antiterror13
Brigadier
so J-16 is better than SU-35 ?
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Hyperwarp
Captain
Nobody here knows that. The fact is we hardly know anything about the J-16. Su-35 is available for exports and details have been known for sometime. Off-course the details of RuAF version is not known to outsiders. The export ones are usually downgraded compared to the AF planes.
And even more important, it's not relevant !!!
These ongoing discussions on pro and con TVC, the comparison of Russian vs. Chinese Flankers ... and not very helpfull since we don't play games here in the meaning of "mine is longer !"
The Su-35S for the Russian service is de facto something like the Chinese already did with the J-11B: both are improved single-seater fighter versions, something of a MLU with new avionics and a new powerplant. That both countries went different ways in either with or without TVC or other systems is a mixed reason on desired capabilities, cost, ... .
In contrast to this You might compare the "original" Su-30MKK or the latest Russian Su-30xyz (don't know the exact designation) with the J-16 ... since both are twin-seater more related to be multi-role striker !!
Deino
And even more important, it's not relevant !!!
These ongoing discussions on pro and con TVC, the comparison of Russian vs. Chinese Flankers ... and not very helpfull since we don't play games here in the meaning of "mine is longer !"
The Su-35S for the Russian service is de facto something like the Chinese already did with the J-11B: both are improved single-seater fighter versions, something of a MLU with new avionics and a new powerplant. That both countries went different ways in either with or without TVC or other systems is a mixed reason on desired capabilities, cost, ... .
In contrast to this You might compare the "original" Su-30MKK or the latest Russian Su-30xyz (don't know the exact designation) with the J-16 ... since both are twin-seater more related to be multi-role striker !!
Deino
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
what he says is true you can see it in two aspects here is an interview with Paul Metz
All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring.
For example, for a supersonic cruise case (Mach 1.2, altitude
36,000 ft, engine at Max Dry condition) of EJ200 engine on
Eurofighter, the use of independent A9 control could lead to
an improvement of up to 7% in installed net thrust relative to
the current performance. This is due to the combination of
two effects: increase of nozzle internal thrust; and reduction
of nozzle external drag.
In addition to thrust increase, independent A9 control also
permits reduction in SFC for certain flight points
So adding TVC nozzles increases greatly performance and agility.
I do not know if the Chinese have or not engines that allow supercruise, but without it and TVC , their Flankers have not made their technical leap needed to upgrade in the times of Eurofighter and F-22
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
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.
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.
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 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 :
mathematics and tests do not agree with your fallacies and half trues, the enhacements TVC nozzles will add to a J-11B versus a J-10, will be highly appreciated by the Chinese pilots, in fact the Chinese aerodynamists know TVC nozzles increase turn rates.
Considering an airplane with adjustable nozzles , like the Harrier, the thrust term in
Eq 6.29 could approach unity. Thus, an incremental 1 g is provided by the thrust lift . The
contribution from thrust lift is illustrated in figure 6.16
Figure 6.16
INSTANTANEOUS TURN PERFORMANCE WITH VECTORED THRUST
Significant improvements to instantaneous turn performance are realized at low
airspeeds . At high airspeeds the vectored thrust contribution is small
in fact this chinese study shows they know about it
The increased persistent speed and the instantaneous turning
rate are upgrading the aircraft mobility. For example, an
increase in the maximum limits shifts the left boundary in
Fig. 3, thus upgrading the turning curvature of the aircraft and
reducing aircraft drag, so that the persistence turning boundary
curve moves upward, thus increasing the persistence turning rate
of the aircraft. As indicated by the computation in reference
[4], with respect to the aircraft having control with thrustvectoring,
not withstanding how fast is the initial aircraft
speed, the time required to turn the aircraft 180deg is
apparently smaller than for other craft; these planes include
conventional aircraft, the airplanes for reduced rate of turn,
and aircraft controlled by direct force. Due to the greater
increase in the instantaneous turning rate, the aircraft agility
is apparently upgraded; this is more advantageous to air combat
PRELIMINARY STUDY ON EFFECTS OF THRUST VECTORING
By: Zhao Baokai
English pages: 13
Source: Feixing Lixue, Vol. 12, Nr. 1, Marcy 1994;
pp. 23-27
Country of origin: China
Translated by: Leo Kanner Associates
F33657-88-D-2188
Requester: NAIC/TAAX/Gary Wedgewood
Approved for public release: distribution unlimited
so of course a J-16 or J-11B with thrust vectoring will turn better in air combat
if upgraded.
Last edited:
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Then you can say that the J-16 would be comparable to the F-15E Strike Eagle or the Su-30MK Flanker? If so, then what sort of ground attack weapons would the J-16 employ? Would there be any stand-off missiles like the JASSM, SCALP or TAURUS cruise missiles? Would the J-16 have a Synthetic Aperture Radar? Would it have AESA radar? Also, would the J-16 have targeting pod for deploying weapons or would the targeting system be integrated within the aircraft .... something like a conformal targeting system, embedded in the aircraft's airframe?
Engineer
Major
On the contrary, there is no fallacy in my statement. Pointing out facts that you are unwilling to accept is not a fallacy, and I again recommend you to look up a dictionary before using words that you don't understand. By facts, I refer to the lack of interest of China (and European air forces) in adopting TVN to their aircraft and how Sukhoi had to make substantial changes to Su-27 airframe to create the Su-35. The conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that merely adding TVN to an existing aircraft isn't worthwhile. Modification or air frame, reduction of weight, and increase of T/W ratio remain the most viable methods in increase an aircraft's performance. You can quote papers all day but at the end, actions from real air forces will always contradict you.
Equation 6.29 shows that when C[SUB]L[/SUB] is zero (when no lift is created), the aircraft can still obtain normal acceleration. Essentially, this equation refers to VTOL capability on the Harrier, which is not applicable to aircraft with rear-end TVN such as the Su-35. Your argument is therefore invalid.
Figure 6.16 shows TVC is useless above corner speed due to load limit. Below the corner speed, post-stall maneuver starts to have significant hence you see that increase in ITR. The problem is that ITR disregards effects of energy lost and isn't sustainable, which is what made the F-22 lose to the Eurofighter and result in the situation described in .
The major problem with these studies is that they do not take weight penalties into account. They do not compare two identical aircraft where one fitted with TVN while another without. What they do is they consider both aircraft being fitted TVN with only one employing the TVC. It is a no-brainer why the aircraft carrying all the weight of a TVC and doesn't get to exercise any of the capabilities would lose. The situation is strikingly similar to the heyday of variable-geometry wing, where everyone concerns with the advantages and nobody considers the implication of adding such a wing. In the end, such design proved to be impractical and abandoned.
The reality is that PLAAF doesn't adopt TVN to their aircraft. Likewise, RuAF doesn't add TVN to its existing fleet of Su-27 and Mig-29, while no aircraft in USAF uses TVN aside from the F-22. You may claim China is not as technological advanced to do so, and you may claim that Russia lacks money. However, neither problem exists with the US, which certainly can add TVN to existing F-15, F-16 and F-18 but didn't. For example, the US experimented with MATV on an F-16 which never went into service.
Such is the difference between science and engineering.
Engineer
Major
You are asking questions that no one could answer, as there is very little information on the J-16. However, the following observations can be made so far:
- The nose gear on J-16 has two wheels.
- The radar dome of a J-16 is gray instead of black like the J-11B.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
You can actually blame price reasons. Simply said, the current F-15, despite being an aging air frame, is still a really damn good plane, and as such, doesn't really require, of all things, an engine upgrade, that would cost billions given the size of the fleet.
- Status