China Flanker thread
- Thread starter renmin
- Start date
- Status
J-11B is probably superior for A2A purposes. Until when J-10 and J-11B finally shows mature PGM and ASM integration, the JH-7A along with the Su-30MKK/MK2s, are China's only true multirole fighter bombers. Well that is overstating it a bit, since the JH-7A is more akin like the Su-24 or F-111, but it's a bit more fighterlike than the other two due to its fixed wings and tandem seating.
The best comparison to a JH-7A is an updated F-4 Phantom in the fighter bomber role.
The JH-7A has a few things going for it against the J-11B and the J-10. One is that it has a high wing configuration, which allows you to have more space in the pylon. You can put a larger missile there with less concern about ground clearance. The J-10 may have a higher payload weight capacity, but the space under the wings isn't quite as good as the JH-7A's.
Another thing is that the plane is optimized for low altitudes. Fixed inlets for example, is better at this. It is interesting to know how smooth the plane rides, vs. the J-11 and the J-10, that is important for bombing accuracy.
I do think that once the J-11B manages to integrate PGMs and ASMs, the JH-7A will be in trouble. No doubt the J-11B has better range, better ability to defend itself, more payload and not the least, the capability to install an even larger and more powerful radar for better range and resolution.
But so far the JH-7A is enjoying a valuable window of opportunity due to the quirks of radar selection between the two aircraft. Unlike the J-11B and the J-10, the JH-7A selected the JL-10A radar that was developed to be truly multirole in the first place right from the get go, while the J-11B and the J-10 picked the NRIET's KLJ series that appeared to be optimized for A2A combat but still lacking in air to ground capabilities that are only promised in the future. In other words, the KLJ series radar were developed not unlike those in the F-15, Rafale, F-16 and Typhoon, where you get the A2A capabilities out first, then worry about the A2G capabilities later.
The other question remains why not develop a J-11 using a variant of the JH-7A's JL-10A radar, perhaps a two seater. It is interesting to know, and quite theoritically possible, but unless we can put the entire program into a microscope, we don't know if they actually have done this. I heard a report that the J-11s were testing two kinds of radars, and Phazotron indeed disclosed that two Chinese firms are competiting for the same contract, no doubt NRIET and LETRI.
But would it be possible to accept both? One might have a single seat version with the NRIET radar for A2A purposes, while a double seater can fit the LETRI radar for A2G purposes. But its kind of an awkward way to do it unless you really desperate. The cleaner thing to do is get the better radar of the two in A2A, then gradually integrate the PGMs and ASMs on it.
In the case that two seater J-11 matures with having multirole capabilities, it will probably be the end of the JH-7 anyway, regardless of Xian's proposals to upgrade it (JH-7B?) via WS-10A engines for example. Xian's aircraft production capacity should be turn over to the two seater J-11s.
I got something to think about the Su-34's side by side seating. I don't think it's that smart of an idea when it comes to air combat, as I don't think it offers the visibility of tandem seating. Whether China can best be served with dedicated bombers rather than multirole fighters is still subject to heavy debate.
I suddenly have a thought about the upgrades. What if China decides to take one of the original Russian made Su-27SKs and UBKs and upgrade it to J-11B standards? They probably should have seriously considered it already and I won't be surprised if they played this on one or two planes. If this is a quick way to boost a force, you might just go buy many of the mothballed Su-27s in both Russia and former Soviet Republics at a cheap price, then overhaul and upgrade them.
The best comparison to a JH-7A is an updated F-4 Phantom in the fighter bomber role.
The JH-7A has a few things going for it against the J-11B and the J-10. One is that it has a high wing configuration, which allows you to have more space in the pylon. You can put a larger missile there with less concern about ground clearance. The J-10 may have a higher payload weight capacity, but the space under the wings isn't quite as good as the JH-7A's.
Another thing is that the plane is optimized for low altitudes. Fixed inlets for example, is better at this. It is interesting to know how smooth the plane rides, vs. the J-11 and the J-10, that is important for bombing accuracy.
I do think that once the J-11B manages to integrate PGMs and ASMs, the JH-7A will be in trouble. No doubt the J-11B has better range, better ability to defend itself, more payload and not the least, the capability to install an even larger and more powerful radar for better range and resolution.
But so far the JH-7A is enjoying a valuable window of opportunity due to the quirks of radar selection between the two aircraft. Unlike the J-11B and the J-10, the JH-7A selected the JL-10A radar that was developed to be truly multirole in the first place right from the get go, while the J-11B and the J-10 picked the NRIET's KLJ series that appeared to be optimized for A2A combat but still lacking in air to ground capabilities that are only promised in the future. In other words, the KLJ series radar were developed not unlike those in the F-15, Rafale, F-16 and Typhoon, where you get the A2A capabilities out first, then worry about the A2G capabilities later.
The other question remains why not develop a J-11 using a variant of the JH-7A's JL-10A radar, perhaps a two seater. It is interesting to know, and quite theoritically possible, but unless we can put the entire program into a microscope, we don't know if they actually have done this. I heard a report that the J-11s were testing two kinds of radars, and Phazotron indeed disclosed that two Chinese firms are competiting for the same contract, no doubt NRIET and LETRI.
But would it be possible to accept both? One might have a single seat version with the NRIET radar for A2A purposes, while a double seater can fit the LETRI radar for A2G purposes. But its kind of an awkward way to do it unless you really desperate. The cleaner thing to do is get the better radar of the two in A2A, then gradually integrate the PGMs and ASMs on it.
In the case that two seater J-11 matures with having multirole capabilities, it will probably be the end of the JH-7 anyway, regardless of Xian's proposals to upgrade it (JH-7B?) via WS-10A engines for example. Xian's aircraft production capacity should be turn over to the two seater J-11s.
I got something to think about the Su-34's side by side seating. I don't think it's that smart of an idea when it comes to air combat, as I don't think it offers the visibility of tandem seating. Whether China can best be served with dedicated bombers rather than multirole fighters is still subject to heavy debate.
I suddenly have a thought about the upgrades. What if China decides to take one of the original Russian made Su-27SKs and UBKs and upgrade it to J-11B standards? They probably should have seriously considered it already and I won't be surprised if they played this on one or two planes. If this is a quick way to boost a force, you might just go buy many of the mothballed Su-27s in both Russia and former Soviet Republics at a cheap price, then overhaul and upgrade them.
I personally would like to see them upgrade the avionics on J-11A first. I wonder if they have a domestic radar that allows the firing of R-27/77 and PL-11/12.
I am wondering if they are able to fire both the Russian set AAMs and the Chinese set AAMs. Integration issues could be one of the reasons for the project delay. I don't see this to be a problem if they were able to get the launch protocols for the Russian AAMs, by hook or crook.
The J-8II upgrades to the J-8F standard provides us a model on how the PLAAF may undergo the upgrades on these planes. For the upgrades, the J-8D models, or regiments with them like the 9th Division, are the ones being picked. Likely the newer J-8H models too.
Two kinds of thought running on this. One is to pick the oldest models because they are due for overhauls and the overhauls provide the opportunity to do the upgrades. Hence, the oldest Su-27SKs and UBKs might be picked for this.
The second thought is to pick the airframes with the most life yet for the upgrades. This way you maximize your investment over time. So you pick the J-11As and late production J-11s, then down to the list to the earliest Su-27SKs.
In the CDF I posted a theory of mine that J-11As have probably been in production since late 2003 and have been running concurrently with the last J-11 models built from CKDs. The J-11s are the planes built with the CKDs while the J-11As are the planes built without CKDs, with the Russian sourced components ordered seperately. Its not like the J-11 CKDs were finished first before you move to the J-11A, but there was an overlap between the two. The CKD assembly continued like a backup program while SAC was testing and certifying the J-11A airframe with an early production batch.
The J-8II upgrades to the J-8F standard provides us a model on how the PLAAF may undergo the upgrades on these planes. For the upgrades, the J-8D models, or regiments with them like the 9th Division, are the ones being picked. Likely the newer J-8H models too.
Two kinds of thought running on this. One is to pick the oldest models because they are due for overhauls and the overhauls provide the opportunity to do the upgrades. Hence, the oldest Su-27SKs and UBKs might be picked for this.
The second thought is to pick the airframes with the most life yet for the upgrades. This way you maximize your investment over time. So you pick the J-11As and late production J-11s, then down to the list to the earliest Su-27SKs.
In the CDF I posted a theory of mine that J-11As have probably been in production since late 2003 and have been running concurrently with the last J-11 models built from CKDs. The J-11s are the planes built with the CKDs while the J-11As are the planes built without CKDs, with the Russian sourced components ordered seperately. Its not like the J-11 CKDs were finished first before you move to the J-11A, but there was an overlap between the two. The CKD assembly continued like a backup program while SAC was testing and certifying the J-11A airframe with an early production batch.
Well, regarding the J-11 development, way not make two versions for A-A and A-G like it's the case with the F-15 C/E. Fit the attacker vers. with special ground RDR, terrain-following RDR and FLIR. So they could evolve a J-11 attacker based on the -30MKK wich already has some of the features.
Since the PLAAF has a lot of Flankers / J-11 and will likely get even more I think they can afford having two different avonic sets in that airframe. So you have two sophisticated "high-end" aircraft a a lighter multirole fighter J-10.
As for those upgrades, shouldn't the PLAAF do that with later aircraft wich still have more lifetime left ? I mean with all those new ones, do they still need all the old just for numbers ?
BTW, found the following page, don't know if already posted:
The aircraft numbers of that chart look somewhat curious, so few J-7 and J-8 ... ??
Since the PLAAF has a lot of Flankers / J-11 and will likely get even more I think they can afford having two different avonic sets in that airframe. So you have two sophisticated "high-end" aircraft a a lighter multirole fighter J-10.
As for those upgrades, shouldn't the PLAAF do that with later aircraft wich still have more lifetime left ? I mean with all those new ones, do they still need all the old just for numbers ?
BTW, found the following page, don't know if already posted:
The aircraft numbers of that chart look somewhat curious, so few J-7 and J-8 ... ??
Last edited:
You mean make the planes swing role. A swing role is having two or more different versions of the aircraft for matching purposes. The Mirage 2000 and the Tornadoes are also examples of swing role.
The swing role J-11s are what I'm trying to describe a few posts before. A twin seat J-11 configured with the avionics and an enlarged variant of the radar from the JH-7A. As opposed to the J-11 fitted with the radar that is an enlarged variant from the J-10. It does appear that two versions of the J-11B with different radars are being tested along these lines, although for me, sticking to one radar set and integrate more capabilities would be the more logical way to go.
The problem of swing roles is that it isn't as flexible as multiroles. If you need to call for a strike mission, you have to call on the units with the specialized aircraft, rather than any available unit. Now if the specialized units are tied up doing something else, then you may lose the target opportunity.
The concept of swing role was a perfect fit to the previous PLA doctrine of joint operations. But the move to the new doctrine of integrated joint operations, means increasing the flexibility of the units, and therefore requires multirole.
However, the PLAAF has been traditionally swing role. Although all PLAAF fighters are required to be able to deliver dumb bombs and rocket attacks, they are not capable of using PGMs. So essentially the PLAAF/PLANAF is divided into aircraft of 3 types.
1) Fighters with a primary A2A role and secondary A2G role with dumb bombs and MLRS.
2) Dedicated attacks with PGM capability and ability to defend themselves from the air. (JH-7, -7A and the latest Q-5s with laser targeters).
3) True bombers like the H-6.
The Su-30MKK was the only true multirole aircraft the PLAAF has (currently you can't consider even the J-10 multirole).
If you consider the PLAAF's ability to deliver laser and TV PGM (the really high precision PGM), on paper, adding up the Su-30MKKs, JH-7s, JH-7As, updated H-6Hs and the latest Q-5s with lasers, you get over 300 aircraft. But of these, only 100, the Su-30s are true multirole, the rest basically attackers and bombers with PGM. Of course the advent of JDAM/JSOW like weapons in the PLAAF changes everything but so far, the precision of the PLAAF JDAM and JSOW are in the near PGM range and not in the true PGM range (sub 10m CEP). However, that change with further development.
For me, the PLAAF hasn't wrestled the concept of multirole in the doctrinal level. They for example, can't seem to decide if the MKK is a bomber or fighter, putting most units into fighter regiments, but one unit into an attack regiment (the 18th Division). After stopping the MKK procurement, the PLAAF followed up with JH-7As and updated H-6s. Although these decisions have probably have something to do with the KD-63s and KD-88s, which made the Kh-59ME moot, doctrinally it seems like a step backward. Also if the PLAAF had gone with the SKM upgrades, the J-11s would be true multirole by now. Currently the setup for the J-11B appears to me much like the J-10, again a primary A2A aircraft with secondary dumb bomb capability.
The swing role J-11s are what I'm trying to describe a few posts before. A twin seat J-11 configured with the avionics and an enlarged variant of the radar from the JH-7A. As opposed to the J-11 fitted with the radar that is an enlarged variant from the J-10. It does appear that two versions of the J-11B with different radars are being tested along these lines, although for me, sticking to one radar set and integrate more capabilities would be the more logical way to go.
The problem of swing roles is that it isn't as flexible as multiroles. If you need to call for a strike mission, you have to call on the units with the specialized aircraft, rather than any available unit. Now if the specialized units are tied up doing something else, then you may lose the target opportunity.
The concept of swing role was a perfect fit to the previous PLA doctrine of joint operations. But the move to the new doctrine of integrated joint operations, means increasing the flexibility of the units, and therefore requires multirole.
However, the PLAAF has been traditionally swing role. Although all PLAAF fighters are required to be able to deliver dumb bombs and rocket attacks, they are not capable of using PGMs. So essentially the PLAAF/PLANAF is divided into aircraft of 3 types.
1) Fighters with a primary A2A role and secondary A2G role with dumb bombs and MLRS.
2) Dedicated attacks with PGM capability and ability to defend themselves from the air. (JH-7, -7A and the latest Q-5s with laser targeters).
3) True bombers like the H-6.
The Su-30MKK was the only true multirole aircraft the PLAAF has (currently you can't consider even the J-10 multirole).
If you consider the PLAAF's ability to deliver laser and TV PGM (the really high precision PGM), on paper, adding up the Su-30MKKs, JH-7s, JH-7As, updated H-6Hs and the latest Q-5s with lasers, you get over 300 aircraft. But of these, only 100, the Su-30s are true multirole, the rest basically attackers and bombers with PGM. Of course the advent of JDAM/JSOW like weapons in the PLAAF changes everything but so far, the precision of the PLAAF JDAM and JSOW are in the near PGM range and not in the true PGM range (sub 10m CEP). However, that change with further development.
For me, the PLAAF hasn't wrestled the concept of multirole in the doctrinal level. They for example, can't seem to decide if the MKK is a bomber or fighter, putting most units into fighter regiments, but one unit into an attack regiment (the 18th Division). After stopping the MKK procurement, the PLAAF followed up with JH-7As and updated H-6s. Although these decisions have probably have something to do with the KD-63s and KD-88s, which made the Kh-59ME moot, doctrinally it seems like a step backward. Also if the PLAAF had gone with the SKM upgrades, the J-11s would be true multirole by now. Currently the setup for the J-11B appears to me much like the J-10, again a primary A2A aircraft with secondary dumb bomb capability.
Last edited:
maglomanic
Junior Member
Crobato,
I am kinda confused here.From what i have heard and read 'swing role' (gripen,eurofighter,rafale ) is a recent development than multirole. Rafale being marketed even as 'omni role'. The term 'Swing role' being used to refer to a fighter jets capability to undertake multiple roles in the same mission (e.g precision strike and air supriority). There was a video out there for Eurofighter showing it's swing role capability. Eurofighter takes to the skies with a primary role of taking out some terrorist site but in the end , ends up going doing SAM supression and interception of an enemy aircraft (suggestively shown as Su variant
).
Maybe both of us are not on the same page and you were refering to something entirely different. Would be great to see your thoughts on it.
I am kinda confused here.From what i have heard and read 'swing role' (gripen,eurofighter,rafale ) is a recent development than multirole. Rafale being marketed even as 'omni role'. The term 'Swing role' being used to refer to a fighter jets capability to undertake multiple roles in the same mission (e.g precision strike and air supriority). There was a video out there for Eurofighter showing it's swing role capability. Eurofighter takes to the skies with a primary role of taking out some terrorist site but in the end , ends up going doing SAM supression and interception of an enemy aircraft (suggestively shown as Su variant
).Maybe both of us are not on the same page and you were refering to something entirely different. Would be great to see your thoughts on it.
Yes the designation "swing role" I was missing.
Maglomanic, I think the vid you're referring to is a EF promo vid labeled "nothing comes close". This is more for marketing reasons. The intention is just to show what EF is capable of doing, though I doubt it would do all that in the same mission. Especially one aircraft will not go on such a mission alone ...
And crobato, I don't precisely know what the responsibility assignment in PLAAF is, but if there are fighter and bomber regiments as you indicated, doesn't that necessarily mean you can only use a designated regiment for one task ? I mean you talked about the target opportunity, but to effectivly use a PGM I think you have to be trained on it. Is that the case with a fighter regiment pilot, or will this determination even vanish ?
Will be interesting what the outcome of that radar contest is
Finally I believe having two dedicated versions will make each a bit more capable in it's assigned task, and in battle you can never know if this "bit more" may be required to win.
And since the PLAAF has, imo, a rather bigger number of planes it would make sense I think. However, I may not be used to the tactical and stratigic necessaties implemented under a certain doctrine.
Maglomanic, I think the vid you're referring to is a EF promo vid labeled "nothing comes close". This is more for marketing reasons. The intention is just to show what EF is capable of doing, though I doubt it would do all that in the same mission. Especially one aircraft will not go on such a mission alone ...
And crobato, I don't precisely know what the responsibility assignment in PLAAF is, but if there are fighter and bomber regiments as you indicated, doesn't that necessarily mean you can only use a designated regiment for one task ? I mean you talked about the target opportunity, but to effectivly use a PGM I think you have to be trained on it. Is that the case with a fighter regiment pilot, or will this determination even vanish ?
Will be interesting what the outcome of that radar contest is
Finally I believe having two dedicated versions will make each a bit more capable in it's assigned task, and in battle you can never know if this "bit more" may be required to win.
And since the PLAAF has, imo, a rather bigger number of planes it would make sense I think. However, I may not be used to the tactical and stratigic necessaties implemented under a certain doctrine.
- Status