China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
OG is short for original.
That's RWR/ESM detecting the orientation of radar wave, but not MAW.
OG means "original gangster" which is a colloquialism for "the original type" or "the original one".
Used in a wide range of conversation as a casual term. Not PLA or military related lol.
Last edited:
I remember back over 10 years ago, I read a really interesting article by the infamous Pupu (who was part of the Su-30 project). He mentioned that Su-30 aircraft was the start of transitioning PLAAF into an offensive Air Force. It didn't make a lot of sense to me at the time, since J-10As dominated MKKs in air combat and JH-7As were superior as a fighter bomber. With the emergence of J-16, this all makes a lot of sense now. PLAAF found the multi-role platform they always wanted in Su-30MKK, but it was terribly lacking in avionics and weaponry. They combined the indigenous weapon system/avionics with Su-30MKK to get J-16. Now, they have an aircraft perfectly suited to support offensive operations. As we've seen with the Taiwan incursions, J-16 is the most well suited aircraft for that role. As the number of J-16s continue to swell, we should also expect the incursions to be even larger and more frequent.
They've already added a really interesting variant in J-16D. With its greater space, J-16D could prove to be even more powerful in EW than EA-18G. It can certainly achieve great range/loiter time with its larger fuel tank. I think it will prove to be quite the game changer for PLAAF. I expect them to be producing J-16Ds until probably the end of this decade. J-15D project should also be benefiting from this project.
At this point, I consider J-16 to still be a platform that focuses more on A2A combat. As more J-20s enter service, it seems logical for J-16 to transition to carry out more strike missions. To put it more plainly, China needs its own version of F-15EX/Su-34. There is clearly a place in a modern air force for a bomb truck that also can maneuver recently well. It would also be a platform that achieves some level of stealth through its EW suite rather than its shaping. I have always been impressed with Su-34 and this is a great article just talking about how much gas it can carry.
If SAC develops a J-16 variant (let's call it J-16B) that focuses more on strike missions, I don't think they need to make it as spacious as Su-34. The side-by-side seating, large cockpit and the galley all add to the size and weight of Su-34. As such, Su-34's empty weight is almost 30% heavier than Su-30 and almost 40% heavier than Su-27. I'd expect this strike J-16 to be a little heavier than Su-30 in empty weight to carry more fuel and bombs. It can carry some kind of conformal fuel tank along with 3 large external fuel tanks. By using WS-10C, which would be more powerful and have lower burn rate than AL-31FM1, it could achieve greater combat radius than su34 while hauling similar amount of payload. The combat radius of su34 is already pretty good at 1100 km. Maybe a strike j16 can exceed 1200 km like the strike eagle. The potential of such an aircraft is quite vast whether it is operating in east china sea or south china sea or an overseas base when it comes to supporting plan carrier group.
They've already added a really interesting variant in J-16D. With its greater space, J-16D could prove to be even more powerful in EW than EA-18G. It can certainly achieve great range/loiter time with its larger fuel tank. I think it will prove to be quite the game changer for PLAAF. I expect them to be producing J-16Ds until probably the end of this decade. J-15D project should also be benefiting from this project.
At this point, I consider J-16 to still be a platform that focuses more on A2A combat. As more J-20s enter service, it seems logical for J-16 to transition to carry out more strike missions. To put it more plainly, China needs its own version of F-15EX/Su-34. There is clearly a place in a modern air force for a bomb truck that also can maneuver recently well. It would also be a platform that achieves some level of stealth through its EW suite rather than its shaping. I have always been impressed with Su-34 and this is a great article just talking about how much gas it can carry.
If SAC develops a J-16 variant (let's call it J-16B) that focuses more on strike missions, I don't think they need to make it as spacious as Su-34. The side-by-side seating, large cockpit and the galley all add to the size and weight of Su-34. As such, Su-34's empty weight is almost 30% heavier than Su-30 and almost 40% heavier than Su-27. I'd expect this strike J-16 to be a little heavier than Su-30 in empty weight to carry more fuel and bombs. It can carry some kind of conformal fuel tank along with 3 large external fuel tanks. By using WS-10C, which would be more powerful and have lower burn rate than AL-31FM1, it could achieve greater combat radius than su34 while hauling similar amount of payload. The combat radius of su34 is already pretty good at 1100 km. Maybe a strike j16 can exceed 1200 km like the strike eagle. The potential of such an aircraft is quite vast whether it is operating in east china sea or south china sea or an overseas base when it comes to supporting plan carrier group.
To be honest I'd be a bit surprised if they pursued a "strike J-16" variant with major structural modifications.
As a strike platform J-16 is already quite good -- if the question is range/endurance, then I think it would be better to just plumb a couple of the underwing hardpoints to be capable of carrying external fuel tanks, which doesn't require as massive of a structural redesign and development as needing conformal fuel tanks.
Additionally, given we are now into the 2020s, I think the pursuit of any new regional bomber/strike aircraft should be stealthy in nature, at least for the PLA in a westpac oriented mission.
The farther out into westpac that the PLA wants to deploy its airpower, the more important it is to be VLO, as the support of friendly escorts, force multipliers, EW platforms, surface/naval support, will reduce with distance.
If they wanted to enhance the strike capability of J-16, there are IMO better things they can do, such as:
- develop a VLO LACM (which I'm sure they are doing/have displayed some export options in the past)
- procure some 250kg and 100kg PGMs with range extension wingkits in large numbers with multiple ejector racks
- continuous avionics/EW upgrades to the aircraft
- maybe plumb some underwing hardpoints for EFTs -- modifications to existing airframes.
Let's remember that even a strike oriented J-16 variant with some structural modifications still will only be marginally more capable than J-16 in terms of payload capacity and range, while not offering the VLO necessary for modern/future survivability.
IMO it would be better to invest that money into new munitions to enhance the effectiveness of existing platforms -- and to invest that money into new platforms (H-20, strike UCAVs like GJ-11/evolved similar flying wing drones, maybe a JH-XX -- and even J-20 and J-XY/35 in carrier and ground based variants could be used in a strike role in stealthy configuration as well when carrying JSM-esque weapons).
I agree with most of what you said in there. I wouldn't dismiss the impact of adding even 200 km to combat radius. That extra difference could open up quite a few missions as well as doubling the loiter time over other missions.
I think you can probably get that with support for 3 large external fuel tanks, a little more bulked airframe and engines with better fuel burn. That along with more avionics upgrade might be enough for a new subclass.
I have a hard time seeing something like even a fighter bomber version j20 having space to carry a lot of fuel and payload internally. Just hard to achieve stealth in my opinion for a fighter bomber. Ucav would do better.
I agree that an additional 200km to its combat radius is not insignificant, but I think it all depends on how much aerospace resources and how much time it ends up costing.
In terms of combat aircraft (fighters, strike fighters, bombers), I am of the belief that any new clean sheet types or new subvariants of existing types for PLA service, that start development in the 2020s, should ideally have VLO.
In this case, a strike/longer range J-16 variant would be in the "new subvariant" category and would like take 2+ years to develop, test fly, and verify all of its parameters and characteristics. Such an aircraft could enter production in 2024-2025 and could probably enter full rate production equivalent pretty quickly.
But I personally can't see all of that being worth the finite aerospace industry resources at our present span of time in the early 2020s -- by that, I mean the full combination of engineering time, computing time, flight test needs, and the elapsed years and money spent -- for 200km of additional combat radius.
I do strongly agree that enhanced aerial strike capabilities at longer distances would be useful, but I think any such solution being developed in the early 2020s should be more survivable in the long term.
===
Off topic, but for the record, I also believe that a hypothetical strike J-20 variant would be undesirable -- I agree that the fuel and payload it could carry would be... unimpressive and probably not worth the money and aerospace resources and time.
IMO, any new major regional bomber should ideally fulfill a few physical parameters/criteria:
- VLO
- ~2000km combat radius
- sizeable weapons bay for large volume payloads including relatively sizeable cruise missiles (ability to carry two YJ-12 missiles in volume equivalent) or a decent quantity of direct attack PGMs.
- small internal weapons bay for A2A weapons (say, two small weapons bays, carrying one PL-15 sized missile each)
- supersonic capable (supersonic dash capable for part of the mission, but not required to have supercruise)
Needless to say, such an aircraft would be excellent, but be quite expensive.
If they cannot achieve those criteria with a clean sheet design (and a strike J-20 variant most certainly be unable to either), I think it would make more sense simply to pursue longer ranged standoff weapons, VLO strike UCAVs, and H-20 for longer ranged targets, and to use standard J-20s and J-35/XYs carrying internal JSM and SDB equivalent weapons, for closer targets within 800km of the Chinese coast.
All backed up by J-16s, H-6K/J/Ns, that will enjoy new generation munitions, and the entire fleet being supported by aerial refuelling operating in the more secure "rear".
I think 200km of additional combat radius equates to roughly 1000kg of fuel for a Flanker airframe.
You might as well put an extra drop tank on one of the many pylons instead
- Status