China Flanker Thread II

[Subedei]

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.

fair enough!

i'm just speculating that china will seek to completely replace the j-7, j-8, and Jh-7s with su-27 based airframes. also, considering the current and projected inventories of china's potentially adversarial neighbors: india, japan, s korea, combined with US forces in the pacific, it seems that 1100 might not be too far fetched a procurement target. also, i'm expecting that production rates will increase significantly when engine technology is fully mature and development transitions to deployment.

 

[Totoro]

fair enough!

i'm just speculating that china will seek to completely replace the j-7, j-8, and Jh-7s with su-27 based airframes. also, considering the current and projected inventories of china's potentially adversarial neighbors: india, japan, s korea, combined with US forces in the pacific, it seems that 1100 might not be too far fetched a procurement target. also, i'm expecting that production rates will increase significantly when engine technology is fully mature and development transitions to deployment.

china seems to be sticking to a 2000 plane strong fleet. give or take a hundred. With average lifespan of 30 years, one would need 65 to 70 airframes produced each year to maintain such fleet levels. And it just happens that for the last half a decade, if not more, chinese have been doing just that and producing such numbers. 25 or so j10 per year, 20 or so j11 per year, 20 or so jh7 per year and several h6 per year.

I doubt we will see significant increase in production rates. If anything, the standard around the world is to have smaller fleets and smaller production. So just to maintain current numbers might require some effort. But it should be doable. That being said, with j10, future j20, j31 and so on - there cant be much room left for j16 and j15 production. 20-30 airframes per year, tops. j11b production seems to be over, there havent been new ones for quite some time. That is easely explained with tthe production line switching to j15 which is more needed right now. j16 is sure to follow shortly.

But after 2020 i expect we will be seeing new designes, not rehashes of a design from the 80s. I do expect j16 to be the last iteration of chinese flanker and i can't possibly see it being produced past 2025. Even a 2020 end of production wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Subedei]

china seems to be sticking to a 2000 plane strong fleet. give or take a hundred. With average lifespan of 30 years, one would need 65 to 70 airframes produced each year to maintain such fleet levels. And it just happens that for the last half a decade, if not more, chinese have been doing just that and producing such numbers. 25 or so j10 per year, 20 or so j11 per year, 20 or so jh7 per year and several h6 per year.

I doubt we will see significant increase in production rates. If anything, the standard around the world is to have smaller fleets and smaller production. So just to maintain current numbers might require some effort. But it should be doable. That being said, with j10, future j20, j31 and so on - there cant be much room left for j16 and j15 production. 20-30 airframes per year, tops. j11b production seems to be over, there havent been new ones for quite some time. That is easely explained with tthe production line switching to j15 which is more needed right now. j16 is sure to follow shortly.

But after 2020 i expect we will be seeing new designes, not rehashes of a design from the 80s. I do expect j16 to be the last iteration of chinese flanker and i can't possibly see it being produced past 2025. Even a 2020 end of production wouldn't surprise me.

okay! you've got some facts, and your analysis makes sense. just seems to me that china has some generational catching-up to do, just to come current with the contemporary standard, and i'm thinking su-27 airframes would form the bulk of that catching-up. i guess we'll just watch and see!

 

[kwaigonegin]

But after 2020 i expect we will be seeing new designes, not rehashes of a design from the 80s. I do expect j16 to be the last iteration of chinese flanker and i can't possibly see it being produced past 2025. Even a 2020 end of production wouldn't surprise me.

I too am in agreement with you. I am pretty sure these flanker variants we're seeing will also be the last types of fighters and offensive aircraft China will be producing that are solely based on Soviet designs. I think all of us here would agree that their replacements and any other offensive aircraft after that will be locally design and produce albeit with some American or European influences.
I can't wait to see what the decades of 2030s onwards brings forth in terms of Chinese aviation.

During that time I think we will be seeing some really exotic future airframes coming out of them not unlike the US aviation industries of the 1960's and 1970s from Skunk Works etc....

I am positive that a few Chinese equivalents of 'Kelly' Johnson are probably in grade schools somewhere in China now. They just don't know it yet.

 

[Subedei]

I can't wait to see what the decades of 2030s onwards brings forth in terms of Chinese aviation.

LOL, i ain't expectin' to live that long!

 

[Air Force Brat]

I too am in agreement with you. I am pretty sure these flanker variants we're seeing will also be the last types of fighters and offensive aircraft China will be producing that are solely based on Soviet designs. I think all of us here would agree that their replacements and any other offensive aircraft after that will be locally design and produce albeit with some American or European influences.
I can't wait to see what the decades of 2030s onwards brings forth in terms of Chinese aviation.

During that time I think we will be seeing some really exotic future airframes coming out of them not unlike the US aviation industries of the 1960's and 1970s from Skunk Works etc....

I am positive that a few Chinese equivalents of 'Kelly' Johnson are probably in grade schools somewhere in China now. They just don't know it yet.

While I agree that Dr. Song is a little like Kelly Johnson, I doubt he will have the opportunity to be as prolific as Kelly. Kelly was a patriot and a capitalist among his other traits, but I do agree that Dr. Songs rather unique approach to the J-20 and even the black bird and overall design may have been influenced by "oxcart", though no doubt more manueverable, it will never be as fast as the old "blackbird". His study and admiration of the F-22 no doubt inspires him to look for solutions that are indeed similarly inspired to the chief of the skunkworks, and the use of the distant coupled canard is exemplary of Kelly's innovation.

On the other hand, don't sell the Flanker short, she is a very versatile bird and lends herself well to many iterations, and seems to come out well and looking pretty snarky in the process, even looking really gorgeous as the T-50, arguably the most attractive of all the new fifth gen wannabes, maybe why she will likely be the least stealthy in my opinion, but we shall see gentlemen, and I do like your thinking, I believe the Flanker will in many ways continue to be the workhorse of Sino Air, and though not as manueverable obviously as the J-10 a formidable opponent to any adversary?

 

[delft]

While I agree that Dr. Song is a little like Kelly Johnson, I doubt he will have the opportunity to be as prolific as Kelly. Kelly was a patriot and a capitalist among his other traits, but I do agree that Dr. Songs rather unique approach to the J-20 and even the black bird and overall design may have been influenced by "oxcart", though no doubt more manueverable, it will never be as fast as the old "blackbird". His study and admiration of the F-22 no doubt inspires him to look for solutions that are indeed similarly inspired to the chief of the skunkworks, and the use of the distant coupled canard is exemplary of Kelly's innovation.

OT
Kelly Johnson lived in time in a time when developing an aircraft cost about a tenth of the time it takes now, while the teams involved are now much larger. So a modern designer cannot be as prolific as great designer could be half a century ago. And while most of Kelly's creations were highly admirable he was also responsible for the F-104 which was then developed - I don't know what was the extent of Kelly's responsibility for that - to a beast of a fighter-bomber. About a quarter of the German Starfighters was lost in accidents.

 

[plawolf]

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.

Despite the stereotypes, not everything that happens in China is centrally co-ordinated according to some master plan from Beijing.

Just because SAC has developed a ground attack J16 does not necessarily mean the PLAAF or PLANAF is going to be ordering them. Different companies pitch planes for the same role to the PLA all the time, and it is entirely possible the PLAAF will decide that while the J16 is better than the JH7A, it is not good enough to justify the extra cost, so they would just stick with the JH7A as their primary tactical striker.

It is also entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the J16 will simply become the new standard template for twin seat Flankers that SAC build. So, instead of building more J11BS', SAC may just build J16s instead. When SAC rolls out a twin seat J15, that may well incorporate some of the design features from the J16 etc.

It is also possible that existing J11BS and Su27UKS might be upgraded to the J16 standard if there are enough hours left in their airframes to make that worthwhile.

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?

That is because the J10 and J11 were originally planes designed for the air force that the PLANAF adapted to their needs. OTOH, the JH7 was originally a navy funded fighter that the PLAAF later decided to adopt to their needs.

The 'H' for the J10H and J11BH denotes 'Hai', which is the Chinese for sea, and stressed that these are naval versions of air force jets. Since the JH7 was a navy jet from the start, it would make no sense to specially denote that it is a naval version of anything.

If you were really wanting to be pedantic, you could argue that the PLAAF JH7s should technically be designated JH7AKs, with 'K' standing for 'Kong', which is short for air force, to stress that the JH7A is an air force version of a naval jet. But I think the PLAAF decided to apply a little double standard and not play that game.

 

[Air Force Brat]

OT
Kelly Johnson lived in time in a time when developing an aircraft cost about a tenth of the time it takes now, while the teams involved are now much larger. So a modern designer cannot be as prolific as great designer could be half a century ago. And while most of Kelly's creations were highly admirable he was also responsible for the F-104 which was then developed - I don't know what was the extent of Kelly's responsibility for that - to a beast of a fighter-bomber. About a quarter of the German Starfighters was lost in accidents.

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was exactly what the Dr. ordered at the time, it was and is a very high performance single engine, interceptor aircraft, which was designed to run down and destroy soviet jet bombers. It achieved its mission for the US, and was also offered to our allies. Due to its very nature it was and continues to be a very dangerous aircraft, much like the Mig-21, but I don't hear you beating up on the Mig 21. The USAF flew and maintained the Starfighter and when the time came, moved on to a more capable upgrade, which also happened to be safer due to more modern design. Germany and Italy continued to operate the Starfighter beyond its prime, because it still offered a lot of bang for the buck, Germans are known to be tight fisted with a buck, and yes I am Teutonic, and yes I still love the Starfighter, and both Italian and Germans like their high performance equipment, witness BMWs 1000s sportbike and the Ducati Desmocedici, neither of which is as safe as a Honda Gold Wing. Feel free to join us on the aerodynamic thread to outline your concern with the 104, I would love to hear them. END OFF TOPIC

Read Wolfie's take on the Flanker, and Wolfie I do agree that the J-16 two holer is likely to be the PLANS J-15 trainer upgrade, and I have been very concerned that the PLAN does not have a suitable two seat aircraft to facilitate bringing its air ops up to speed. The USN have alway offered a two seater for initial cats and traps in recent history, and it is the safest most efficient method to get your flight crew up to speed and minimize the potential for aircraft accidents or incidents! While I love the PLAN CV, lets not forget that it is the love boat without its aircraft, and the sole reason for having such a large expensive vulnerable ship is to move Airpower to the fight, possibly stopping the fight before it starts. The Flanker continues to be a very effective aircraft to promote those ends, certainly in league with the Hornet/SHornet and the like!

 

[cn_habs]

On a side note, how does the single pilot on the F-18 accomplish the tasks that required 2 pilots on the F-14 back in the day?