China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
cloyce
Junior Member
Are you sure?
He's probably sure, but also wrong.
Anyhow, there are many improvements the PLA could've made to the Su-27/J-10, but the only ones they've made are ones that can be applied to future aircrafts(IRST, possibly AESA, and DSI on the J-10B), unless absolutely necessary(tail hook on the J-15, e.g.). It seems to me like the entire PLA is treating the current generation of weapons more as testbeds than weapons which may be needed en mass.
Just look at the production numbers across the board. The J-10s are not being produced nearly enough as a replacement for J-7(they've been replacing J-7 regiments I believe); all newer naval vessels except the 054A has only been produced in batches of 1 or 2 per model, including submarines; the T-99 tanks have also been produced at far lower numbers China is used to.
I think the PLA is trying to take maximum advantage of the current peace surrounding the country to concentrate on making strides in R&D and catching up to the Americans rather than spending a lot of their money on production or refining systems/platforms which are already a generation behind.
Not so sure about this. It could be that china is still having a lot of difficulty in mass manufacturing those items (indigenous turbofan anyone?). Creating in laboratory is one thing. Mass producing is another.
It doesn't have to be indigenous, they may just as well buy AL-31's from the Russians like they had been. The focus on indigenization is another sign supporting my theory, as it is the route which requires more R&D, time, and money(at least in the short term) and is less conducive to greater numbers. Even after indigenization is achieved, and the latest news suggest that it has, I doubt that they'll be mass produced at numbers that we're used to.
You have to look across the board too. China has been making quality steam turbines and nuclear submarines for decades now, yet the only naval vessels mass produced have been the 054A and the 022. They can freely buy engines for their T-99A1 tanks as well, and latest reports indicate that they've achieved indigenization with that as well, yet they're hardly being mass produced.
Even a WP-13(that's J-8B's engine) or a WS-6 also has an adjustable nozzle.
I think you confused the terms of adjustable nozzle, convergent-divergent nozzle and ejector nozzle.
In short, a WP-13 has an adjustable nozzle, but not an convergent-divergent nozzle or an ejector nozzle. The nozzle of a WS-10/10A is an ejector nozzle and a AL-31 has a convergent-divergent nozzle.
Attached Photo: the adjustable nozzle of WP-13
[qimg]http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4445&stc=1&d=1279027510[/qimg]
Yes the iris nozzles are what I had in mind. Thanks for pointing that out.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
The T-99 is a bad example. Currently the PLA have a two tier rearmament program for their tank forces to replace the Type 59 and Type 88 tanks that still make up a very large number of the PLA's armoured assets. The vast majority of these Type 59s will be replaced with Type 96Gs rather than Type 99s. This 'hi-lo' combination is meant to reduce costs
Pointblank
Senior Member
As weapons systems become more complex and more expensive, nations can only afford fewer of newer systems. However, since the newer systems are considered to be more capable than existing systems, this trade off between numbers and quality is considered acceptable.
I may be mistaken, but didn't they have a two-tier system before as well?
Yet the U.S. military hasn't reduced their numbers much if at all since the initial reductions post the cold-war. Yes, weapons systems become more complex and expensive, but nations also get richer. For example, the U.S. doubles its inflation-adjusted(i.e. real) GDP every 25 years or so, so every generation of weapon systems may be twice as expensive, inflation-adjusted, and still be affordable in similar quantities.
I wouldn't confuse the general trend of arms reduction post cold war with a lessened capability to afford weapons systems.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Other than the Type 59/62 there were a few other types of tanks in PLA service, the Type 69/79 and the Type 88 but their numbers were always quite limited and calling them a different 'tier' from the Type 59Ds is a bit much, especially since tanks are usually compared by weight and they are all generally in the same weight category. More 'elite units' were equipped with 'newer' tanks though. So you can argue either way. The type 96 and Type 99 is a bit more explicit distinction since I've read in several different places over the years that the PLA has no intention of re-equiping all of its tank units with Type 99s
- Status