China Flanker Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
b787 said:
My point is the F-22 has more advantages you like it or not, the J-11 has no bases in Latin America, the J-11 has no B-2 type aircraft to help it, and further more the F-22 can be operated from bases in Japan, Korea, and even the Philippines or Australia if the USAF wants.

The J-11 operates only from Chinese bases, and is not stealthy, thus in terms of operational limitations you like it or not the J-11 is only designed to help China flex her muscles only within the China sea .

The J-15 is the same, it's limited to light war loads because it is a heavy aircraft, it does not use fuel tanks and has no catapult, so in terms of disadvantages, it has more limitations than a F-18E
Click to expand...
There are these things called called force multipliers, weapons systems, and tactics. There's also this thing called combat situation. Conflicts are not determined by all things held equal conditions between 1 vs 1 weapons. Outcomes depend on context. Assessment of capabilities thus need to be understood within the framework of context.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys...get back on topic.

NO WAR SCENARIOS. That means no World War II Scenarios.

If you have to comment in your post that your are skirting the rules...then do not make the post. You are just asking for trouble...and it opens the door to the type of discussion that was held...and then deleted.

Any more of that will lead directly to warnings, then suspensions.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
Actually maximum load depends on a number of variables, I have at times flown aircraft that were over gross??? for instance a Cessna 172 had a gross of 2200 to 2300 lbs??? if your aircraft had long range tanks, and you filled them, it was a 2 place aircraft instead of 4 place. The J-11B should have the higher thrust WS-10s, it also likely has carbon fiber in copious amounts, which "could theoretically" reduce empty weight. I have very little doubt that the J-11B is rated at around 8,000lbs usefull load, pilot, RIO, fuel, and ordinance. Additional hard points actually add to the empty weight, but if you have the reserves thrust and lift they may actually up your gross weight.

Most aircraft on military missions fly under gross weight, the advantage of that is great margins of safety and performance. In fact most aircraft marginally loaded over gross only lose performance, and the ability to carry Gs without permanent damage as long as the load is carried with the design center of gravity. As I recall our 172 at gross weight was rated to be safely flown to 3.8 Gs in the NORMAL category with the seats full. Drop the gross weight, and carry only two passengers and it was licensed in the utility category at 4.2 Gs and approved for "intentional spins".

Point being that gross weight is a figure that may only depend on paper work, lots of aircraft have had the gross weight increased with a simple paper work change.
Click to expand...
As long as you reach the legally established take off performance, climb without and, for multi engine, with engine failure on the available runway. Of course if there are no obstacles at the end of the runway you can go to an even higher weight but ....
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
delft said:
As long as you reach the legally established take off performance, climb without and, for multi engine, with engine failure on the available runway. Of course if there are no obstacles at the end of the runway you can go to an even higher weight but ....
Click to expand...

exactly, Lindberg was no doubt over gross when he departed on his epic adventure, but by the time he landed in Paris, he was very light?? LOL

I would add that I know how to manage an overweight/max weight aircraft, and it must be flown rather tenderly, but as a "seat of the pants" aviator, she's talking all the time, but you MUST listen. It would be very easy to overstress a fully loaded aircraft, on the other end of the spectrum, it might be very difficult to overstress a lightly loaded aircraft by comparison.

and NO, I am not advocating, nor would I operate over-gross intentionally, there is simply to much chance of breaking something, getting behind the performance curve, it is NO fun, but it has been done.
 
Last edited:
GreenestGDP

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
IMHO, my 2 cents observation ... ...

Given that the 3 combined Opfor GDP is almost surpassing 30 Trillion USD.


1) I hope the power @ PLA Central Planning has a wise long term geopolitical Big Picture thinking in place.

Hopefully behind the scene, PLA Central Planner has been compensating SUKHOI for every Sukhoi aircraft frame based derivatives that Shenyang is producing. ( not just J-11A )

And, expand the compensation program above to all critical Russians weapons industrial supply chain scientists and designers,

( For example: MIG scientists and designers, Tupolev, Raduga Design Bureau, the Russian Naval shipyards and so on ... ... )

With Putin blessing, ... ...

PRC can offer all those Russian weapon scientists and designers to stay and enjoy a comfortable--sabbatical--spa--centric--holidays in China for 6 years with all expenses paid.

PRC can setup a mini Luxurious Russian city in HohHot, Inner Mongolia complete with all the Scientific Labs and infrastructure that all these weapon scientists and designers need. HohHot happens to have plenty of unused Real Estate complexes.

This is a win--win setup.

Because it helps Russia avoid the depressing saga of China crumbling aircraft engines industrial base during 1960 -- 1990.

At the same time, HohHot real estate complexes do not get wasted, and
help Russia and PRC accelerate their cutting edge weapon development programs.


HohHot.jpg


Back to Flanker topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top