why doesn't china have/get long range AAM?

[Totoro]

Seeing how there's likelyhood of US involvement in any action againt Taiwan China might take, and also keeping in mind the operations of american carrier wings, wouldn't it be of utmost importance for China to have/get some long range AAMs like R37? I would think that since Russians changed their minds bout their Tu22m export policy, selling something like R37 to China would be in the realm of possibility. Can that missile system be used on other aircraft other than mig31? Even if not, and especially in the light of today's BVR air combat, i'd say it's more worth to have a squadron of R37 equipped mig31 than two squadrons of Su27SK. Migs also carry R77 so as an interceptor it'd just fine. Even with that missile, it'd get additional range launched from speed/altitude that mig31 offers.

[chinawhite]

because the R-33 is a piece of shiet. a simple manoeuver came over come it.

it was designed to kill large targets and slow movng ones. eg B-52 B-1b cruise missles and helicopters. things that are not as agile as a fighter

[chinawhite]

its one of the biggest A2A ever.

it looks like a mini ballistic missle with a A2A capblitiy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ru_missile_amos_02.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ru_missile_amos_01.jpg

[Totoro]

I was talking about R37, not R33. To my knowledge, it is more capable than R33. Also, and this is my mistake, I didn't point out that of course it'd be hard to use against fighters. Its main use would be against larger aircraft, primarely E2 and E3s. Once a carrier group loses or gets its E2 coverage seriously compromised - half the work needed to attack the carrier is already done. Providing you can accurately locate it in the first place, of course. :D

[Gollevainen]

The main reason why there's NO use of chinese to obtain this particular missile (R-33) is, and already mentioned in here: it's relic of the coldwar.

R-33 as is mentioned was to be used against US bombers and was carried around by the MiG-31, also dedicated to single role, ultra-long range interceptor. To my knowlidge the R-33 cannot be used other aircrafts than the MiG-31, so that alone eliminates the PLAN use of that missile. I'm not saying that china should completely forget long range aams, quite opposite China needs them. But as the main chinese longrange interceptor is (and will become more significant in the future) the J-11/Su-27 and derivates. China already have the R-77 wich is quite addequate for long range interceptor work. And as the missile is already introducted to chinese planes, future plans for purchasting the existing modifications of the missile is possiple.

here's a one interesting development of the R-77 missile:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/r-77pd_8.jpg
the RVV-AE-PD, ramjet powered version of the R-77 whit over 150km range...

[ger_mark]

that r77 looks like taurus
even same range ...

[chinawhite]

the range is the maximum possible range. perfect altitude etc.

the R-77 looks very promising but i debut the russians can come up with a small enough radar to fit in the missile

[chinawhite]

Totoro whats the R-37?. in AA(x) name.

eg R-33 = AA-9

[Gollevainen]

the R-77 looks very promising but i debut the russians can come up with a small enough radar to fit in the missile

??? You mean the russians aren't able to desing and produce an active radar holming seeker to the R-77 missile?? Then why on earth are the R-77 missiles in service? or is this just another ironical comment of yours?

[Totoro]

I don't think it has a nato code name, since russians didn't buy it. The way i understand it, it's out there, its been tested, further versions are being worked on, but with all the cuts in russian budget they didn't think it's necesarry to obtain it. however, i've seen it adresssed as aa-x-13. If its true that russians would be more than happy to sell anything to anyone, It's possible a full production line could be set up for someone making a large purchase.

here's a link to another forum where the r33/337 have been discussed, with specs and details. here (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-26781.html)

[IDonT]

In order to have a credible BVR missile capability, you also need to have good IRR capability. You need to be able to identify a target, hundreds of miles away as a foe in order to avoid friendly fire fatalities.

[chinawhite]

90 and 150 are not the same distance.

the R-77 in service get feeds from a datalink from the aircraft until 20km from the target. how are they going to get a radar that goes 1/3 more that length. into the same airframe. The state of russiasn telecom network is not progressing much

[ger_mark]

i meaned meteor and not taurus offcourse
http://www.europaeische-sicherheit.de/Rel/2004_06/imgs/2004,06,02,04,k.jpghttp://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/r-77pd_8.jpg

[Totoro]

In order to have a credible BVR missile capability, you also need to have good IRR capability. You need to be able to identify a target, hundreds of miles away as a foe in order to avoid friendly fire fatalities.

And that's exactly why such a weapon is more suited for china than for US. China doesn't have such a projection of power, hundreds of km, lots of various aircraft, etc. US on the other hand, would need to know where its USAAF forces are, wheres which USN aircraft, not to mention the Taiwanese forces. I'd say China has it easier. Also, to negate the US and/or Taiwan's awacs aircraft is such an advantage that it'd be worthy of some friendlyfire losses, even if they happen. Of course, that's the military guy speaking, not a politician. But in a war things need to be weighed, the pros and cons. And Chinese would be easier to go over some friendlyfire losses than the US, anyway.

[MIGleader]

ilm sure r-77 will suit the plaaf's needs fine. they're coming out with pl-10 as well.

[BrotherofSnake]

How does the meteor compare to the latest AIM-120 AMRAAMs?

[MIGleader]

way faster and more acurate

[Wingman]

My guess is that it's still too hard to design a decent long range missile capable of intercepting small agile aircraft

Longer range means you must increase fuel. Increasing fuel increases weight, reducing manoeuvrability.

Also, it's hard for fighters to maintain lock on an ECM equipped fighter at long ranges. It would be a waste to have a missile that can fly far but you can't guide it far enough for it to use its own radar.

Another thing, I think, is speed. Long range is useless if your missile is slow, say like Mach 2 or Mach 3, the enemy fighter can just turn around and outrun the missile at long ranges. But to increase speed you must also increase fuel load because high speed would consume more fuel, again reducing manoeuvrability.

The ramjet R-77 M1 is a promising design to counter some of these problems, I think

[swimmerXC]

How does the meteor compare to the latest AIM-120 AMRAAMs?

don't think the AMRAAM is the best BVR missile out present day.. Mica is probably better, and R-77 is probably equal..
can the AMRAAM intercept cruise missiles? Mica can...

[tphuang]

what's the range of SD-10 compared to them?

Check this http://centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/sd10-7.jpg

Jut checked some chinese site:
If SD-10 is launched from air.

It travels at mach 4 for a maximum range 70 KM. I'm not sure what the other AAMs are like.

[Totoro]

So that ramjet R77 isn't available for production? Does anyone know when and if it will ever be? Wouldn't it be nice if EU dropped the arms embargo and actually sold the Meteor to anyone who wants to pay for it? I'm guessing that'll never happen, US would do anything to stop such a trade. So the long range R77 seems as an only option for China. And seeing how longer range version of amraam is on the horizon (aim-120D) and even aim-120C-7 is already being deployed this year within USAAF, range of some 75km.

Like i was saying before, long range AAMs have little use against fighters but would be indispensible against awacs aircraft. too bad the improved R77 with that 150 km cited range is still not enough to engage, for example, an E2 without having to deal with its fighter cover first. I guess the only good thing there is that superhornet is somewhat weaker than the likes of Su30mk2.

Does anyone know how long would it take to transfer a squadron of f22s from the US to Okinawa? Or even worse for China, if a number of Raptors would permanently be stationed at Okinawa, instead of F15Cs. That would seriously hinder Chinese odds at any kind of air engagement over taiwan.

[vincelee]

FT-2000 anyone?

[ger_mark]

at the moment europe has way better AAM's then the usa
iris-t,meteor

[chinawhite]

these E-3 E-2 will be miles away from range of even the R-33. monitoring the battle sapce. i really dobut that it china fire off a shot before getting shot down

[chinawhite]

at the moment europe has way better AAM's then the usa


why do you use the term "way better".? from my point of view it makes it sound like its a generation or more ahead of the AMRAAM. when its just a few more miles of the range.

[ger_mark]

its not the range, its the speed and accuracy

[Totoro]

these E-3 E-2 will be miles away from range of even the R-33. monitoring the battle sapce. i really dobut that it china fire off a shot before getting shot down

True, R33 doesn't really have the necesarry range. One would have to locate target and fire the missile against an awacs from some 250-300km range to have any chance of avoiding a conflict with awacs fighter cover. I guess it is true that no such missile is operational. Still, having longer range than amraam in order to fight your way through to the awacs could be useful...

[MIGleader]

use a J-5 fighter drone to crash into awacs.

[IDonT]

True, R33 doesn't really have the necesarry range. One would have to locate target and fire the missile against an awacs from some 250-300km range to have any chance of avoiding a conflict with awacs fighter cover. I guess it is true that no such missile is operational. Still, having longer range than amraam in order to fight your way through to the awacs could be useful...

An AWACS is a high value target in the air battlefield. It will be heavily guarded and its almost impossible to sneak up on it with out stealth.

Its detection range is very great. It can vector fighters to neutralize hostiles before it can become a threat. In order to deal with AWACS you must fight through its escorting fighters.

When enemy gets to close, an AWACS will just shut off it radar and hit the deck. Another AWACS usually take over.

USAF did an exercise with 2 F-22 trying to shoot down an AWACS with 6 F-15 C guarding. The AWACS and the F-15 never had a chance....

[MIGleader]

because of taiwans proximity to china, china can use a ground to air missle to shoot down an awacs.

[Totoro]

That is exactly what i said in my previous post. It does now seem to me that it's impossible to launch a silver bullet kind of attack versus an awacs, destroying it without losses. Fighting through fighter cover is a definite must. What i am wondering now is what is the usual number of f18s guarding an E2 in a combat situation. With the maximum number of f18s per carrier and E2 rotation, it can not possibly be more than 10. even that is probably exaggerated since f18s have shorter flight endurance than a E2 and would require more frequent rotation.

So lets assume we have a network of chinese awacs, in passive mode, trying to find the carrier's E2s. I'm no expert, i don't know if an active radar E2 would detect a passive chinese awacs without its location being detected too. Once that happens, a large number of su27, also in passive mode, could be sent to the E2s last position, flying as fast as they can. Sure, E2 would go passive and start getting away but it's damn slow compared to su27. sukhois would have to go fully active to have any chance of actually locating the running E2, which of course would mean the E2s cover would be waiting for them, plus a reinforcement from the carrier would be sent. If the E2 would be some 300 km from the carrier i don't believe the reinforcements could arrive in time to save the E2. So that leaves only the fighter cover it had in the beginning to defend it. Probably all superhornets would be lost (here i assume its 2007, no tomcats anymore), alongside with the E2. Only issue is, at what cost for the chinese? 5 sukhois? 10? 20? 40? Not to mention the great logistical and command effort so coordinate all the awacs from the beginning of the scenario to locate the carrier and a large enough number of sukhois on permanent watch out, probably requiring in air refuelling. Rinse, repeat, shoot down some more E2s from the carrier, sent to replace the downed one. Then the carrier would either have its air cover seriously compromised and open to an air attack or, more probably, the carrier would turn away and get out of range, but at the same time getting too far away for its aircraft to do any damage.

[MIGleader]

why use fighters when you can use missles? an s-300 or hq-2 can shoot down an awacs easily. if the awacs is over taiwan strait, send a few warships under it and fire. the attack will kill thee awacs and maybe some of it's escorts.

[Totoro]

because of taiwans proximity to china, china can use a ground to air missle to shoot down an awacs.

I would assume Taiwanese would be smart enough not to fly that close. They would probably stick over the taiwanese soil and not venture into the strait itself with their E2s (and any other aircraft for that matter). Anyway, so far chinese haven't gotten the 200km ranged version of s300 even though that's probably just a matter of time.

As for sending ships, well, they're easy to detect way in advance and they're slow. Taiwanese would first see if they could attack the incoming fleet and if they can't do that they would surely move back w their awacs, not letting them get in range of s300 and the like.

[MIGleader]

true...then send sukois and have them launch standoff weapons at the awacs.

or better... j-8s. they are intercepters and losing one wouldn't be as bas as losing a flanker.

[IDonT]

why use fighters when you can use missles? an s-300 or hq-2 can shoot down an awacs easily. if the awacs is over taiwan strait, send a few warships under it and fire. the attack will kill thee awacs and maybe some of it's escorts.

By using SAM's you cede the initiative to the enemy. You are reacting to their actions. The best way to shoot down an aircraft is with another aircraft. That is the US doctrine.

[Totoro]

true...then send sukois and have them launch standoff weapons at the awacs.

or better... j-8s. they are intercepters and losing one wouldn't be as bas as losing a flanker.

Actually, that's one thing i'm really curious about. Just how capable are J8 avionics? If they could be enabled to detect and track superhornet sized targets some 150km away, also enabled to carry and launch R77s, they definitely would be a more cost-efficient solution for such 'suicide' attacks. They're crap for dogfighting but they are pretty darn fast and have decent range, with good avionics they'd make a fine interceptor.

[MIGleader]

im sure the chinese will refit them with russian avionics and improved radar in the near future.

[IDonT]

That is exactly what i said in my previous post. It does now seem to me that it's impossible to launch a silver bullet kind of attack versus an awacs, destroying it without losses. Fighting through fighter cover is a definite must. What i am wondering now is what is the usual number of f18s guarding an E2 in a combat situation. With the maximum number of f18s per carrier and E2 rotation, it can not possibly be more than 10. even that is probably exaggerated since f18s have shorter flight endurance than a E2 and would require more frequent rotation.

So lets assume we have a network of chinese awacs, in passive mode, trying to find the carrier's E2s. I'm no expert, i don't know if an active radar E2 would detect a passive chinese awacs without its location being detected too. Once that happens, a large number of su27, also in passive mode, could be sent to the E2s last position, flying as fast as they can. Sure, E2 would go passive and start getting away but it's damn slow compared to su27. sukhois would have to go fully active to have any chance of actually locating the running E2, which of course would mean the E2s cover would be waiting for them, plus a reinforcement from the carrier would be sent. If the E2 would be some 300 km from the carrier i don't believe the reinforcements could arrive in time to save the E2. So that leaves only the fighter cover it had in the beginning to defend it. Probably all superhornets would be lost (here i assume its 2007, no tomcats anymore), alongside with the E2. Only issue is, at what cost for the chinese? 5 sukhois? 10? 20? 40? Not to mention the great logistical and command effort so coordinate all the awacs from the beginning of the scenario to locate the carrier and a large enough number of sukhois on permanent watch out, probably requiring in air refuelling. Rinse, repeat, shoot down some more E2s from the carrier, sent to replace the downed one. Then the carrier would either have its air cover seriously compromised and open to an air attack or, more probably, the carrier would turn away and get out of range, but at the same time getting too far away for its aircraft to do any damage.

Passive detection only gets you the rough coordinates of teh AWACS. The SU 27 you sent to that location will be flying blind, if their radar is off. The AWACS can detect them as soon as they are in range and will vector fighters to ambush them. US datalink technology ensures that the super hornets, see exactly what the E-2 see's. The pilots on SU 27 will have no radar view unless they turn on their radar. Unfortunately, fighter radar does not have a 360 degree coverage. The are in a ripe position for an ambush.

Secondly, the USN commander can vector an Aegis ship, at 0 EMCOM, near the AWAC patrol area. As soon as teh SU-27 gets in range, the ship lits up its radar and the SAM trap is set.

USN fighters have buddy refueling system. Carriers normally carry 4 E-2's.

[MIGleader]

an aegis warship in taiwan strait!! it wont last a minute. the US strategy calls for keeping their vessels distanced from the combat zone.

[IDonT]

an aegis warship in taiwan strait!! it wont last a minute. the US strategy calls for keeping their vessels distanced from the combat zone.


An AEW unit will never patrol inside the straight. It can see the straight hundreds of miles away.

An Aegis warship will last for as long as the time it takes for missile magazines to run out. But it will take with it significant PLA military assets to destroy, deplete its AShM arsenal, etc.

[Totoro]

Passive detection only gets you the rough coordinates of teh AWACS. The SU 27 you sent to that location will be flying blind, if their radar is off. The AWACS can detect them as soon as they are in range and will vector fighters to ambush them. US datalink technology ensures that the super hornets, see exactly what the E-2 see's. The pilots on SU 27 will have no radar view unless they turn on their radar. Unfortunately, fighter radar does not have a 360 degree coverage. The are in a ripe position for an ambush.

Secondly, the USN commander can vector an Aegis ship, at 0 EMCOM, near the AWAC patrol area. As soon as teh SU-27 gets in range, the ship lits up its radar and the SAM trap is set.

USN fighters have buddy refueling system. Carriers normally carry 4 E-2's.

But i said that su27 would of course have to get their radars on to have a chance of catching the E2. Awacs too would go active and try to follow the sukhois providing greater (and 360) detection. itd probably start lagging behind fairly early though. Still, when its too far behind the su27s, those could periodically point a plane on the sides, to check up some 180 deg in fron of them. Sure, that'd slow them down somewhat, but id still say they'd be fast enough to catch the E2. I don't really think sukhois could be ambushed that way. Also, the aegis ships are with the carrier, some 300 km away. im 99% USN wouldnt risk it by scattering their fleet. even at 30 knots they cant get in range in time to assist.

In my opinion, its quite doable, only question is whether the losses required for such a mission would outweigh the gain. Seeing how many E2s and how many carrier groups USN can rotate, and seeing how theres a quite limited number of sukhois, losing 2 or 3 or even more su27s for each superhornet might be way too high price to pay. The core idea behind this is overwhelming numbers and saturation of enemy defences in each attack.

[MIGleader]

in taiwan straight, even aegis would be at a serious disadvantage. the chinese can shoot artillery at it if nessacery.

i heard the chinese ar developing a new kind of anti awacs weapon with the russians. you could send in one or two diversion groups to draw away most of the escorts, then send in the kill group.

[BKulan]

i don't think an aegis warship will last for long. not with the whole chinese navy in close proximity and most of it probably running around in the strait itself. losses for the PLAN and PLAAF is probably also overestimated, besides it's just a waste sending a ship on a suicide mission like that.

[Totoro]

Of course in practice it will never happen that USN, or taiwanese navy for that matter, goes into the strait, or even anywhere close to the chinese coast. Strait itself is a dangerous place to be, since its underwater ridges and geothermal wells help submarines hide.

USN vessels would be stationed either west of taiwan and south of china, or east of taiwan, probably at least 700km away from chinese shore. Perhaps more since superhornets have a combat range enough for 1000km.

[IDonT]

But i said that su27 would of course have to get their radars on to have a chance of catching the E2. Awacs too would go active and try to follow the sukhois providing greater (and 360) detection. itd probably start lagging behind fairly early though. Still, when its too far behind the su27s, those could periodically point a plane on the sides, to check up some 180 deg in fron of them. Sure, that'd slow them down somewhat, but id still say they'd be fast enough to catch the E2. I don't really think sukhois could be ambushed that way. Also, the aegis ships are with the carrier, some 300 km away. im 99% USN wouldnt risk it by scattering their fleet. even at 30 knots they cant get in range in time to assist.

In my opinion, its quite doable, only question is whether the losses required for such a mission would outweigh the gain. Seeing how many E2s and how many carrier groups USN can rotate, and seeing how theres a quite limited number of sukhois, losing 2 or 3 or even more su27s for each superhornet might be way too high price to pay. The core idea behind this is overwhelming numbers and saturation of enemy defences in each attack.

The Aegis ship will already be on station near the patrol area of the E-3. The superhornets will charge in and delay the Su-27 fighters, firing AMRAAMs which will force the Su-27s to do violent manuevers to break the radar lock. This wastes time and gives the E-3 the opportunity to hide behind the "SAM wall" of the Aegis ship or go out of range.

USN tactics uses dispersal tactics. Because of Data links, each warship separated hundreds of miles away can see what the other sees. This is done to lower the odds of the entire fleet being detected. But when it comes to the protection of the Carrier, at least 1 Aegis cruiser is nearby.

[MIGleader]

su-27 whoops super honet. the losses would not be so great for china if theri flankers were fighting super hornets.

[tphuang]

in taiwan straight, even aegis would be at a serious disadvantage. the chinese can shoot artillery at it if nessacery.

i heard the chinese ar developing a new kind of anti awacs weapon with the russians. you could send in one or two diversion groups to draw away most of the escorts, then send in the kill group.
you mean the FT-2000? We don't know how well it works. China calls it the AWACS killer, but then again, it's trying to sell it Pakistan, lol.

[tphuang]

i don't think an aegis warship will last for long. not with the whole chinese navy in close proximity and most of it probably running around in the strait itself. losses for the PLAN and PLAAF is probably also overestimated, besides it's just a waste sending a ship on a suicide mission like that.
the problem is not on an aegis ship but a group of them.

[tphuang]

su-27 whoops super honet. the losses would not be so great for china if theri flankers were fighting super hornets.
I think you are overestimating su-27. su-30mkk/mk2 vs FA-18, i would feel a little more comfortable. Still, I'd prefer sending J-10s against F/A-18.

[MIGleader]

A group of aegis would be threatening, altough it would still be pretty vulnerable if in the strait. i dont think US will run such a risk. they will be held at a distance, letting the carriers fight.

[IDonT]

I think you are overestimating su-27. su-30mkk/mk2 vs FA-18, i would feel a little more comfortable. Still, I'd prefer sending J-10s against F/A-18.


See in this scenario, the mission of the SU-27 is to shoot down the E-2. The F-18's job is to stop them. All the F-18 has to do is get in range with AMRAAM, shoot, and run away. A couple of dozen AMRAAMs arriving at the SU-27 formation will delay it because it has to try to out manuever and spuff the missiles. This delay allows the E-2 to escape.

[Totoro]

The Aegis ship will already be on station near the patrol area of the E-3. The superhornets will charge in and delay the Su-27 fighters, firing AMRAAMs which will force the Su-27s to do violent manuevers to break the radar lock. This wastes time and gives the E-3 the opportunity to hide behind the "SAM wall" of the Aegis ship or go out of range.

USN tactics uses dispersal tactics. Because of Data links, each warship separated hundreds of miles away can see what the other sees. This is done to lower the odds of the entire fleet being detected. But when it comes to the protection of the Carrier, at least 1 Aegis cruiser is nearby.

Hm, okay, if we do accept the fact that one aegis ship is always accompanying the E2 group, that complicates things for chinese. But at the same time, it offers them a chance to nibble at the carrier battlegroup one ship at a time. 3 cruisers and 2 destroyers that are, to my knowledge, usually forming a CBG, can make a very formidable aegis shield. One lone aegis ship would stand very little chance faced with a determined and overwhelming chinese attack. Actually, since the ship is so far away from the carrier, a naval attack would be possible. Again we're talking large enough numbers to suffocate ships defences, be that from the air or from the sea. Also, one lone aegis ship is hard to deal with a massive number of incoming missiles.

In the end, a well planned and coordinated attack surely gets both E2 an the aegis cruiser destroyed. Question is at what cost, how many chinese aircraft lost, how many chinese destroyers sunk? I'm saying too many to make it count, seeing how in the long term americans could bring fresh forces.

[vincelee]

Shoot and run away? AIM-120's seeker isn't that powerful. If I understood it correctly, you can lobe the 120 or launch a preprogrammed search pattern using calculated probabilty density functions, but the missile itself doesn't go active until terminal stage.

[MIGleader]

I think you are overestimating su-27. su-30mkk/mk2 vs FA-18, i would feel a little more comfortable. Still, I'd prefer sending J-10s against F/A-18.

Su-27 has the same capabilities as su-30 in air to air!!!
its actually even faster.

[vincelee]

Su-27SK is not integrated for R-77.

[tomo pauk]

But it is integrated with R-27RE (AA-10C, if I'm not mistaking). Those have the range at least twice of AIM-120.

[tphuang]

Su-27 has the same capabilities as su-30 in air to air!!!
its actually even faster.
yeah, J-10 defeated both in air exercises.

It would be nice if it carries some long range AAM though. I'm guessing China probably has some project under way.

[Chairman Hu]

Why can't China use make everything sinmplier by buying MiG-31s and arm them with the meteor missiles and knock them out like a sniper does with people...

to both AWACS and other foreign fighters, something tells me that a Flanker will easily lose to a Foxhound if given the pilots and weapons

[Totoro]

There has been no confirmation that china has R-27RE. Do show me a link to some reliable source for confirmation, i'm really interested to see it. Even if we assume that china has them in great numbers, it is still nothing close to a silver bullet. It's semi active for gods sake. You need to keep lighting up the targeted aircraft with your radar the whole time of the flight. That pretty much means very steady flight. Which in turn means the incoming amraams, however shorter range they might have (and current advertised max range is 75 km for newest version) could go without the midcourse trajectory update and still make a rather precise killing in the end. Yes, if you're suicidal you could probably kill an enemy fighter with a R27RE, but its very unlikely you'd survive it, too. Not to mention it's still probable amraam is more precise.

If my information is correct, no russian sold Su27SK can carry R77s, as stated, but some last 40 or so chinese built J-11 have been modified during production to carry R77s. Furthermore, a possibility of a comprehensive update of all the SKs and J-11s is being evaluated, with $5 million per plane, giving it newer avionics, ability to carry R77 plus a limitied selection of guided ground weapons. (didnt mention anything bout anti ship weapons though)

As for mig31s, that would be a great platform. Far from a sniper, as its radar would scream your position hundreds of kms away but still, it was built powerful enough to burn through some jamming. Thing is, in todays almost solely BVR fighting engagements, especially over sea where there's no way to hide from radar, having a really fast interceptor seems like a better idea than having a manouverable dogfighter. Sure, in theory one out of ten Su27s could somehow dodge the missile in the end, but i'd bet more than one out of 10 mig31s could get an additional kill due to greater speed and launching alt it gives to its missiles, not to mention greater situational awareness its radar can give it. (or space for newer updated radars, that mig31 nose space is huge, even compared to su27)

Concerning Meteors, i say forget it. It seems to be a great missile but there's no way europe will sell it. China is 'doomed' to indigenous and russian AAM weapons.

[Chairman Hu]

Damn it...

I wish China just stole a meteor missile, incorporate it with Russian and indigeous tech to improve the meteor, get 48-120 MiG-31 and China will be safe even from America... and India's Su-30MKI

[Vanguard1688]

There has been no confirmation that china has R-27RE. Do show me a link to some reliable source for confirmation, i'm really interested to see it. Even if we assume that china has them in great numbers, it is still nothing close to a silver bullet. It's semi active for gods sake. You need to keep lighting up the targeted aircraft with your radar the whole time of the flight. That pretty much means very steady flight. Which in turn means the incoming amraams, however shorter range they might have (and current advertised max range is 75 km for newest version) could go without the midcourse trajectory update and still make a rather precise killing in the end. Yes, if you're suicidal you could probably kill an enemy fighter with a R27RE, but its very unlikely you'd survive it, too. Not to mention it's still probable amraam is more precise.

If my information is correct, no russian sold Su27SK can carry R77s, as stated, but some last 40 or so chinese built J-11 have been modified during production to carry R77s. Furthermore, a possibility of a comprehensive update of all the SKs and J-11s is being evaluated, with $5 million per plane, giving it newer avionics, ability to carry R77 plus a limitied selection of guided ground weapons. (didnt mention anything bout anti ship weapons though)

As for mig31s, that would be a great platform. Far from a sniper, as its radar would scream your position hundreds of kms away but still, it was built powerful enough to burn through some jamming. Thing is, in todays almost solely BVR fighting engagements, especially over sea where there's no way to hide from radar, having a really fast interceptor seems like a better idea than having a manouverable dogfighter. Sure, in theory one out of ten Su27s could somehow dodge the missile in the end, but i'd bet more than one out of 10 mig31s could get an additional kill due to greater speed and launching alt it gives to its missiles, not to mention greater situational awareness its radar can give it. (or space for newer updated radars, that mig31 nose space is huge, even compared to su27)

Concerning Meteors, i say forget it. It seems to be a great missile but there's no way europe will sell it. China is 'doomed' to indigenous and russian AAM weapons.


Here you go
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/missiles/R-27RE1.jpg

[vincelee]

looks like a 27E to me.

[Vanguard1688]

I think they are RE1s

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/missiles/R-27RE.jpg

[MIGleader]

the chinese can always give the russians some money for them to develop a new missle like the meteor.

[Chairman Hu]

China needs either something as good as the meteor or better

[rommel]

does someone here heard about the russian project KS-172. I'll like to know if this project was a success or was cancelled ?

[chinawhite]

the KS-172 is ultra-long range. you thinking 400-500km.

its a massive missle used for attacking high-value targets. like a AWACS.

its 600kg with a rumoured speed of 4-5mach speed

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/ks-172/KS-172_1.jpeg

[MIGleader]

china should definitly invest in russia to continue the project if it was cancelled. this kind of missle will kill any awacs on earth.

[Chairman Hu]

Withy investments, China might get some tech similiar to it, even if it's a notch below, it's still better than nothing. A Mach 4 missile with 400 range, sure thats not M5 with 500 range, but hey, I have confidence in China's military development and capabilities. (-Deleted -) I have COMPLETE faith in China's military future, and unquestionable support

[vincelee]

let's not have that moronic chest thumping here. Reminds me of certain......unflavorful group of people.

[MIGleader]

hehehe...china does have superb potential. it will just suck russia dry and continue on as a superpower.

please refrain from to patriotic speeches. webmaster will delete.

[ger_mark]

Withy investments, China might get some tech similiar to it, even if it's a notch below, it's still better than nothing. A Mach 4 missile with 400 range, sure thats not M5 with 500 range, but hey, I have confidence in China's military development and capabilities. (-Deleted -) I have COMPLETE faith in China's military future, and unquestionable support

ahh my grandmother would remember herself on her schooltime :rolleyes:
i just dont know china ever had an imperial time ,lol

[Chairman Hu]

Thanks for the warning...

Vince... come on, have some nationalism at least

Well anywayz... China will have something better than the meteor soon, this is China's age of modernization, of course China is still behind

In 1950, we faced a superpower and didn't lose that war, and also, for the entire 1950s, we made one of the fastest modernized development in the military having everything we needed to be a true global power and only 10 years before that we couldn't even beat an island country that used rifles built back in 1905-1910 era... we were sad...

[ger_mark]

Well anywayz... China will have something better than the meteor soon, this is China's age of modernization, of course China is still behind

time is relative
if ur talking about 25-35 years i agree

[Chairman Hu]

25-35... how about not!!

More like... um... 15-20 years

It will all chnage when we get the J-XX

we will get something like the meteor soon

[swimmerXC]

25-35... how about not!!

More like... um... 15-20 years

It will all chnage when we get the J-XX

we will get something like the meteor soon

let's not be a little too nationalistic.... J-XX is not going to be a wonder plane that beats all and solve all of chinas probelms..

[chinawhite]

time is relative
if ur talking about 25-35 years i agree

for what the SD-10?

or force modernation?

[Chairman Hu]

modernization

AND YES THE J-XX WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING!

it makes everything obsolete and China will cut everything cut so It'll have this small but active and powerful army with great organization, YAY!

[BrotherofSnake]

What does the J-XX look like anyway?

[Chairman Hu]

look in sites and determine your own idea

I can upload them, but I can't cuz they are too huge

[swimmerXC]

What does the J-XX look like anyway?

here... All the way in the bottom (http://p098.ezboard.com/fsinodefenceforumfrm7.showMessage?topicID=121.topi c)

[Chairman Hu]

thank you, it's actually the same ones I have, except more here

Back to missiles: I don't think China thinks she needs it for the time bring, most likely to use old aircraft and surprise ambush and tear the plane with its short range missile... I just wish China would stop and get the MiG-31, that can give China a super useful temporary solution before China builts her own

[BrotherofSnake]

here... All the way in the bottom

Looks kind of like an F/A-22.

[vincelee]

you do know that the aggregate cost of a pilot is very, very high, right?

[swimmerXC]

thank you, it's actually the same ones I have, except more here

Back to missiles: I don't think China thinks she needs it for the time bring, most likely to use old aircraft and surprise ambush and tear the plane with its short range missile... I just wish China would stop and get the MiG-31, that can give China a super useful temporary solution before China builts her own

SD-10 is good enough for the time being, if they can arm all the J-7s with R-73 (which has a range of 20-40km depending on the version) and all J-8, J-11, and J-10 with SD-10 it's good enough for the time being, plus china hasn't even developed a good enough radr yet

[Chairman Hu]

Also true, radar comes first, then missile, then engine...?

rite!??!?!

[swimmerXC]

Also true, radar comes first, then missile, then engine...?

rite!??!?!

or a new fuel source to power planes... in 50 years or so all these fuel powered jets WILL BE OBSOLETE, why because there will be no oil left in the world; i say they better start research early then they will have a chance in the long run rather than the short

[tphuang]

or a new fuel source to power planes... in 50 years or so all these fuel powered jets WILL BE OBSOLETE, why because there will be no oil left in the world; i say they better start research early then they will have a chance in the long run rather than the short
com'on now, we all know Americans do not understand this concept.

[MIGleader]

a plane using a nuclear fuel cell? hydrogen cell? new type of natural gas?
only time will tell. but dont doubt the pla's inovativness in this. they can always get some russian help in the developmant of such an aircraft and missle.

[swimmerXC]

a plane using a nuclear fuel cell? hydrogen cell? new type of natural gas?
only time will tell. but dont doubt the pla's inovativness in this. they can always get some russian help in the developmant of such an aircraft and missle.

nuclear fuel cells... radiation...
hydrogen cells.... it will be water coming out of the engine of the plane :(
who knows.. but it will be funny to see how the world deals with it!

[Chairman Hu]

It might be a good time to get plasma tech

Maybe missiles can be incorporated with plasma tech... hmmm

or a mini piece of uranium and also can have a self-destruct so your tech wont fall into enemy hand... err nvm, ima go shower and ACTUALLY wake up

[sumdud]

Hmmmm.........

Can't jets burn other fuels than just petroleum?

Hygrogen cells are OK.(The exhaust from the jets are partly H2O you know, plus, it's better to have water than pollutants) But we cannot operate in the Stratosphere w/o first concerning the damage it will bring.(The Stratosphere natively does not have water, so don't try to change it!)

As for the F-22 pic, it's just some wacko's drawing......

As for the AAM, the MICA is the bomb! 45km in only 4 sec, baby!
But it's not really long range though.......

The R-27 and 77 are fine, but not a lot of planes in PLAAF carries it.

The SD-10 is going great. It and PL-11 is a big threat, at least when they are common in PLAAF.

China can employ some long range heavy AAMs against large planes, but not a lot.

They can fit it into the J-8B if it got the right radar.(But it has only 5 HP and 800km radius! J-7Es fly farther....)

As for attacking an AWACS, I doubt you can do it w/o risking life.
My idea: Send in a group of agile fighters(4?) armed with a number of AAMs into the AWACS net to lure the fighter escort for the AWACS. Then send one or two good-radared fighters armed with an ARAAM(size doesn't matter, it's a large plane, FT-2000?) into the AWACS' zone and send it down. Get 2 fighters to escort these attacking planes if needed.

Or

Send one or two good-radared J-8Bs armed with an ARAAM(size doesn't matter, it's a large plane, FT-2000?) to the outside of the AWACS net, wait for the fighters to pass, then fly in and send it down.
And if you can't wait, attack the group from the front, less time to react as the planes are now going twice as fast toward each other.

[Vanguard1688]

why is PL-11 a threat, its just a medium ranged Semi radar active missile like the Sparrow or Asphide, nothing special, not very modern

[swimmerXC]

the MICA reminds me of a big standard; but doesn't china have other missiles to target AWACS like anti-radiation missiles? they got a ramjet powered one from thh russian, i thought it was the moskit when i first saw it

[Totoro]

While r77 is supported by only su30mkk, mk2 and a smaller number of J11s, r27 is being used on a wide variety of chinese platforms. All the planes i mentioned plus all the remaining j11s, plus su27, j8ii, j7g, probably j10 too. I read some article mentioning there was some 3000 of various versions of r27 sold to china.

Bringing down an awacs is more or less impossible without casulties. It's hard to even predict what kind of fighter cover it'd have. But lets assume a lone carrier group, too far away to get additional air support (which is not quite realistic but to hell with it :D) If it'd want to maintain 24/7 E2 coverage around the carrier, fighter cover for a E2 would be something like 4-6 hornets. (tomcats are already one foot (landing gear?) in retirement anyway)
They would stick with the awacs. Never too close so they don't endanger it, but never too far so they can't reach to defend it.

Plus, all the attacking forces would be seen on awacs radar. If they're asessed as too threatening, awacs would turn around and flee towards carrier, with its fighter cover either following it and keeping its rear covered, or staying to fight off/slow down/weaken the attackers. awacs could also shut down its radar if the enemy is close enough to launch a radar emission seeking missile. At that point they'd already know where and how many enemies are, and awacs is just running away to save its life, a new e2 is coming to replace it anyway, launched from the carrier after an interception force is launched.

So. Basically, there's little chance of destroying the awacs without having to go through its fighter cover. Basically you need a large enough force to do it with enough fuel left to afterburn your way in order to catch the awacs before the carrier interceptors come in range to protect it. Providing the e2 was so far in front of the carrier in the first place. It's quite doable. :) Rinse and repeat a few times and carrier group will back off, if it's number of E2s is low enough. They're carrying 4 usually, but in a war situation like that it could go up to as much as 6. Still, they need at least 2 to maintain SOME sort of sustained air control (itd be much less of a radius around the CBG) and it's possible even that would be deemed too risky to stay.

[sumdud]

Why is PL-11 not a threat? It's just as good as Sparrow, Alamo.
Plus, it's not like the AWACS, especially the E2, can flee from it.
It's not like you are going to attack with one plane, and if you do, that plane was dead anyway.

[rommel]

Why is PL-11 not a threat? It's just as good as Sparrow, Alamo.

Well, the PL-11 is a semi-active missile, like every semi-active, it has poor accuracy, make the launcher vulnerable to counter-fire, too easy to evade.

[Totoro]

Actually, PL11 has superior range to sparrow, which would be taiwan's main medium range AAM. But sinodefence says only a relatively small number was ever put in service. Makes sense, with huge numbers of r27 PLAF has, plus r77 and ongoing work on PL12. I'm guessing that's the real reason why it never saw a broad application, they just switched resources to superior PL12 as it was getting close to be finished soon. Sinodefence cites 2005 as possible year when it'll be introduced to service but even if it ends up being 2007 or so it's still good, it'd be over 10 years of development by then.

[tphuang]

check here http://www.kanwa.com/ekir/
Check the august 10th section, it says that J10A is fitted with new missiles. To me, the only good explanation is SD-10.

[Chairman Hu]

SD-10 isnt good enough, a medium range missle like that one isnt good these days... what's the best missile in the US?

WE NEED TO MAKE ONE AS THAT GOOD

[Totoro]

america's best is currently aim-120c-7. And the chinese pl12 should be very comparable to it, on paper, concerning easely quantifiable stats like speed/range/warhead etc. Of course, stuff life seeker performance, accuracy, ECCM performance etc is much harder to gather any data about. I'd guess pl12 won't really quite compare in those areas and it might be more along the lines of aim120b performance.

what should really worry chinese is the aim120d, on course to be deployed in us arsenal by 2008. aside of usual improvements in most areas allegedly it features range 50% greater than the 120c version plus a two way datalink and gps guidance.

[MIGleader]

sd-10 will probaly be out the same time as aim-120d. it can be uypgraded simialarily.

[tphuang]

sd-10 will probaly be out the same time as aim-120d. it can be uypgraded simialarily.
who knows whether or not its officially out yet. They still need to complete the test with it on JF-17. I'm guessing the testing on J-11B is probably all finished. The testing on J-10 might still be ongoing.

[Chairman Hu]

one: when did the j-11b come out

two: 50%?!?!!? on the 120D!?!?!? errr!

three: if the SD-10 is comparable, then China will be okie

[vincelee]

I would like to know where the statement "SARH missiles lack accuracy" comes from.

If you're referring to the Sparrow's dismal performance in Vietnam, do note that the F-4s were required to break engagement, thus FCR tracking, by order of the USN.

[Chairman Hu]

Okie before we drift

1. Screw the sparrow

2. Yes China should work on missiles to cripple AWACS

3. It is not why China doesnt get the missile, ITZ THAT CHINA CANT RELY ON RUSSIA'S AMOS!

There isnt any aircraft in China that has true long range fighting capabilities, what is the point for China to get them?

[MIGleader]

china will get long range radr in the future, so they have to prepare a missle to go with it.

[Chairman Hu]

Still! I wish China just buy the friggin foxhound, temporary solution!

[Raven]

Chairman Hu,

the Russians I doubt will give the best Interceptor in the world to anyone. The MiG-31 is such a great Machine. I dout they let anyone pay for flights in them. Only SU-27s,SU-25s and the MiG-29s. Honestly my friends (both DOD and civilian) and I are very impressed by the publicized and not very well publicized capabilities of the MiG-31. That bird is damn near the Firefox. lol

As fas as AAMs are, Russia always has had the best rocket motor technical skill. Look at the speeds their AAMs,SAMs,AGMs and SSMs move at compared to the western designs.

TLAM (600 MPH+) Various Russian SSMs (1200-1400 MPH+)

Western missiles have to be accurate for a number of reasons:

Western units plan to be outnumbered, smaller weapons allow more to be used
Western weapons are small so they have smaller warheads
Western warheads are small so they need to make every shot count

The current US made AIM-9M,AIM-7 and AIM-120 work. The AIM-7 from the 1060s was a fire two and hope one hits missile, they were very poor. The AIM9 continues to improve as does the AIM7 but the AIM9X from what I have been told can not beat the AA-11 in range,speed,warhead and other aspects. Either way, I would hate to get hit by either one.

USAF Most A2A kills in 1991 with AIM-7F
IAF Most kills in 1980 made with AIM-9

AIM-54C now retired, $1million US Dollars
100 nm range (trailing target)
210nm range+ (closing target)
classified range (large target)

The US Navy will miss those Bad Boys!!

My favorites out there:

ACM
AA-11/R-77

MRAAM
AIM-120C (But the UK Sky Flash is awesome)

LRAAM

AIM-54C

[swimmerXC]

can we plz stop putting US military stuff in these threads.... he was talking about MiG-31 not any USAF stuff.... about the MiG-31, yes it powerful and all but think about teh cost of training and buying them... i rather just arm all my J-8's with SD-10 and use them as the main interceptors

[Chairman Hu]

well about the american stuff, itz okie just dont over do it...

J-8??? with the SD-10???

whats the point, I see it better to use the MiG-25 instead and upgrade everything

SD-10 is a great missile, but it needs a great aircraft with a powerful system to handle the job

and the MiG-25's max altitude is 120k ft, beat that!

[swimmerXC]

think about, why spend more money one training and buying a new aircraft, when they can already upgrade the J-8 fleet and turn them into a powerful interceptor, it would be alot cheaper! flying high doesn't mean anything now a days, plus the MiG-25 radar doesn't even have a look-down and shoot; so whats the point.... i rather hug the ground thus cutting RCS; o and i don't think the russians would integrate the MiG-25 radar with SD-10 without another big price tag...

[Chairman Hu]

MiG-25 PDS has look down shoot down...

Im just saying... the J-8 really isnt that great... itz kinda crappy

[swimmerXC]

yes the MiG-25 have look down and shoot but is very limited
why do you think teh J-8 is so crappy? with the right upgrades it can before a powerful figther with the J-7s

[Chairman Hu]

The J-7 is even crappier!!!

J-8 was a fight never to have BVR combat abilities... just how well can the plane take in Gs, and how much can it climb, one of the things in hit and run, you need a spd past M2.5, to outrun

[swimmerXC]

the J-7 will be used to set up a perimeter around the J-8 to take care of teh dogfighting, i wouldn't say just yet how "shitty" the J-7 is, in a dogfight with HMS and the Adder it can pose a serious thread to any western fighter getting close enough, it's maneuverability is probably equal to that of teh F-16!
who said the J-8's have to get in dirty all they do it fly up and it's more of hit and run.... they can fly at Mach 2.2 and have aerial refuelling capability all they need now is the upgrade to fire SD-10s
it's rate of climb is 12,000m/min compare that to a MMK 18,300m/min, with an underpowered engine that's not too bad, eh?

[MIGleader]

j-8 is really getting old. it has more potetial though. imagine if they fitted it with a double delta wing, phazo tron radar, and aa12. then it be one bad boy.