Is China About to Get Its Military Jet Engine Program Off the Ground?

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
but they later gave up canard on their more advanced su35 and last version of su27 for russian air force...
The Russians are buying the MKI in their own configuration. Orders have already been placed. The Su-35 is meant for a different role as compared to MKI. The Russians want a true air superiority aircraft. When the MKI was introduced it was the best air superiority fighter in the world. As time passed, better aircraft came out, that's how the world works. EF-2000, Rafale, F-22 and Su-35 are better than the MKI in many parameters. MKIs advantage lies in it's ability to perform air superiority duties as well as perform ground attack with similar levels of efficiency. A true multirole platform and second only to Rafale in this regard. EF, F-22 and Su-35 don't compare in that department. The canards provide a good performance boost at low altitudes as compared to Su-35s design.

BTW, now russians even tell you that T50 is more advanced than F22 and their su35 is more advanced than rafale and ef2000,do you believe it?
As for whether the Su-35 will exceed the F-22, Rafale or EF-2000 in performance is anybody's guess as we do not know as much as we need to know about the Su-35. As it stands today, the Su-35 can be placed at this level when it comes to performance.

Marketing gimmicks may work on us fanboys, not on the real guys working first hand on these aircraft. Only a real war can decide that anyway. So, even American claims of having the best air superiority aircraft can be taken with a grain of salt. The Americans used to claim the same when the F-15 came out. Now we know that the Flanker was the better aircraft in many regimes. So, you never know. Maybe the J-20 is the best strike aircraft ever built.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
The Russians are buying the MKI in their own configuration. Orders have already been placed. The Su-35 is meant for a different role as compared to MKI. The Russians want a true air superiority aircraft. When the MKI was introduced it was the best air superiority fighter in the world. As time passed, better aircraft came out, that's how the world works. EF-2000, Rafale, F-22 and Su-35 are better than the MKI in many parameters. MKIs advantage lies in it's ability to perform air superiority duties as well as perform ground attack with similar levels of efficiency. A true multirole platform and second only to Rafale in this regard. EF, F-22 and Su-35 don't compare in that department. The canards provide a good performance boost at low altitudes as compared to Su-35s design.
The MKI is a truly magnificent aircraft, but it faces one major problem, being its massive RCS. That's why it was shot down in every A2G exercise it took part in in Red flag, and why I think any attempt to use it in any ground offensive over fortified airspace would be futile. Even in air to air combat, I sincerely doubt it would make much progress against smaller fighters with tailored RCS's and PESA or AESA radars, because a jammer wont help much there... Its much like the F14 in this respect. A large, long range fighter with a powerful radar and excellent aerodynamics, but I think the time of large RCS fighters is well and truly over. Its all about stealth and EW today, ala F18E/F, and the F35, fighters don't have to be maneuverable to be effective. they'd shoot you down over 50 miles away, where maneuvering is quite pointless (ie you cant outmaneuver a modern missile that pulls G's in the 10's.)

As for whether the Su-35 will exceed the F-22, Rafale or EF-2000 in performance is anybody's guess as we do not know as much as we need to know about the Su-35. As it stands today, the Su-35 can be placed at this level when it comes to performance.
The same applies to the Su35. It may have an AESA, beautiful handling and an astounding T/W ratio, but those all count more in the WVR dynamic. In BVR, with distances of over 70 miles against smaller fighters such as the rafale and the EF, all those advantages are rendered moot. And being a Flanker, there's only so much that can be done to reduce RCS, (same as the J11B and J15). Even when worked on, it'll still have an RCS comparable to early model F16's and Mirages.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Making an engine is the most difficult task in aircraft manufacture.

Best of luck to Red China!
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The MKI is a truly magnificent aircraft, but it faces one major problem, being its massive RCS.
Subjective. We don't know MKI's true RCS ever since RAM coating was applied to it. Mig-29As RCS was reduced by 5 times using RAM on the Mig-29K. RAM coating reduced Mig-21Bison's signature by 12-15 times according to Russia.

It was different if there was no RAM coating, as we know Russian supplied Flankers to China do not have RAM. But we know for sure our Flankers have RAM. A new RAM will be applied for the Super 30 upgrade. A similar RAM package will be applied on the PAKFA.

So, we can say for sure, MKIs RCS isn't all the big numbers you see on forums. Those are values for the Su-27 without RAM coating.

That's why it was shot down in every A2G exercise it took part in in Red flag, and why I think any attempt to use it in any ground offensive over fortified airspace would be futile.
During Red Flag, the MKIs were not allowed to use Chaffs and Flares and neither were they allowed to maneuver out of a SAM's way. No ECM was allowed either and all the time we had our radars in training mode. Meaning to say, any SAM hit on the Flanker was not considered in the points tally. All these exercises were scripted and has little or no bearing on the outcome of a real war.

Even in air to air combat, I sincerely doubt it would make much progress against smaller fighters with tailored RCS's and PESA or AESA radars, because a jammer wont help much there... Its much like the F14 in this respect.
Can you please look up F-15s record against small RCS fighters? Note most of them were WVR kills. Now consider the fact that a big azz radar will give it greater BVR capability.

A large, long range fighter with a powerful radar and excellent aerodynamics, but I think the time of large RCS fighters is well and truly over. Its all about stealth and EW today, ala F18E/F, and the F35, fighters don't have to be maneuverable to be effective. they'd shoot you down over 50 miles away, where maneuvering is quite pointless (ie you cant outmaneuver a modern missile that pulls G's in the 10's.)
F-35, maybe so. SH, Rafale, EF etc with their weapons hanging out, I don't think so.

Modern missiles pull anywhere between 30G and 100G. That is their advantage and disadvantage. Missiles aren't beatable, definitely not considering the newer Russian missiles can shoot down incoming missiles.

The same applies to the Su35. It may have an AESA, beautiful handling and an astounding T/W ratio, but those all count more in the WVR dynamic. In BVR, with distances of over 70 miles against smaller fighters such as the rafale and the EF, all those advantages are rendered moot. And being a Flanker, there's only so much that can be done to reduce RCS, (same as the J11B and J15). Even when worked on, it'll still have an RCS comparable to early model F16's and Mirages.
If that was the case, then can you please tell me why there are only 200 J-10s in PLAAF inventory while there are 300 Flankers already operational even though indigenous manufacturing of the Flankers started half a decade later as compared to J-10. Seems you have no idea how efficient a heavy fighter is.

RCS equivalent to a F-16 or Mirage-2000 with the capabilities of the Flanker and you think that is overrated? Smile.
 

pi314159

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
36
Likes
7
^^^^ Light fighters with AWACS support can be as efficient as heavy fighters in certain situations. A single fighter no matter heavy or light can either be lethal or sitting duck, it all depends.

PLAAF's doctrine is based on system vs system. That is because for a long time, PLAAF was underdog compare to USAF, USSRAF and even TWAF. Its fighters were almost always a generation behind its rivals. To compensate lack of advanced fighters, PLAAF must rely on whole air defence system. Nowadays with heavy fighters J11, light fighters J10 and AWACS under disposal, all with sufficient numbers, PLAAF commander is in much more comfortable position to chose right tactics tailored for any particular rival.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
^^^^ Light fighters with AWACS support can be as efficient as heavy fighters in certain situations. A single fighter no matter heavy or light can either be lethal or sitting duck, it all depends.
How many AWACS and fighters can you fit into a single battlespace? What about enemy ECM? What about the fighters own radar? They are going to need their radars for a BVR fight. AWACS can only see and perhaps direct weapons only in some cases, not every time. BVR lock from AWACS will make them a target. The light fighters are not stealthy anyway.

What if both sides have AWACS? What if one side has heavy fighters and the other side has only light fighters with AWACS on both sides?

Check "Computer Harpoon" profile on youtube. You will see multiple simulated engagements of different fighter aircraft over Taiwan between USN/USAF and PLAAF. Notice how quickly the Su-35s take out AWACS in those scenarios.

PLAAF's doctrine is based on system vs system. That is because for a long time, PLAAF was underdog compare to USAF, USSRAF and even TWAF. Its fighters were almost always a generation behind its rivals.
PLAAF's main objective is air denial. They don't care how many aircraft are lost as long as the PLA is not affected by the enemy air force, which is one of the points of air warfare.

IAF used to be inferior to PAF too, during past wars. But IAF never fought alone, they fought while supporting IA unlike PAF which tried fighting it's own war while ignoring PA's and PN's problems.

To compensate lack of advanced fighters, PLAAF must rely on whole air defence system. Nowadays with heavy fighters J11, light fighters J10 and AWACS under disposal, all with sufficient numbers, PLAAF commander is in much more comfortable position to chose right tactics tailored for any particular rival.
Well, that's how things work. Would it change again once Japan and S Korea receive F-35s?
 

pi314159

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
36
Likes
7
^^^ The large and heavy fighters should have an edge over light fighters if everything else is equat. The point is in any real war, 'everything else' never be equal.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
How many AWACS and fighters can you fit into a single battlespace? What about enemy ECM? What about the fighters own radar? They are going to need their radars for a BVR fight. AWACS can only see and perhaps direct weapons only in some cases, not every time. BVR lock from AWACS will make them a target. The light fighters are not stealthy anyway.

What if both sides have AWACS? What if one side has heavy fighters and the other side has only light fighters with AWACS on both sides?

Check "Computer Harpoon" profile on youtube. You will see multiple simulated engagements of different fighter aircraft over Taiwan between USN/USAF and PLAAF. Notice how quickly the Su-35s take out AWACS in those scenarios.



PLAAF's main objective is air denial. They don't care how many aircraft are lost as long as the PLA is not affected by the enemy air force, which is one of the points of air warfare.

IAF used to be inferior to PAF too, during past wars. But IAF never fought alone, they fought while supporting IA unlike PAF which tried fighting it's own war while ignoring PA's and PN's problems.



Well, that's how things work. Would it change again once Japan and S Korea receive F-35s?
well,

according to PLA's doctrine, every unit or platform will just be a terminal of matrix....war matrix...
 

BackToEast

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
46
Likes
1
Country flag
well,

according to PLA's doctrine, every unit or platform will just be a terminal of matrix....war matrix...
Everyday I will spend sometime visiting DFI. We will always keep close watch at our enemy's movement and their ideas.:cool2:
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
well,

according to PLA's doctrine, every unit or platform will just be a terminal of matrix....war matrix...
IAF already is...

It is called as network centric operation. US demonstrated it in 1991.

IAF demonstrated it during the very recent Op Shoorveer exercise.

This is not a doctrine.

^^^ The large and heavy fighters should have an edge over light fighters if everything else is equat. The point is in any real war, 'everything else' never be equal.
Can we have less Sun Tsu and more substance?
 

GromHellscream

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
274
Likes
33
Not the same level of network centric operation, differing from cloud to soil.
Separated C4I in each branch of armed force is nothing a big deal nowadays, only the doorstep standard to modern warfares.
But still most countries in the world are far from this level, and countries clearly qualified are easy to figure out:
0) United States, matured system and ahead of anyone in developing on a higher stage;
1) France with both independant system and NATO system;
2) Other NATO countries and intimate US allies such as Israel, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, are all supported by US system to different degrees;
3) Russia, developed from grand heritage from Red Empire;
4) India, anymore information is welcomed;
5) South Africa or some other developed countries in Northen Europe??? No problems in technique;
6) China, basic bones constructed;

PLA's doctrine is aimed to set a whole network including all weapon platforms and resources. When a war breaks, units from information, space, air, water/underwater, land, nuclear will be all integrated as one to counter US's integrated system (still on construction yet) in the future. Compared with the 2nd rank project J20 (No.X in Earth_Door projects) publicly shown everywhere, only projects as the so called "system" (No.X in Heaven_Door projects) are important enough to be identified as the 1st rank in PLA's big plan.
 

pi314159

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
36
Likes
7
Can we have less Sun Tsu and more substance?
You yourself already provided a 'substance' with Sun Tsu's spirit in it, imho. Here it is:

IAF used to be inferior to PAF too, during past wars. But IAF never fought alone, they fought while supporting IA unlike PAF which tried fighting it's own war while ignoring PA's and PN's problems
BTW, we have been drifting too far away from the topic of chinese jet engines:)
 

GromHellscream

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
274
Likes
33
Though still off topic, there are truly some serious problems in PA's combat strength based on history. :facepalm:
Similar to their Arab brothers, their army performed soft under disadvantaged scenarios, especially in large scale land wars.
Individual bravery of soldiers won't do much in that case.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Not the same level of network centric operation, differing from cloud to soil.
Separated C4I in each branch of armed force is nothing a big deal nowadays, only the doorstep standard to modern warfares.
But still most countries in the world are far from this level, and countries clearly qualified are easy to figure out:
4) India, anymore information is welcomed;
Our network system is being tested in various exercises. IAF says they will be ready in 2012. IAF received datalinks from Israel early this year. It is meant to network air assets with radars, UAVs and satellites. IA says they will be ready with networked system and F-INSAS by 2017. Navy says 2022.

IAF and IA are testing network interoperability in exercises this year.

6) China, basic bones constructed;
Any information regarding this?

We are waaaaaay off topic.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Our network system is being tested in various exercises. IAF says they will be ready in 2012. IAF received datalinks from Israel early this year. It is meant to network air assets with radars, UAVs and satellites. IA says they will be ready with networked system and F-INSAS by 2017. Navy says 2022.

IAF and IA are testing network interoperability in exercises this year.



Any information regarding this?

We are waaaaaay off topic.
well, a independent satellite navigation system the the base of a independent integrated C4SIR sysem.

to some extent ,only those countries with a independent satellite navigation system can finish independent C4SIR system.what allies of USA have are just terminals of Yankee's C4SIR system.

Soviet once had,but Russia today obvioulsy it can not afford a independent one,due to the lack of fund....so Russians are looking for fund-providers in none-west countries.....India seems like a proper one

in fact, EU might have one, if they were united, but they are engage in endless haggling and shifting of responsibility to their Galilei.

China's Geidou can cover Asia-PAcific area by the end of this year and might cover the whold earth before 2015....
 
Last edited:

satish007

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
1,458
Likes
203
well, a independent satellite navigation system the the base of a independent integrated C4SIR sysem.

to some extent ,only those countries with a independent satellite navigation system can finish independent C4SIR system..
Badguy, you are so knowledgable, although you arenot in a famous city.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
well, a independent satellite navigation system the the base of a independent integrated C4SIR sysem.
Yeah. We will have two independent systems pretty soon apart from the Russian one.

Soviet once had,but Russia today obvioulsy it can not afford a independent one,due to the lack of fund....so Russians are looking for fund-providers in none-west countries.....India seems like a proper one
GLONASS is fully functional. India has access to military grade signals.
GLONASS Fully Operational | GPS World

Apart from that India will set up it's own regional system called IRNSS. First two satellites will be launched in December AFAIK.

Apart from that there is another project called GAGAN meant for civilian air traffic to be ready by 2014. First satellite was already launched last year.

China's Geidou can cover Asia-PAcific area by the end of this year and might cover the whold earth before 2015....
You mean Beidou. In December, 2011, it became operational over China with 10 satellites. It will be completed in 2020.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top