Two seater version should be identical to the single seater J-11BS except for the two seats. This is not basic flight training, but about training as realistically as possible.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Two seater version should be identical to the single seater J-11BS except for the two seats. This is not basic flight training, but about training as realistically as possible.
your frustration will not speed up any project. The purpose of this plane is primary to be China's long range strike aircraft. They really do need something like this that will be an improvement over JH-7A.
As for whether or not it uses AESA, does it matter? The more important question is how much payload can it hold and how far can it strike?
Does that mean there's now a firm decision over the workload split between J-10 and J-11? A2A and A2G?
The tenor was J-10 has an edge over the Flankers in A2A combat. Does that still hold true for the J-11B? But then again, even if not, I guess the J-10B will get back to that.
I'm also wondering if a heavy strike fighter isn't better of with two pilots, since there's more tasks to complete. Keeping an eye on air threats as well as ground threats. Finding the target and making the way in there. That would be the J-11BS. So what would be the J-11B signle seaters role then?
well, I think you always starting with an air superiority aircraft and then move it to more multi-role, so J-10B is also going to be more multi-roled than J-10. But obviously, J-11BS with the twin seating is designed to be Chinese version of F-15E. PLAAF obviously have wanted something like this in the class of F-15K and F-15SG. I guess in terms of payload, range and flight performance, su-30 is in the same class as F-15E, but it certainly doesn't have the weapon selection or the avionics of a modernized strike eagle.
the spectator
New Member
For all the hype that it's getting, the so called j-11b might just be the su-27ubk which is the trainer version of the standard su-27 and not the multirole and attack version like the su-33.
I have not seen an official chinese news release regarding the development of a multirole and attack version of the j-11.
I have not seen an official chinese news release regarding the development of a multirole and attack version of the j-11.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
That beg logic why should they built SU_27 UBK when they have a plenty right now
Can't use the Su-27UBK to train J-11B pilots. The UBK will only go as far as teaching you how to fly a Flanker in basic mode. But to go into advanced training, you need something far more identical to the J-11B, something that would duplicate the flight control systems (which is already different), the avionics, radar, and armament.
The same aircraft can also become a two seater regular air superiority and strike jet.
You can choose to ask the same question with every other fighter in the world that has both two seat and single seat versions. Just do the word processor replacement. Single seaters do have an edge in weight and aerodynamics, which gives then an edge in flight performance. Note there are fighters that are exclusively two seater only, like the F-14, the F-4 Phantom and the Su-30. But then again, there are fighters that are exclusively single seat like the F-22.
The same aircraft can also become a two seater regular air superiority and strike jet.
You can choose to ask the same question with every other fighter in the world that has both two seat and single seat versions. Just do the word processor replacement. Single seaters do have an edge in weight and aerodynamics, which gives then an edge in flight performance. Note there are fighters that are exclusively two seater only, like the F-14, the F-4 Phantom and the Su-30. But then again, there are fighters that are exclusively single seat like the F-22.
So, does the PLAAF actually discern between specialized fighter and fighter-bomber regiments or do at least the regiments equiped with the modern planes perform both tasks simultaneously?
While the J-10 might pretty well become the workhorse of the PLAAF I could think of the J-11B as a long range interceptor esp of bombers and an escort plane doing fighter sweeps, with it's long range and big radars, for heavy strike packages.
When the F-4 came into service it introduced all that new radar, missiles and BVR stuff. A second pilot for system operation was deemed necessary back then. The F-14 was a long range interceptor at first, as was the Su-30 I think.
But starting with the Eagles and Flankers all true air superiority fighters were single seaters again. While the heavy strike planes are two seaters.
While the J-10 might pretty well become the workhorse of the PLAAF I could think of the J-11B as a long range interceptor esp of bombers and an escort plane doing fighter sweeps, with it's long range and big radars, for heavy strike packages.
When the F-4 came into service it introduced all that new radar, missiles and BVR stuff. A second pilot for system operation was deemed necessary back then. The F-14 was a long range interceptor at first, as was the Su-30 I think.
But starting with the Eagles and Flankers all true air superiority fighters were single seaters again. While the heavy strike planes are two seaters.
All fighter regiments in the first place- are all traditionally tasked with secondary ground attack. Previously this was done with unguided munitions, such as multiple rocket launchers and bombs, which is why you see J-7s equipped with rockets and bombs. Even the Su-27SK and J-11 regiments are tasked and equipped with this, although it seems a waste of aircraft to do a Q-5's role.
With the J-10 this ground attack role has become more sophisticated, to include LGBs and possibly satellite positioned bombs.
The Su-30MKK regiments are examples of regiments that are tasked with both air superiority and stand off ground attack, since these regiments are also tasked in using longer ranged Kh-59ME in precision strike against targets, using Kh-29 for shorter range and Kabs against bunkers.
It is likely that the J-8F regiments, which are interceptors, will be tasked with dropping satellite positioned bombs, since the LS and LT series are being tested on such aircraft.
The JH-7A regiments are what you call truly dedicated strike regiments but they have a potential for their own self defense.
I think the distinction what you're looking for is who are carrying the longer ranged stand off attack missiles akin to the Kh-59ME or SLAM. In this case, the KD series of missiles. You may consider that dumb rockets, bombs, LGBs and JDAM like bombs are going to be standard with all fighter regiments; what you should be asking is whether the J-11BS are going to carry those longer ranged missiles, which are traditionally carried on the H-6s, Su-30s and JH-7As. These missiles require a secondary weapons officer that will have to assign and authorize the targeting, based on the TV feed from the camera on the missile's nose.
With the J-10 this ground attack role has become more sophisticated, to include LGBs and possibly satellite positioned bombs.
The Su-30MKK regiments are examples of regiments that are tasked with both air superiority and stand off ground attack, since these regiments are also tasked in using longer ranged Kh-59ME in precision strike against targets, using Kh-29 for shorter range and Kabs against bunkers.
It is likely that the J-8F regiments, which are interceptors, will be tasked with dropping satellite positioned bombs, since the LS and LT series are being tested on such aircraft.
The JH-7A regiments are what you call truly dedicated strike regiments but they have a potential for their own self defense.
I think the distinction what you're looking for is who are carrying the longer ranged stand off attack missiles akin to the Kh-59ME or SLAM. In this case, the KD series of missiles. You may consider that dumb rockets, bombs, LGBs and JDAM like bombs are going to be standard with all fighter regiments; what you should be asking is whether the J-11BS are going to carry those longer ranged missiles, which are traditionally carried on the H-6s, Su-30s and JH-7As. These missiles require a secondary weapons officer that will have to assign and authorize the targeting, based on the TV feed from the camera on the missile's nose.
Before cockpit/avionics automation, the pilot has to look down and flip many switches to perform operations. Up to the end of Cold War era, Soviet MiG-29's were still equipped with a clock for the pilot to manually calculate impact time to target. Having 2 crew in the cockpit allowed the pilot to do his flying, and the weapons officer to worry about flipping weapon switches.
As aircraft become more automated, the necessity of having additional crew is reduced, and some day the human pilot may be eliminated completely. So when 2 air force in the future are fighting, it'd be a bunch of armed UAV's duking it out.
As aircraft become more automated, the necessity of having additional crew is reduced, and some day the human pilot may be eliminated completely. So when 2 air force in the future are fighting, it'd be a bunch of armed UAV's duking it out.
- Status