China Flanker Thread II

[nosh]

Although Pupu is pretty trustworthy let's wait a while first. The JH-7B incident is still fresh on my mind.

it is too early to call JH-7B (or a different name) out.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Do you think it's better to have whole detachable weapon bay box? That way you can customise the internals all you want. And maybe also have the option to fly without them.

So eg without gaps with the box on, and similar to the PAK-FA with it off.

Detachable weapons bay is probably a better idea on lighter jets where you don't have a lot of internal space to start with. I think the "stealth" version of the F-18 pioneered the detachable weapon's cocoon idea.

 

[Blitzo]

Well then it would be easier to just leave the weapon bay in there, no reason to build a completely seperate pod or box which would require more maintenance, increase RCS a little, for no real benefit.

 

[nosh]

Here You are ....

... besides that if this is really the J-16, then it has (IMO) nothing in common with the Flanker
(so again, should we move this to a new tread ?)

It may not be the J-16, more likely J-17, 18, 19, 21 .....

According to pupu and others, the "strike flanker" is likely the J-16.

 

[no_name]

What about a silent J-10 variant developed from J-10B, maybe with conformal weapon bay. I feel a J-10 variant could still be a low end F-35 if engine and electronics are up to scratch.

CAC could try to gobble up the domestic stealth market for itself.

 

[no_name]

Well then it would be easier to just leave the weapon bay in there, no reason to build a completely seperate pod or box which would require more maintenance, increase RCS a little, for no real benefit.

Leaving a space there might be useful for other stuff, like EW ECM purposes and also a massive box fuel tank to increase range.

You can also have different boxes for it for different purposes.

 

[nosh]

What about a silent J-10 variant developed from J-10B, maybe with conformal weapon bay. I feel a J-10 variant could still be a low end F-35 if engine and electronics are up to scratch.

CAC could try to gobble up the domestic stealth market for itself.

Maybe better for export market.

 

[Blitzo]

What about a silent J-10 variant developed from J-10B, maybe with conformal weapon bay. I feel a J-10 variant could still be a low end F-35 if engine and electronics are up to scratch.

CAC could try to gobble up the domestic stealth market for itself.

The J-10 doesn't have anywhere to put a CF weapon bay, but it can use stealthy hardpoints like the F-18 "growth hornet," as seige mentioned.
But even then its stealth would be far from 5th gen level and I feel the benefits do not outweigh the detractions from cost, greater weight/less manouverability, etc.

 

[nosh]

The J-10 doesn't have anywhere to put a CF weapon bay, but it can use stealthy hardpoints like the F-18 "growth hornet," as seige mentioned.
But even then its stealth would be far from 5th gen level and I feel the benefits do not outweigh the detractions from cost, greater weight/less manouverability, etc.

It would be easier for CAC to shrink J-20 than to make J-10 stealthy. But I think that can only happen after CAC finishes testing the J-20 design, which means not any time soon.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What about a silent J-10 variant developed from J-10B, maybe with conformal weapon bay. I feel a J-10 variant could still be a low end F-35 if engine and electronics are up to scratch.

CAC could try to gobble up the domestic stealth market for itself.

If there is any truth to the "J-10 C" rumour then yes, we may see detachable weaponsbay implemented on a Chinese aircraft. I personally find the stealth J-10 idea to be more feasible than the stealth JF-17 idea.