China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Su-30 was not an air dom fighter. It was the long range interceptor version which become multirole for export.
F-14 was an interceptor developed for Navy with very long range missiles like Mig-31 was (exactly what you described in the 2nd paragraph).
F-4, similar to F-14, was long range interceptor for Navy. Later, USAF bought it too but didn't repeat the same "mistake" again
About AI and drones, I agree with you
As a side note, regarding the production line limitations, as far as I know J-11B, J-16 and J-15 are all in production right now. Is the J-11B production really stopped?
From my understanding YES, AFAIK production of the J-11B ended after Batch 07. We saw these birds first in September 2017 and so I think it ended somewhere in 2018. Today I think only J-15 & J-16 are in production ... at best additional J-11BS.
I see what you are saying about advantages of single seat fighters vs tandem seat fighters, but I cannot see why the J-16 would not be used for this role. The J-16's weapon suite screams 'air dom' more than anything else does in PLA inventory: 30mm autocannon, PL-10, PL-12, PL-15, and PL-20. That is dominance across the entire spectrum against all sorts of aerial targets, at all sorts of ranges. True, air-dominance/superiority might not be its only role or even its main role, but if the job specifically requires a plane to take & maintain control over enemy airspace, the J-16 absolutely can and will be used for precisely this job as there is arguably not another aerial asset in the PLAAF inventory that can do this job better than the J-16. The only possible exception is the J-20 and even then the J-16 would still have some key advantages over it.
Your thinking regarding the role of the second pilot (WSO/copilot) is correct for traditional, yesteryear needs.
In the past, the role of the WSO certainly was desirable or even essential to enable a robust strike capability to operate the sensors and targeting systems and A2G weapons. However, with modern automation, avionics, and sensors, much of this mission can be done by a single pilot.
Single seat F-16Cs are routinely operated in the A2G strike role, and of course the F-35 only has a single pilot as well and will be one of the most capable strike aircraft in the world.
In more complex air to ground/strike environments, a twin seat strike aircraft may be better than a single seat aircraft (assuming all else is held equal), but the role of the copilot/WSO is hardly essential to the strike mission these days, if you have adequately advanced avionics.
So, going back to J-16, what does this mean for the role of the copilot/WSO for the air superiority role?
Well, I would argue that the traditional conception of what an air superiority aircraft is meant to be is becoming out of date.
There are many people who seem to believe ekeing out additional kinematic performance is desirable, while placing less emphasis on things like EW, combat management, networking, cooperative engagement capability.
IMO, the high end air warfare environment of the near future could be a battlespace of dozens if not hundreds of friendly and hostile aircraft operating in the same theater, all highly networked, all with capable EW systems, with many of the aircraft being forward operating attritible AEW&C, EW, and ELINT capable aircraft (supported by larger, more vulnerable traditional AEW&C, EW and ELINT aircraft at the back), with many of the combat aircraft being stealthy, with all sides deploying highly advanced BVR AAMs with networking capabilities magnitudes superior to what is currently in service....
... and this isn't even including the presence of high end autonomous UAVs/UCAVs that will likely require a robust line of sight control to allow humans to make tactical decisions/commands....
... and this also isn't even including the air warfare contribution of surface ships or ground based air defenses...
In the above combined combat environment, the ideal air superiority fighter should be able to perform the "traditional" air superiority role, but also to operate basically as a miniature AEW&C/battle management/EW/UAV control node as part of a network of other friendly air superiority fighters (and supporting dedicated AEW&C, EW, ELINT assets).
Dedicated AEW&C, EW and ELINT assets will still be important, however they will be greatly supplemented by these ideal air superiority fighters capable of AEW&C battle management/EW/UAV control, able to do some of those roles in a distributed fashion, operating more forward/aggressively in the battlespace and all in a highly networked manner, supported by loyal wingman UAVs.
The AEW&C/battle management/EW/UAV control role for an air superiority fighter basically means in addition to being able to do the traditional air superiority mission of kinematically maneuvering, sensing the environment and cooperating with friendly aircraft to defeat opposing aircraft with onboard and (or friendly offboard) weapons ---- your fighter also needs to be a miniature AEW&C/battle controller/jammer aircraft/UAV control aircraft at the same time.
Yes, advancements in sensors, automation, and networking can certainly allow a single pilot to perform the "traditional" air superiority task and also perform the AEW&C/battle management/EW/UAV control role -- but the ability to perform these roles simultaneously will be limited by the human being inside the cockpit able to take in all of the information and make tactical decisions and decide what to communicate and prioritize with friendly aircraft.
I.e.: human beings in the cockpit are the rate limiting factor for the number of simultaneous things that an aircraft can be doing, regardless of the level of automation.
Now, considering that fighter aircraft will still need a minimal level of kinematic performance, as well as constraints on size, we will not be seeing fighter aircraft with 3 or 4 or more pilots -- such a hypothetical aircraft would be very capable at the AEW&C/battle management/EW/UAV control role but would be far too compromised in the kinematics and size of a fighter to be viable as a mainline air superiority fighter.
The fact that a twin seat aircraft is superior to a single seat aircraft in the AEW&C/BM/EW/UAV control role doesn't mean that every fighter aircraft in one's fleet needs to be twin seat either. A twin seat aircraft inevitably offers some additional costs and complexity relative to a single seat aircraft, and an ideal air fleet composition would likely try to balance a fraction of twin seat aircraft with a portion of single seat aircraft.
But in the case of J-16, as an already existing twin seat fighter airframe with good kinematic performance, range, and payload, the second pilot/WSO should very much be a match made in heaven, enabling the aircraft to be much more capable at the traditional air superiority and simultaneously perform the AEW&C/BM/EW/UAV control role, compared to a single seat aircraft.
Fortunately for the PLA, they have a large fleet of single seat fighter aircraft (J-10 variants, J-11B, and of course J-20) that the twin seat fighters (J-16, and the expected upcoming twin seat J-20) will be able to complement.
Well, everyone should question why the radome cross-section is pretty different from other Flanker variants, and especially a smaller one. This doesn't make any sense except if this aircraft is a test bed for another one. My theory here is J-11D is an avionics test bed for FC-31/J-35.
But is the radome actually smaller? Frontwise yes, but due to its angled installation, the number of AESA modules could actually be even larger.
This is probably not correct. If anything it has a better aerodynamic shape thanks to less protruding nature of AESA vs old pulse radars that dome was designed for!
Why this jet does not have pitot tube? J20, J15 have? I have asked this before, but no one has given me an answer. Would like to hear your view.
- Status