It does look like the J-20 has more fuel and range than the Flankers.
Also, I thought there weren't any new J-11B being built, but they are going through a mid life update and obtaining a G designation.
China Flanker Thread III (land based, exclude J-15)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It does look like the J-20 has more fuel and range than the Flankers.
Also, I thought there weren't any new J-11B being built, but they are going through a mid life update and obtaining a G designation.
Almost impossible.
Same engines, but non-integral fuselage with 3 volumous bays and ducts - and significant supersonic optimization. Noticeably, it tends to go 2-4 drop tanks on longer-ranged missions. Stealth probably doesn't help matters either.
Flanker is one huge, sub/transonic lifting body filled with jet fuel...and one which still almost never needs drop tanks(only one Flanker is seen from time to time with tanks).
Yes, but that doesn't make this path the only choice. in the same situation, Russia (the other Flanker builder) went against deep upgrade, and chosen new builds, because it wasn't especially more expensive. So did the US with F-15...but Japan prefers upgrade (despite their airframes being older, half step between C and A originally). It's complicated, there is no simple answer - there are politics, industrial policy, money and much more in question.
And there always was direct replacement option(j-20, j-16, j-10 even), too.
It simply means that for different nations and situations there are different optimal points. Altogether, for one reason or another, J-11D missed it's chance. Hopefully J-15B will save it's legacy.
Not sure where you got this from? So far we haven’t seen a single operational J-20 carrying from tanks.
antiterror13
Brigadier
But J-11D is significantly cheaper than J-20. So I think may be another reasons.
Not all areas need J-20. China has 14 borders ... and only in Eastern coast that need J-20, not other borders .. not even Vietnam border
But somehow the J-20 is supposed to have 12,000 kg of internal fuel versus 11,500kg for a Su-35?
And remember that the J-20 will end up with WS-15 engines which should be more fuel efficient, as well as being powerful enough for supercruise.
And if we go by the F-22 experience, the most fuel-efficient speed will be Mach 1.6.
Therefore the J-20 has more fuel and range than a Flanker?
That is interesting. Do you have the cost of the Russian Flanker upgrade and what it covered, versus a new build?
My initial thoughts are that Russia really struggles to feed its industrial base with sufficient new aircraft orders to keep it healthy, and didn't have enough spare money to perform a decent mid-life update of its older Flankers. And that they also judged it unlikely it would matter that the older Flankers didn't have an AESA radar.
So did the US with F-15...but Japan prefers upgrade (despite their airframes being older, half step between C and A originally). It's complicated, there is no simple answer - there are politics, industrial policy, money and much more in question.
And there always was direct replacement option(j-20, j-16, j-10 even), too.
With the F-15s that the US has, it makes absolute sense to order new builds.
The F-15C are on average 37 years old, and the F-15E on average 30 years old.
And the money goes directly to Boeing.
As for the Japanese F-15s, the youngest are 25 years old, so I suppose these could keep going with a substantial MLU for another 10 years until they are 40 years old, like in the USAF.
Anyway, back on topic.
The pacing threat is the 1000+ stealth fighters that the US will have by 2030.
Remember that in an air superiority role, a 5th gen J-20 will be far more effective than a 4.5 gen J-11D.
That more than compensates for the additional cost of a J-20 versus J-11D
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Also to do this day Russia cannot mass-produce fighter AESAs. The costs of upgrading a Flanker with AESA for Russia is much higher than the costs for China. Russia's situation with AESA is similar to Chinese situation with engines half a decade ago (high cost, limited production capability). Russia simply cannot produce enough AESAs to do any large-scale upgrade for its existing Flanker fleet.
antiterror13
Brigadier
nobody denying that J-20 is more effective than J-11D
But not in all areas need J-20. Think about NK, India, Vietnam, Mongolia, central Asia, etc. I think J-11D can carry much more missiles via external pylon, while J-20 is limited to internal bay only
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
There's also J-16, which are in full-swing production. And in many of those areas, even J-10s will suffice just fine.
I think the J-20 is currently focused on closer in missions because there aren't many J-20s.
And for these types of missions, there's no need to carry a non-stealthy fuel drop tank.
But if we're looking at 1000+ J-20s by 2030, there will definitely be enough for distant missions which would benefit from additional fuel drop tanks. For example, J-20s could launch from inland China with a pair of drop tanks. Then say at 300-1000km offshore, in still secure airspace, they jettison the tanks and still have a full internal fuel load. It saves them from relying on an airborne tanker which are:
1. very expensive when compared to number of drop tanks you can buy. Call it 15K drop tanks for the cost of a single YY-20 airborne tanker at $150 Mn
2. also very vulnerable to any sort of enemy fighter
If you think about it, in order to shoot down a J-20 from long-range, you need an X-Band radar seeker. But given that a J-20 can detect such a radar, the first thing a J-20 will do is jettison its drop tanks and become stealthy again. The MAWS will also detect incoming missiles.