Posted on 11/07/2006 5:04:59 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Chinese J-11B Presages Quiet Military Revolution
By Douglas Barrie
11/05/2006 09:17:03 PM
POWER PLAY
China is in the midst of a critical period of testing an "indigenous" version of the Russian Su-27 Flanker, known as the J-11B, with propulsion, radar and weapons system integration underway.
The effort is emblematic of Beijing's efforts to recast its capabilities for the 21st century as its military and associated defense-aerospace sector undergoes its own revolution in military affairs.
The development of the J-11B, if successful, will mark a notable change in capability--not only for key elements of the country's defense industrial base, but also for the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).
The Chinese military is recalibrating the balance of quantity and quality in favor of the latter, as a guarantor of a decisive military edge and the ability to project power regionally. At the same time, the nature of the relationship between Beijing and Moscow may be subtly changing, reflecting China's growing confidence in its own capabilities.
Alongside key elements on the J-11B, Chinese industry is beginning to produce a gamut of capable guided weapons, both tactical and strategic, including satellite-guided precision systems. The emergence of unmanned platforms is also gaining the attention of Beijing.
The nationally developed systems now in various stages of the J-11B test program potentially provide performance improvements over the various Su-27 models now in PLAAF service.
Air Show China, held here Oct. 31-Nov. 5, included the first official detail about the Shenyang Tai Hang engine. This turbofan powerplant is being developed for the Flanker, and is also sometimes referred to as the WS-10A. A handful of J-11B airframes are now likely being used for development testing, including at least one J-11B engine-integration aircraft.
Beijing and Moscow first agreed on the Flanker sale in 1991, with a license production contract signed in 1996. The Flanker has given China its most capable fighter aircraft while also providing a vehicle for its industry to gain knowledge of fourth-generation fighter manufacturing. The first kit-built J-11A was completed in 1998. The J-11A still uses Russian engines, radar and weaponry.
Design and development of the Tai Hang has been underway for nearly two decades, says one senior Chinese aero-engine executive. He admits the program has proved challenging: "We hit difficulties in developing the engine."
Chinese industry executives attending the show remain reticent to discuss the J-11B program. The executive would say only that the Tai Hang has "similar applications to the Al-31 [the present Su-27 engine]. It's of a similar thrust and is of the same technology generation." The J-11B program also includes the integration of Chinese-developed planar array pulse-Doppler radar replacing the Russian N-001 cassegrain radar, at least two versions of which are fielded by the PLAAF. An image of a J-11B, still in its primer (see top photo on p. 27), appears to show the aircraft fitted with a different radome to the basic Su-27. Given the available space for a flat-plate antenna, this would offer a performance improvement over the N-0001.
Also associated with the J-11B is the Luoyang PL-12 active radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile. While the Chinese air force already has the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) in service with the Su-27, the PL-12 offers a big performance increase over the present export standard of the Vympel R-77. Officials from the company were unable to discuss the PL-12 project.
The initial development test-firing program for the overall PL-12 program now appears complete, with the missile at least close to service entry. It was integrated first on the J-8II for the development program. Trials of the PL-12 on the Chengdu J-10 also have been carried out.
The PL-12 does benefit from Russian technology, with the seeker and inertial guidance system provided by Moscow. A variant of the Agat 9B-1103M radar seeker is the most likely candidate for the missile. This seeker was intended initially for an improved version of the R-77, but appears to have been sold to China first.
The PLAAF currently has the capability for two-target engagement using the Su-27, R-77 combination. Successful integration of the PL-12 on the J-11B would likely provide a genuine multitarget capability and give the PLAAF a more capable air superiority aircraft.
The country is also moving to fill gaps in its tactical weapons capability, and to bolster its ability to support combat aircraft export proposals with credible guided-weapons packages. The show included the presentation of several previously unseen air-launched tactical systems. Luoyang showed the LT-2 laser-guided bomb, along with the LS-6 precision-guided glide bomb (middle photo). Rival China Aerospace and Technology Corp. unveiled its FT-1 and FT-3 satellite-guided weapons family. Both are aimed at potential exports of the FC-1 light fighter, including Pakistan, and likely national requirements.
Meanwhile, China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp. (Casic) showed the C-704 antiship missile (bottom photo), along with the C-802KD air-to-surface version of the C-802 antiship weapon.
The LT-2 has been in service with the Chinese air force "for more than three years," says a Luoyang executive. The 500-kg.-class (1,100-lb.) weapon resembles the Russian KAB family. The official suggested that the laser-guided bomb has a range of up to 20 km. (12.4 mi.) from high altitude, with an average accuracy of about 2 meters (6.5 ft.).
The LS-6 appears, in effect, a successor system, with a family of weapons planned. The official says "about a dozen" launch tests of the LS-6 precision bomb kit have been carried out using a Shenyang J-8II as the test aircraft. The program was begun in 2003, with testing now complete.
He identifies the JF-17--the Pakistan air force designation for the Chengdu FC-1 now in development--as the next intended aircraft for integration of the weapon. Guidance is provided by an inertial package coupled with satellite navigation. The official says the weapons family will be capable of using three systems--the U.S. GPS, the Russian Glonass and China's own Beidou system. The architecture for this system eventually foresees using five satellites in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and up to 30 non-GEO platforms.
The 500-kg. LS-6 has a maximum launch range of 60 km. from medium altitude. A 1,000-kg. kit has also been considered, although this requires a larger wing. A 250-kg. variant is in the pipeline as well. Also under study is the addition of a laser seeker.
The two weapons shown by Casic cover the 250-kg. and 500-kg. class. The FT-1 bears a resemblance to the U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition. Development began in 2001, according to a company executive. Tests have been carried out from a Xian JH-7. Range of the FT-1 is given as up to 18 km., depending on the release altitude and aircraft speed, with an accuracy of "30 meters, or less." Casic subsidiary China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corp. is responsible for the C-704. At least a small batch of the antiship missile has been produced.
The design is strongly reminiscent of the Hongdu JJ/TL-6 antiship missile, although dimensions and performance figures for the two vary slightly. Data provided for the C-704 give the monopulse active-radar-guided missile a maximum engagement range of 35 km.
The company is also offering a further variant of its C-802 antiship missile. The air-launched C-802KD is claimed to be capable of engaging ships in harbor or some fixed land targets. Given that the missile is fitted with a radar seeker only, land targets would need to provide a high radar contrast.
An electro-optically guided medium-size air-launched weapon in a similar class to the C-802 is under development in China. This program almost certainly corresponds to the KD-88 designation.
The first indications of a measured shift in Sino-Russian relations could be detected in the outcome of the ongoing "push and shove" between Beijing and Moscow over the provision of a Russian engine for the FC-1 light fighter. The aircraft is a joint development between China and Pakistan.
Chinese and Russian aerospace executives are maintaining China's FC-1 light fighter will be provided to Pakistan with a Russian engine, though this is still pending political approval from Moscow. The Russian government has yet to approve the release, with suggestions that Moscow might nix a deal to avoid jeopardizing sales to India.
First, the Raptor will be the last long-range manned fighter the U.S. ever makes. And don't hold your breath on the RPVs.
Second, don't draw the wrong conclusions about defense from your economic assertions. Things are rather otherwise from what you suppose. We now are critically dependent on China for a vast number of discrete ..but highly essential ...electronic components for our defense industry that we can't make for our selves anymore...or at least don't...and won't. The Chinese labor price "competition" annhilated whole sectors of our production...and in fact, many of our own factories weren't simply shuttered...but boxed up, shipped over there, and set up to further abet their competitive advantage...and indeed ...monopoly supply position.
And China also absconded with Magnequench, all with the Blessings of Xlinton, and then W ...and by so doing...putting a lock on the next-generations of new defense technology...super-magnets, which are specced into most of our advanced aerospace gadgets.
I looked out at work today, onto production facilities for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35). And assembly facilities for Globalhawk. As I recal looking down on the assembly facilities for the B-2 and B-1.
RPVs are old technology. Modern systems are autonomous. The JSF is longer range than the Raptor.
The next generation is to astound!
And very tough people. Remember the siege of Stalingrad?
Thank any survivor you see on my behalf. Not only did they grind Hitler to a standstill in the Great Patriotic War, it is my opinion that their shear raw courage and determination gave every US war planner pause. It was a major contributor to the cold war staying cold...
Not by the book it isn't, see here for example:
F-22, F-35, & the Hi-Lo Mix"he F-35A is a direct replacement for the Air Force's "Lo" end F-16 fighter and is of similar size and capabilities. Like the F-16, the F-35A is primarily a ground attack aircraft with a secondary air defense capability. The F-35A takes advantage of many of the advanced technologies developed for the F-22, but has a shorter range, simpler avionics, and is less maneuverable. "
Sigh. Autonomous is for reconnaisance and surveillance functions only. Air superiority absolutely requires manned control somewhere to make the decision as to shoot or not. Surveillance is far less stringent in decision-making, and time-stress. So, again, you are simply coming to the wrong conclusions. The Globalhawk is NOT an air-superiority anything. Not supersonic. Not air-to-air. It can be used for a kind of lame ground strike role, of course, but that is not particularly significant either.
If you're talking F22/35 yes. Just as is. But not budgeted for close to sufficient numbers for coverage or depth. We need more deployments.
If you're talking this...
Don, this odd claim caused me to look deeper into the PublicDomain info...and it shows this:
The F-22 [Raptor] combat range is est at 3220 km
(Source: http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/f22/techspecs.htm )ferry range est 3220 km
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor )
Meanwhile, please note the following:
F-35 [JSF] combat range est 1100 km
(source: http://www.defence.gov.au/Raaf/aircraft/jsf.htm )
Non-combat range est 2222 km
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 )
Although these sources aren't definitive, they do point to the F-22 having significantly longer range than the F-35.
No question who will be the Top Dog...or I should say, TOP GUN [something we need to re-institute]:
I submit you have mixed some of your km with some of your miles.
With respect.
Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm 14%
From the Raptor flight test web site....
I will suggest you consider "Combat Radius" as the best measure of range, rather than ferry range.
The flight tested combat radius for the primary mission of the F-22 is only 310nm, + 100 nm reserve, which exceeds the requirement by 14%. That is because of the expectation that the F-22 will use high drag supersonic flight (even if it uses supercruise, the higher efficiency non-afterburning engine doesn't lower the drag of the airframe.
The F-35 primary mission doesn't have supercruise in it, and hence has lower drag, for a longer range, giving it a longer combat radius, say 350nm + 100nm reserve.
Here's more "fuel" for thought on F-22 ferry range.
F-22 combat range on internal fuel 3220 kmmax ferry range 8050 km with 4 x 600-gal external fuel tanks
Mistaken Assumptions.Normal Combat Radius represents how far, in kilometers, the aircraft can normally travel from its base and perform it's mission (air superiority or ground attack) The rule of thumb is that the combat radius is one third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. This assumes a trip out and back plus one third of fuel for combat operations. But for that handful of nations with a lot of aerial tanker aircraft, the situation is quite different, and rather more complicated. With tankers you can have combat aircraft top off their fuel tanks just before they enter hostile air space, and do the same when they return. This can more than double the normal range of warplanes. But it gets more complicated than that. Aircraft have a maximum take off weight, but bombers can take off with more bombs and less fuel. After flying a long distance to just outside enemy territory, they can take on more fuel, deliver their bombs and tank up again on the way home. Aircraft can also carry more weight in flight than they do when taking off. So refueling in the air can as much as double the normal bomb load. This technique is particularly useful with heavy bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. But even smaller bombers make use of the technique, especially the F-117. America has the largest aerial tanker fleet and is the most frequent use of the tankers to extend range and increase bombload. Another factor effecting range is the use of speed to avoid enemy warplanes or ground fire. Normally, aircraft burn about .5 percent of fuel per minute when cruising at the economical speed (600?800 kilometers an hour). When enemy warplanes or ground fire is encountered, maximum speed is used. These high speed maneuvers will often get you away from danger, or are sometimes used to catch up with enemy fighters. But maximum speed burns up a lot more fuel. Fighters can consume 10 to 15 percent of fuel per minute at max speed. Even strike aircraft will frequently crank it up to two or three percent of fuel per minute while maneuvering towards or away from their targets. The average aircraft has sufficient fuel for two or three hours of cruising and up to fifteen minutes of high speed maneuvering during combat. Strike aircraft prefer to conserve their fuel so they can circle the battlefield waiting for the opportune moment to go down and hit a target. Fuel is a weapon. If one aircraft has more fuel it can force another into a situation where the disadvantaged plane will crash with empty gas tanks. When the low fuel aircraft realizes that it only has enough to get back to base, it can be more easily outmaneuvered by its opponent, who can be more generous with fuel, and speed. Fuel is also a handy defense. Recon aircraft in particular use bursts of speed to avoid danger from aircraft above or missiles below. Combat aircraft often fly off to their objectives with one or more large fuel tanks hanging from them. These tanks slow the aircraft down and decrease maneuverability. Before entering combat, these tanks are normally dropped. A common tactic is to force the other fellow to jettison their drop tanks before the fuel they carry has been used. This is done by attacking the enemy formation with missiles or interceptors before it has reached its objective. The attack does not have to be serious, just enough to force those partially full tanks to the ground. Once more aerial tankers are a crucial advantage. Aircraft coming out of hostile airspace with nearly empty tanks are often rescued by waiting tankers. Other nations often loose aircraft when pilots had to choose between getting shot down and using so much fuel that they could not make it to a landing strip in friendly territory. Russian aircraft were built with this in mind, and are rugged enough to land on any long, flat surface that's reasonably firm.
Your assumption of F-22 lacking drop-tanks, or the worst-case scenario of SuperCruise being used the whole way, is rather unlikely.
But even then the 410 nautical miles radius (820 nm flight there and back again fighting the whole way).
So comparing apples to oranges doesn't work. You can't reasonably claim greater range for the F-35. In the scenario you outlined for the F-22 rushing out on supercruise to intercept a bogey, the fact is that the F-35 would be rushing out on afterburners the whole way for the same mission...and blow off most of its fuel far faster.
So nice try Don, but not even close to a cigar!
Mistaken Assumptions.Normal Combat Radius represents how far, in kilometers, the aircraft can normally travel from its base and perform it's mission (air superiority or ground attack) The rule of thumb is that the combat radius is one third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. This assumes a trip out and back plus one third of fuel for combat operations. But for that handful of nations with a lot of aerial tanker aircraft, the situation is quite different, and rather more complicated. With tankers you can have combat aircraft top off their fuel tanks just before they enter hostile air space, and do the same when they return. This can more than double the normal range of warplanes. But it gets more complicated than that. Aircraft have a maximum take off weight, but bombers can take off with more bombs and less fuel. After flying a long distance to just outside enemy territory, they can take on more fuel, deliver their bombs and tank up again on the way home. Aircraft can also carry more weight in flight than they do when taking off. So refueling in the air can as much as double the normal bomb load. This technique is particularly useful with heavy bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. But even smaller bombers make use of the technique, especially the F-117. America has the largest aerial tanker fleet and is the most frequent use of the tankers to extend range and increase bombload. Another factor effecting range is the use of speed to avoid enemy warplanes or ground fire. Normally, aircraft burn about .5 percent of fuel per minute when cruising at the economical speed (600?800 kilometers an hour). When enemy warplanes or ground fire is encountered, maximum speed is used. These high speed maneuvers will often get you away from danger, or are sometimes used to catch up with enemy fighters. But maximum speed burns up a lot more fuel. Fighters can consume 10 to 15 percent of fuel per minute at max speed. Even strike aircraft will frequently crank it up to two or three percent of fuel per minute while maneuvering towards or away from their targets. The average aircraft has sufficient fuel for two or three hours of cruising and up to fifteen minutes of high speed maneuvering during combat. Strike aircraft prefer to conserve their fuel so they can circle the battlefield waiting for the opportune moment to go down and hit a target. Fuel is a weapon. If one aircraft has more fuel it can force another into a situation where the disadvantaged plane will crash with empty gas tanks. When the low fuel aircraft realizes that it only has enough to get back to base, it can be more easily outmaneuvered by its opponent, who can be more generous with fuel, and speed. Fuel is also a handy defense. Recon aircraft in particular use bursts of speed to avoid danger from aircraft above or missiles below. Combat aircraft often fly off to their objectives with one or more large fuel tanks hanging from them. These tanks slow the aircraft down and decrease maneuverability. Before entering combat, these tanks are normally dropped. A common tactic is to force the other fellow to jettison their drop tanks before the fuel they carry has been used. This is done by attacking the enemy formation with missiles or interceptors before it has reached its objective. The attack does not have to be serious, just enough to force those partially full tanks to the ground. Once more aerial tankers are a crucial advantage. Aircraft coming out of hostile airspace with nearly empty tanks are often rescued by waiting tankers. Other nations often loose aircraft when pilots had to choose between getting shot down and using so much fuel that they could not make it to a landing strip in friendly territory. Russian aircraft were built with this in mind, and are rugged enough to land on any long, flat surface that's reasonably firm.
Your assumption of F-22 lacking drop-tanks, or the worst-case scenario of SuperCruise being used the whole way, is rather unlikely.
But even then the 410 nautical miles radius (820 nm flight there and back again fighting the whole way).
So comparing apples to oranges doesn't work. You can't reasonably claim greater range for the F-35. In the scenario you outlined for the F-22 rushing out on supercruise to intercept a bogey, the fact is that the F-35 would be rushing out on afterburners the whole way for the same mission...and blow off most of its fuel far faster.
So nice try Don, but not even close to a cigar!
I just used the "mission 1" that is in the spec, which was tested in flight test.
That is their configuration, not mine.
And the F-35 would also be able to benefit from drop tanks, refueling, ect. Compared to the F-16, F-18, the F-35 can carry a fair amount more payload.
One problem with tankers is they are vulnerable to enemy action, and so must be withheld my XX nautical miles. Sure, they could be pushed further forward, but then you get to add more fighters to defend the tankers, as well as doing what ever air force fighters do (normally defend their air base and train train train).
Fighters are fun. Bombers make policy. No fighter makes a good bomber. It can't. The physics doesn't work that way.
Fighters can down bombers, hence changing "policy".
No fighter makes a good bomber. It can't. The physics doesn't work that way.
Agreed. I think it is a mistake for the USAF to decommission the F-1117 (a misnomer to be sure...should have been the B-1117).
YOu mean the F-117?
I suggest it should have been an "A-11"
Is this a result of billyblytheclinton's little sales deal he made with the ChiComs?
:-(
I think that putting down the F-117 is not a mistake. After all, it has served for some 20 years, not too bad a job for a two bomb attack aircraft. The entire fleet has as much combat utility as a single B-2A.
The F-35 has comparable penetration capabilities, with much lower operating costs and heavier bomb loads. I don't think anyone will miss the F-117.
The Naval UCAS will be coming along, and the AF will have the option of picking a few up.
And the next generation, is to water the eyes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
