China Flanker thread
- Thread starter renmin
- Start date
- Status
J-11BS should be the two seater version. Coz in Chinese 'S' is short for 'shuang' which means twin/double.
speculator
New Member
its not a very accurate image in general, since r73's are even carried on intake hardpoints, which is not possible.
but whats intresting, and whats probably IS accurate, is that on the yellow ribbon, it states: 'Congratulations to Harbin Technical University', which may suggest that this was thought up by a Harbin University and not Shenyang?
optionsss
Junior Member
After reading the stuff in the JH-7 thread, I have a question about the SU-30MKK2 weapons. What anti-ship missile does it have, I know there is some speculation on a modified version of kH-31(with active radar and everything), but isn't that a bit of weak in terms of power. if it does not have a anti-ship missile then how would that affect the potential upgrades or newer version of J-11, China should modified it to fit their advanced anti-ship missiles.
J-11BS can also replaced JH-7A,J-11BS will her greater range,bomb load,could also mean trouble for Xian aircraft.
The main reason why PLAAF continue to purchaes JH-7 was national pride.
I personally think even if J-11BS comes out, JH-7A still has some advantages like lower cost, more maturity + familiarity with crew + possibly greater range. Remember, JH-7 series is still being modified for greater payload + lower RCS.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Not really moreso on national pride but more of its cost (JH-7A) compared to the J-11. The JH-7 was mostly designed for ground attack with a different structural frame compared to the J-11 which was designed for air superiority.
The reason why the JH-7 is still in production is that they have engines to go with them. The WS-9 while if you build the J-11 you will either need to purchase the AL-31 since Russia won't allow it to be license produced, and secondly the WS-10 is not ready to be mass produced. While the WS-9 is. JH-7 is a cheaper aircraft to sacrifice in battle then the J-11.
Well now apparently the WS-10 is ready to be mass produced. At least in numbers that can let you make 20 to 30 J-11Bs. Thats not much different from the output of JH-7As in a year.
I think the reason why they still have to make JH-7As is that they still cannot produce enough J-11Bs. Unless Xian is made to manufacture J-11BS. But if they respect IPR boundaries per Chinese company, that means XAC continues to produce products that it has developed, and don't do stuff like make J-11s. Back in the seventies, you can transfer Shenyang's work in indigenizing the MiG-21 to Chengdu. But today there now appears to be certain boundaries, though its not clear how they are enforced. Seems like every shipyard can make Songs, 054As and Houbeis, and Dalian only makes 051Cs for example. Still I don't imagine Shenyang making J-10s and Xian making J-11Bs, or Hongdu making J-7s or JF-17s. There are boundaries respecting each firm's IPR.
I think its not out of national pride that they make JH-7As, but partly to subsidize XAC and the city of Xian, and partly because they don't have the J-11s and J-10s to undertake the highly specialized ground attack functions. A bomber or attacker is not a mission that is highly dependent on the flight performance of the airframe. What it really needs is better electronics and better signature reduction, both of whom going to a Flanker airframe will not give.
Though I have to add, the market for JH-7As in the PLAAF and PLANAF is going to be limited. Partly because some groups have to be reserved for H-6K, and partly because you cannot replace all the Q-5s. The JH-7A does not replace the Q-5 either, and in fact, nothing does unless we consider using the L-15s or the JF-17. The Q-5 sits in a very unique position as a small, cheap, high tempo attack jet with fighter like agility. Like the Su-25, it should be a tactical battlefield support plane, whereas the JH-7A is something more strategic, like striking targets well behind enemy lines.
I think the reason why they still have to make JH-7As is that they still cannot produce enough J-11Bs. Unless Xian is made to manufacture J-11BS. But if they respect IPR boundaries per Chinese company, that means XAC continues to produce products that it has developed, and don't do stuff like make J-11s. Back in the seventies, you can transfer Shenyang's work in indigenizing the MiG-21 to Chengdu. But today there now appears to be certain boundaries, though its not clear how they are enforced. Seems like every shipyard can make Songs, 054As and Houbeis, and Dalian only makes 051Cs for example. Still I don't imagine Shenyang making J-10s and Xian making J-11Bs, or Hongdu making J-7s or JF-17s. There are boundaries respecting each firm's IPR.
I think its not out of national pride that they make JH-7As, but partly to subsidize XAC and the city of Xian, and partly because they don't have the J-11s and J-10s to undertake the highly specialized ground attack functions. A bomber or attacker is not a mission that is highly dependent on the flight performance of the airframe. What it really needs is better electronics and better signature reduction, both of whom going to a Flanker airframe will not give.
Though I have to add, the market for JH-7As in the PLAAF and PLANAF is going to be limited. Partly because some groups have to be reserved for H-6K, and partly because you cannot replace all the Q-5s. The JH-7A does not replace the Q-5 either, and in fact, nothing does unless we consider using the L-15s or the JF-17. The Q-5 sits in a very unique position as a small, cheap, high tempo attack jet with fighter like agility. Like the Su-25, it should be a tactical battlefield support plane, whereas the JH-7A is something more strategic, like striking targets well behind enemy lines.
Do you have a date regarding when the J-11BS would enter service? We still havn't seen a prototype, although I guess it should come soon, maybe withing a year.
Well I'm not sure if maturity and crew familiarity will be exactly disadvantageous for the J-11BS. Although in itself it is a new aircraft, everybody knows the PLAAF and PLANAF have operated aircraft of the Flanker family for over a decade, including two seaters. If the Flanker has earned a good rep in the AF, then perhaps many pilots and commanders would be more comfortable and confident with the new BS.
Regarding range, the orginal Flanker's range was only about 150km shorter than the JH-7's according to SDF, so all that could easily change since the J-11B is using composites too. I havn't seen in-flight refueling probes on the prototype J-11Bs, but if the BS has the probe then it could easily triple it's range beyond that of the JH-7, unless the same is done to the latter. Practically speaking, the Il-76 deal has to fall through first.
- Status