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

[ougoah]

Not sure why it’d be 10x pl-15 and not 8, pretty sure the outer underwing pylons are supposed to hold short range AAMs and not BVRAAMs. Sino flankers may be different than Russian ones in this regard but I don’t think we’ve ever seen them hanging PL-12/15 there

You missed the two missiles under the intakes.

So for PLA flankers as well, the total BVRAAM pylons are 6 under wings, 2 under fuselage/intake tunnel, 2 under intakes (one under each intake). Then WVRAAMs in this loadout has 2 short range missiles on each of the cropped wings. Like below from Su-35. And yes, J-16 and Chinese flankers, can take BVR missiles in those pylons specifically designed to take those missiles. Whether it's worth the weight and range penalty is another matter. But "Beast" mode aka cannot move faster than a school bus mode of F-15EX and F-35 can pack nearly 2 times as many BVRAAMs on pretty much the same thrust to weight and similar lift and drag (in fact the Flanker ought to be better in lift and drag than the F-15EX). The flanker can carry more if it wanted to and had pylons designed for triple and double racking but it doesn't and it honestly shouldn't. That would be a lot of missiles wasted on an aircraft that can barely fly anywhere and can't turn... once it gets attacked it'll be shot out of the sky taking all those extra missiles with it. Ahem F-15EX and F-35 "beast" (lol) modes aka advertise the shit out of it mode.

 

[Deino]

long term i suppose that would be the case, but is there solid info on how will the transition go? i find it unlikely all those PLANAF units will be just moved to PLAAF in one go, rather than a prolonged process where carrier based a/c gradually replace the land based a/c in PLANAF units, and those replaced land based a/c are either retired or move to PLAAF.

at the meantime, it would make sense to keep PLANAF units functional in short term by upgrading JH-A to JH-7A

This indeed could be an option, to replace the old JH-7s with these JH-7A ...

 

[Blitzo]

You missed the two missiles under the intakes.

So for PLA flankers as well, the total BVRAAM pylons are 6 under wings, 2 under fuselage/intake tunnel, 2 under intakes (one under each intake). Then WVRAAMs in this loadout has 2 short range missiles on each of the cropped wings. Like below from Su-35. And yes, J-16 and Chinese flankers, can take BVR missiles in those pylons specifically designed to take those missiles. Whether it's worth the weight and range penalty is another matter. But "Beast" mode aka cannot move faster than a school bus mode of F-15EX and F-35 can pack nearly 2 times as many BVRAAMs on pretty much the same thrust to weight and similar lift and drag (in fact the Flanker ought to be better in lift and drag than the F-15EX). The flanker can carry more if it wanted to and had pylons designed for triple and double racking but it doesn't and it honestly shouldn't. That would be a lot of missiles wasted on an aircraft that can barely fly anywhere and can't turn... once it gets attacked it'll be shot out of the sky taking all those extra missiles with it. Ahem F-15EX and F-35 "beast" (lol) modes aka advertise the shit out of it mode.

View attachment 99175

He didn’t miss the missiles under the air intakes.

He said that the outermost underwing pylons are the ones which are unable to carry BVRAAMs — I.e. there would be the four central fuselage stations (two centre line, two under air intake) and four wing stations (two under each wing closest to the centre) for a total of eight stations.

We have yet to ever see a J-16 or any PLA Flanker carry a BVRAAM on the outermost underwing stations. That is to say, we do not have any indication that J-16s have the ability to carry BVRAAMs at the stations where in your picture, the the red R-77s are being carried.

In fact, the only Flanker airframe I recall seeing offered with the ability to carry BVRAAMs on the outermost underwing stations, is the Su-35 (which your picture shows a prototype of). As far a I know, no other Flanker variants offer that option.

In the case of J-16, we certainly have no basis to assume that its outermost underwing station offers that function.


So yes, at present the only reasonable statement for J-16’s BVRAAM maximum load is eight missiles when using single pylons.
(Of course, if we get any new pictures that show J-16's outermost underwing stations can carry BVRAAMs, then great. But we cannot take that assumption as a given).

 

[ougoah]

He didn’t miss the missiles under the air intakes.

He said that the outermost underwing pylons are the ones which are unable to carry BVRAAMs — I.e. there would be the four central fuselage stations (two centre line, two under air intake) and four wing stations (two under each wing closest to the centre) for a total of eight stations.

We have yet to ever see a J-16 or any PLA Flanker carry a BVRAAM on the outermost underwing stations. That is to say, we do not have any indication that J-16s have the ability to carry BVRAAMs at the stations where in your picture, the the red R-77s are being carried.

In fact, the only Flanker airframe I recall seeing offered with the ability to carry BVRAAMs on the outermost underwing stations, is the Su-35 (which your picture shows a prototype of). As far a I know, no other Flanker variants offer that option.

In the case of J-16, we certainly have no basis to assume that its outermost underwing station offers that function.


So yes, at present the only reasonable statement for J-16’s BVRAAM maximum load is eight missiles when using single pylons.
(Of course, if we get any new pictures that show J-16's outermost underwing stations can carry BVRAAMs, then great. But we cannot take that assumption as a given).

Fair enough. I assumed all Flankers had BVRAAM underwing pylons and would be a given function due to carrying four WVRAAMs becoming quite a pointless thing. If it is the case with all flankers other than Su-35 only capable of carrying WVRAAM in the outermost underwing pylon, then I would hope PLAAF flankers have been upgraded similar to Su-35. Then again, PLAAF seem to be okay with fewer BVR missile since J-10 can only take four BVRs into a fight (as far as we know). Even 8 missiles is a massive improvement on the J-10's payload but I would hope they insisted on 10 for a newer flanker.

 

[Blitzo]

Fair enough. I assumed all Flankers had BVRAAM underwing pylons and would be a given function due to carrying four WVRAAMs becoming quite a pointless thing. If it is the case with all flankers other than Su-35 only capable of carrying WVRAAM in the outermost underwing pylon, then I would hope PLAAF flankers have been upgraded similar to Su-35. Then again, PLAAF seem to be okay with fewer BVR missile since J-10 can only take four BVRs into a fight (as far as we know). Even 8 missiles is a massive improvement on the J-10's payload but I would hope they insisted on 10 for a newer flanker.

I did a bit more digging, and I am able to find an image of a Su-30MKI carrying a R-77 on that station. However I'm unsure if it is rated for actual operational carriage on that station, and I can't say I've seen a Su-30MKK or MKI carrying a R-77 on that station in flight.

Nevertheless, in the case of J-16, at this stage we should not assume that it is capable of doing so.

=====






Here's a more interesting question for everyone -- so, we all know that the J-16 traces its lineage to the Su-30MKK that the PLA bought.

Well, looking at some of the promotional material for the Su-30MK family, in terms of its BVRAAM compatible wing stations, only its second from the centre pylon seems rated for BVRAAMs, even though the innermost wing stations are clearly rated to be able to carry heavier A2G ordnance, see here:

(What's odd, is that I've been able to find images of some Su-30MKIs with BVRAAM mockkups on those innermost wing stations in flight, but none for Su-30MKKs or J-16s)


And I've just scoured quite a few images we have of the J-16, and I cannot find any picture of it carrying a BVRAAM at the innermost wing stations.
Now, I find that interesting because I feel like there shouldn't be any reason why that innermost wing station would not be rated for BVRAAM carriage, and my working assumption has always been that it was compatible, and that perhaps we just don't have that many pictures of PLA Flankers carrying a full load and those innermost wing stations are the lowest in priority for BVRAAM carriage.


But, I would throw out this question for various people reading this thread -- are you able to find a picture of a J-16 carrying a regular sized BVRAAM (i.e.: PL-12 or PL-15), at one of the innermost wing weapons stations (circled red below)?

I ask this out of my own curiosity, as I expect those stations should be BVR compatible, but the lack of any images in my search is somewhat jarring.

 

[ougoah]

I did a bit more digging, and I am able to find an image of a Su-30MKI carrying a R-77 on that station. However I'm unsure if it is rated for actual operational carriage on that station, and I can't say I've seen a Su-30MKK or MKI carrying a R-77 on that station in flight.

Nevertheless, in the case of J-16, at this stage we should not assume that it is capable of doing so.

=====






Here's a more interesting question for everyone -- so, we all know that the J-16 traces its lineage to the Su-30MKK that the PLA bought.

Well, looking at some of the promotional material for the Su-30MK family, in terms of its BVRAAM compatible wing stations, only its second from the centre pylon seems rated for BVRAAMs, even though the innermost wing stations are clearly rated to be able to carry heavier A2G ordnance, see here:

And I've just scoured quite a few images we have of the J-16, and I cannot find any picture of it carrying a BVRAAM at the innermost wing stations.
Now, I find that interesting because I feel like there shouldn't be any reason why that innermost wing station would not be rated for BVRAAM carriage, and my working assumption has always been that it was compatible, and that perhaps we just don't have that many pictures of PLA Flankers carrying a full load and those innermost wing stations are the lowest in priority for BVRAAM carriage.


But, I would throw out this question for various people reading this thread -- are you able to find a picture of a J-16 carrying a regular sized BVRAAM (i.e.: PL-12 or PL-15), at one of the innermost wing weapons stations (circled red below)?

I ask this out of my own curiosity, as I expect those stations should be BVR compatible, but the lack of any images in my search is somewhat jarring.

lol and my assumption was that both are compatible with BVR missiles. Well I mean it ought to be unless the PLAAF has been very satisfied with such a complacency. The Flanker can easily carry 10 BVRs and 2 WVRs. Going "beast" mode is stupid but 10 BVRs for a fighter with its fuel capacity and total thrust isn't much strain on the kinematic performance. Considering you'd be firing a barrage of BVRs for first wave and lightening your load pretty quickly. Wasting a massive number of BVRs for aircraft flying in beast mode is a much less ideal use of missiles. And gaining energy for launch is also quite doable for a Flanker with 10 BVRs which has similar if not superior thrust to weight and lift than a F-15EX. The flanker was designed for lift.

I mean if F-15EX can be strained to carry over 20 BVRs with almost the same thrust to weight as the Flanker and potentially less lift, is 10 BVR too much to ask for the Flanker's operators? Two are basically immediately fired off near max range, during an engagement.

If beast mode is peak stupidity, J-10's 4 BVR load is too few (but good range and energy due to drop tanks and relatively lighter load), surely the guys at PLAAF would have insisted on at least 8 BVR capable if not the entire 10. J-16 would have considerably internal electronic and wiring differences to J-11B and Su-30MKK/MK2. If Su-35 (Russia's flanker upgrade) and Su-30MKI (Russia's flanker upgrade for India and then becoming Russia's own Su-30SM in many ways), China's own flanker upgrade would not be ignoring the payload question that much surely? lol I would hope they realise that it's not all radars and electronics but firepower does matter too at the end of the day.

 

[Blitzo]

lol and my assumption was that both are compatible with BVR missiles. Well I mean it ought to be unless the PLAAF has been very satisfied with such a complacency. The Flanker can easily carry 10 BVRs and 2 WVRs. Going "beast" mode is stupid but 10 BVRs for a fighter with its fuel capacity and total thrust isn't much strain on the kinematic performance. Considering you'd be firing a barrage of BVRs for first wave and lightening your load pretty quickly. Wasting a massive number of BVRs for aircraft flying in beast mode is a much less ideal use of missiles. And gaining energy for launch is also quite doable for a Flanker with 10 BVRs which has similar if not superior thrust to weight and lift than a F-15EX. The flanker was designed for lift.

I mean if F-15EX can be strained to carry over 20 BVRs with almost the same thrust to weight as the Flanker and potentially less lift, is 10 BVR too much to ask for the Flanker's operators? Two are basically immediately fired off near max range, during an engagement.

If beast mode is peak stupidity, J-10's 4 BVR load is too few (but good range and energy due to drop tanks and relatively lighter load), surely the guys at PLAAF would have insisted on at least 8 BVR capable if not the entire 10. J-16 would have considerably internal electronic and wiring differences to J-11B and Su-30MKK/MK2. If Su-35 (Russia's flanker upgrade) and Su-30MKI (Russia's flanker upgrade for India and then becoming Russia's own Su-30SM in many ways), China's own flanker upgrade would not be ignoring the payload question that much surely? lol I would hope they realise that it's not all radars and electronics but firepower does matter too at the end of the day.

They do have dual pylons available for J-10, it's possible that they may also be compatible for J-16.

More importantly, I think this is a good example for why we shouldn't assume just because something seems logical or sensible, that it is necessarily borne out by picture evidence, and that our working assumptions should have a confidence interval factored in with varying levels of evidence.



====


Anyway, my offer stands to everyone -- is anyone able to locate a picture of a J-16 carrying a regular sized BVRAAM (PL-12/15) in the weapons stations locations in the red circles?

 

[Helius]

I did a bit more digging, and I am able to find an image of a Su-30MKI carrying a R-77 on that station. However I'm unsure if it is rated for actual operational carriage on that station, and I can't say I've seen a Su-30MKK or MKI carrying a R-77 on that station in flight.

Nevertheless, in the case of J-16, at this stage we should not assume that it is capable of doing so.

=====






Here's a more interesting question for everyone -- so, we all know that the J-16 traces its lineage to the Su-30MKK that the PLA bought.

Well, looking at some of the promotional material for the Su-30MK family, in terms of its BVRAAM compatible wing stations, only its second from the centre pylon seems rated for BVRAAMs, even though the innermost wing stations are clearly rated to be able to carry heavier A2G ordnance, see here:

(What's odd, is that I've been able to find images of some Su-30MKIs with BVRAAM mockkups on those innermost wing stations in flight, but none for Su-30MKKs or J-16s)


And I've just scoured quite a few images we have of the J-16, and I cannot find any picture of it carrying a BVRAAM at the innermost wing stations.
Now, I find that interesting because I feel like there shouldn't be any reason why that innermost wing station would not be rated for BVRAAM carriage, and my working assumption has always been that it was compatible, and that perhaps we just don't have that many pictures of PLA Flankers carrying a full load and those innermost wing stations are the lowest in priority for BVRAAM carriage.


But, I would throw out this question for various people reading this thread -- are you able to find a picture of a J-16 carrying a regular sized BVRAAM (i.e.: PL-12 or PL-15), at one of the innermost wing weapons stations (circled red below)?

I ask this out of my own curiosity, as I expect those stations should be BVR compatible, but the lack of any images in my search is somewhat jarring.

I reckon the reason they don't put AAMs of any kind there is to avoid scorching the horizontal stabs right behind the inner pylons when the missiles are fired, especially this close to the actuators to boot.

This is evident by the fact the tips of the stabs are heat shielded, which suggests that this is an occurrence even when fired from the middle wing pylons. So it's safe to say having AAMs placed in the middle pylons is as far in as the designers would comfortably allow before backblast becomes unacceptable -



That being said, unlike the R-27 and R-73 which are fired directly from the pylons, I think the PL-12, and I'm quite certain the PL-15 as well since it's carried internally, is launch-on-release, so the missile's motor doesn't ignite until it is dropped, which could be less of an issue where backblast is concerned.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Armed to the teeth!

Those are training rounds.

 

[Schwerter_]

You missed the two missiles under the intakes.

So for PLA flankers as well, the total BVRAAM pylons are 6 under wings, 2 under fuselage/intake tunnel, 2 under intakes (one under each intake). Then WVRAAMs in this loadout has 2 short range missiles on each of the cropped wings. Like below from Su-35. And yes, J-16 and Chinese flankers, can take BVR missiles in those pylons specifically designed to take those missiles. Whether it's worth the weight and range penalty is another matter. But "Beast" mode aka cannot move faster than a school bus mode of F-15EX and F-35 can pack nearly 2 times as many BVRAAMs on pretty much the same thrust to weight and similar lift and drag (in fact the Flanker ought to be better in lift and drag than the F-15EX). The flanker can carry more if it wanted to and had pylons designed for triple and double racking but it doesn't and it honestly shouldn't. That would be a lot of missiles wasted on an aircraft that can barely fly anywhere and can't turn... once it gets attacked it'll be shot out of the sky taking all those extra missiles with it. Ahem F-15EX and F-35 "beast" (lol) modes aka advertise the shit out of it mode.

View attachment 99175

I am reasonably sure that PLAAF have only ever used the 4 inner wing pylons for BVRAAM, so 8 in total

edit: come to think of it Blitzo may be right as I also can’t recall them ever using the inner most pair, will do a little more digging