Article Reviews Chinese Air Power in Transition

[Lawman]

Devil's advocate, but they could use the stealth and range if they were to say go to downtown Tehran. Still, the F-22's overkill for that purpose.

They have better ways to hurt the Iranians...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html

 

[nittany03]

They have better ways to hurt the Iranians...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html

Interesting. Kind of like a poor man's boomer. I wonder if they will keep one parked off the Iranian coast a la the Russians used to do with their Yankee-class missile subs.

 

[ChuckMK23]

"Open Source" Intel.....

SD-10 (PL-12)

Type: Active-radar guided beyond-visual range air-to-air missile.

Development:

The SD-10 active-radar BVR air-to-air missile is now the highest priority air-to-air weapons programme for China's military industry, and has supplanted several previous developmental projects (such as the PL-10 and PL-11) in terms of effort and importance. When, and if, it enters service, it should provide the People's Liberation Army Air Force with a sophisticated, indigenous airborne weapon that will complement, to some degree the Russian-supplied R-27/R-77 missiles that equip the PLAAF's Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 force.
The SD-10 (perhaps known also as the PL-12) is evolving under aegis of the Beijing-based China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC), while work on various aspects of the programme is underway at a number of different technical centres around the country. The SD-10 is listed as part of CATIC's current 'Thunder-Lightning' family of air-to-air missiles, that includes the PL-5E, PL-9C and TY-90 systems (all developed by the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center). However, confusion surrounds the provenance, and even the designation, of the SD-10 programme. 'SD-10' is the export designation of a national programme that may, or may not be, the PL-12.
The PL-12 designation has also been associated with a notional air-to-air development of China's LY-60 surface-to-air missile, but the actual status of this development effort is unclear. The SD-10 on the other hand is a very real programme.
Prior to the emergence of the SD-10, China's active radar seeker AAM development programme was sometimes identified as the 'AMR-1'. During Air Show China 1996, held during November in Zhuhai, the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute/No 607 Research Institute exhibited a newly-developed active radar seeker, the AMR-1. This seeker was, in turn, believed to have been applied to a new air-to-air missile design, derived from the LY-60 surface-to-air missile, and dubbed the 'PL-12'. This active radar missile, and the earlier semi-active radar homing PL-11, seemed to have a common design heritage with the Italian Aspide missile, supplied to China during the late 1980s. The status of the PL-11 and 'LY-60/PL-12' development programmes is unclear, but sources within CATIC say these earlier programmes have all been abandoned in favour of the SD-10.
The existence of the SD-10 programme was acknowledged by Chinese officials for the first time in early 2002 (the first pictures of the new missile appeared from Chinese sources during 2001). According to CATIC sources the missile has a range of 80 km. Earlier speculation around the AMR-1/LY-60 programme suggested that a ramjet engine was being developed for it, and such a powerplant would allow a missile to be effective at such long ranges. All available models and artist's impressions of the SD-10 released to date clearly show a rocket-powered missile with a conventional airframe configuration. However, unidentified models of a notional ramjet-powered air-to-air missile have been shown in China and so an enhanced propulsion solution may be under consideration, or even under development, for the SD-10. According to a CATIC engineer, speaking in February 2002, several SD-10 test firings have already been undertaken, and most of the SD-10's subsystems testing had been completed (although the missile was not yet ready for service).

Description

The SD-10 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although with a length of 3.85m, a diameter of 20.3 cm and a weight of 180 kg the SD-10 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM. The SD-10 has four rear-mounted control fins that each have a very distinctive notch cut into their base. These fins are longer and more prominent than those of the AMRAAM and are cropped at an angle (rather than in line with the missile body). Four larger triangular fins are fixed to the mid-section of the missile. Internally, the leading edge of the centrebody fins is in line with the start of the missile's rocket motor. That motor is a variable-thrust sold rocket booster, that offers two levels of motive power for different sections of the flight envelope.
CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active radar seekers, which may be intended for the SD-10. However the latest reports confirm that China has been co-operating closely with Russia's AGAT Research Institute, based in Moscow, and that AGAT is the source of the SD-10's essential active seeker. This joint development effort (perhaps with the name 'Project 129') has reportedly seen the supply of AGAT's 9B-1348 active-radar seeker (developed for the Vympel R-77, AA-12 'Adder') to China for integration with a Chinese-developed missile, the SD-10. Alternatively, technology from AGAT's 9B-1103M seeker family may be offered to China. Russia is also the source for the missile's inertial navigation system and datalink.
The SD-10 has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the SD-10 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse.
The SD-10 is claimed to have an operational ceiling of 20 km, with a maximum effective range of 70 km and a minimum engagement range of 1,000 m. The missile has a 40 g manoeuvring limit and, according to CATIC, it has been tested for a 100-hour captive 'live flight' life.

Operational status

The SD-10 is not yet believed to be in PLAAF service, but is in an advanced stage of development and may have been released for operational test and evaluation with the air force. According to CATIC, the SD-10 can be carried by a range of aircraft including the J-7 (F-7), J-8 (F- and MiG-series fighters, or any Western aircraft that have been fitted with the missile's PF95 launcher and pylon. The obvious radar limitations of these aircraft make it clear that they will probably never be fitted with the SD-10, at least in Chinese service. While trials firings have probably been conducted using Shenyang J-8 testbeds, it is believed that the SD-10/PL-12 programme is intended, initially, to equip China's fleet of Su-27 (J-11) 'Flankers' as part of a wider nationally-sourced capability enhancement for the PLAAF's 'Flanker' force.
The other potential applications for the SD-10/PL-12 in Chinese service are on the Chengdu J-10 next-generation combat aircraft now under development, perhaps the upgraded Shenyang J-8M 'Finback' and the CATIC FC-1/Super 7 lightweight multirole combat aircraft being developed jointly by China and Pakistan. During 2001 officials at Pakistan's National Development Complex confirmed that the NDC was conducting study/development work on a new active-radar missile programme, a possible reference to the SD-10. Certainly the most prominent 'public appearance' of the SD-10 to date has been on the full-size mock-up of the FC-1/Super 7. Pakistan has established a national production line for the Italian Galileo Avionica (formerly FIAR) Grifo 7 multimode fire-control radar at its Kamra Avionics and Radar Facility. A version of the Grifo radar (Grifo S7) is being developed for the FC-1/Super 7, and the Grifo is already fitted to Pakistan's Chengdu F-7PGs. In July 2002 Galileo Avionica confirmed that it would be offering the latest development of the Grifo radar, the Grifo 2000/16, as a candidate radar for the J-10 once its entered the production phase. Galileo Avionics describes the Grifo 2000/16 (originally designed as a radar for F-16 upgrades) as a modern, modular, multimode radar with enhanced air-to-air capabilities that is compatible with modern BVR missiles.


Specifications

Length: 3.85 m
Body diameter: 203 mm
Wing span: n/k
Launch weight: 180 kg
Warhead: HE fragmentation
Fuze: Active proximity fuse
Guidance: Inertial mid-course and /or datalink updates, with active radar terminal homing
Propulsion: Solid dual-thrust rocket motor
Range: 70 km (in a head on engagement)


Contractor

China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corp (CATIC), Beijing.

 

[Flash]

I remember landing in at Dalian airport in China (DLC) and seeing at least 40 older MiGs (mostly -23s) tied down parallel to the taxiways. In the 3 months I was there, I saw quite a few of them fly.

While these might not seem like a big threat, it means they have plenty of pilots out there training in high performance fighter craft. Its not like they would be taking Cessna pilots and training them to fly the J-10 or similar.

On my way out, I also saw a shiney grey Sukhoi-30 wearing a red star parked about 100' from the passenger terminal.

By the way, none of this is anything secret. These flights were made in plain sight from civilian airports, and I was a civilian at the time I saw all of this (2001).

The PRC does not have MiG-23's. They have their own versions of the MiG-17 (F-5), MiG-19 (F-6) and MiG-21 (F-7) but not the MiG-23.

You might be thinking of the F-8-II Finback:

Plus, it is a big leap to go from this

to this

and most importantly, do they know how to use all of those fancy screens and buttons?

I am not of the 'chicken little' camp when it comes to the PRC. Sure, they have bought some nice toys lately, but toys aren't going to win you a war. Some critical questions that people on this forum cannot answer but crtically important are things like: Do they have the C3/4 assets to back up the toys? Do they still train in the old Soviet ground control mold? Do they train with the advanced tactics to fully utilize the capabilities of their toys? Do they have the logisitcs to handle a large scale war? What is the mission sortie rate for their aircraft?

These are all critically important questions that canno tbe addressed on this forum but the professionals here should keep these things in mind when studying the PRC threat.

I would put my money on Michael Schumacher driving a dump truck over a 19 year old in a tricked out Honda any day.....

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Some critical questions that people on this forum cannot answer but crtically important are things like: Do they have the C3/4 assets to back up the toys? Do they still train in the old Soviet ground control mold? Do they train with the advanced tactics to fully utilize the capabilities of their toys? Do they have the logisitcs to handle a large scale war? What is the mission sortie rate for their aircraft?

These are all critically important questions that canno tbe addressed on this forum but the professionals here should keep these things in mind when studying the PRC threat.

I've heard all those questions studied critically by NSAWC on numerous occassions...

 

[Flash]

I've heard all those questions studied critically by NSAWC on numerous occassions...

I have seen these addressed by much more than just NSAWC, and I am not that worried. At least not yet . I am also talking about the much bigger picture too, not just PRC aviation. I think the PRC threat is somethnig to be very aware of, but nothing to lose sleep over quite yet. Plus, if anything out of the PRC is going to give me heartburn it is defintely not going to be their planes.....and I doubt you would guess what it is either.

Finally, I have seen these guys up close and personal.....

....and the few others on this board that have seen them too did not have the 'big picture' I did.....

P.S. If someone can correctly identify the plane (NATO designation) in the first photo they get bonus points!

 

[Fly Navy]

Finback is so... ungainly looking.

 

[Gatordev]

Flash,

No doubt you have loads more timely info, but the one thing I've heard several different places (in both class and unclass sources) is that the real threat that China has is time. They see things in a much longer timeframe than the west does, especially the US. At least Europe has a longer history, but they're not really threatened right now. The U.S. sees things in such short term ideas, but the Chinese are patient and in it for the long haul. An example of this is Taiwan. In China's eyes, they will get Taiwan "back," it's just a matter of waiting for the right time, be it a decade or more.

As for threat, and not that you'd answer, I'd say econonmy?

Also, there was a book (can't remember the name, I'll have to see if I still have it) that discussed the "technology war" and China. It was written pre-9/11 (1998-ish), but talked about how much of what China bought to modernize was U.S. designed/built. Things like dam control software and power grid control systems. So one postulate of the book was that if China starts acting up, all of a sudden the lowlands don't get any water from upstream, thanks to a nice trojan horse.

Not saying the validity of the book, but it was an interesting read, in that sense.

 

[skidkid]

I think it is a Fitter, maybe a different Chinese variant but my guess is Su-22. Definitely not a finback though

 

[Fly Navy]

Always remember that Asia does not fight by the same rules that we do. BUSINESS is an extension of war to most Asian ideas.

 

[mmx1]

Flash,

No doubt you have loads more timely info, but the one thing I've heard several different places (in both class and unclass sources) is that the real threat that China has is time. They see things in a much longer timeframe than the west does, especially the US. At least Europe has a longer history, but they're not really threatened right now. The U.S. sees things in such short term ideas, but the Chinese are patient and in it for the long haul. An example of this is Taiwan. In China's eyes, they will get Taiwan "back," it's just a matter of waiting for the right time, be it a decade or more.

As for threat, and not that you'd answer, I'd say econonmy?

Also, there was a book (can't remember the name, I'll have to see if I still have it) that discussed the "technology war" and China. It was written pre-9/11 (1998-ish), but talked about how much of what China bought to modernize was U.S. designed/built. Things like dam control software and power grid control systems. So one postulate of the book was that if China starts acting up, all of a sudden the lowlands don't get any water from upstream, thanks to a nice trojan horse.

Not saying the validity of the book, but it was an interesting read, in that sense.

Don't think this is what you're talking about (2004), but it's an interesting read:

 

[Gatordev]

No, that's not it. The book I was referring to was "The Next World War" by James Adams. I'm not sure I even finished it and it was quite some time ago, so not sure how valid it is nowadays, but it had some cool ideas.

 

[skidkid]

China in its thousands of years of history has not really demonstrated the ability nor that much deisre to project power on a large scale. IT doesnt take much to invade Tibet, their only defense really was a bad Brad Pitt movie and Richard Gere protests.
Things may change but there are some counterweights to the Chinese rise already in place, India is developing just as quickly and had almost comparable population, this coupled with their close relationship with Russia is a natural counterweight to Chinese ambitions in Asia

 

[pdx]

The PRC does not have MiG-23's. They have their own versions of the MiG-17 (F-5), MiG-19 (F-6) and MiG-21 (F-7) but not the MiG-23.

You might be thinking of the F-8-II Finback:

Hmm, you caught me. After I saw the aircraft, I wanted to know what they were. With rectangular jet intakes high on both sides of the fuselage and a single fin, I was pretty sure they were MiG-23s. Obviously there are other aircraft that fit the bill. I initially believed they were single engine, but after looking at the J-8 pics, it's possible I mistook the double engine arrangement for a single.

In any case, there were lots of them, and they flew quite often. I'm not in the "sky is falling" camp either, but here is my observation. They Chinese are spending money to train pilots.

Plus, it is a big leap to go from this

to this

and most importantly, do they know how to use all of those fancy screens and buttons?

True, but it's also a big leap to go from the T-34 to the T-45 to the F/A-18, but our pilots do it. We have a larger body of knowlege and a longer tradition of teaching people to fly, but I'm sure they can figure out how to fly their planes and use their computers. They are determined to learn even if it means spending money, aircraft, and lives. I share your questions about their support organisms, and their strategic and tactical doctires. Those factors can never be overlooked.

I would put my money on Michael Schumacher driving a dump truck over a 19 year old in a tricked out Honda any day.....

? I think I might need an explanation on this analogy. I don't think they are putting 19 year olds in the cockpit.

 

[Fly Navy]

True, but it's also a big leap to go from the T-34 to the T-45 to the F/A-18, but our pilots do it. We have a larger body of knowlege and a longer tradition of teaching people to fly, but I'm sure they can figure out how to fly their planes and use their computers. They are determined to learn even if it means spending money, aircraft, and lives. I share your questions about their support organisms, and their strategic and tactical doctires. Those factors can never be overlooked.

It's a bit different how we train and they train.