China Flanker Thread II

[Air Force Brat]

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?

Thats an outstanding question, as lots of attack/fighter attack aircraft were at one time two holers, The F-4 was a very large sophisticated aircraft for its day, the USAF called their backseater a Whiz-0, he had a stick, throttle and some rudimentary flight controls, but no rudder pedals, the Navy called their back seater a RIO, he had no flight controls to distract him from his role as radar intercept officer. When the F-14 rolled around the navy retained their back seater since their bird was more sophisticated, the F-15 eliminated their backseater as the F-15 was an Air Superiority Fighter. At some point the Air Force decided to create the F-15e Strike Eagle and reintroduced the backseater and the Navy introduced the Hornet to simplify things and eliminated the back seater, sssooooo, what can we conclude from that little bit of history. Technology has decreased the workload to a place where a back seater may not be necessary, but tactically its nice to have a backseater to do some of your work for you, and another set of eyeballs to watch for the bad boys is nice to have along as well. Obviously the F-22 and F-35 will not incorporate a back seater as automation and equipment integration have gone a long way to reduce the heavy workload. The J-16 is primarily a similar aircraft in mission to the F-15e and as a Fighter/Bomber the back-seater is nice to have along. If someone else has other thoughts I would like to hear them?

 

[Subedei]

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.

Thanks! Very insightful and informative. I understood that the "H" was a naval designation, but did not know that it stood for sea. The reason I asked that initially was because I was under the Wikipedia influenced impression that the "H" in jh-7 stood for "Hongzhaji -bomber".

 

[Subedei]

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.

yes, it is possible. but, i'm of the opinion that china has reached the point at which considerations of mission capablity outweigh considerations of cost. china has made due with less capable systems for several generations, and i think that it's not only a point of achieving tactical near-equality - a very rational consideration, but also a point of pride with the chinese "nation" that good-enough just ain't good-enough for us no mo'! of course, i'm not chinese, so i can't speak to that from an emic perspective. but, i am a nationalist, and i understand how "nationals" think.

i've already stuck my neck out and had it chopped off, but i'm still of the opinion that china will completely replace all second generation fighter and fighter-bomber platforms currently in service with third generation platforms at no less than a 1:1.5 ratio. time frame, by 2025. using wiki figures, that's ~230 more j-10 and ~240 more flankers.

i've been wrong before!

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.

interesting conjecture, as well. it kind of restates my own observation of the chinese flanker program being similar to the f-4 phantom program, in that it also used modifications to a base platform to fulfill both air force and naval air force requirements.

all my chinese flanker "fluff" is based on my interpretation that, at this stage in chinese fighter-bomber development, maximizing both the technical experience gained, and operational deployment achieved, from the most advanced airframe they've imported, and last they'll import, is simply the most economical strategy. and, i use economical in the holistic sense, not just the financial.

 

[jackliu]

I think it is possible for China to become the nation that operates the most Flanker jets. Just because Russia/USSR produced 1000+ of them, does not mean they are in service, in fact most of them became rust after the USSR break up, and the ones that are in service are badly maintained. And they are produced in the 1980s, that means their service life will run out very soon. Also I remember reading that the Chinese Flankers uses different construction material on the airframe or something, to make them lighter and more durable.

However like someone have already posted, they don't need to produce Flanker anymore since they can come up with their own jets.

 

[Air Force Brat]

yes, it is possible. but, i'm of the opinion that china has reached the point at which considerations of mission capablity outweigh considerations of cost. china has made due with less capable systems for several generations, and i think that it's not only a point of achieving tactical near-equality - a very rational consideration, but also a point of pride with the chinese "nation" that good-enough just ain't good-enough for us no mo'! of course, i'm not chinese, so i can't speak to that from an emic perspective. but, i am a nationalist, and i understand how "nationals" think.

i've already stuck my neck out and had it chopped off, but i'm still of the opinion that china will completely replace all second generation fighter and fighter-bomber platforms currently in service with third generation platforms at no less than a 1:1.5 ratio. time frame, by 2025. using wiki figures, that's ~230 more j-10 and ~240 more flankers.

i've been wrong before!



interesting conjecture, as well. it kind of restates my own observation of the chinese flanker program being similar to the f-4 phantom program, in that it also used modifications to a base platform to fulfill both air force and naval air force requirements.

all my chinese flanker "fluff" is based on my interpretation that, at this stage in chinese fighter-bomber development, maximizing both the technical experience gained, and operational deployment achieved, from the most advanced airframe they've imported, and last they'll import, is simply the most economical strategy. and, i use economical in the holistic sense, not just the financial.

I would concur with this overall, and nice linear thinking, not sure if they will build more than the Soviets, but they will be building better Flankers, with engineering upgrade. Don't forget the J-10, and if they get the J-20 into LRIP in the next several years that will also be an option, and I believe that both these aircraft will be standard bearers, but neither will likely be operating off the carrier? So the Flanker will be the go to aircraft for the PLAN in the immediate future, and the F-60 will likely be the follow on to the flankers

 

[jackliu]

yes, it is possible. but, i'm of the opinion that china has reached the point at which considerations of mission capablity outweigh considerations of cost. china has made due with less capable systems for several generations, and i think that it's not only a point of achieving tactical near-equality - a very rational consideration, but also a point of pride with the chinese "nation" that good-enough just ain't good-enough for us no mo'! of course, i'm not chinese, so i can't speak to that from an emic perspective. but, i am a nationalist, and i understand how "nationals" think.

i've already stuck my neck out and had it chopped off, but i'm still of the opinion that china will completely replace all second generation fighter and fighter-bomber platforms currently in service with third generation platforms at no less than a 1:1.5 ratio. time frame, by 2025. using wiki figures, that's ~230 more j-10 and ~240 more flankers.

I'm curious, where are you from if you are not Chinese?

 

[Subedei]

I'm curious, where are you from if you are not Chinese?

LOL!!!

ain't it obvious that i'm from the united states?

 

[jackliu]

LOL!!!

ain't it obvious that i'm from the united states?

Well Chinese is not a definition of nationality anymore, there are over 50 million overseas Chinese that does not live in China, I mean what race are you. Just curious.

 

[Subedei]

Well Chinese is not a definition of nationality anymore, there are over 50 million overseas Chinese that does not live in China, I mean what race are you. Just curious.

Hmmmmm, race? I avoid using that construct. My ethnicity is New Orleans Creole. My ancestors are African, European, and North American (Indigenous). Americans either consider me black, or ask me questions like, "what are you", as my appearance doesn't fit neatly into their system of visual racial classifications. You see, Americans can simply tell by looking at you that you're not Native American.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Hmmmmm, race? I avoid using that construct. My ethnicity is New Orleans Creole. My ancestors are African, European, and North American (Indigenous). Americans either consider me black, or ask me questions like, "what are you", as my appearance doesn't fit neatly into their system of visual racial classifications. You see, Americans can simply tell by looking at you that you're not Native American.

Yes native americans like their bowie knives, and archery equipment, and war paint, I myself am only 1/16 Cherokee, but I guess thats why I like that stuff, and yes I can shoot my recurve instinctively, but I ain't gonna wreck my big knife by throwing it, and if I'm hunting for meat, I use my compound bow or my Smith and Wesson! Oh and I only like McIlhenneys Loosiana Hot sauce Subedei, Tabasco for you Yankees! Now gentlemen, I do think the PLAN will begin Air Ops in earnest shortly, I do think they are being cautious and I do think they would prefer a rather eneventfull first year or two. There is no reason to do otherwise, and in my own honest opinion, they likely look at the USN ops tempo as "reckless" or "cowboy" style. I think whether or not we see more openess, depends on who the new leaders are, there are many on the mainland who are very uncomfortable with the openess brought about by the internet, there are also those who have adopted a more Western approach to life and do not see the West in an adversarial light, but as the competition, possibly even the cash cow? Here again, you can't have it both ways, but if the PLAN is going to get comfortable operating aircraft off the carrier, they need a two seat aircraft to qual with as its the only way to get up to speed at sea!

Oh!, and while we're talking about it, we all have our own prejudices, but exposing ourselves to one another is still the best way to overcome our cultural blindness and begin to see the truth for ourselves, I do appreciate the education, but honestly I appreciate your friendship more, I am a little surprised by how much I like you guys. I'm not surprised to see that respect and honor are the marks of the truly intelligent. The Liaoning will likely be stationed near the land base for the aircraft IMHO, I just wondered which of the named Naval bases might be most likely based on that criteria? Or are there several possibilities? Brat