Re: The mysterious J-19
So basically F-15K is a slightly better F-15E?
I know the context is that we're talking of the F-15E as it is, but it will undergo various MLUs and the like as time goes on.
No. The F-15K is a heavily upgraded variant of the F-15E with upgraded avionics, engines, electronics, and heavier payload.
The F-15K is more powerful (in terms of strike) than any J-11B variant currently deployed.
That's exactly what I refer to. An extra "fixed" hardpoint or two won't change the maximum load out that significantly to validate saying the F-15K is that much better than the F-15E as it currently is.
That's not what I was pointing out. Each aircraft has a fixed number of weapons stations. The F-15K simply has more weapons stations than the F-15E. This means the F-15K can carry a lot more weapons especially if cluster hardpoints are used.
I have, and J-11BS is still a two seater of J-11B just like how F-15D is a two seater of F-15C, or how J-10AS is a two seater of J-10S. J-16, if it exists will be to the J-11BS what the F-15E is to the F-15D. Saying F-15K instead is just a vain attempt to add extra value points to the aircraft when overall it makes little difference to the class and capability in said class.
Huitong puts the J-16's capabilities as superior to the Su-30MKK, which is widely regarded as equivalent or even superior to the F-15E. J-16 will have much more powerful avionics, greater weapons load, and range.
J-16's improvements over the J-11B/S is very similar to the F-15K's improvements over the F-15E.
I suppose you can say there is no significant difference between the J-15 and J-11B... I suppose then there's also little difference between Su-33 and Su-27? And remember at the end of the day there is little difference between J-11B and Su-27, with the former basically a modernized version of the latter. In that case J-15 is really based off the Su-27 with carrier related technologies from the T-10K prototype.
The Su-33 prototype was in fact the Su-27K. There is no major difference between the Su-27 and Su-33 besides the canards and landing equipment.
There is little difference between the basic J-11 and Su-27SK, true, but certainly not the J-11B. The J-11B is a completely indigenous fighter apart from the airframe. Avionics, engines, coating, composite materials, electronics, weapons systems, cockpit, etc, are completely indigenous. The J-11B is pretty much a new fighter except for the airframes.
The J-11B is classified different from the Flanker and is not part of the Flanker family.
I realize you don't need to have a canted radome to have ESA, but you assume from your "sources" that they do, without valid proof either by word or physical, to back it up yet.
And your last sentence is illogical. The US have had AESA technology for years yet the USAF's AWACS isn't. It's not a given that you must adopt the newest technology the second it's finished development or whatever.
None of the reports that I have read ever mentioned about randomes being canted to house AESAs. But from what we have learned from the F-16E and J-10B, a slanted random holds a very high probability for it to hold an AESA.
China's fighter aircraft currently lacks versatile avionics. An AESA radar (such as the one on the J-10B) will be a very cheap way to upgrade existing fighters by a great deal without having to rely on other technologies such as engines or airframes. Being that AESA are already in testing or developed, I don't see why it can't be mass-produced and installed.
Read my last paragraph above.
It is unsure whether the J-19 is the same aircraft as the "Silent Flanker" or not.
This is also a mystery to me. However, due to the fact that the J-19 picture differs greatly from what Huitong has said about the Silent Flanker, I doubt that it's the same aircraft.
An article written by an ex-SAC employee also explains that there are multiple (at least three) different stealth-enhanced variants of the J-11.
... Both the USAF and USN have multi role aircraft as the vast majority of their fighter aircraft fleet. The USN used to have F-14s act as the fleet superiority fighter and the F-18 as the main strike aircraft. Obviously as the ability to deliver PGMs became more common F-14s could act as strike as well, but you make it sound like air force fighters are dedicated, single role and USN are multirole when in reality it could be either or.
What I'm saying is that land-based aircraft can be more flexible and doesn't have to take on multiple roles. Land-based aircraft can be either in the form of air-superiority (like F-16 or F-22) or strike (like F-15E or F-35).
Naval aircraft will have to combine roles.
The F-14 was mainly an interceptor. The reason why the F/A-18 was deployed along with it is because the F-14 is nearing its retirement age and they wanted to make the F-14's last days count.
The Russians will be lucky to get the standard T-50 at IOC by 2016... And a naval PAK FA would be based where? Admiral Kuznetsov? Lol, they'll be luckky to get their Mig-29Ks by 2016...
This is taken from the Sukhoi schedule. Sukhoi rarely misses its deadlines and they are far more than ready to build another T-50 derivative. I wouldn't be surprised if their FGFA makes it to the production line in a few years.
Yet they're in a completely different weight class, which is a bigger difference which the similarities can not compensate for.
A 747 has wings and can fly, just like an F-15. Bam, they're similar.
F-35 isn't what you call a "light fighter". Both T-50 and F-35 are heavy-class fighters that are built for power (one of the key aspects of a strike aircraft). Seeing that the Mikoyan LMFS will fill the light fighter role, it's safe to assume that the T-50K will be a strike fighter.
Role is the most important variable by which aircraft are classified, and seeing that both the F-35 and T-50K share similar purposes, their relationship can be justified.
I don't dispute that the J-11B probably has had some RCS reductions in some way, but the quoting of numbers with such confidence and promoting them as such a major addition in capabilities is misuigded, in my opinion.
My numbers come from sources. The number is in all articles that mention the J-11B's RCS.
If you go about with your "misguided" theory, then the J-20 technically doesn't exist.
I know, the point is that some stealth shaping will always be better than no stealth shaping. But when you compare it to a dedicated stealth aircraft like the F-22 the differences between 4th gen and 5th gen stealth shaping and 4+ and 5th gen stealth shaping become small. That being said, aircraft like the F-15SE and F-18E/F growth hornet, both of which can carry weapons internally in some way or another are more comparable.
Yeah, but when the 4.5++ generation fighter is compared to a 4th-generation fighter, the differences are big.
How much more "different' how much of a "lower" RCS? Is it even worth mentioning? And yes you do need credible information. The only two suggestions that J-15 was to have strike capability was that the model on the Varyag facility in Wuhan had carried a YJ-83K/KD-88 missile on one of its hard points and that it was supposedly based on the J-11B, and would therefore have strike capabilities.
But now whether J-11B has credible strike capabilities are in dispute so this is why we need credible information.
J-15 is based on J-11B, so logically the J-15 will have the same radar-reduction features the J-11B uses. J-11Bs are 8 times stealthier than the Flanker and are being constantly upgraded, therefore it's expectable that the J-15 will be not much different from that.
I have pictures of J-11B models and SAC posters of J-11B with guided air-to-surface equipment. Need I show you them?
