China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

When you look at the history of the modern aviation, 2nd pilot is almost always enters the picture when the aircraft becomes multirole and designed primarily for attack missions (or training or export multirole). For air superiority fighters, it has been always single pilot. F-15C, Su-27, Su-35, J-20, F-22, Su-57 even we can include medium/light fighters like Mirage, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mig-29, F-16, J-10... when the primary role is air-2-air, it is single seater. And yes, all those fusion of AI and sensors etc to make one pilot better at situational awareness and hence make any potential need for 2nd pilot redundant. If two-pilot was the better option, we have seen two-seater air-dom fighter designs but we simple do not. J-16 simply will never be better than a dedicated J-11D at air-2-air, at least that is what current aircraft designs tell us. So, I think we do not need beat the dead horse.


When it comes to PLAAF's future, certainly they may find J-16 good enough behind J-20 as a secondary air-dom fighter. However, this decision would be based on general organizational approach and doctrines and not based on capabilities of J-16 against J-11D. As I wrote at the very beginning, *if* PLAAF looks for a cheaper secondary air dom fighter to increase the current air dom fighter numbers, J-11D has a chance instead of continue J-11B production. J-11 turned into J-11B and as such J-11B production can urn into J-11D. J-10A, B, C is kind of same thing.

That is the exact argument I'm making (your underlined part).

I.e.: I'm saying that whatever advantages J-11D has over J-16 as a single seater versus a twin seater, in context of the PLAAF's current and future Flanker fleet priorities, in context of the PLAAF's accessibility of 5th generation aircraft as well as the capabilities of 5th generation aircraft, putting all of it together, the rationale to procure a new type of Flanker in the form of J-11D simply looks very, very thin.



J-11D may be slightly better at certain aspects of being an "air superiority" aircraft than J-16.
But in overall fleet and procurement context, its "advantages" are not enough to make procuring it seem like a reasonable proposition at this point in time.
J-11D simply doesn't offer enough.

 

[Tam]

One J-11D in the assembly line is one less J-16 or J-15. So pick your choice. If you are the guy in charge you have to consider the alternatives and the alternative costs.

 

[11226p]

I concurr with what Tam said, for example assembly lines have to be planned a lot in a advance and while both are Flankers reconfiguring a J-16 assembly line to a J-11D assembly line would slow down production and add extra financial cost.
If you think about it that there is even the possibility that the of switching 1 J-16 assembly line to a J-11D line yields less air frames with a higher cost per air frame than the number of J-16 produced in the same period at a lower price point.

 

[Deino]

I concurr with what Tam said, for example assembly lines have to be planned a lot in a advance and while both are Flankers reconfiguring a J-16 assembly line to a J-11D assembly line would slow down production and add extra financial cost.
If you think about it that there is even the possibility that the of switching 1 J-16 assembly line to a J-11D line yields less air frames with a higher cost per air frame than the number of J-16 produced in the same period at a lower price point.

Me too ... I'm however a bit surprised if it would be an option to "simply" refit the J-16's avionics system - and here especially the AESA - to the J-11B?

EDIT typo corrected!

 

[plawolf]

Single vs twin seat fighters isn’t nearly as static a choice as it might seem. While it is true that the majority of air superiority fighters have been single seater, there are also notable exceptions, with the F14, F4 and Su30 being prime examples.

The F4 and F14 cases are essentially interesting because for both, the second seater was added in response to the changing nature of air combat, and specifically relates to additional new capabilities brought on by brand new technology (BVR AAM and EW). As technology advanced, automation caught up allowing single seat fighters to perform similar roles, but that took time.

In terms of drone air to air warfare, I would say we are at a similar stage of development as the first BVRAAMs were. It is a technology that is only just becoming potentially operationally viable, but still some way off from being automated to a point which a single pilot could easily take on the additional workload of managing AA drones on top of his core duties of piloting the plane.

In 10-20 years time, AI might have advance enough where an AA drone can function much like a human wingman today, in which case the need for a second seater would be diminished, but in the meantime, there is a strong argument for adding a second seater if that means you gain the ability to use drones practically in the AA role.

 

[banjex]

^Su-30 was always intended as strike, not air superiority.

 

[Totoro]

^Su-30 was always intended as strike, not air superiority.

Su-30 was not intended for strike. Originally it was more geared for air superiority, actually. It was to serve as a smaller addition to a larger force of single seat Flankers. The second crew member would aid in navigation, operating defensive equipment and coordinating other planes in the mission package. Soviet union then dissolved and Russia was trying to sell its Flankers abroad. Su-30 was seen as most prospective to have multirole capabilities added to it, which were seen as crucial in successfully approaching the export market.

J-16 is similar but it was designed to be multirole from the start. To date, it's been delivered to units which previously had only fighters. And to date it did not replace a single JH-7 unit. (Which doesn't mean that may not happen in the future)

 

[by78]

Sino-Flankers in a specialized maintenance facility.

 

[crash8pilot]

Su-30 was not intended for strike. Originally it was more geared for air superiority, actually. It was to serve as a smaller addition to a larger force of single seat Flankers. The second crew member would aid in navigation, operating defensive equipment and coordinating other planes in the mission package. Soviet union then dissolved and Russia was trying to sell its Flankers abroad. Su-30 was seen as most prospective to have multirole capabilities added to it, which were seen as crucial in successfully approaching the export market.

The Su-30MKK was intended as an airspace defender that more importantly has the capability to deploy precision guided munitions (something the J-11A/Su-27SK couldn't do). Alas the role of the backseat WSO to work the various advanced laser designator and TV camera pods so that the front-seater can focus on piloting the plane to drop said munitions all while dodging missiles, surface threats, or FOD debris from bombing runs. Air-to-air capability is given to both the Su-30 and the indigenized J-16 so that they can fly deep into enemy territory to strike targets without the need of another fighter to help fly escort, which the JH-7 would need if it had to strike targets deep in enemy territory. I'm not saying the MKK or the J-16 are incapable of air superiority, I'm saying that strike interdiction should be it's bread and butter.

Between advancements in laser gyro technology as well as terrain following radar, and the availability/integration of BeiDou satellite navigation into PLA aircraft, the navigation responsibilities of the back-seater are gradually diminishing. I agree that a Su-30 or J-16 conducting a Forward Air Controller or reconnaissance mission would benefit a lot with a WSO, but purely from an air-to-air standpoint you don't need a back seater to operate an AESA radar, sensor fusion, or datalink - all of that is automated, and quite frankly does a better job than a human could. Striking targets on the other hand isn't always as straight forward as tracking multiple bogies on a radar screen. It often requires human intellect/ingenuity/problem-solving, which is something I don't think automation can replace quite yet. That's why the F-15E and the J-16 still have back-seaters.

J-16 is similar but it was designed to be multirole from the start. To date, it's been delivered to units which previously had only fighters. And to date it did not replace a single JH-7 unit. (Which doesn't mean that may not happen in the future)

Based on my tracking on Orbats, J-16s have been replacing older J-11 units where J-16s either serve as direct replacement for older -11A airframes, or the -11B airframes they replace are used to replace units that operate the J-8. Let's be honest, the J-8 that was developed in the 60s has higher priority for replacement than the JH-7!

My first year in university, my local USAF Air National Guard unit operated F-16As. By the time I graduated, the F-16As were replaced by Predator drones. What I'm trying to say is that just because a unit has a history of operating a certain aircraft or mission doesn't mean that it's set in stone, especially considering the multi-role nature of the J-16 - you've got a plane that can hold it's own in a mid-air incursion, but it definitely kicks ass bombing surface targets.

 

[Tam]

Me too ... I'm however a bit surprised if it would be an option to "simply" refit the J-10's avionics system - and here especially the AESA - to the J-11B?

The AESA will be under performing as it is smaller to fit the J-10's nose. You have to scale up the radar, increase the size of the array to fill the J-11's nose diameter. In so doing increase the number of elements in the array which increases both its power, transmission and reception gain.