China Flanker Thread II

[MiG-29]

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

Deino

I did answer you the question, i said i do not know about the reliability of the article in terms of veracity about the J-17 being a copy or variant of Su-34.


I said the article is right in the terms of the reason why the Su-34 makes sense as a H-6 replacement.


I said in order to know if it is true, you need an official source confirming it.



See what i have said.

Is it reliable about J-17 being a Su-34 analogue?
answer i do not know.

Is there a Su-34 Flanker based J-17, i do not know unless there is another official source of it.


Is the Su-34 developed wth the help of Russia? i do not know.


What i said is Su-34 is not a sitting duck compared to F-22 since F22 carries JDAMs which are only useful at a max of 18 miles from the target, well in the range of a SAM system, so i said Su-34 is only inferior to B-2 and for that Russia is building PAKDA, to completly replace Tu-22M and Tu-160 in the 2020s..


is the Su-34 a logical replacement for H-6, yes it is because in the Russian air force it is doing it partially with the Tu-22M.


Now Russian sources are niether better or worse than any source from any other country.

Here of course people are baised because they want a ideal world where Russia is out of the Chinese aerospace industry, so they claim russia lies.


But this source you can not dissmiss it or accept it right away, simply because it seems it comes from an aerodynamic institute in Russia.

 

[MiG-29]

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.

Well i do not know about Su-30, but i know Su-34 is better than Su-30SM, that Russian variant of Su-30MKI, since Russia is fielding both aircraft, one as a F-15E type, and Su-34 as a modern FB-111 type equivalent.


If China will or will not build or buy Su-34? i do not know, the only thing for certain is the Russian air force is recieving Su-30SM and Su-34s to replace Su-24 and Tu-22M and the Su-35 is a partial answer to Typhoon and F-35.

Does it make sense to replace H-6 with SU-34? i guess yes it does.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well i do not know about Su-30, but i know Su-34 is better than Su-30SM, that Russian variant of Su-30MKI, since Russia is fielding both aircraft, one as a F-15E type, and Su-34 as a modern FB-111 type equivalent.


If China will or will not build or buy Su-34? i do not know, the only thing for certain is the Russian air force is recieving Su-30SM and Su-34s to replace Su-24 and Tu-22M and the Su-35 is a partial answer to Typhoon and F-35.

Does it make sense to replace H-6 with SU-34? i guess yes it does.

Mig all that Russian junk is just that, like the Varyag was, before she became the Liaoning, and two, the Russians invented the mis-information campaign-----ie you know propaganda. You NEVER read anything in the official Russian press negative to their equipment, their position on anything, or PUTIN, so yes we all know they are perfect, PUTIN, PLANES, and yes they even Krap Gold bullion, and since you know that is true, you believe everything they put on paper or the internet.

Your abject ignorance of the true capabilities of the F-22, including stealth or L/O technology is betrayed by your comparison of the F-111 to the Su-34, your objectivity is sadly AWOL, so continue to belittle the F-22 and its stealth technology if it makes you feel superior, talk down to your elders as if you are dismissing unruly toddlers, the good book says "ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of truth". The Russians are adopting the Su-34 because their H-6s are toast, and the Su-34 is smaller and cheaper, and cash is in short supply, in no way will it ever out-perform the F-22, but go ahead, keep writing this stuff, just hope your professor's don't read it????? Brat

So yes, I think China will contiunue to produce the H-6, and forget about the su-34, I'm rather certain the H-6 is far more capable as a Bomber.

 

[MiG-29]

Mig all that Russian junk is just that, like the Varyag was, before she became the Liaoning, and two, the Russians invented the mis-information campaign-----ie you know propaganda. You NEVER read anything in the official Russian press negative to their equipment, their position on anything, or PUTIN, so yes we all know they are perfect, PUTIN, PLANES, and yes they even Krap Gold bullion, and since you know that is true, you believe everything they put on paper or the internet.

Your abject ignorance of the true capabilities of the F-22, including stealth or L/O technology is betrayed by your comparison of the F-111 to the Su-34, your objectivity is sadly AWOL, so continue to belittle the F-22 and its stealth technology if it makes you feel superior, talk down to your elders as if you are dismissing unruly toddlers, the good book says "ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of truth". The Russians are adopting the Su-34 because their H-6s are toast, and the Su-34 is smaller and cheaper, and cash is in short supply, in no way will it ever out-perform the F-22, but go ahead, keep writing this stuff, just hope your professor's don't read it????? Brat

So yes, I think China will contiunue to produce the H-6, and forget about the su-34, I'm rather certain the H-6 is far more capable as a Bomber.

Brat

Read about the limitations of stealth, i never said Su-34 is unvulnerable, however you are not being objective.

To make a stealth aircraft that carries long range air to surface missiles, you need large weapons bays, F-22 has weapons bays for AAMs, and some limited space for JDAMs, the aircraft is a fighter.

F-35 is even worse, it is smaller, so it has small weapons bays too.

If China would like to build a bomber with good range and stealthy, China will need a PAKDA type aircraft.

F-117 was too a precision bomber with tiny weapons bays.

Su-34 is more practical, yes it is not as stealthy, but carries weapons on external pylons allowing for huge air to surface missiles.


The F-22 and F-35 are to destroy the enemy fighters and allow for the destruction of radars and SAMs by B-2s and fighter-bombers like F-15E.

Making a supersonic bomber with large payload capacity on internal weapons bays is not an easy task, it requieres advances in engine technology which are not easy to achieve.

With JDAMs, F-22 needs to get close, JDAMs are not missiles, they have no engine, so 18 miles is the max range they have at best.
see the weapons bay how hardly you can squeeze a JDAM and a AIM-120

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So be realistic, the main strike force of the USA is the F-15E and B-2, F-22 is to clean the skies of enemy fighters.

Russia will use PAKFAs to clean the sky too and Su-34s to attack.
Now Su-35 will do it until T-50 becomes operational..

I do not know if China will ever buy Su-34, but H-6 is not better bomber, it is a relic from the 1950s, is like saying B-47s are better bombers than F-15Es, come on

 

[AssassinsMace]

J-15 carrying a weapons load.

 

[Jeff Head]

Brat

Read about the limitations of stealth, i never said Su-34 is unvulnerable, however you are not being objective.

To make a stealth aircraft that carries long range air to surface missiles, you need large weapons bays, F-22 has weapons bays for AAMs, and some limited space for JDAMs, the aircraft is a fighter.

F-35 is even worse, it is smaller, so it has small weapons bays too.

The F-22 and F-35 are to destroy the enemy fighters and allow for the destruction of radars and SAMs by B-2s and fighter-bombers like F-15E.

With JDAMs, F-22 needs to get close, JDAMs are not missiles, they have no engine, so 18 miles is the max range they have at best.
see the weapons bay how hardly you can squeeze a JDAM and a AIM-120

So be realistic, the main strike force of the USA is the F-15E and B-2, F-22 is to clean the skies of enemy fighters.

The F-22A has four hard points on its wings for up to four under-wing pylons. Each is capable of several thousand lb loads.

Clearly, the F-22 sacrifices its stealth when carrying external stores, and although those hard points are only approved currently for air to air missiles and fuel tanks, there is nothing intrinsic to keep them from qualifying all sorts of air to grouynd munitions for them, including precision guided air to ground missiles.

Same goes for the weapons bay.

The two large weapons bays are not "small." In the air to ground role, the F-22A would carry in its large weapons bays two AMRAAMs and two 1,000 lb JDAMS. As with the hard points on the wings, there is nothing to keep the Air Force from qualifying other air to ground munitions, and there are a number of missiles that can fit in the same envelope as a 1,000 lb JDAM.

So, currently, the air to ground role is somewhat limited...but it could easily be expanded, and probably would have been by now had the US continued to build them in numbers and produced several hundred of them.

With only something like 185 available for combat, it is likely that they will be used for air dominance and superiority primarliy...but they do not have to be and could be quite capable strike aircraft if the US decided they wanted them to be.

As for the F-35, it was designed to primarily be an attack aircraft. It is capable in the fighter role, but its principle mission for the US Marines, US Navy, and for many of the planned squadrons for US Air Force aircraft will be to serve as air to ground attack aircraft, like the F-16s it will primarily replace. In addition to its internal weapons bay, which can carry two 1,000 lb JDAMs andttwo AMRAAMS, the F-35 also has numerous fixed points under its wing too.

Making a supersonic bomber with large payload capacity on internal weapons bays is not an easy task, it requieres advances in engine technology which are not easy to achieve.

I believe the US is well aware of this, and is among the best at it...having produced among the absolute best strike aircraft in the world, both supersonic and subsonic.

B-58s, B-52s, F-111s, F-15Es, B-1Bs, B-2s, etc., etc. At some point the next US bomber will come out, along with newer strike aircraft. But remember the name of the F-35 JSF..."Joint STRIKE Fighter," and it will be very good at it when the time comes.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Brat

Read about the limitations of stealth, i never said Su-34 is unvulnerable, however you are not being objective.

To make a stealth aircraft that carries long range air to surface missiles, you need large weapons bays, F-22 has weapons bays for AAMs, and some limited space for JDAMs, the aircraft is a fighter.

F-35 is even worse, it is smaller, so it has small weapons bays too.

If China would like to build a bomber with good range and stealthy, China will need a PAKDA type aircraft.

F-117 was too a precision bomber with tiny weapons bays.

Su-34 is more practical, yes it is not as stealthy, but carries weapons on external pylons allowing for huge air to surface missiles.


The F-22 and F-35 are to destroy the enemy fighters and allow for the destruction of radars and SAMs by B-2s and fighter-bombers like F-15E.

Making a supersonic bomber with large payload capacity on internal weapons bays is not an easy task, it requieres advances in engine technology which are not easy to achieve.

The B-1b is a supersonic bomber with a large payload, it is quite capable of a Supersonic Dash, it does suck lots of fuel in the process, hauls its LARGE bomb load in its internal weapons bays. It is simply much more effiecient to operate it as a converntional bomber.

The F-35 is quite capable of hauling a large load on its external pylons, it will fullfill a similar role to the SU-34, with the additional capability that going to the internal weapons bays will enable it to PENETRATE enemy air defenses and deliver a Package on specific targets, its stealth will make it a very difficult moving target, where-as the Su-34 will show up, "sitting duck", no doubt, that is why we continue to spend money to develope and procure the F-35.

The F-22 is more than capable being set up as a dedicated delivery system of a Strike Package, it is very agile, it is very stealthy, and it is very fast with its Mach 1.8 supercruise, most likely used on egress rather than ingress. The Air Force has NOT put it forth as a STRIKE Aircraft, in order that it will remain capable and stealthty as an air-superiority fighter!
BRAT

 

[MiG-29]

[The F-22 is more than capable being set up as a dedicated delivery system of a Strike Package, it is very agile, it is very stealthy, and it is very fast with its Mach 1.8 supercruise, most likely used on egress rather than ingress. The Air Force has NOT put it forth as a STRIKE Aircraft, in order that it will remain capable and stealthty as an air-superiority fighter!
BRAT

Tell me Brat, if you have to use 2 JDAMS at a Max of 18 miles around 27km from the target at best tell me then what is the use of stealth?

Do you know that Eurofighter did detect the F-22 at 50km

Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22″ a Eurofighter pilot said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So F-22 with JDAMs is not superior to a Su-34 simply because it needs to get close.


Now you have new radars and new systems to fight stealth, in fact S-400 can engage a soccer ball target at flying supersonic using UHF radar and bistatic radars in conjuction with an AESA radar and its missiles are capable to down missiles?.

watch video

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So despite you think F-22 is unvulnerable, at close range it is as vulnerable as Su-34, Su-34 has the advantage of carrying KH-31s which allows it to fire them at longer ranges.

That is the real reason why the US is designing a new bomber.


If China would develop a Su-34 variant is logic, first is cheaper than modifying let us say J-20 into a long range bomber, second it allows a larger range bomber with larger payload.

In Russia they know PAKDA is a type of aircraft needed, since it will carry really long large payload.

F-22 is limited on its internal capability, its weapons bays once it carries 2 JDAMs it will only allow 2 AIM-120s, which means lower ability to down an enemy interceptor since it means AIM-120 also fails, forcing the F-22 to WVR combat where it is vulnerable as Eurofighter has shown with EODAS.


JH-7 or Su-30MKK are shorter range aicraft.
H-6 is obsolete.

 

[tphuang]

Well i do not know about Su-30, but i know Su-34 is better than Su-30SM, that Russian variant of Su-30MKI, since Russia is fielding both aircraft, one as a F-15E type, and Su-34 as a modern FB-111 type equivalent.


If China will or will not build or buy Su-34? i do not know, the only thing for certain is the Russian air force is recieving Su-30SM and Su-34s to replace Su-24 and Tu-22M and the Su-35 is a partial answer to Typhoon and F-35.

Does it make sense to replace H-6 with SU-34? i guess yes it does.

well, J-16 is based on Su-30MKK and supposed to be the Chinese equivalent of Su-34 or at least it will be used in that role. There is no evidence at the moment that China wants to purchase Su-34.

As for does it make sense to replace H-6 with Su-34? Of course not. Would you replace Y-8 with a F-22? As I said, they play different roles, despite its age, H-6 can carry far more ordinence over longer range than Su-34? You can post your links of the advertised most optimal payload and range numbers, but they really have no relevance in the real world. You put 2 CJ-10s on Su-34, it will be able to take off, do a circle and then have to land.

 

[Engineer]

Whenever there is news about possible Chinese purchase of Russian aircraft, certain Russian-military fan boy goes into overdrive mode desperately trying to convince others why he thinks such purchase would be a good deal. Even after these news are proven time and again to be nothing but unsubstantiated rumor, the fan boy continues to treat such news seriously. This is a good example of blind faith.

Does Su-34 use Chinese avionics? The answer is no. This answer also addresses the question as to whether China will induct Su-34.