China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Only for op-for, PLAAF has very boring color schemes.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
it may be a bit early for this, but does anyone think the platform we're calling j-16 might eventually come to be called jh-8?
although i was, formerly, pretty gung-ho about the jh-7(a), predicting a long production run, it seems that the j-16 is intended for the same role and, thus, should eventually replace the jh-7. i'm thinking that, if the j-16 succeeds the jh-7, then, possibly, its ultimate designation will reflect that succession.
and now, a really dumb question: as PLANAF j-10 and 11s are given the suffix "h", why aren't the PLANAF jh-7s, jh-7hs?
on another note, i think China's use of the su-27 airframe as the common basis for developing platforms for both the PLAAF and PLANAF is quite wise. acknowledging the technological and economic constraints that, no doubt, influenced this approach, i still applaud the decision. it reminds me of a the very successful f-4 phantom program, which should have, but did not, become the model for fighter-bomber procurement for the US military.
anyone think it possible that China might eventually produce more aircraft (units, not variants) based on the su-27 airframe than Russia will?
although i was, formerly, pretty gung-ho about the jh-7(a), predicting a long production run, it seems that the j-16 is intended for the same role and, thus, should eventually replace the jh-7. i'm thinking that, if the j-16 succeeds the jh-7, then, possibly, its ultimate designation will reflect that succession.
and now, a really dumb question: as PLANAF j-10 and 11s are given the suffix "h", why aren't the PLANAF jh-7s, jh-7hs?
on another note, i think China's use of the su-27 airframe as the common basis for developing platforms for both the PLAAF and PLANAF is quite wise. acknowledging the technological and economic constraints that, no doubt, influenced this approach, i still applaud the decision. it reminds me of a the very successful f-4 phantom program, which should have, but did not, become the model for fighter-bomber procurement for the US military.
anyone think it possible that China might eventually produce more aircraft (units, not variants) based on the su-27 airframe than Russia will?
russia/soviet union has manufactured over 950 su27/su30/su34/su33 airframes. Some of that were, granted, local assemblies in other countries.
With added su34 and su35 we might be looking at over 1100 airframes.
So far china has built some 250 airframes, even if one counts the assemblies from russian parts. to build another 700 aiframes one would current rate of production in china for the following 30 or so years. I very much doubt anything resembling su27 will remain in production for that long.
With added su34 and su35 we might be looking at over 1100 airframes.
So far china has built some 250 airframes, even if one counts the assemblies from russian parts. to build another 700 aiframes one would current rate of production in china for the following 30 or so years. I very much doubt anything resembling su27 will remain in production for that long.
- Status