Insignificantly. It's way lighter and less drag than vanilla flanker normal weapon load.
China Flanker Thread III (land based, exclude J-15)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Carrying 8 PL-15 is honestly lighter and less drag than J-16's typical air to ground load out.
I believe the full A2A capacity for the Flanker is 10 medium/long range AAMs and 2 short range AAMs at the wingtips? This would make it 2 PL-15s short of being "beast mode". The difference between the F-15EX "beast mode" of 20 missiles and J-16 is that the J-16 can actually fly with 10 PL-15s and the F-15EX having basically the exact same available thrust and similar thrust to weight (and probably inferior lift!), makes the Flanker "beast mode" a far more realistic one.
Having said that, I do not believe any competent airforce would hang so many missiles on a 4th/4.5 gen fighter in an actual fight. You completely destroy your aircraft and missile range, not to mention, inferior time to destination/position for BVR and slower turning for repositioning after firing off your first few shots. The optimal load out for J-16 and similar heavy fighters like the F-15EX is probably 6 long range missiles, if even that. Didn't some Rafale pilot mention that they typically carry 2 long range missiles into BVR fights? He might be understating it but 4 at a stretch otherwise you're barely able to go supersonic (probably not able to with 2 tanks, 6 long rangers and 2 shorts).
I believe the full A2A capacity for the Flanker is 10 medium/long range AAMs and 2 short range AAMs at the wingtips? This would make it 2 PL-15s short of being "beast mode". The difference between the F-15EX "beast mode" of 20 missiles and J-16 is that the J-16 can actually fly with 10 PL-15s and the F-15EX having basically the exact same available thrust and similar thrust to weight (and probably inferior lift!), makes the Flanker "beast mode" a far more realistic one.
Having said that, I do not believe any competent airforce would hang so many missiles on a 4th/4.5 gen fighter in an actual fight. You completely destroy your aircraft and missile range, not to mention, inferior time to destination/position for BVR and slower turning for repositioning after firing off your first few shots. The optimal load out for J-16 and similar heavy fighters like the F-15EX is probably 6 long range missiles, if even that. Didn't some Rafale pilot mention that they typically carry 2 long range missiles into BVR fights? He might be understating it but 4 at a stretch otherwise you're barely able to go supersonic (probably not able to with 2 tanks, 6 long rangers and 2 shorts).
Vanilla Flanker has almost full combat performance with 6 R-27ER/T and 4 R-73. It was it's designed air superiority weapon load; early in Ukraine war, you could see Ukrainian flankers taking to the sky exactly like this.
Each R-27E is 350kg weapon with these huge wings, it's almost twice as heavy and far more draggy than PL-15. R-73 is also heavier than PL-8/10.
With all that, vanilla su-27p/s handily reached M=1.8 and had only some impact to maneuver performance, which is way above realistic combat maximum for anything other than intercept profile. Flanker is fast, but reaching M=1.8 in actual combat is optimistic even for F-15, you need to be a supecruiser in the first place to touch these speeds.
Furthermore, M=1.8 is absolute maximum for two seat flankers in any case; their numbers will be lower, but as such even the impact will be lower still.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Beast mode has always been a bit of a marketing gimmick rarely justified in actual combat operations.
There are basically two extremes where you might want to employ such a load out, and it’s not particularly advisable to go with such a load out even in those extremes.
On the one end, you face a peer or near-peer and expect to be fighting the biggest air battles in history with hundreds of top fighters from both sides involve, so beast mode gives you more shots in such a target rich environment and maximise the number of missiles your side brings to the fight.
The problem is you cannot expect opfor in such a top level fight to just throw planes into the mix like a lemming rush with no consideration for tactics, support assets and discipline. So if you just expect to be able to fly in, mass dump missiles and call it a day, you are just going to end up wasting masses of missiles for minimal kills as opfor easily jam and/or dummy your alpha strikes.
What more, you are putting your own planes at greater risk in such fights with such a load out because you are either staying committed for far longer than you should be trying to spam all your missiles and/or you are going defensive with a far heavier war load. Yes, the flanker airframe and engines can probably allow you to take 50% of that load out and still perform at the limit of human tolerance so you are not loosing much if any relevant agility, but then what happens if you recover from the first attack? Do you turn back and risk getting into dogfights, or do you punch it to get to 300km+ distance from the fight to re-commit at max range? At which point how much time have you really saved compared to just booking it straight for base and coming back with a fresh load of fuel and weapons and potentially even pilots?
On the other end of the spectrum, you are basically going up against a hopelessly outmatched opponent, so you can just sit back and just Turkey shoot them at your leisure. But just how many planes can you expect such a foe to put into the air for a straight fight against you?
While the advent of the drone spam era might have created a new niche for beast mode load-outs, it’s highly debatable just how combat and cost effective it would be to bring so many PL15s for such a role. I would think a PL10/TY90 beast mode load out would be far more appropriate for such a mission.
There are basically two extremes where you might want to employ such a load out, and it’s not particularly advisable to go with such a load out even in those extremes.
On the one end, you face a peer or near-peer and expect to be fighting the biggest air battles in history with hundreds of top fighters from both sides involve, so beast mode gives you more shots in such a target rich environment and maximise the number of missiles your side brings to the fight.
The problem is you cannot expect opfor in such a top level fight to just throw planes into the mix like a lemming rush with no consideration for tactics, support assets and discipline. So if you just expect to be able to fly in, mass dump missiles and call it a day, you are just going to end up wasting masses of missiles for minimal kills as opfor easily jam and/or dummy your alpha strikes.
What more, you are putting your own planes at greater risk in such fights with such a load out because you are either staying committed for far longer than you should be trying to spam all your missiles and/or you are going defensive with a far heavier war load. Yes, the flanker airframe and engines can probably allow you to take 50% of that load out and still perform at the limit of human tolerance so you are not loosing much if any relevant agility, but then what happens if you recover from the first attack? Do you turn back and risk getting into dogfights, or do you punch it to get to 300km+ distance from the fight to re-commit at max range? At which point how much time have you really saved compared to just booking it straight for base and coming back with a fresh load of fuel and weapons and potentially even pilots?
On the other end of the spectrum, you are basically going up against a hopelessly outmatched opponent, so you can just sit back and just Turkey shoot them at your leisure. But just how many planes can you expect such a foe to put into the air for a straight fight against you?
While the advent of the drone spam era might have created a new niche for beast mode load-outs, it’s highly debatable just how combat and cost effective it would be to bring so many PL15s for such a role. I would think a PL10/TY90 beast mode load out would be far more appropriate for such a mission.
Just as a quick comment re loadouts, Su-35 routinely flies against Ukraine with heavier loadouts in various configurations, including ECM pods, 1-2 each R-37 and Kh-31, 4 R-77/77M, and couple of R-73s. So J-16 with 8 PL-15 and 2 PL-10 is to be expected, really a proper beast mode would be TWIN PL-15 launchers if/wherever they could fit them (again, Su-35 has twin R-77 launchers), plus couple of PL-17 in the bargain.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
PL15s are wasted against cruise missiles. How far out do you realistically expect to be able to detect cruise missiles to be taking shots at from? For BVR engagements of cruise missiles, PL12s would be plenty good enough. For stealthy cruise missiles, PL10s might be the superior weapon to mass load on.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Russian Su35s are hardly facing credible air threats in Ukraine where the bulk of Ukraine’s western supplies fighters have marginal to no BVR capability. The primary threat to Russian tac air over Ukraine is from SAMs, so it’s a completely different ball game to going up against comparable enemy air power.
So what was the Flanker design drawback that was discussed before?
I recall watching a documentary or video with a snippet discussing the Flanker's aerodynamics and in particular, highlighted its weaknesses/drawbacks which is something rarely discussed about the Flanker because it seems to always be glazed by East and West (except when it comes to Russian Flanker avionics). This was also discussed on SDF long ago.
It was something to do with the fact that it stores fuel internally and has no ability to carry external tanks which limits its flexibility because it plumps up the wings and body. The other factor is the fuselage tunnel. It adds lift for subsonic speeds but somehow presents as a drawback in supersonic speed and when climbing or pulling manoeuvres in supersonic flight. Could it simply be additional surface drag from friction? Anyway the Su-57 preserves this philosophy and still includes the fuselage tunnel.
To me, the Flanker and Eagle are the best 4th generation designs owing to their size mainly. The Typhoon may have a better design for air superiority because it is considered by credible sources to be more optimised for supersonic air to air combat. However, we dont live in a world where it's just the platform's kinematics that determine results of air combat. Flanker and Eagle both carry much more room and powerful engines than the Typhoon, allowing them superior avionics, higher payloads and EW that defeat the Typhoon's superior kinematics, if all technology levels are equal.
The Flanker appears to be an all time great like the Eagle but there doesn't seem to be any glaring aerodynamic weakness with the Eagle's design. There was one for the Flanker, with and without canards. In fact there were some issues with the canard variants too if I recall.
I recall watching a documentary or video with a snippet discussing the Flanker's aerodynamics and in particular, highlighted its weaknesses/drawbacks which is something rarely discussed about the Flanker because it seems to always be glazed by East and West (except when it comes to Russian Flanker avionics). This was also discussed on SDF long ago.
It was something to do with the fact that it stores fuel internally and has no ability to carry external tanks which limits its flexibility because it plumps up the wings and body. The other factor is the fuselage tunnel. It adds lift for subsonic speeds but somehow presents as a drawback in supersonic speed and when climbing or pulling manoeuvres in supersonic flight. Could it simply be additional surface drag from friction? Anyway the Su-57 preserves this philosophy and still includes the fuselage tunnel.
To me, the Flanker and Eagle are the best 4th generation designs owing to their size mainly. The Typhoon may have a better design for air superiority because it is considered by credible sources to be more optimised for supersonic air to air combat. However, we dont live in a world where it's just the platform's kinematics that determine results of air combat. Flanker and Eagle both carry much more room and powerful engines than the Typhoon, allowing them superior avionics, higher payloads and EW that defeat the Typhoon's superior kinematics, if all technology levels are equal.
The Flanker appears to be an all time great like the Eagle but there doesn't seem to be any glaring aerodynamic weakness with the Eagle's design. There was one for the Flanker, with and without canards. In fact there were some issues with the canard variants too if I recall.
A fully loaded Flanker can retain a big deal of agility, it was possible with early Flanker variants so it should be fairly trivial for more modern, lighter variants with more power available