China Flanker Thread II

[rhino123]

actually one has to cross check,remember back in August 2011, russian aviation press report that China has produced two J-20 prototype,this is before december 2011 official unveiling.
Chinese engineer is no stranger to side by side cockpit design ,during the 1983 visit by aviation week reporter to Xian,discover a pieces of FB-111,in the mid-70's side by side configuration wsa put forward by XAC for the JH-X project.

One has to ask the accuracy of a piece of 'news' they read. In this case... during a visit by aviation week reporter in 1983 to China Xian and he/she discovered pieces of FB-111? Where does the FB-111 came from? Is there a crash nearby, is the FB-111 somehow being delivered to China and no one knows? Who is the operators of FB-111 (from what I know - US and Australia, and none of these two countries would deliver the FB-111 to China).

And if that is a secret project by China... do you think 'a reporter' will get to know or see the pieces?

 

[Deino]

that does not seem to be a Russian report, but a chinese forum gossip, do you have the link to an official russian report?
I doubt China will build the Su-34, simply because they were not even willing to grant Su-33 license, and Su-35S was a direct sale without any license involved.

I have to agre that it sounds like "chinese forum gossip", but it seems indeed to be based on a Russian report:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otherwise I don't agree; even if the Su-34 is surely a unique design and capable of missions more related to larger designs it is a dated design, simply since it is based on a Flanker and originally developed ages ago !! As such that does not mind its operational use, in a modern battlefield with the lack of stealth it could be "problematic" and therefore I think a development of SAC's XXJ-submission or XAC's JH-XX are better suited for that role.

Otherwise the often mentioned wind-tunnel test of a Su-34-look alike say nothing. We 've seen Rafale, F-22, S-70 and NH-90 models under test and there's surely not a program under way to copy all them. They are simply tested as comparative studies to examine their aerodynamics ...


Just my 2 cents,
Deino

 

[hardware]

One has to ask the accuracy of a piece of 'news' they read. In this case... during a visit by aviation week reporter in 1983 to China Xian and he/she discovered pieces of FB-111? Where does the FB-111 came from? Is there a crash nearby, is the FB-111 somehow being delivered to China and no one knows? Who is the operators of FB-111 (from what I know - US and Australia, and none of these two countries would deliver the FB-111 to China).

And if that is a secret project by China... do you think 'a reporter' will get to know or see the pieces?

every pieces come from down USAF/USN jet over vietnam.aside from fb-111,they also discover pieces of A-6 and F-4.there is possibility it may included pieces of B-52.
they also shown recon drone .

 

[rhino123]

every pieces come from down USAF/USN jet over vietnam.aside from fb-111,they also discover pieces of A-6 and F-4.there is possibility it may included pieces of B-52.
they also shown recon drone .

Again... where is the reference to that claim? Aviation week in 1983 issue? Where does aviation week get the information... the chinese gave it to them? (seriously I doubt that). Next... if that is the case, I would imagine US jumping up and down at that... but I didn't recall US having that.

Next... F-111 that crashed in Vietnam was from 1970s... that technology was wayyyyyyyyyyy out dated... and if the Chinese is to copy from that... they would already have, but we see nothing. If they are to copy the Su-34... then they need the Su-34 to do it... and again, I doubt the Chinese had Su-34 with them.

So... again... all these are not true and accurate.

 

[hardware]

Again... where is the reference to that claim? Aviation week in 1983 issue? Where does aviation week get the information... the chinese gave it to them? (seriously I doubt that). Next... if that is the case, I would imagine US jumping up and down at that... but I didn't recall US having that.

Next... F-111 that crashed in Vietnam was from 1970s... that technology was wayyyyyyyyyyy out dated... and if the Chinese is to copy from that... they would already have, but we see nothing. If they are to copy the Su-34... then they need the Su-34 to do it... and again, I doubt the Chinese had Su-34 with them.

So... again... all these are not true and accurate.

well,I suggest you contact the aviation week and technology.

 

[Preux]

Is this the new 'Chinese Su35' story?

Its almost getting to the point where it is becoming a tradition now. Another year, another Russian BS story about China and a new flanker variant.

The flanker has already peaked in China. It peaked years ago when it got comprehensively owned by J10s in exercises.

The J15 and J16 will, in all likelihood, be the last Chinese flanker variants, and even that may be optimistic because the J16 is a SAC driven project that may not even get selected by the PLAAF as they may favour the JH7B.

The Su34 makes absolutely no sense for the PLAAF, it is a dated design that will have very limited chances of successfully completing its mission and making it back to base in the kinds of high threat environments the PLAAF might have to fight in, or would be complete overkill against some of the weaker opponents that the likes of the JH7A and J11BS/J16 would be able to deal with pretty easily.

I won't blame it all on the Russians. Chinese military fora are basically rumour mills (they even came up with names for different types of rumour mongers such as the dining table gang or the classmate gang - and this gang in particular is the 'Export turned internal consumption' gang (translating Chinese - you can do it elegantly or you can do it well) - if you frequent Chinese sites you'll find lots of these 'foreign media reports' stories) and I can tell you from personal experience that not only the vast majority of 'Russian media reports' either do not exist or are the Russian media quoting something said in China... and so a chain of misinformation continues.

 

[rhino123]

well,I suggest you contact the aviation week and technology.

Why should I? Everyone had the rights to post whatever they want in a magazines, their news might be a load of BS. What I am getting at is... we (being intelligent member of this forum) need to think about what was being posted, then we ask simple questions (like what I have asked in previous posts) to ourselves rather than believing whatever was online... if this process was being done, you will be surprise how much BS you can ripped out from online forums and magazines.

But, of course, you have the right to believe in whatever you want though.

 

[delft]

I have to agre that it sounds like "chinese forum gossip", but it seems indeed to be based on a Russian report:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otherwise I don't agree; even if the Su-34 is surely a unique design and capable of missions more related to larger designs it is a dated design, simply since it is based on a Flanker and originally developed ages ago !! As such that does not mind its operational use, in a modern battlefield with the lack of stealth it could be "problematic" and therefore I think a development of SAC's XXJ-submission or XAC's JH-XX are better suited for that role.

Otherwise the often mentioned wind-tunnel test of a Su-34-look alike say nothing. We 've seen Rafale, F-22, S-70 and NH-90 models under test and there's surely not a program under way to copy all them. They are simply tested as comparative studies to examine their aerodynamics ...


Just my 2 cents,
Deino

I remember being told during an AGARD lecture in the early '70's that a new aerodynamic finding was that when the leading edge of a wing was at 57 Deg. or more a vortex formed at larger angles of attack that greatly improved lift under these circumstances. I was then aware that the wing leading edge of the MiG-19, then 20 years old, and the Su-7 were said to be at that angle. I supposed that Western air forces hadn't asked some company or university to hang models of these aircraft in their wind tunnel and thought it odd. English Electric had chosen between 50 and 60 Deg for the leading edge of their Lightning fighter and had chosen 60 in the late '50's so the notion cannot have been a big surprise.

 

[MiG-29]

I have to agre that it sounds like "chinese forum gossip", but it seems indeed to be based on a Russian report:


Otherwise I don't agree; even if the Su-34 is surely a unique design and capable of missions more related to larger designs it is a dated design, simply since it is based on a Flanker and originally developed ages ago !! As such that does not mind its operational use, in a modern battlefield with the lack of stealth it could be "problematic" and therefore I think a development of SAC's XXJ-submission or XAC's JH-XX are better suited for that role.

Otherwise the often mentioned wind-tunnel test of a Su-34-look alike say nothing. We 've seen Rafale, F-22, S-70 and NH-90 models under test and there's surely not a program under way to copy all them. They are simply tested as comparative studies to examine their aerodynamics ...


Just my 2 cents,
Deino

The article says the test are made in Russia, not China.

Now let me say why i disagree.

Su-34 has the range of Tu-22M but with the payload of Tu-16/H-6.

As the article mentions, Su-34 can easily do what the Tu-16 does, so basicly it can replace it.

That is what basicly the article says.

Now, all operational aircraft in 2013 have shorter legs, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15E, JH-7.

F-22s have stealth true but there is a very bad constraign to stealth, yes payload, F-22 has small weapons bays, so it can not carry large weapons, see

The F-22 has a significant capability to attack surface targets. In the air-to-ground configuration the aircraft can carry two 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally and will use on-board avionics for navigation and weapons delivery support. In the future air-to-ground capability will be enhanced with the addition of an upgraded radar and up to eight small diameter bombs. The Raptor will also carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s in the air-to-ground configuration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As we can see, F-22 has a very limited air to ground capability, in fact it has to get very close to deliver its GBU-32, so close that it will be detected.

[video=youtube;4xbEn7a6IL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xbEn7a6IL8[/video]


So in few words, F-22 firing a JDAM, it loses its stealth by flying close to the target and if it carries air to surface weapons externally it destroys its stealth and increases drag.


In few words, stealth fighters are BVR aircraft designed to fight at more than 100km of the target to be successful in air to air, from 100 to 50 km are detectable by fighters easily such as Su-35 with ist powerful radar and IRST systems, and less than 50km are regular aircraft.

Since they have limited air to ground capability due to small payload capability, basicly they can not compare to their 4++ generation in payload capability.
Su-34 can carry more wapons at longer ranges and weapons that can be fired from longer ranges.

The only aircraft now Superior to Su-34 is B-2, because it has longer payload, longer range and and a good payload capability, F-35 or F-22 have limitations in payload..

Russia is designing PAKDA to be a kind of B-2 aircraft or better, but now in the arsenal of any nation, Su-34 is very effective

 

[MiG-29]

Like Wolfie said Mig it is very unlikely that the PLAAF has any desire to acquire the Su-34 or a clone of same, and it is very unlikely to replace the H-6, it just make no sense. Your proclamation that the F-15 cannot fly low level missions because it doesn't have swing wings is intellectually bankrupt, what non-sense, the F-111 is archaic, perhaps why you used it as an example when talking about the Su-34, also out of date and the JH-7 fits in there as well. The B-1b does have swing wings, but at low level the wings are swept the throttles are pushed up to very high subsonic speeds, and the small canards up front are to damp out the oscillations caused by turbulence and smooth the ride. Even the USAF has cut the number of operational B-1s from 100 down to 60 or so probably less. The Su-34 is particularly unsuited to the anti-submarine role as loiter time is very necessary to perform that mission effectively, and I can guaratee the Su-34 is a very thirsty bird down low. Really Mig

look Brat, Su-34 has no analogue now.


F-15 has better agility, but lower range, F-15 flies faster but is not better at lower altitudes.

The canards of Su-34 damp the turbulances at high speed and low altitude, improving the wing design of a fighter (su-27) to the demands of a bomber (F-111).


F-111 was as a bomber better than F-15E, however it is not more agile, the demands was to make a fighter a bomber so F-111 in that can not compete, but as a bomber, F-111 was and is better than F-15.

Su-34 was designed as a bomber modifying the airframe of a heavy fighter, F-15E was designed as a bomber fighter just changing the avionics, no airframe modification of significant impact was done, so it has aerodynamics of a fighter, not of a bomber.

H-6 can be raplaced by Su-34 since Tu-22M is been replaced by Su-34 in the Russian air force.


Now to say China will buy it or build it is different, that i do not know, but definitively Su-34 is a great aircrat, combining the agility of a fighter, with the payload of a interdictor and the range of a theater of operations bomber.

It offers the comfort of a large aircraft, with the size of a fighter and the speed of B-1B