China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

Sort of looks that way doesn't it? There certainly is some degree of tint.

And xinhui over on CDF posted those two pics under the J-16 thread they have over there but it looks like your standard J-11BS.

 

[Deino]

But is a gold-tinted canopy the only external) modification ??? Sorry, but IMO a J-16 strike version should at least feature an IFR-probe to reach the same range as the MKK ... otherwise we already expected a more or less unchanged J-11BS; anyway what a disappointment again from SAC.

Deino

 

[Blitzo]

But is a gold-tinted canopy the only external) modification ??? Sorry, but IMO a J-16 strike version should at least feature an IFR-probe to reach the same range as the MKK ... otherwise we already expected a more or less unchanged J-11BS; anyway what a disappointment again from SAC.

Deino

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

But the flanker airframe was already big in the first place and the PLAAF doesn't quite have enough tankers to support such large strikers anyway. I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs, makes the aircraft cheaper and requires less time to develop -- avionics is the most expensive part on an aircraft these days, but among the easiest to replace. So long as J-19 turns out up eventually I'm not complaining.

I'd still like to see what xinhui and hmmvw sayabout the J-16 claims though, whether it was a joke taken wrong or what.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Kanwa says there are two versions of the J-15 which the other is designated J-15R having "XXX" engines. Is Pinkov just trying to act like he's breaking news with the WS10(?) on a J-15?

 

[pakje]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...
I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs

wait can't the j-11BS not fire PGMs already?

 

[Deino]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

....

Sorry if You understod it this way ! It was in no way meant to criticise You; Sorry.

My statement was only meant - maybe if true as a critic to SAC - that this IMO won't justify a new designation (similar to the numerous Russian Flanker versions).

As such I hope these rumours are simply wrong ... or shame on SAC.

Deino

 

[SinoSoldier]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

But the flanker airframe was already big in the first place and the PLAAF doesn't quite have enough tankers to support such large strikers anyway. I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs, makes the aircraft cheaper and requires less time to develop -- avionics is the most expensive part on an aircraft these days, but among the easiest to replace. So long as J-19 turns out up eventually I'm not complaining.

I'd still like to see what xinhui and hmmvw sayabout the J-16 claims though, whether it was a joke taken wrong or what.

Frankly I don't think J-16 exists at all. It is simply possibly an upgrade program to have air to ground ability on the J-11BS. Like how F-14 was modified to fire air to ground weapons.

 

[Blitzo]

Sorry if You understod it this way ! It was in no way meant to criticise You; Sorry.

My statement was only meant - maybe if true as a critic to SAC - that this IMO won't justify a new designation (similar to the numerous Russian Flanker versions).

As such I hope these rumours are simply wrong ... or shame on SAC.

Deino

Yeah no problem I didn't take it as criticism lol.
J-15 got a new number from SAC even though it was just a naval derivative so maybe SAC will indeed be following sukhoi with naming new flanker variants.

Frankly I don't think J-16 exists at all. It is simply possibly an upgrade program to have air to ground ability on the J-11BS. Like how F-14 was modified to fire air to ground weapons.

That wouldn't make much sense -- existing J-11B and BS can't fire PGMs, and I think PLAAF want it that way, to keep that aircraft focused on one role. J-11BS will simply act as trainers/two seaters in flanker regiments while J-16 will be in their own attack/strike regiments like MKKs or JH-7s. Whether adding A2G avionics to J-11BS validates a name change is another question but this mini project is certainly in existence.

I think people are expecting a bit much from this J-16 project tbh.

 

[SinoSoldier]

That wouldn't make much sense -- existing J-11B and BS can't fire PGMs, and I think PLAAF want it that way, to keep that aircraft focused on one role. J-11BS will simply act as trainers/two seaters in flanker regiments while J-16 will be in their own attack/strike regiments like MKKs or JH-7s. Whether adding A2G avionics to J-11BS validates a name change is another question but this mini project is certainly in existence.

I think people are expecting a bit much from this J-16 project tbh.

We saw models of the J-11B fitted with guided ground missiles, therefore the fact that the PLAAF is leaning towards multiroleism may be a catalyst for such an upgrade.

My opinion is that if they indeed decided to build a new J-11B variant (in 2012, mind you) they would have at least added some upgrades such as canted vertical stabilisers.

 

[Deino]

Yeah no problem I didn't take it as criticism lol.
J-15 got a new number from SAC even though it was just a naval derivative so maybe SAC will indeed be following sukhoi with naming new flanker variants.

Yes, but it features at least canards, a tail-hook + overall a different internal structure ... as such IMO a new number makes sense, but not for a simple pimped-up J-11BS ! As such also the combat-capable J-10AS and future BS should get a new name too.

Deino