China Flanker Thread III (land based, exclude J-15)

[mack8]

Lots to digest here and not wanting to dwelve too much into the russian variants as it's not the theme here, but just to say Su-35 already has the Izd. 180 which is more or less comparable to AIM-120D and PL-15. And unless other info disproves that, my understanding is the J-16 AESA is fixed, while the Irbis (and to a more limited extent the Bars) are gimballed, giving much wider FOV, a useful tactical advantage.

Also my understanding is that in the Su-35/J-16 comparison the Su-35 electronics scored something like 8.5 compared to J-16's notional 10. That's not bad per se, just that the J-16 is better in that respect. And the conclusion was the ideal situation would have been J-16 with Su-35's engines.

The bottom line being, it would be unwise to underestimate Su-35's or even Su-30SM2's capabilities.

To get back to J-16, probably by now it's a good time to start a MLU program, based on the latest J-20 and 6th gen technologies, be it sensors, weapons, MUM-T, even more powerful WS-10 engines, ensuring it will remain a very viable platform into the 2030s and beyond.

 

[Blitzo]

J-16(2025) isn't externally different from J-16(early), with exception of radome colour.
Which means it is most probably same aircraft internally, with quality refinements. For example, American aircraft over this decade changed more, catching up.

Which means it's a bit optimistic to expect it being absolute world beater full 10-12 years later. There's entire new generation of flanker after that, in j-15t.

If radome colour is the basis of your argument that there are no major avionics (or indeed radar) changes or upgrades, then I don't really have anything else to say.

There are many upgraded aircraft variants in history where upgraded radars have occurred without any change in radome colour, which I'm sure you must know

 

[siegecrossbow]

J-16 has undergone the same or greater number of radar upgrades than J-20. This is not even accounting for software optimization .

 

[Gloire_bb]

If radome colour is the basis of your argument that there are no major avionics (or indeed radar) changes or upgrades, then I don't really have anything else to say.

There are many upgraded aircraft variants in history where upgraded radars have occurred without any change in radome colour, which I'm sure you must know

It's the only observable change for a line, that worked steadily over a decade at same production tempo.

Others may have happened, or maybe they haven't.
I.e. it's sensible to make a reservation, that "externally visible changes were limited to x". In turn, it isn't sensible to say "J-16 is still top of the line fighter, because it was upgraded, though it's invisible and we don't know how, but it was".

There are stretches coming for PLA watching in particular, but after some point it's frankly empty air, with very clear arguments against.
One of the simpler ones - military equipment doesn't pass qualifications on a whim, and biggest anathema of military procurement is a patchy, unsustainable fleet.
Or fleet that was unnesesarily bothered with several times over short period of time, drastically increasing its cost, screwing up production and training alike.

And btw even radome is already a stretch in search of at least something visible - radomes are mostly changed not because there's change of radar, but because it's a better radome in some way. Down to pilots/maintenance crews expressing concerns over original color for some reason.

J-16 has undergone the same or greater number of radar upgrades than J-20. This is not even accounting for software optimization .

I understand this is a forum, but usually it is a kind of statement that takes several footnotes, illustrating that... Radome and new weapon integrations are provable.

 

[Blitzo]

It's the only observable change for a line that worked steadily over a decade at same production tempo.
Others may have happened, or maybe they haven't.
I.e. it's sensible to make a reservation, that "externally visible changes were limited to x". In turn, it isn't sensible to say "J-16 is still top of the line fighter, because it was upgraded, though it's invisible and we don't know how, but it was".

There are stretches coming for PLA watching in particular, but after some point it's frankly empty air, with very clear arguments against.
One of the simpler ones - military equipment doesn't pass qualifications on a whim, and biggest anathema of military procurement is a patchy, unsustainable fleet.
Or fleet that was unnesesarily bothered with several times over short period of time, drastically increasing its cost, screwing up production and training alike.

And btw even radome is already a stretch in search of at least something visible - radomes are mostly changed not because there's change of radar, but because it's a better radome in some way. Down to pilots/maintenance crews expressing concerns over original color for some reason.

I'm not a fan of playing these word games, so I will be quite clear.

- 4.5th (and 4th) generation aircraft have the ability to undergo massive advances of their avionics and sensors without any visible outward signs. This is fact, not conjecture. I can give you examples if you want, but the fact that you seem to not be aware of this is rather concerning.
- We know from grapevine credible rumours that between production batches of PLA aircraft (J-20, and also J-16) that they have meaningful upgrades in avionics and other subsystems -- again, without outward visible signs.

Therefore, we have absolute reason to suspect that it is reasonable if not likely, that J-16 production batches have continued to see meaningful upgrades to keep them competitive with leading 4.5th generation norms.


The burden of proof is on you in this case to argue against that very reasonable idea.

 

[siegecrossbow]

It's the only observable change for a line that worked steadily over a decade at same production tempo.
Others may have happened, or maybe they haven't.
I.e. it's sensible to make a reservation, that "externally visible changes were limited to x". In turn, it isn't sensible to say "J-16 is still top of the line fighter, because it was upgraded, though it's invisible and we don't know how, but it was".

There are stretches coming for PLA watching in particular, but after some point it's frankly empty air, with very clear arguments against.
One of the simpler ones - military equipment doesn't pass qualifications on a whim, and biggest anathema of military procurement is a patchy, unsustainable fleet.
Or fleet that was unnesesarily bothered with several times over short period of time, drastically increasing its cost, screwing up production and training alike.

And btw even radome is already a stretch in search of at least something visible - radomes are mostly changed not because there's change of radar, but because it's a better radome in some way. Down to pilots/maintenance crews expressing concerns over original color for some reason.


I understand this is a forum, but usually it is a kind of statement that takes several footnotes, illustrating that... Radome and new weapon integrations are provable.

As I said previously we didn’t even know that J-10C’s radar designation was KLJ-10 until Airforce Monthly disclosed it in a recent article. I can try digging through past posts.

 

[Gloire_bb]

As I said previously we didn’t even know that J-10C’s radar designation was KLJ-10 until Airforce Monthly disclosed it in a recent article. I can try digging through past posts.

That's just a designation, though. Important part, aka it being phased array (which later was confirmed as AESA), was more or less known for a while.
And we don't know much on specs.

The burden of proof is on you in this case to argue against that very reasonable idea.

Blitzo, at this point you're asking me to prove imaginary castles - something you're sure happened because it may have, aircraft changed several times over because there is no firm evidence it didn't. That's wordplay and shifting you just disliked.
Changes, especially in closed systems, are worth discussing when they're established somehow; large changes in J-16, to ny knowledge, aren't. They may have, but it is under question mark until somehow established.
Being sure of something you have no way of establishing is religion, not expertise.

 

[Blitzo]

Blitzo, at this point you're asking me to prove imaginary castles - something you're sure happened because it may have, aircraft changed several times over, for sure, because there is no firm evidence it didn't.
Changes, especially in closed systems, are worth discussing when they're established somehow. Everything else is under question mark.
Being sure of that is religion, not expertise.

We are in the business of PLA watching.
So no, I don't want you to prove or disprove anything.
We accept that the PLA has likely installed conducted weapons test firings from J-20 and J-16 and their ships, and new missile systems, even though we have next to no imagery of footage of such events.
We accept that their sensors are tested against standards and environments as part of development processes even though we have no such firm evidence of it.
We accept their new ships and planes are unique airframe serials and hull numbers and they aren't randomly switching them around to mess with us.
We accept their new hardware are not just plywood.


So, I am asking you to accept that it is likely and reasonable that J-16 has undergone major avionics upgrades between production batches, without external evidence of it, because it is very normal for aircraft to undergo major avionics upgrades without external evidence of it, and such an acceptance is no more suspect than any of the things I've written above.

Again, I can provide examples if you wish, of aircraft which had undergone major under the hood avionics upgrades with no external evidence of upgrades occurring.

 

[Gloire_bb]

So, I am asking you to accept that it is likely and reasonable that J-16 has undergone major avionics upgrades between production batches, without external evidence of it, because it is very normal for aircraft to undergo major avionics upgrades without external evidence of it, and such an acceptance is no more suspect than any of the things I've written above.

Again, I can provide examples if you wish, of aircraft which had undergone major under the hood avionics upgrades with no external evidence of upgrades occurring.

I totally agree it's likely - as it's not impossible(1) and there is no way to prove nothing happened; there were shaky rumors supporting that. But nothing over that.
I.e. while abscence of evidence in PLAmilitary watching isn't evidence of abscence, it is by no means a default proposition that mass produced aircraft changed entirely just because it's possible.
And personally i'd rather have a pleasant surprise with Chinese sindoor seekers, rather than go through rounds of outdated gan on sic by people hungry for news. B/c at this point it's Indian news manufacturing.

 

[Blitzo]

I totally agree it's likely - as it's not impossible(1) and there is no way to prove nothing happened; there were shaky rumors supporting that. But nothing over that.

I recall the "shaky" rumours as being from individuals who have good track records including for high profile projects like J-20S, J-36, etc emerging.

I.e. while abscence of evidence in PLAmilitary watching isn't evidence of abscence, it is by no means a default proposition that mass produced aircraft changed entirely just because it's possible.
And personally i'd rather have a pleasant surprise with Chinese sindoor seekers, rather than go through rounds of outdated gan on sic by people hungry for news. B/c at this point it's Indian news manufacturing.

The default proposition that J-16s between batches have seen upgrades isn't a default proposition just because it's "possible".

Instead, it is based on two fundamental tenets:
1. We have had rumours from credible individuals in the grapevine who have stated directly that J-16 (as well as J-20) have seen meaningful upgrades between production batches in past years. (In fact, one of the notable characteristics for J-16 initially when it entered service was that it actually had to undergo a major radar upgrade.)
2. We know and accept that aircraft can undergo major avionics upgrades without externally visible changes.


It is based on those two premises together, which forms the basis of the default position.

It seems you accept premise 2., but if you are refusing to acknowledge premise 1. then I can only vaguely wave in the direction of the Chinese language PLA watching grapevine to all of our efforts in the PLA watching space overall.