China's J-11B fighter Presages Quiet Military Revolution

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.

someone signed off on f-18e/f. We are in full production here.

I know. But it was an uphill fight in the Pentagon to get it approved. The argument was that there "would was no need" with the F-35 coming on line...around 2010...

See what I mean about the Best becoming the Enemy of the Good?

I thought the F-117 was great for its time.

We have new ways of doing things. Better ways. The slab sides of the F-117 were due to limitations in computer power back then. We don't have those limitations anymore, do we?

While we have made progress, so have our enemies. What worked once, may not work so well the next time.

Back in the 1920s the .50 cal machinegun was developed as a weapon against tanks. It was not effective in that role during WWII. The 37mm Hotchkiss cannon was the next thing. It was by 1942. the 75mm cannon worked in 1942. It was hardly satisfactory in 1943. The 3 inch cannon (aka 76mm) worked great in 1943. It didn't work very well in 1944, unless you worked really hard to get to the sides or rear of your armored enemy. The 90mm cannon worked very well in 1944 to 1973. Technology advances.

Imagine how the Chinese feel. Trying to catch up with minimal capability against a particular platform, then have the US throw it away because better is available. All their tactics (used by Serbs, by the way) and techniques now useless, and they get to start over.

And they get to do that again, and again. They may get discouraged. They may get replaced, after promising year after year that all the sacrifices will lead to some advance, and they year after year they are further behind, and with prospects of being even further behind further in the future.

If I was them, I would vote out the Commies. Wouldn't you?

Don't you think the Commies know that? They must always spend most of their defense budget on "internal defense", to protect the masters from their serfs. That is why they keep the old junkers. The old junkers are useful in putting down insurrections.

Technology advances.

Indeed, it does, but the best is often not either deployed, or deployable. Period. And until it is fully deployed, not partially, but fully, we need to take force numbers very seriously as we are looking squarely at a force implosion on the U.S. side as the Defense Holiday continues essentially unabated.

Imagine how the Chinese feel. Trying to catch up with minimal capability against a particular platform, then have the US throw it away because better is available. All their tactics (used by Serbs, by the way) and techniques now useless, and they get to start over.

That would be very nice to frustrate them. I'm not so sure the F-22/35 or UAVs will be any more immune from detection by the passive radar approach. Of course, detection is not the same as accurate fire control. Which is where the F-22 speed comes in as an extra plus. By the time the Chi-Comm supercomputers have a good track on the bird...its already changed vectors, and moved on. No question the F-22/35 will be better than the F-117A. But what is looming is potentially near-term. And numbers will count.

You think the Jihadists are gloating over the U.S. election results? Just what do you think the Chi-Comms are doing?

If I was them, I would vote out the Commies. Wouldn't you? ?

Of course. But we don't get a vote over that. Neither do their people.

Actually, the trade imbalance does help our economy. We get the products of their labor, and they get worthless pieces of paper (dollars).

Only when they take those pieces of paper back to someone who wants them can they derive benefit from them. Eventually someone brings the paper back to the US and trades it for US goods and services.

Most NATO airforces & those of the likes of Australia or even Japan couldn't be expected to take on a formidable rival like China or Russia.....without Uncle Sam around.Australia's fleet is getting a bit too old as of now while potential rivals in S-E Asia are arming up while Japan has never really invested in offensive capabilities.It's F-15Js can hit deep into China-but atleast officially,they don't have any air to ground capabilities.

Eventually the money has to come back to us. That is the nature of trade.

What they buy, that is the flexible part. The biggest part of our trade imbalance is oil. That goes to Canada and Mexico who produce most of the oil we buy.

I kind of think we will be stuck dealing with Canada and Mexico for a few million years for Mexico, or until the next ice age for Canada.

I have worked on the specifications for advanced radars, and yes, we do take very effective measures to protect against passive detection.

the "Passive Radar" approach has been known since WWII, when the German "Metax" radar detection device was used to locate German Submarines.

NNUS: Nothing New Under the Sun

the "Passive Radar" approach has been known since WWII, when the German "Metax" radar detection device was used to locate German Submarines.

The Germans actually developed such a thing during World War II, if under very special circumstances. The system, known as "Klein Heidelberg", intercepted pulses from the British Chain Home floodlight radar system, and then picked up echoes off targets from those pulses with a directional antenna.

NNUS: Nothing New Under the Sun.

Actually, yes there is, the introduction of computing power to radar has revived the concept. From Lockheed-Martin's early-version Silent Sentry onto today's classified R&D projects, we are ourselves pushing to make stealth aircraft visible for detection and tracking. Although fire-control targetting may still be proving elusive.

Anyways, our letting Chinese espionage successfully glean the science behind this was simply criminal. As for counter-measures, perhaps decoys could work, and perhaps an ECM package can be devised. But the viability thereto probably depends on knowing where the Chinese detection systems are. All of them. And to revert back to dependence on ECM, when our stealth approach was based on low observability and close-to-zero EM emissions...seems rather contradictory.

We have new ways of doing things. Better ways. The slab sides of the F-117 were due to limitations in computer power back then. We don't have those limitations anymore, do we?

But production of those "new ways" is a very real limitation. A limitation which you have continuously ducked.

The F-117 has the virtue of being deployed. It's real. Its there. It has the extra virtue thereto of being a Deterrent. The Chi-Comms have to respect it. Whereas a paper threat...they don't...or at any rate won't. So if you want to prevent their launching war...stop defending the pell- mell...(and unilateral I might add)... disarmament.

Neither the F-22 (which is essentially not deployed for real with at best two wings available)...nor the the F-35 which doesn't even EXIST yet for all practical purposes...are available in the numbers which the F-117 affords us.

I cannot believe that the imbalance "favors us." The dollars they are spending are not all for our goods either. They are also buying from Russia etc.

Indeed, the five-to-one imbalance is even worse than it sounds. They are attempting to purchase more of the industrial-production "capital" of the U.S. and relocate to China...further deepening and worseninng the trade imbalance! Which is also accentuated by any Treasuries or other securities they purchase.

See the Industry and Job Trends of the US and China [ E.g., Anecdotally, Magnequench successfully absconded with by the Chi-Comms, and the attempt on UNOCAL and all its deep-sea drilling technology as well as licenses thereto and its minerological holdings as well]

It's a down-ward spiral.

The Chi-Comm-controlled trade imbalance manifestly proves their economic enmity. The fact that donmeaker unthinkingly makes this well-debunked point...puts him in a new light.

The Czechs had passive radars out there some 20 years ago.

Always there is a conflict between smarter radars, and smarter countermeasures. My bet is on us. We design our aircraft software to be easily updated now, so what works on one day, doesn't the nest. The enemy never knows if what they pick up on one day is a real signal you could find in time of war, or a spoof, intentionally served up to preserve the effectiveness of "War Reserve" modes.

Certainly there are a lot more codes out there that are possible, than there are codes known to the enemy.

So you think that what is out there in the open is all we have?

What's in the field is in the open. Whats in the lab and on the "drawing board" is definitionally not deployed...or imminently deployable. And Black programs are also non-deterrent.

And keep in mind we have a whole slew of whiz-bang would-be military advisors who are so confident of our technical advantages, they want to end the F-22, the RPVs, the Carriers, the F-35, and ALL the associated gadgetry that makes them viable in the toughest war environments...all smeared as somehow "legacies of Cold War Thinking" [as if that is bad...that was a war we won] ...and "save the money" for more troops in the field.

The South Vietnamese Army was tailored expressly to deal with a guerrila war insurgency. When the armored divisions of North Vietnamese tanks rolled across the DMZ...the lightly-armored South was demolished in short order. The asymmetry of guerilla war was simply a ruse by the Communists to get the other side improperly structured against the real, MAIN OFFENSIVE THREAT.

One that the Communists are again fostering as against us...their Main Enemy. Trying to get us to delude ourselves again about the nature of the world and our enemies.

Oh back in 1973 at a little town called Quang-Tri there was a NVA offensive using armor. I seem to recall TOW missiles being used.

Again, I think that the south Viets were very clear on the NVA Armored threat. It was the US congress (Democrats) that cut funding for the South Vietnamese armor.

Blame the right guys. It wasn't the NVA fooling anyone, it was giving the Democrats the excuse they needed to betray out soldiers, who fought and bled there, and our allies.

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.