China Flanker Thread II

[Yodello]

1700 TR J-16s. These things supposedly can see out to 400km.

That's a big, bad, bird. Christ.

Wow...! What a gorgeous bird indeed. Thank you for those stunning pictures.
The J-16 should be more than a match for any Non-5th Gen fighter. I don't think any Asian nation fields any 4th Gen Fighter Jet as advanced as the J-16.
Once again, what a gorgeous bird....!

 

[Franklin]

If you look at the newest fighters coming from China the J-20, J-16 and the J-10C they are all focused on multi-role and ground attack. It seems that china has abandoned the idea of air superiority. And what has become of the J-11D ?

 

[Blitzo]

If you look at the newest fighters coming from China the J-20, J-16 and the J-10C they are all focused on multi-role and ground attack. It seems that china has abandoned the idea of air superiority. And what has become of the J-11D ?

I'm surprised how you could classify J-20 and J-10C as focusing on "ground attack". We haven't seen J-20 carry any A2G payloads as of yet (though it almost certainly is capable of doing so), and we only know J-10C is capable of carrying some A2G weapons.

In the case of J-16, it is clearly meant to be able to haul a variety of A2G payloads, but it is also capable of carrying the most capable A2A payloads the air force has at its disposal, in a proven highly kinematic airframe. It is hardly a dedicated "ground attack" aircraft (like A-10 or Su-25) or even dedicated "strike" aircraft (like F-111, Su-24, JH-7/A or even Su-34), and more of an inherently multirole aircraft (like F-15E, Typhoon, Rafale, Super hornet)



In this day and age all air superiority aircraft are inherently multirole to a degree anyway.



It is rare for a "dedicated" air superiority aircraft to lack the ability to employ A2G weapons these days. For example, F-22 can employ JDAMs and SDBs. That doesn't mean F-22 is "focused" on ground attack, but rather it is multirole capable.


Given all that, I think it is more reasonable to say that an aircraft type is "focused" for a certain mission or not is less dependent on whether it is capable of carrying a given A2A or A2G payload, and more dependent on how much of its training and exercises annually are dedicated to A2A or A2G missions... and in the case of J-20 and J-10C I suspect the vast majority of their training is for A2A, while for J-16 it might be slightly more even between A2A and A2G.

 

[ougoah]

J-20 is most definitely geared towards being pure air superiority with secondary function priorities of penetration for striking high value ground or air targets. It can be considered an interceptor since modern air-superiority fighters are basically very competent interceptors, especially if they can supercruise. Using J-20 as a strike oriented fighter makes less sense than optimising its strength of VLO. This is why China is developing JH-xx and H-xx striker/bombers. So they don't need to use something like J-20 ever for strikes (ideally due to low capacity). PLA level ground forces really wouldn't even need JH-xx against all potential threats except for US military.

J-10c and J-16 both are multirole and are not more geared towards ground attack at all. In fact both airframes are based on designs that were optimised for pure air-superiority during their conception in the 20th century.

 

[schrage musik]

Instead of ground strike as a secondary role, consider the J-20 having another primary role, SEAD/DEAD deep inside protected airspace

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

In the case of J-16, it is clearly meant to be able to haul a variety of A2G payloads, but it is also capable of carrying the most capable A2A payloads the air force has at its disposal, in a proven highly kinematic airframe.... while for J-16 it might be slightly more even between A2A and A2G.

There's definitely something to the observation that we haven't seen many (in my case, any) pictures of PLAAF warplanes carrying PGMs or heavy A2G munitions in general - it's mostly been the ubiquitous rocket pods. Does the PLAAF have some ideological aversion to PGM's like the PLAN is averse to calling the 055 a cruiser? Perhaps because ground attack (presumably on enemy territory) is more "aggressive" and "imperialistic" than A2A (presumably in defense of the homeland)? I really would like to see the back end of the purely defensive "People's War" historical legacy and see the PLAAF adopt the view that the best defense is a good offense.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

There's definitely something to the observation that we haven't seen many (in my case, any) pictures of PLAAF warplanes carrying PGMs or heavy A2G munitions in general - it's mostly been the ubiquitous rocket pods. Does the PLAAF have some ideological aversion to PGM's like the PLAN is averse to calling the 055 a cruiser? Perhaps because ground attack (presumably on enemy territory) is more "aggressive" and "imperialistic" than A2A (presumably in defense of the homeland)? I really would like to see the back end of the purely defensive "People's War" historical legacy and see the PLAAF adopt the view that the best defense is a good offense.

I have been pondering about that as well. So far we have seen precious few pictures and videos of PLAAF using PGMs, the only reason I can think of is that it is much less eye catching that firing off AA and anti ship missile.
I don't think that there is anything to predispose the notion that using PGMs is "aggressive" or "imperialistic". If that be the case, then the PLAAF should stop using weapons altogether because even their own onboard cannons can be used in a "aggressive" way via ground strafing.

 

[jobjed]

There's definitely something to the observation that we haven't seen many (in my case, any) pictures of PLAAF warplanes carrying PGMs or heavy A2G munitions in general - it's mostly been the ubiquitous rocket pods. Does the PLAAF have some ideological aversion to PGM's like the PLAN is averse to calling the 055 a cruiser? Perhaps because ground attack (presumably on enemy territory) is more "aggressive" and "imperialistic" than A2A (presumably in defense of the homeland)? I really would like to see the back end of the purely defensive "People's War" historical legacy and see the PLAAF adopt the view that the best defense is a good offense.

Huitong's pages on missiles includes various PGMs as well. They list all known munitions carried by PLA aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Wow...! What a gorgeous bird indeed. Thank you for those stunning pictures.
The J-16 should be more than a match for any Non-5th Gen fighter. I don't think any Asian nation fields any 4th Gen Fighter Jet as advanced as the J-16.
Once again, what a gorgeous bird....!

Well South Korea and Japan fields the F-15 Eagle variants, which can be considered the analogue for the J-16.And are quite capable in their own rights.

 

[Blitzo]

There's definitely something to the observation that we haven't seen many (in my case, any) pictures of PLAAF warplanes carrying PGMs or heavy A2G munitions in general - it's mostly been the ubiquitous rocket pods. Does the PLAAF have some ideological aversion to PGM's like the PLAN is averse to calling the 055 a cruiser? Perhaps because ground attack (presumably on enemy territory) is more "aggressive" and "imperialistic" than A2A (presumably in defense of the homeland)? I really would like to see the back end of the purely defensive "People's War" historical legacy and see the PLAAF adopt the view that the best defense is a good offense.

I don't think it is anything to do with that, but more to do with the fact that acquiring PGMs (especially direct attack ones) are expensive and the PLAAF won't be doing such missions for a while considering the need to achieve air superiority first against a foe before such weapons can be employed.

Rocket pods and dumb bombs are a low cost way to keep fighters and pilots capable of the most minimal A2G capability, even though I sincerely doubt such methods would not be used against any half capable enemy.