China Flanker Thread II

[Deino]

Hey all. I've been following this thread for only a short while but from what i've been reading, the flanker design is a default design.

The SU-30MKI and SU-35 are much more agile with thurst vectoring engines.
How would the home made flanker fair up to those other planes? Is the chinese design ultimately outdated?

Thanks guys.

First of all hello on board here but second, please slow down a bit with such general statements ... since they are most often to start yet another flame-war, they don't show much professionalism ... and finally after a bit more thinking they prove to be completely wrong.

But let me show bit by bit: If one simply looks at what manouvers can be flown at Air Shows and what's possible ... YES, they are dated, but simply take a look, how many of these super-manouverable Flankers are around ... especially in the Ru AF itself ??

Aigility is surely a nice feature to have but when most of the Chinese Flankers were introduced this term was only commonly used for test-beds and the future ATF. Since China went further without this feature they choose to proceed with a different way: replacement of all original sensitive features by indigenious parts like the WS-10A, a new radar, digital avionics and most of all Chinese AAMs. A TVC-engine was simply not realistic at that time ... and maybe still isn't.

As such again, and esp. if You look at so many other foreign Flanker users - besides the Indian MKI and Algerian MKA - they all seem quite happy without that feature.

Deino

 

[drunkmunky]

Hey Deino,

Thanks for the reply.

Other than India and Russia, there aren't many applications of the 4 +++ generation SU-30MKI & SU-35S applications.

I think one of the thing's that strike me about those two SU-27 evolution fighters is that they've evolved the plane from its original design, with additional aerodynamic solutions and increasing structural designs to improve the overall capacity to facilitate for new VTC engines and beyond.

I understand that a VTC application does not make sense in light of China's current engine development. I'm just curious as to what the integration process for VTC is under China's avionic develoment program.

The past 5-10 years have been absolutely incredible for china's avionic development. My question is, whether or not we'll see improved versions of the Chinese Flanker soon. I highly doubt that with the severe increases in military and avionic spending, that the aren't plans for VTC engine development and improved Flanker designs.

So my question then loops back to this, is the current J11BS a baseline model from which continued evolution will spur?

 

[drunkmunky]

btw. I've also read on the fact that the original SU-27's sold to China were labour intensive as well as costly to maintain.

Does anyone have information pertaining to improvements on this front?

 

[MiG-29]

Hey all. I've been following this thread for only a short while but from what i've been reading, the flanker design is a default design.

The SU-30MKI and SU-35 are much more agile with thurst vectoring engines.
How would the home made flanker fair up to those other planes? Is the chinese design ultimately outdated?

Thanks guys.

If you were to compare the current state of aircraft design, the Chinese flankers are old aircraft, but since China has moved to aircraft like J-10 or J-20, it is fair to say the Chinese have catched up in aerodynamic theory with most of the western or Russian aircraft manufacturers.

The chinese engine industry seems to the contrary being in a blur state, for what i have read, seems they have not catch up yet with the West and Russia.

The Chinese Flankers reflect that, in terms of agility, yes the newer Su-35S is much better, it has supercruise ability and thrust vectoring nozzles, so the Su-35S is the best Flanker fighter built anywhere in the world at least in aerodynamics and performance is related.

Russia has recieved the first Su-35S this year and by 2015, 45 will be in Russian air force regiments
The other two variants where Chinese flankers are not up to date is the Su-34 and Su-33KUB.


However the J-15 more or less is equivalent to the Su-35 with canards of the 1990s, due to the advances in radar or weaponry.

Compared to the Su-30MKI, well still this variant holds the engine advantage and post stall capability, however if the newer J-15 has advanced fly by wire might surpass a bit the old Su-33s of the Russian navy.

The big head Flankers are two designs that China might not need, since other jets can fill those niches.
However the Su-34 is a dedicated advanced variant and the Su-33KUB a naval trainer which are advanced developments of the original T-10, as such more advanced than the Chinese Flankers but not really needed since other jets can fill those roles.

It seems today`s chinese missiles have catch up with the AA-12, but Russia s developing longer range missiles so we could say at this moment the chinese Flankers are more or less equivalent to the Russian air force Flankers but Russia has a small number of Flankers that are far more advanced.

India posses a much larger fleet of Su-30MKI that in Engine techology surpass the Chinese flankers and by default have better agility.

 

[plawolf]

I would not put too much stock into the "4+++++++++++++++++++" marketing gimmick talk, and the MKI airframe is most certainly not the same as the Su35 airframe, and the MKI at least is not as far removed from the basic Flanker as Indian fanboys would like to insist. Throw an MKI and J11B into a dogfight, and with HMS on both planes, there will be precious little between them.

The Russians have been offering TVC AL31FNs to China for the J10 for years, but the Chinese are showing no interest.

TVC might look cool at air shows, but comes at the cost of being more maintenance intensive, heavier, less reliable and more expense both to buy and use etc.

However, I think the main reason the PLAAF is showing little interest in TVC is because of it's dominant thinking.

The Chinese sent a few of their best test pilots to France in the late 80s to evaluate the M2K, and those pilots practiced a lot of mock dogfighting with the French, and that has left a lasting impression on the PLAAF tactical thinking.

From writings and displaces, it is very clear that the PLAAF favors energy management and retention over sheer nose pointing ability.

As the Indians learnt the hard way at Red Flag, using TVC to do a post-stall nose pointing maneuvers often bled away energy and airspeed miserably fast and left the MKI wallowing and easy prey for a close range gun attack.

TVC is useful, there is no doubt about that, but it's application in dogfighting seems a little exaggerated, no doubt to try and sell planes.

TVC is useful to help minimize control surface movement during flight, which should make the plane more fuel efficient, but also reduce the risk that a control surface adjustment might cause a spike on a radar for stealth aircraft.

In a dogfight, if you are in a position where you need the extreme post stall application of TVC, chances are you are already royally screwed and is doing it more in hope than expectation, since that is a last ditch, nothing-left-to-loose move, as if you fail to shake the guy or get a shot off against him, you are a sitting duck and no decent combat pilot is going to give you those few precious seconds you need to build your energy and airspeed back up.

 

[siegecrossbow]

btw. I've also read on the fact that the original SU-27's sold to China were labour intensive as well as costly to maintain.

Does anyone have information pertaining to improvements on this front?

Russian fighters in general are costly to maintain and since they have shorter air frame and engine life.

 

[MiG-29]

I would not put too much stock into the "4+++++++++++++++++++" marketing gimmick talk, and the MKI airframe is most certainly not the same as the Su35 airframe, and the MKI at least is not as far removed from the basic Flanker as Indian fanboys would like to insist. Throw an MKI and J11B into a dogfight, and with HMS on both planes, there will be precious little between them.

The Russians have been offering TVC AL31FNs to China for the J10 for years, but the Chinese are showing no interest.

TVC might look cool at air shows, but comes at the cost of being more maintenance intensive, heavier, less reliable and more expense both to buy and use etc.

However, I think the main reason the PLAAF is showing little interest in TVC is because of it's dominant thinking.

The Chinese sent a few of their best test pilots to France in the late 80s to evaluate the M2K, and those pilots practiced a lot of mock dogfighting with the French, and that has left a lasting impression on the PLAAF tactical thinking.

From writings and displaces, it is very clear that the PLAAF favors energy management and retention over sheer nose pointing ability.

As the Indians learnt the hard way at Red Flag, using TVC to do a post-stall nose pointing maneuvers often bled away energy and airspeed miserably fast and left the MKI wallowing and easy prey for a close range gun attack.

TVC is useful, there is no doubt about that, but it's application in dogfighting seems a little exaggerated, no doubt to try and sell planes.

TVC is useful to help minimize control surface movement during flight, which should make the plane more fuel efficient, but also reduce the risk that a control surface adjustment might cause a spike on a radar for stealth aircraft.

In a dogfight, if you are in a position where you need the extreme post stall application of TVC, chances are you are already royally screwed and is doing it more in hope than expectation, since that is a last ditch, nothing-left-to-loose move, as if you fail to shake the guy or get a shot off against him, you are a sitting duck and no decent combat pilot is going to give you those few precious seconds you need to build your energy and airspeed back up.

what you are saying has some validity, it is true that with good avionics a good HMS and highly off bore capable missiles, the Chinese flankers are not in disadvantage up to some degree, however there are a few advantages of TVC

A) it increases turn rates and roll rates
B)it allows for lower aerodynamic control thus it reduces RCS
C)it allows shorter take offs and landings
D)it increases range and reduces fuel comsuption



the other point is there are instances where missiles are not used and the pilots needs use its gun, if the encounter is in a very close distance the missile might not be used, second since you have the same jets visual identification will be needed, thus you will get too close, so in some instances, yes TVC will give the advantage.

But of course the lack of TVC is not a total disadvantage in air combat using HMS.

 

[SinoSoldier]

If you were to compare the current state of aircraft design, the Chinese flankers are old aircraft, but since China has moved to aircraft like J-10 or J-20, it is fair to say the Chinese have catched up in aerodynamic theory with most of the western or Russian aircraft manufacturers.

The chinese engine industry seems to the contrary being in a blur state, for what i have read, seems they have not catch up yet with the West and Russia.

The Chinese Flankers reflect that, in terms of agility, yes the newer Su-35S is much better, it has supercruise ability and thrust vectoring nozzles, so the Su-35S is the best Flanker fighter built anywhere in the world at least in aerodynamics and performance is related.

Russia has recieved the first Su-35S this year and by 2015, 45 will be in Russian air force regiments
The other two variants where Chinese flankers are not up to date is the Su-34 and Su-33KUB.


However the J-15 more or less is equivalent to the Su-35 with canards of the 1990s, due to the advances in radar or weaponry.

Compared to the Su-30MKI, well still this variant holds the engine advantage and post stall capability, however if the newer J-15 has advanced fly by wire might surpass a bit the old Su-33s of the Russian navy.

The big head Flankers are two designs that China might not need, since other jets can fill those niches.
However the Su-34 is a dedicated advanced variant and the Su-33KUB a naval trainer which are advanced developments of the original T-10, as such more advanced than the Chinese Flankers but not really needed since other jets can fill those roles.

It seems today`s chinese missiles have catch up with the AA-12, but Russia s developing longer range missiles so we could say at this moment the chinese Flankers are more or less equivalent to the Russian air force Flankers but Russia has a small number of Flankers that are far more advanced.

India posses a much larger fleet of Su-30MKI that in Engine techology surpass the Chinese flankers and by default have better agility.

I've noted that your analysis is based on the assumption that the J-11B and J-15 still retains the Su-27SK airframe. However, that is not completely true in the sense that they have added considerable amounts of RAM and composites.

Composites saved the airframe over 700 kg of weight (which is rumored to be the lightest Flanker type airframe developed). This will definitely give the J-11B and J-15 a considerable agility advantage over the Su-30MKI or even possibly the Su-35, given that the WS-10 engines produce more thrust than the Al-31.

The RAM of the J-11B and J-15 have supposedly reduced its RCS to 3 m^2, eight times stealthier than that of the Su-30MKI.

Agility is an integral factor in close air to air combat, but you have to realize that modern air warfare is played out in BVR combat. This is when frontal stealth and avionics are the key.

The AESA upgrades for the Su-30MKI will feature a Zhuk AE with approximately up to 1000 individual T/R modules. The radars for the J-11B and J-15 will be a larger variant of the J-10B's radar. The J-10B's radar has 1200 T/R modules, approximately equating to a tracking range of 140 km for a 1 m^2 target.

This, plus the enhanced airframe, will probably place the J-15 on par with the Super Hornet in terms of agility and avionics.

One of the reason why China never bothered to put much into thrust vectoring technology is because the heavy platforms were designed to engage aircraft at long range, not to go into turning dogfights.

 

[challenge]

if that so,then why F-22 are fitted with TVC? even the french is consider fitting rafale with TVC.

 

[drunkmunky]

Hey all. Those were really quick replies. Thank you for answering my question regarding the improvements to the airframe. I knew the Chinese Flanker had to make SOME kind of improvements.. it wouldn't make sense to standalone replicate a 30 year old design.

VTC will come. I thought that the WS10A was weaker than the AL-31FN but I thought wrong.
Can someone clarify for me why there has been such significant AL-31 orders? Why has the WS10A application been limited? I thought China worked out the manufacturing quality controls.

Another question I'd like to propose.

Is the Chinese Flanker going to evolve into a 4++ fighter?
or is that better applied to the J-10B?
Will the J11 become an air superiority fighter? or is that the J15?