAC21]

Technically, FC-1 isn't just for Pakistan, as it's available for export to anyone. Heck, since AVIC is already offering their choppers for Marine One, even the US might be able to get some FC-1s in the future . Also, while PAC-Kamra is technically the sole designated producer at the moment, Chengdu was the actual producer of the first batch and is in fact the designated producer for export (non-Pakistani) orders, so it's not like China won't be able to build FC-1s if they want to.

 

 

No argument there, I agree, it's less a technical limitation than a tactical one, it would like procuring the F-5E and the F-16A, sure, the F-5 is a nifty little plane, but compared to the Viper, it pales... I think the PRC sees the same point, the 2nd Gulf war (1991) opened their eyes to the fact that the quantity/quality equation will favor quality if the disparity is too big. I have Chinese Generals on record in 1995 saying the wanted to catch up technologically rather than numerically, and their neighbours won't let up: India, Vietnam, Russia have Flankers, Taiwan/ROK F-16s, ROK & Japan: F-15s, there's no niche for the FC-1 IMO.

 

 

[swerve]

The Chinese are putting the JF17/FC1 into service as well,

Who says? Everything I've seen says that every time it's been asked, the PLAAF has said it has no requirement for it & isn't buying it.

 

It's an export-only cheap fighter, akin to the F-5 in its time. How many front-line squadrons of F-5s did the USAF field? According to your arguments, it would have been a better replacement for some older types than the larger & more expensive types the USAF bought in the 1960s.

[KV7]

No argument there, I agree, it's less a technical limitation than a tactical one, it would like procuring the F-5E and the F-16A, sure, the F-5 is a nifty little plane, but compared to the Viper, it pales... I think the PRC sees the same point, the 2nd Gulf war (1991) opened their eyes to the fact that the quantity/quality equation will favor quality if the disparity is too big. I have Chinese Generals on record in 1995 saying the wanted to catch up technologically rather than numerically, and their neighbours won't let up: India, Vietnam, Russia have Flankers, Taiwan/ROK F-16s, ROK & Japan: F-15s, there's no niche for the FC-1 IMO.

 

But, consider that you have sufficient top-end fighters to achieve air superiority and SEAD, is there not then a utility in having cheap strike capable fighters- is a J-10 really going to be much better at strafing, bombing and PGM attacks compared to a FC-1 ?

[pikachu]

But, consider that you have sufficient top-end fighters to achieve air superiority and SEAD, is there not then a utility in having cheap strike capable fighters- is a J-10 really going to be much better at strafing, bombing and PGM attacks compared to a FC-1 ?

 

In the PLAAF that's the job of the JH-7A, a twin-engined dedicated strike fighter that looks like the SEPECAT Jaguar. There's already significant overlap because the JH-7 series might eventually be upgraded with the WS-13 engine currently designated for use in the FC-1.

[KV7]

In the PLAAF that's the job of the JH-7A, a twin-engined dedicated strike fighter that looks like the SEPECAT Jaguar. There's already significant overlap because the JH-7 series might eventually be upgraded with the WS-13 engine currently designated for use in the FC-1.

 

That is the JH-7B project right ?? Agree the JH-7 is a far superior strike platform. But do you have any idea of its unit cost ???

[pikachu]

That is the JH-7B project right ?? Agree the JH-7 is a far superior strike platform. But do you have any idea of its unit cost ???

 

Well, it's offered for export as the FBC-1. Get someone to order it and we'll find out.

 

On a more serious note, if it can fit two WS-13 engines, it's bound to be much more expensive than FC-1. After all, it's a 9,000-kg-capacity dedicated strike fighter able to carry medium-sized PLAN AShMs.

 

Insofar as having more planes for bomb trucks, it's possible that PLAAF will instead bulk up on the number of dedicated trainers like the L-15 because all PLAAF modern trainers are combat-capable. This way they can build up a strong reserve corps of pilots while maintaining a secondary fleet of relatively cheap multipurpose a/c. Basically there's just no niche in PLAAF that the FC-1 can fill that isn't being targeted by a competing product. For a while PLANAF was considering taking in FC-1 to bulk up their fleet and get rid of their J-8s, but now that they're actually getting a carrier seems like that idea died a silent death.

[RETAC21]

But, consider that you have sufficient top-end fighters to achieve air superiority and SEAD, is there not then a utility in having cheap strike capable fighters- is a J-10 really going to be much better at strafing, bombing and PGM attacks compared to a FC-1 ?

 

Problem with cheap strike fighters is that they end up being expensive if unable to achieve the missions set for them in case of war. FC-1 would still be too expensive for COIN warfare.