China Flanker Thread II

[Engineer]

Look your mistakes always make you fall more than once
Do you understand spanish? well i do and here is Chavez proving you wrong

The mistake is actually on your part, but as usual your pride doesn't let you admit it. I never said there is no rumor of possible deals, just said there is no deal made ever. The fact that you have to keep bringing up the same rumor shows there is nothing else you could say, which proves that I am correct. Feel free to open up a new thread if you think otherwise.

Also, a new picture of J-16 further confirming China will no longer need Flanker variants from Russia:

 

[Engineer]

I don't understand this ..... China built the J-11A to replace the Su-27s, since there was no other option because they couldn't integrate Chinese weapons on the Russian fighter-jet. Then China furthered it's attempts to refine and build an advance and more capable version of the J-11B. Which by any standards, is a remarkable aircraft for the PLAAF. Then China found the need to equip its Navy's Aircraft Carrier with a fighter-jet both potent in technology and capability, this was in the shape of J-15 (with canards). Now I am hearing that there is a new Flanker-derivative fighter emerging, called the J-16?

Is J-16 suppose to be the next evolutionary step in the development of the J-11 series? Or is it the two seater-version of the J-15? Is the J-16 meant for the PLAAF or PLAN??

Help!

I believe J-16 is meant to be China's version of Su-30MKK with more emphasis on ground attack capability.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Now there's your most advanced Flanker in the world right there, other than T50 of course.
Unlike the 'other one' where they just stick an overrated TVC on it to impress the fanboys but unable to get anyone to spend real money to buy any.

Flankers respond rather nicely to the addition of TVC, it enables a rather large robust aircraft to be extremely agile. The fact that to our knowledge China has to date been unable to employ an engine so equipped does not negate its effectiveness, in spite of the protestations of many "experts". Sukhoi has succesfully upgraded the Flanker, and the flight demo's are proof of the viability of TVC on the Flanker class of aircraft, and Dr. Song laments the lack of engine availability in the 119 class, with lots of power and TVC, for the J-20 and other aircraft. As it is the J-15 will likely be built with the canards and they will certainly enhance the response in pitch control. Shame we're not all as honest as Dr. Song, to imply it is only usefull post-stall is also inaccurate, and I'm quite certain my J-11 boys would have traded a months pay to have that capability as they mixed it up with the J-10 fellows. So the J-16 will be two place with a weapons system operator? It is primarily a strike aircraft?

 

[Schumacher]

............

Is J-16 suppose to be the next evolutionary step in the development of the J-11 series? Or is it the two seater-version of the J-15? Is the J-16 meant for the PLAAF or PLAN??

Help!

............
So the J-16 will be two place with a weapons system operator? It is primarily a strike aircraft?

Yup 2 seaters.
Think of J16 as your F15E of PLA's, coming standard with AESA, souped up WS10 and goodies from China's 4th gen or western 5th gen.

 

[MiG-29]

Flankers respond rather nicely to the addition of TVC, it enables a rather large robust aircraft to be extremely agile. The fact that to our knowledge China has to date been unable to employ an engine so equipped does not negate its effectiveness, in spite of the protestations of many "experts". Sukhoi has succesfully upgraded the Flanker, and the flight demo's are proof of the viability of TVC on the Flanker class of aircraft, and Dr. Song laments the lack of engine availability in the 119 class, with lots of power and TVC, for the J-20 and other aircraft. As it is the J-15 will likely be built with the canards and they will certainly enhance the response in pitch control. Shame we're not all as honest as Dr. Song, to imply it is only usefull post-stall is also inaccurate, and I'm quite certain my J-11 boys would have traded a months pay to have that capability as they mixed it up with the J-10 fellows. So the J-16 will be two place with a weapons system operator? It is primarily a strike aircraft?

There is a rule to improve the performance of a fighter bigger wing or lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight ratio.


In the Su-33, the addition of canards reduced take off and landings but because it was navalized, it actually lost some agility, the J-15 must be pretty much the same check Sukhoi`s page it says max G limit is 8

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Su-35 with canards increased thrust on the engines and retained the 9G capability.


The Su-33, Su-34 and Su-30MKI added canards due to weight increase.

Now on the Su-35/37 the canards did indeed increase agility due to a better flight control system, the J-15 by being navalized hardly will change due to weight increases, it might have a better performance than the Russian Su-33s because the Russia Su-33 were built in the 1990s and the current J-15 might have some weight reduction.

Now remember the Rule to increase turn and roll rates you need lower wing loading, lower weight or bigger wing or addition of canards and higher thrut to weight ratio, however there is another way it is called TVC nozzles.

TVC nozzles will increase the turn and roll rates, for example a MiG-23 with TVC nozzles will be able to catch up with an F-15 in turn rates and roll rates.


So it does not matter if the jet is small or big TVC nozzles increase turn and roll rates so Russia opted to upgrade the Su-35BM and MiG-35 with TVC nozzles why? simple Russia did not want to built a Gripen or Eurofighter type jet like China did
on Su-27, you add TVC nozzles and voila` you achieve the much better performance without designing a new jet and a new airframe.
Add supercruise on Su-35 and you get a jet that basicly can be competitive with Rafale or even F-22 in some flight parameters
Remember Russia had no way to finance aircraft in the 1990s and early 2000s.

the J-11B might be slightly lighter perhaps than old 1990s flankers, however new Sukhoi built flankers use new materials, have much more powerful engines.

So you could rate the J-11B and J-16 as a modern flankers like the ones in Venezuela`s service.

 

[Engineer]

There is a rule to improve the performance of a fighter bigger wing or lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight ratio.

Correct, although not achievable by use of TVC nozzles.

Now remember the Rule to increase turn and roll rates you need lower wing loading, lower weight or bigger wing or addition of canards and higher thrut to weight ratio, however there is another way it is called TVC nozzles.

TVC nozzles will increase the turn and roll rates, for example a MiG-23 with TVC nozzles will be able to catch up with an F-15 in turn rates and roll rates.

So it does not matter if the jet is small or big TVC nozzles increase turn and roll rates so Russia opted to upgrade the Su-35BM and MiG-35 with TVC nozzles why? simple Russia did not want to built a Gripen or Eurofighter type jet like China did

TVC simply adds an ability to deliver off-axis thrust. TVC does not create lift or result in higher-to-thrust ratio to improve turn performance.

Claiming an aircraft such as MiG-23 with TVC nozzles can compete with F-15 is a complete fantasy. The only result such actions would achieve is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, where the aircraft with TVC get killed faster due to misuse of TVC.

on Su-27, you add TVC nozzles and voila` you achieve the same performance increased without designing a new jet and a new airframe.
Add supercruise on Su-35 and you get a jet that basicly can be competitive with Rafale or even F-22 in some flight parameters
Remember Russia had no way to finance aircraft in the 1990s and early 2000s.

the J-11B might be slightly lighter perhaps than old 1990s flankers, however new Sukhoi built flankers use new materials, have much more powerful engines.

So you could rate the J-11B and J-16 as a modern flankers like the ones in Venezuela`s service.

There are three ways to improve turn rate. The most obvious choice is to modify the airframe. Another choice is to reduce weight of the aircraft through the use of composite materials. Finally, better engine(s) can be used to improve thrust-to-weight ratio. Su-35 employs all three methods, and increase in performance has little to do with TVC nozzles. J-11B employs second and third methods.

Your claim that use of TVC nozzles can achieve performance increase is not shared by air force around the world. US didn't add TVC to its fleets of F-15, F-16 or F-18. European countries do not opt to have TVC installed on the Eurofighter even though such option is available. China could have brought Flanker variants with TVC but choose not to.

 

[MiG-29]

Correct, although not achievable by use of TVC nozzles.


TVC simply adds an ability to deliver off-axis thrust. TVC does not create lift or result in higher-to-thrust ratio to improve turn performance.




There are three ways to improve turn rate. The most obvious choice is to modify the airframe. Another choice is to reduce weight of the aircraft through the use of composite materials. Finally, better engine(s) can be used to improve thrust-to-weight ratio. Su-35 employs all three methods, and increase in performance has little to do with TVC nozzles. J-11B employs second and third methods.

I recommend you to read a bit of linear Algebra and vectors before you speak

Now almost in operation, the thrust vectoring allows a substantial increase of the maximum pitch up and pitch down
rate, as shown by the flight test results of the YF-22 aircraft (Figure 5).The thrust vectoring also contributes to an increase of the maximum roll rate (Figure 6

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

here is the proof a Su-35 with TVC nozzles has increased turn rates and roll rates


Fig. 3.- Increased Sustained Turn Rate with TVNs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

True if the J-11B has been lightened with respect the Su-27 built in the 1990s, true you can expect the J-11B to have a better turn rate than old flankers, however Su-30SM and Su-35 have new airframes, higher thrust to weight ratio and TVC nozzles.

117 has 2.5 tonnes more thrust than the regular Al-31 delivered in its yield.

You can not expect irrealities, J-11B very likely stands in performance to modern flankers such as the ones delivered to Venezuela but it does not surpase newer variants like Su-35.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Yup 2 seaters.
Think of J16 as your F15E of PLA's, coming standard with AESA, souped up WS10 and goodies from China's 4th gen or western 5th gen.

Thank you, I don't read Chinese and I've been trying to figure out what the purpose was, so it will be similar in mission and role to the F-15e, will it carry some iteration of the sdb? So it will be a PLAAF aircraft? The Chinese Flankers look to be very fine examples of the Flanker family, but as with all aircraft and developement, there will invariably be kinks and complications along the way, so it will have an uprated WS-10, are you implying that there will be some L/O upgrades as well?

 

[Engineer]

I recommend you to read a bit of linear Algebra and vectors before you speak

Now almost in operation, the thrust vectoring allows a substantial increase of the maximum pitch up and pitch down
rate, as shown by the flight test results of the YF-22 aircraft (Figure 5).The thrust vectoring also contributes to an increase of the maximum roll rate (Figure 6

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

here is the proof a Su-35 with TVC nozzles has increased turn rates and roll rates

Pitch rate and roll rate are not equivalent to turn rate. I recommend you to consult a flight dynamics dictionary before you start using terminologies that you don't understand.

Fig. 3.- Increased Sustained Turn Rate with TVNs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ah yes, ITP. The company which is desperately trying to sell TVN to Eurofighter owners. The reason I mentioned this is that they authored the above paper, so talk about conflict-of-interest! The lack of customer of their TVN speaks volume about the so called enhanced capabilities. ITP isn't even given a chance to test their TVN on a real aircraft. Real air force spoke with their actions which are louder than words of an arm chair general such as yourself.

True if the J-11B has been lightened with respect the Su-27 built in the 1990s, true you can expect the J-11B to have a better turn rate than old flankers, however Su-30SM and Su-35 have new airframes, higher thrust to weight ratio and TVC nozzles.

117 has 2.5 tonnes more thrust than the regular Al-31 delivered in its yield.

You can not expect irrealities, J-11B very likely stands in performance to modern flankers such as the ones delivered to Venezuela but it does not surpase newer variants like Su-35.

The reality is that instead of just sticking two engines with TVN into the Su-27, achieving performance increase had Sukhoi went through all the trouble to redesign the airframe, adoption of new materials, and use of new engines. They followed the approaches shown by the graph below. This is a fact which contradicts your fairy tales with regards to TVC.

Another reality is that for as long as China had relied on Russia, China never purchased any TV engines for its Flankers or J-10s. China also has its own research on TVN, which you can see in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that dates back to 2002. If China really wants TVC as you claimed but have no help from Russia, they could have adapt their own TVN to existing Al-31 in their inventory. China didn't do so.

Finally, China chose not to purchase the Su-35 as they consider it as an inferior product. You can claim how J-11B doesn't perform as well all you want. Your uninformed opinion doesn't alter the fact that superior products such as J-10 is available, and soon J-20. I will repeat what others have posted on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

In the latest issue of Kanwa (Kanwa defence Issue 7, 2012), even the nick-named "Russians arms salesman", the guy who called himself Andrei Pinkov admitted that:

1) The whole rumor that China want Russian's Su-35 is sourced from only the Russian side, and even he could not get any confirmation from any of his Chinese sources, let along any official channels.

Actually according to his "Chinese insiders" from SAC, China dont rate very high about Russian's Su-35, and they think Su-35 would not perform much better comparing Chinese operated Su-27/J-11 fleet, which perform poorly in almost every A-to-A military excerisce in China against their CAC-made peers in recent years.

2) In the latest issue of Kanwa defence, Russian side admitted actually Chinese want to export T/R modules for fighter-based AESA radars to Russia, the Chinese side claiming their T/R module perform better, being more compact, lighter-weight and cheaper to built comparing to the T/R modules the Russians used to build their AESA radar.

3)The boss of the Chinese radar-electrionics insistute claim currently, in fighter-based AESA radar and advanced sensors technologies, the only country that enjoy a slight lead over China is the US.

 

[IronsightSniper]

According to Carlo Kopp, TVN, at least on the Su-35, can: "The TVC capability of the 117S engine not only enhances turning performance in the close combat high alpha manoeuvre regime, but can also be used to offset supersonic trim drag, reducing thrust and fuel burn requirements in supercruise." On radars, it seems that the ones on the Su-27/30's that China has are completely inferior to what the Irbis would offer, though I haven't bothered to compare it to what the Chinese domestically offer (the Irbis has almost 5 times more peak power than the ones on the Chinese flankers and can detect a 1 m2 RCS target from about twice the distance).