China Flanker Thread II

[FORBIN]

How is the J-16 inferior in the air to air role compared to other Flankers that China has ? If the J-16's performence in its air to air role is satisfactory then there is no need for a J-11D type plane. Maybe the margin of improvement over the J-16 doesn't justify the continuation of the program. China should focus on a program to update the existing Flanker fleet with AESA radars, new sensors and fire control systems.

Doubtfull for Su-27, J-11 have a limited service life, Russians 20 years about 2000 h, if majority have about 30 years the reason is during many years pilots fly in genral only 30h/year max 50 ...
cheaper but not good airframes quality, i think J-11B build later have a more long at less 3000 hours.

And easy to say AESA radars are expensive.

 

[dingyibvs]

A few points:

1) While the continued production of flanker variants doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on SAC, the difficulties encountered by SAC in producing them does. The programs should be progressing briskly, yet we have the delays with J-11D and the radar scandal with the J-16. In contrast, CAC did not have such issues with much more original platforms in the J-10, JF-17, and the J-20, and this certainly reflects poorly on SAC.

2) I agree with the stick to the J-16 and J-15 strategy. Purchase some Su-35s if China wants a few more flanker variants in the aerial superiority role, but it's time to simplify the supply chain and churn out the J-16 in numbers. With the proliferation of precision munitions, bombers of the B-52 or B-1/2 ilk is falling by the wayside, and the J-16, especially if up-engined with new WS-10 variants or even the WS-15 (less likely) it can be rather potent fighters as well. This also leads to my next point.

3) The reason I proposed a J-16 replacement with 4 instead of 2 WS-15s is not for size but for speed. If a VLO bomber can fly and launch stand-off munitions at Mach 3+ at 80,000+ft and take off from 2500+kms away, there's virtually no target it can't strike and no situation it can't survive. As mentioned in my previous point, I don't think having a huge armament is necessary in this day and age, and I think with the advancement in anti-stealth technology, relying solely on stealth is a risky proposition as well.

 

[latenlazy]

A few points:

3) The reason I proposed a J-16 replacement with 4 instead of 2 WS-15s is not for size but for speed. If a VLO bomber can fly and launch stand-off munitions at Mach 3+ at 80,000+ft and take off from 2500+kms away, there's virtually no target it can't strike and no situation it can't survive. As mentioned in my previous point, I don't think having a huge armament is necessary in this day and age, and I think with the advancement in anti-stealth technology, relying solely on stealth is a risky proposition as well.

Higher T:W ratio doesn't necessarily equate to more top speed. Furthermore, at Mach 3 other engineering restraints kick in that could make such a platform prohibitively challenging and expensive to develop, and possibly range limited. Either way you're no longer talking about a platform that at all resembles the role of the J-16.

 

[dingyibvs]

Higher T:W ratio doesn't necessarily equate to more top speed. Furthermore, at Mach 3 other engineering restraints kick in that could make such a platform prohibitively challenging and expensive to develop, and possibly range limited. Either way you're no longer talking about a platform that at all resembles the role of the J-16.

All else being roughly equal it does equate to more top speed. Yes, it could very well be very challenging and expensive, but so is any new, heretofore unseen weapons platform. Roles evolve over time, and the trend is toward armament-centric rather than platform-centric systems. It'll be a paradigm shift as planes are designed to the missiles they're intended to carry rather than missiles being designed for the platforms they're intended to be carried on. A survivable platform that can deliver lethal armament in both air-to-air and air-to-ground/sea may very well be the future for fighter-bombers.

 

[latenlazy]

All else being roughly equal it does equate to more top speed. Yes, it could very well be very challenging and expensive, but so is any new, heretofore unseen weapons platform. Roles evolve over time, and the trend is toward armament-centric rather than platform-centric systems. It'll be a paradigm shift as planes are designed to the missiles they're intended to carry rather than missiles being designed for the platforms they're intended to be carried on. A survivable platform that can deliver lethal armament in both air-to-air and air-to-ground/sea may very well be the future for fighter-bombers.

So then why does the SR-71 have a lower T:W ratio than an F-22? This isn't just a matter of total thrust. Unless you're talking about reaching mach 3 only on AB thrust you're going to need to tailor the engines specifically for higher mach regimes. Just slapping on WS-15s would't do.

I would have more to say about the feasibility and reasonability of such a platform, especially relative to other avenues that could achieve the same objectives, but that would be off topic.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Do we know for sure that the J-11D program cancellation, if true, is a result of the rumored development issues and delays? And they just decided to quit it?

The J-11D is specific to the air-superiority branch of Chinese Flankers. So the other variants will be unaffected regardless. But it could be that the PLAAF decided they have reached a critical mass in number of Flankers for the Air-Superiority Role, and can make do with a substantive MLU until J-20 comes online full stream (which would be a positive indicator for where the J-20 program currently stands and future investment into it if that were the case).

Or perhaps having had the opportunity to fly Su-35's for awhile now, which are arguably at the edge of extending the Su-30 design before coming up with an entirely new aircraft, they found limited value in significant airframe changes for a new line of aircraft versus a systems upgrade for the J-11B's.

Or maybe Su-35 has really 'knocked their socks off' and they decided to place a large follow up order and cancel J-11D for lack of ability to replicate the Russian airframe enhancements themselves.

I personally doubt the last possibility and would guess, if J-11D is cancelled as a significant airframe upgrade, they will stick with J-11B and an update package and invest heavily into J-20 for their long leg Air-Superiority Fighter. J-10 would continue as medium range/point defense.

Look forward to what additional info we get from the Big Shrimps!

While I do regard j11d cancellation as a good move, it is only good if j16 ends up being the last flanker plaaf gets. 5 or so more years of j16 production would be ok.. A few more years of j15 as well.. But definitely no stepping back and getting more j11b, su35 or replacing even the fighter regiments with additional j16.

Apparently up to 96+ Su-35s would be purchased in lieu of the canceled J-11D. The termination of the program has nothing to do with the so-called "successes" of the J-20 but rather the failures and delays of the J-11D project.

 

[latenlazy]

Apparently up to 96+ Su-35s would be purchased in lieu of the canceled J-11D. The termination of the program has nothing to do with the so-called "successes" of the J-20 but rather the failures and delays of the J-11D project.

Is that from Pupu?

 

[SinoSoldier]

Is that from Pupu?

Yes, although it wasn't clear which came first (the cancellation of J-11D or Su-35 purchases). It was also mentioned that the PLAAF was "very satisfied" with the Su-35 and that the aircraft is second to the J-20 in terms of capability.

 

[Twix101]

Considering the bad economic situation of Russia and potential turmoil coming in the country. Could this be a political move to bring economic and possibly morale solace to Russia and accepting to give up J-11D in the process for that ?

Russia is progressively giving up Central Asia security role to pass it along to China, which is also a sign that Russia can't be anywhere at the same time. It could be the same case for S-400.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Considering the bad economic situation of Russia and potential turmoil coming in the country. Could this be a political move to bring economic and possibly morale solace to Russia and accepting to give up J-11D in the process for that ?

Russia is progressively giving up Central Asia security role to pass it along to China, which is also a sign that Russia can't be anywhere at the same time. It could be the same case for S-400.

Sacrifice a domestic program, the cost of which could very well put one of China's biggest aeronautical firms out of business, to support a Russian project? Doesn't sound realistic at all.