China Flanker thread

[challenge]

We believe that the Chinese would apply composites in nonstructural areas of the plane, which usually means external wing and tail panels, the elevator and the ventral fins below.

But that's rather a typical use of composites in an aircraft, and this is likely true for the J-10 and the FC-1 as well.

I don't believe that use of composites would be significant however as the Chinese are not likely to "rock the boat" on the design on the Su-27.

On the J-11B, the radar is most definitely made by NRIET, and the radar is a variant of the same radar family the J-10, the FC-1 and the J-8H/F would use. The first J-8H and the early J-10s had the first generations of these family, but later the newer J-8F and J-10s, as well as the FC-1 has improved second generations of this family.

The radar is an MSA or your typical mechanically scanned slotted array radar, dual lobe, monopulse with your standard radar modes. It's likely to have a sea search mode though like the radar on the J-8H. No it's not as ambitious as Irbis but its much more likely to finish its development cycles sooner and can be be deployed in more affordable levels.

I think the major difference of this radar compared to the J-10's is the design of the servos, and the fact it may try to integrate the R-73, R-27 and R-77, as well as the PL-8, PL-11 and PL-12.

Despite the J-11B, I do think there is space for Su-30MK3/4 or Su-35BM because the J-11B is likely to be more of air to air fighter along the lines of the J-10, while the Su-35BM can serve as a mini AWACS, provide ground search and recon, and do some precision strikes. The J-11B is more analogous to the upgraded F-15Cs rather than the Strike Eagles. The Su-35BM or future Su-30MK3 or 4 are like the "special ops" for the PLAAF, though in the end, I do feel that the radars on the MKK and MK2 are not fully adequete for that purpose.

One of the reasons China was interested on the Phazotron Zhuk series was the SAR capabilities which you can spot for ground targets. Look into the air superiority over the ROC thread in this forum to get what I mean. The greatest threat the ROC can offer to the PLAAF are mobile SAMs, which is the air war version of guerilla warfare. You cannot take these out with SSMs, ARMs can be fooled by decoys and depend on the enemy using its radar, and no matter how many PGMs you have (which the PLAAF is now also building on), in order to exploit your PGMs, you need to find the enemy first.

modern aitborne overall capability depend how fast is your computer,correct me I read a report that SU-35 airborne computer can performed 10 billion cal.@ sec.?consider the original F-22 CPI can run 22 billion calculation/sec. latest model could be even faster.
J-11B I speculate can run excess of 20 billion plus.

 

[crobato]

Way cool Crobato I was waiting to get a reply like this. Frankly I also don't see the J-11B development that promising making a new aircraft of an old one. Just change the avionics put a new engine WS-10A? all that in what name !!!

You can say the same to the MiG-21UPG, which is just airframe overhaul and add new avionics. Does not even have a newer and more reliable engine.

China would be better off changing the coproduction rights of the SU-27 to that of the latest SU-35 fighter incorporating some of the avionics in that of the J-11B. Canards would also be a nice change. Perhaps China might decide to coproduce the SU-33 ?? who knows anyway the SU-27's time is OVER.

Not really.

Canards like Su-30MKI and Su-35 are a waste of time if you ask me. Just more money spent to add drag, weight, complexity and even sacrifice some airframe rigidity for a purpose which you can obtain more elegantly using TVC alone.

If you have Su-27 airframe with TVC and Su-37 which is Su-35 with TVC, there is no practical difference in the maneuverability.

The canards make sense on the Su-33 since it helps lift off the aircraft. Su-33 might be worth licensing, but canard-Flanker for other use is not.

For that matter, J-11B isn't going to win a dogfight against the Super 10, which is the J-10 with TVC. So its better not to license anything at all and just buy as many TVC nozzled engines instead.

 

[mehdi]

Hmm I can agree that the SU-27 can have TVC for better maneuverability. But on the instance of avionics I'm sure that the SU-35 or SU-33 is more advanced that the J-11A or J-11B. That's the reason why I said that China could co produce the LATEST version of the SU-35. Anyway I have to ask this question so why did India order its Su-30 MKI with canards???

 

[Scratch]

For that complexity issue of canards, I believe TVC isn't that much simpler, it also adds weight to the engines. Part of EFs supercriuse capability comes from the canards making for a better airflow around the airfoil.
And about the licensing: China can't buy everything from Russia that is more advanced. At a certain point you have to achieve progress by your on R&D in order to overcome dependence, wich to me seems an important issue to the PRCs leadership.

And since all the SU-versions (30, 32, 33, 35, etc.) are not really new airplanes, wouldn't the integration of the latest SU35 avonics upgrade J-11B nearly to SU-35 standart ... ?

 

[tphuang]

Hmm I can agree that the SU-27 can have TVC for better maneuverability. But on the instance of avionics I'm sure that the SU-35 or SU-33 is more advanced that the J-11A or J-11B. That's the reason why I said that China could co produce the LATEST version of the SU-35. Anyway I have to ask this question so why did India order its Su-30 MKI with canards???

J-11B uses China's own avionics, not the Russian ones. If China really fancied su-35's radar, I suppose it can buy the radars alone like it did with the IRST. But imo, it doesn't fancy the radar/avionics on su-35 that much. If you've seen the cockpit on even JF-17, you would know what I mean. As for radar, I think China is making that jump directly from slotted array radar to AESA. And then, you have issue of Russian radars using Russian missiles, not Chinese ones. I support an upgrade on the existing Russian made flankers of plaaf to Russian radars, but not using them on J-11B or subsequent J-11s.

 

[mehdi]

On the basis of your post it comes out clearer that the Chinese J-11B program is very much not the project of producing a Chinese version of the SU-27 with Chinese avionics and engines but rather to leap forward and to manufacture a real 4th generation advanced fighter with AESA, composites, advanced electronics and new range of laser guided missiles.
The dawn of a new Chinese fighter a multi role one to the difference of the air superiority SU-27/J-11.

 

[mehdi]

I found this so anybody can tell me more about the radar???

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[RedMercury]

modern aitborne overall capability depend how fast is your computer,correct me I read a report that SU-35 airborne computer can performed 10 billion cal.@ sec.?consider the original F-22 CPI can run 22 billion calculation/sec. latest model could be even faster.
J-11B I speculate can run excess of 20 billion plus.

Tracking algorithms do run faster with more hardware power, true, but they can also run smarter with better design. A good design and estimation of parameters will make your tracker better much more efficiently than just throwing more hardware at it. This is a widely studied field in electrical engineering and AI.

 

[crobato]

Hmm I can agree that the SU-27 can have TVC for better maneuverability. But on the instance of avionics I'm sure that the SU-35 or SU-33 is more advanced that the J-11A or J-11B. That's the reason why I said that China could co produce the LATEST version of the SU-35.

I don't think the Su-35 has that good of avionics. And if they did, the Chinese could acquire these components seperately and incorporate them in their J-11s.

Avionics certainly isn't the reason why you license an aircraft. It is the airframe. The avionics are manufactured by someone else. If you like the radar, buy it seperately. If you like the RWR, buy it seperately. If you like the IRST, buy it seperately.

Anyway I have to ask this question so why did India order its Su-30 MKI with canards???

Perhaps not being smarter as they thought. Perhaps the TVC wasn't as advanced then. Only much later did Sukhoi suggest that canards were redundant.

 

[crobato]

For that complexity issue of canards, I believe TVC isn't that much simpler, it also adds weight to the engines. Part of EFs supercriuse capability comes from the canards making for a better airflow around the airfoil.

I want to make clear what you said in the last sentence don't help at all.

When you have TVC, there is no point in having canards. Why have the complexity of canards when you already have the complexity of TVC?

Also note that the Typhoon was designed to have canards in the first place. The Super Flanker wasn't.

What canards make redudant are LERXs. Canards can generate energizing vortexes that help maintain control and stability at high AoA. LERX also do the same functionm but however, because of their fixed geometry, they create significant drag. The more LERX an aircraft has, the draggier it becomes. Look at the Hornets.

The advantage of canards is they can change into a straight profile in high speed mode, and wallah, less drag.

The Super Flanker however, does not eliminate the LERX structure. So the drag is still there, now increased by the canards.

Furthermore the canards are on the same plane or nearly so when you look at the plane in the front, with the main wing, so the canard backwash---turbulence, drag, wake---would flow over the main wing, affecting the main wing's performance.

The Typhoon's canards are moved away from the main wing as far as possible into the nose to reduce canard backwash.

If you look at the J-10 from a front view, you will notice that the canards are dihedral, which means the tips of the wings are higher than the root, while the main wings are anhedral, which means the tips of the wings are lower than the root. So you have a biplane format which roughly looks like an X. This way, the wake of the canards flow over the fuselage and not above the main wing.