China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

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.

errr then what about J-10s, they're lighter fighters does that mean they should have TVC?
I think you're grasping at straws here a bit, I liked plawolf's reasoning better :/

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

Well I think his argument was a flawed one, but he's only talking about chinese heavy fighters not foreign.

 

[drunkmunky]

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

Does this mean that the Flanker has an extended life? If so, what are the resultant improvements?

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Now it's a matter of quantity, shenyang liming cannot make enough WS-10As to fill both new J-11B/BS/15s and J-10Bs, most likely.

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?

That's a matter of semantics, J-11, J-11B could all be called "air superiority" depending on the load out they're given.

And there could well be derivations of the J-11B that turn out to be closer to 5th gen than 4th gen, if SAC decides to build them for whatever unsuspecting customer out there. But the 4++ deal is a marketing term and is really equivalent to say, having AESA, some forms of passive detection, and other advanced avionics. In which case if J-11B does indeed acquire an AESA, sure let's call it 4++

 

[MiG-29]

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.

the current Su-35S has increased RAM and composite content, plus 117s engines, current Su-30MKI have higher composite content than the original Su-27SK China purchased, so while China has made progresses, so Russia or India, so to say the J-11 is the lightest Flanker is not acurate, the Su-35S is indeed the most advanced Flanker variant followed by Su-30MKI and Su-37 in performance and agility.

TVC is not for post stall only it saves you fuel and add range plus increases turn and roll rates.

Chinese Flankers are probably close to the Su-35 with canards the original Su-35/T-10M in overall capability but with a more modern radar and perhaps Su-33 performance

 

[Blitzo]

I don't understand how TVC would add range/save fuel -- doesn't it add considerable weight to the aircraft, therefore it should lower said range.

 

[drunkmunky]

I was educated that the F-22 utilizing TVC is capable of going past Mach without afterburners. This allows for increased fuel savings, and increased operational area.

I really don't think that the Chinese Flanker is the as advanced as you all think with respect to the airframe. Is there evidence regarding the advancement of composites in china?

 

[MiG-29]

I don't understand how TVC would add range/save fuel -- doesn't it add considerable weight to the aircraft, therefore it should lower said range.

no it saves fuel, by reducing aerodynamic drag, a Su-30MKI for example will not use its tailplanes to trim cruise flight as a Su-27, thus will save fuel by reducing thrust, this increases range.


Add composites and the lack of canards on Su-35S, then the jet enhances range or payload capability, you increase further that by adding 117s, thus the Su-35S saves fuel in great manner.

the TVC only add 150kg more to the engine on the Su-30MKI or Su-35S

 

[Blitzo]

I was educated that the F-22 utilizing TVC is capable of going past Mach without afterburners. This allows for increased fuel savings, and increased operational area.

That is because of the advancements its engines, not because of its TVC, though TVC does allow it to maneouver easier without compromising stealth.

I really don't think that the Chinese Flanker is the as advanced as you all think with respect to the airframe. Is there evidence regarding the advancement of composites in china?

Evidence? You'd be hard pressed to find any hard evidence for half the claims that are made, but most are true. Maybe some members here who are more well versed in the literature of chinese aviation developments can give you an answer to composites.
Besides the use of composites isn't exactly that advanced in this day and age, I'd be surprised if J-11B didn't incorporate any.

no it saves weight, by reducing aerodynamic drag, a Su-30MKI for example will not use its tailplanes to trim cruise flight as a Su-27, thus will save fuel by reducing thrust, this increases range.

Erm but TVC also adds substantial weight... how do we know whether that and the use of TVC instead of other control surfaces results in a net range increase or decrease?

 

[i.e.]

canard will not necessarily save in trim drag.

it's true that if you have an extra surface you can use to trim.

but usually the saving comes in when your moment arm of your control surface is larger/longer than the surface you are trying to reduce surface deflection....
longer arm smaller deflection, --- less lift/drag .

MKI's canards are too short of an arm for this type of drag savings. prob draggier overall.


however the biggest saving in trim drag is relaxed static stability.

Mig29 and amatures in company's biggest fault is that they can not see the entire airplane as a system instead focusing on individual attributes.

an airplane can have all the right bellsandwhistles but it would still come together as a p.o.s.

 

[MiG-29]

That is because of the advancements its engines, not because of its TVC, though TVC does allow it to maneouver easier without compromising stealth.



Evidence? You'd be hard pressed to find any hard evidence for half the claims that are made, but most are true. Maybe some members here who are more well versed in the literature of chinese aviation developments can give you an answer to composites.
Besides the use of composites isn't exactly that advanced in this day and age, I'd be surprised if J-11B didn't incorporate any.



Erm but TVC also adds substantial weight... how do we know whether that and the use of TVC instead of other control surfaces results in a net range increase or decrease?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Having demonstrated the mechanics of the concept in extensive benchtests, the engine consortium is trying to secure funds to fly its thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) on a flight demonstrator. This, it believes, would provide data to back up its claims that TVN could reduce fuel burn on a typical Typhoon mission by up to 5%, as well as increase available thrust in supercruise by up to 7% and take-off thrust by 2%.