China Flanker Thread II

[Air Force Brat]

nowhere near that of j16, especially taking off from carrier.

There is NO WAY the J-16 will take off from the Carrier with a nickles worth of difference, as they are essentially the same airframe, how many times does the brat have to say???? "A Flanker, is a Flanker, is a Flanker"??????? Like an N Frame Smith and Wesson, they change a few engineering specs, and they build a .357, 44 Special, 45ACP, 45Colt, or 44Magnum, all that matters is moving a little metal here or there, and changing the size of the holes in the cylinder... The Naval J-15 has less "useful load" because it is "beefed up" to operate off the carrier, you don't have to be a design engineer to understand that gentlemen, the Chinese Flankers even have the same "STOOPID" green hubcabs that Sukhoi uses, for cryin out loud. The J-16 will be for the PLAAF. If they want the J-15 to carry more ordinance, all they have to do is beef up the spars, increase the thickness of the wing skins and add a few hardpoints and electronics, a little more thrust, and I have just "engineered" the JA-15S, how about that gang????? and that's exactly what Shenyang did to "create" the J-16 from the J-11B...sorry Schumacher, but this isn't rocket science, its first grade physics...the inevitable wrapped up in the obvious, and don't start on composites and plastics and add infinitum.

Oh, and the J-15 has canards which do increase lift! The J-16 does not??? at least at present.

 

[tphuang]

Remember, J-15 and JH-7B are PLAN projects. J-16 is a PLAAF project. Until PLAAF gets its share of J-16s, you are not going to see PLANAF with it.

 

[Deino]

...

Oh, and the J-15 has canards which do increase lift! The J-16 does not??? at least at present.

As such the J-15S could easily be a navalised J-16 ... and IMO it most likely is !!

Deino

 

[tphuang]

As such the J-15S could easily be a navalised J-16 ... and IMO it most likely is !!

Deino

well let's see. You get J-16 from J-11Bs by adding a retractable IFR, strengthening the airframe/pylon for additional payload, additional internal fuel and improved avionics with WSO in the backseat. Outside of additional itnernal fuel, nothing else seems to be too hard to change.

 

[Totoro]

Remember, J-15 and JH-7B are PLAN projects.

really? i missed that one. what piece of proof was there that jh7b is a plan project? was there an image of jh7b with planaf markings?

 

[chuck731]

As such the J-15S could easily be a navalised J-16 ... and IMO it most likely is !!

Deino

I think J-15's canards would suggest a substantially revised center of gravity, fight control and aerodynamic characteristics from J-1/J-16 family.

I really wish they stuck to the J-11 designation for all models broadly similar to the J-11 instead of letting designations proliforate based on relatively small changes the way Sukhoi does. J-16 should have been designated J-11E or something like that.

 

[latenlazy]

really? i missed that one. what piece of proof was there that jh7b is a plan project? was there an image of jh7b with planaf markings?

If I'm not wrong, that conclusion is based on the replacement of q-5 regiments.

 

[Schumacher]

As such the J-15S could easily be a navalised J-16 ... and IMO it most likely is !!

Deino

I doubt that, more like a j11bs than j16. likely for refueler, trainer, ewarfare role than heavy strike like j16. These roles are more important for PLAN now.
Strike for j15 likely means an asm or 2.
A striker with capabilities of j16 or more is ffurther in the future and may not be based on j15.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think J-15's canards would suggest a substantially revised center of gravity, fight control and aerodynamic characteristics from J-1/J-16 family.

I really wish they stuck to the J-11 designation for all models broadly similar to the J-11 instead of letting designations proliforate based on relatively small changes the way Sukhoi does. J-16 should have been designated J-11E or something like that.

Well you're thinking rightly master Chuck, the canard greatly increases the safe operating range of your aircraft, you will have more pitch authority, and that will allow you to move more of your "load" further forward. IE a heavy radar or increasing length of the fuselage to carry a WSO, also you will be getting additional lift forward, and and the advantage of turbulent airflow over the main wing to increase lift, now that is partially offset by the weight of the canards and their associated hardware, but it is advantageous, and would result in quicker pitch transitions, and greater sustained angle of attack as your airspeed deteriorates after your initial "turn in" either in and evasive or aggressive maneuver.

Now back to reality, the Russians initially incorporated the carnards on the Su-35, and with OVT they had more pitch authority than they felt they needed, so they simplified the Su-35 by removing the canards.. I absolutely agree about the very confusing nomenclature, it is intentionally misleading, giving the idea that they have more aircraft types than they really do???????? a more honest system would increase their credibility, but sadly they like being "sneaky"!

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, with all the back and forth about "what if's" with J-15 and J-16, here's some pics we do know. These are production pics of J-15:

​

Now, as to a strike version for the carriers, I believe we will see something like this in the next few years...this is a CG of a strike version of the J-15, or perhaps it is a canardized, navalized version of the J-16. For my money, when they get around to building it, it will include the best features of both aircraft. The PLAN will have to decide which route makes the most sense to get there. Using a J-15 airframe, or a J-16 as the basis. My money is on the J-15 airframe and making a two seater out of it with whatever additional J-16 features they add. That J-15 airframe is already optimized for carrier operation in terms of weight, structure, landing gear, etc.

Time will tell.

​