China Flanker Thread II

[Deino]

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

Now let me say why i disagree.

.....

Sorry, but why on earth don't You simply answer a question or argue "Why this report is not from Russia, why it is from Chinese BS or why it is what ever ???"

Your whole post once again mentions with no point, no argument or not even one word any of the things mentioned above ... instead You once again try to convince us why the Russian do this, why the F-22 has only a limited AG capability, why oh why ... !

It is completely irrelevant that the F-15E can this or that better or that the "Su-34 has no analogue now" !!! We simply want to know if these reports are relaible and if not another more modern type would be better suited ! Not again that the Russian's again made the most impressive medium-weight super-duper-striker with "no analogue now" !

Deino

 

[Quickie]

How is the Su-34 going to replace the H-6? The H-6 is almost twice as big, i.e. it has almost twice the MTOW of Su-34.

Remember that the H-6 has about twice the max payload of the Su-34.

Also, it would be impossible for the Su-34 to carry 2 huge long range Chinese LACMs on each side of its wings (unbalanced distribution of weights) even though it may be able to carry commendable max payload that are evenly distributed over the aircraft.

 

[MiG-29]

Sorry, but why on earth don't You simply answer a question or argue "Why this report is not from Russia, why it is from Chinese BS or why it is what ever ???"

Your whole post once again mentions with no point, no argument or not even one word any of the things mentioned above ... instead You once again try to convince us why the Russian do this, why the F-22 has only a limited AG capability, why oh why ... !

It is completely irrelevant that the F-15E can this or that better or that the "Su-34 has no analogue now" !!! We simply want to know if these reports are relaible and if not another more modern type would be better suited ! Not again that the Russian's again made the most impressive medium-weight super-duper-striker with "no analogue now" !

Deino

Look, the only thing i address, was why China might buy or build it, second i read the article, and the article claims the tests are done in Russia.

Как сообщили в Центральном аэрогидродинамическом институте имени Н.Е.Жуковского (ЦАГИ), к настоящему времени завершена продувка модели бомбардировщика J-17 (аналог Су-34) в аэродинамической трубе (АДТ).Подробнее:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

i answer you a statement, since you claimed the Su-34 is a dated aircraft, i acept you disagree with me, but also be open enough to see i do not need to agree with you and i explained you why i do not, if you think is dated, well that is your opinion, but not necesarilly is true and not necesarilly i need to agree.


You know perfectly i said, i do not believe the reports simply because as Preux said some Russian articles about Chinese aviation are based upon what is written on the internet, others not, however this says the J-17 is being tested in Russia (aerodynamic Model).

Plus of course i am explaining you from my point of view why the Russians considered the Su-34 worthed to build in an age where Stealth is a main factor of aircraft design.

The factor is stealth has limits in payload and this is reflected in JDAM capability of F-22.

Su-34 is not dated from my point of view, the article is true, who knows, perhaps has some true, because it seems they are testing the Su-34 analogue aerodynamic model in Russia, who knows, if it is true?
well you will need an official Russian source confirming it.

By the way the article says China wants to basicly replace H-6 with J-17, basicly repeating what the VVS has done with Su-34 and Tu-22M

 

[MiG-29]

How is the Su-34 going to replace the H-6? The H-6 is almost twice as big, i.e. it has almost twice the MTOW of Su-34.

Remember that the H-6 has about twice the max payload of the Su-34.

Also, it would be impossible for the Su-34 to carry 2 huge long range Chinese LACMs on each side of its wings (unbalanced distribution of weights) even though it may be able to carry commendable max payload that are evenly distributed over the aircraft.

Tu-16, aka H-6 has not twice the payload, according to what is know both aircraft have almost the same payload of 9000kg, however the article claims Partially replace, by this of course some weapons might be different, same is Su-34 and Tu-22M since Su-34 can only partially raplace the Tu-22M, but in range it can compete with Tu-22M, so the Su-34 is a good replacement if indeed China is building a J-17 based upon Su-34

 

[MiG-29]

Russian Military Industry Complex network reported on April 9: China is developing the J-17, a tactical bomber similar to the Russian Su-34.

The reporter has learnt from Russian Zhukovsky Central Aerodynamic Research Institute that at present, a tunnel test for the model of the J-17 bomber will soon be completed.

China has already had the experience of developing and manufacturing the J-11B and J-16 fighters (respectively copies of Russian Su-27 and Su-30).

Aviation experts believe, the J-17, the Chinese version of the Su-34, can be used to replace some of and strengthen the H-6 bombers.

Photographs obtained by spy satellites show that recently there has been significant reduction of the number of H-6 bombers at Chinese airfields, which perhaps indicates the decommissioning and destruction of the H-6 bombers made earlier.

Meanwhile, it also proves that there is limited room for improvement in those aircraft. The first flight of China’s H-6 bomber was carried out in 1953.

Experts point out that development and manufacture of the new type of heavy bomber are very difficult jobs.

For China’s aircraft industry, the complicated problem is the unavailability of a China-made powerful turbojet engine.

We cannot exclude the possibility that China began to develop its J-17 tactical bomber in 1998, as China played the footage of the model of an aircraft similar to the Su-34 at Airshow China that year.

Experts estimate the combat load of the Chinese vision of the Su-34 may reach 8 tons. If that is the case, J-17’s maximum load is a little lighter than the H-6 bomber (9 tons). It in theory may carry long-range cruise missiles.

Russia is also interested in selling an export version of it’s S-34 aircraft to China. A Chinese source believes that commissioning of the Su-34 and J-17 can greatly enhance the Chinese air force attack potential, and improve it to make it satisfy world advanced standards.

Previously, there was a report that China, in addition, was developing the J-19 heavy bomber on the basis of the J-11B.


English translation of the article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Quickie]

Tu-16, aka H-6 has not twice the payload, according to what is know both aircraft have almost the same payload of 9000kg, however the article claims Partially replace, by this of course some weapons might be different, same is Su-34 and Tu-22M since Su-34 can only partially raplace the Tu-22M, but in range it can compete with Tu-22M, so the Su-34 is a good replacement if indeed China is building a J-17 based upon Su-34

That's the problem if you believe everything that's printed in an article. The JH-7A also has a max 9000kg payload. MTOW and empty weight of H-6 is 79000 kg and 37200kg respectively. Even assuming half of the usable load is fuel, you get a payload of 20900 kg.

 

[MiG-29]

That's the problem if you believe everything that's printed in an article. The JH-7A also has a max 9000kg payload. MTOW and empty weight of H-6 is 79000 kg and 37200kg respectively. Even assuming half of the usable load is fuel, you get a payload of 20900 kg.

no you are completly wrong since the fuel payload of Tu-16 is 36000kg

Масса, кг
пустого самолета 37200
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 79000
now let us see fuel

Топливо, кг 36000 which is fuel in Russian

Боевая нагрузка - 9000 кг в отсеке оружия which is weapons payload in russian
Source

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

пустого самолета 38530
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 75800
Топливо
внутренние топливо, кг 33000
Тип двигателя 2 ТРД Xian (XAE) Wopen-8 (AM-3M-500)
same for H-6

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article is not wrong, what you do not see is H-6 is old and obsolete technology, it only flies a relatively long range thanks to 33000 kg of fuel.

Su-34 ha better tech, if the Chinese want to use Su-34 tech or inspiration is because Su-34 is a good aircraft

 

[Quickie]

no you are completly wrong since the fuel payload of Tu-16 is 36000kg

Масса, кг
пустого самолета 37200
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 79000
now let us see fuel

Топливо, кг 36000 which is fuel in Russian

Боевая нагрузка - 9000 кг в отсеке оружия which is weapons payload in russian
Source

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

пустого самолета 38530
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 75800
Топливо
внутренние топливо, кг 33000
Тип двигателя 2 ТРД Xian (XAE) Wopen-8 (AM-3M-500)
same for H-6

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article is not wrong, what you do not see is H-6 is old and obsolete technology, it only flies a relatively long range thanks to 33000 kg of fuel.

Su-34 ha better tech, if the Chinese want to use Su-34 tech or inspiration is because Su-34 is a good aircraft

No! You can't simply make such an simplistic deduction. The H-6 has a usable load of 41800kg over a max range of 6000 km. Based on these figures, the H-6, at 9000 kg payload, can easily go more than 1000 km the range of Su-34 (or JH-7A) at the same payload, not to mention that the Su-34 can't carry the huge LACMs due to the uneven distribution of weight related to the much smaller size of the Su-34 relative to the H-6, i.e. less than half the size/weight of the H-6.

 

[Deino]

no you are completly wrong since ....

The article is not wrong, what you do not see is H-6 is old and obsolete technology, it only flies a relatively long range thanks to 33000 kg of fuel.

Su-34 has better tech, if the Chinese want to use Su-34 tech or inspiration is because Su-34 is a good aircraft

Sorry again !!
No one denies that the Su-34 is a fine aircraft, a truely great aircraft, an aircraft with superior performance ... that should have been in service since ages, still has its problems and even more is a sitting duck (IMO) in modern warefare !
But again that's irrelevant. All You post is again to persuade or to show how superior the Su-34 is ! But that's not the question especially since no-one claims the H-6 to be modern or better than the mighty Fullback.

The point is:
Is this report reliable ?
Is there a Chinese Su-34-look-alike or Flanker development ?
Is this type developed with the help of Russia ?

... or is it simply again a hoax like the Chinese Tu-26-purchase, which is popping up now and then ?

So why do You take this report for granted ? (since it Russian ??, since it confirms how superior the Su-34 is ?? ... or why ?
Could You simply answer a simple question ? ... PLEASE !

Deino

 

[tphuang]

no you are completly wrong since the fuel payload of Tu-16 is 36000kg

Масса, кг
пустого самолета 37200
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 79000
now let us see fuel

Топливо, кг 36000 which is fuel in Russian

Боевая нагрузка - 9000 кг в отсеке оружия which is weapons payload in russian
Source

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

пустого самолета 38530
нормальная взлетная 72000
максимальная взлетная 75800
Топливо
внутренние топливо, кг 33000
Тип двигателя 2 ТРД Xian (XAE) Wopen-8 (AM-3M-500)
same for H-6

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article is not wrong, what you do not see is H-6 is old and obsolete technology, it only flies a relatively long range thanks to 33000 kg of fuel.

Su-34 ha better tech, if the Chinese want to use Su-34 tech or inspiration is because Su-34 is a good aircraft

most numbers you see are listed in the most optimal profile possible.

JH-7A actually has better range x payload factor than Su-30MKK despite the latter's more advertised numbers. There are reasons that despite the claimed 8000 kg payload of Su-30MKK, you will never see any PLAAF su-27 or su-30s flying with close to that amount of payload. If you see 2 KH-31A/KH-59ME + 2 R-73 , that will already be a huge payload. I don't know if anyone has pictures of Su-30 with more than that. Most pictures we get only show 1 KH-59ME or 1 KH-31A. That's because anything more that complete kills range of Su-30. In comparison, JH-7A actually can carry more on its missions, because it's better for this role. It can still retain a ok range even carrying 4 missiles in the class of YJ-83/KD-88. Anything higher than that is probably not going to work. In practice, PLAAF keeps it to 2 of those missiles.

Of course, neither JH-7A or Su-30 can compare to H-6K which can carry multiple LACMs and still have reasonable range. And something like J-16 or Su-34, China will build something like that and it should have better range * payload factor than jh-7a or su-30. But it's really comparable to a bomb truck like h-6k. They have different usage.