China Flanker thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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.

well, you don't know what the configuration was used to get those ranges. When flankers actually have to carry 4 tonne of payload (meaning 4 YJ-83K + 2 PL-8s + other), it's going to have a significantly shorter range than JH-7A. If you are talking about refueling J-11BS, then they can make the same change on JH-7A. Remember, XAC is continuously making changes to JH-7 series to allow it to be more lighter, carry more ordinances for longer range. They also have more experiences doing this than SAC. I for one am pretty impressed by JH-7A achieving the orders it have in the recent years despite the huge obstacles.
 

dollarman

New Member
well, you don't know what the configuration was used to get those ranges. When flankers actually have to carry 4 tonne of payload (meaning 4 YJ-83K + 2 PL-8s + other), it's going to have a significantly shorter range than JH-7A. If you are talking about refueling J-11BS, then they can make the same change on JH-7A. Remember, XAC is continuously making changes to JH-7 series to allow it to be more lighter, carry more ordinances for longer range. They also have more experiences doing this than SAC. I for one am pretty impressed by JH-7A achieving the orders it have in the recent years despite the huge obstacles.

True, I'm not to familiar with the technical stuff, but I did mention in my previous post that the JH-7 could be upgraded with in-flight refueling capabilities too. I always assumed the range figures were taken when the aircraft was empty. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diss the plane at all, or try to bash it with the BS, it has definitely come a long way. Some of the numbers of the upgraded JH-7A's figures actually seem quite comparable to other modern attackers. But this is the wrong thread for talking about this, so I'll stop.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Some blog on the turn rates of J-10A vs. J-11.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



ZT j11b with j10a j11a and experience between the relatively simple j11b j11b flight without worries, j11b figures telex operational control rate has been very good, as long as replacement pilots in simulators on the theme, can be directly j11b follow-up tactical training, without supporting Hornets trainer, j11b very intuitive manipulation, the pilot without too many memories of operating rules, facilitate the pilot to concentrate on fighting on. Meanwhile the number of telex j11b operational control rate also expanded j11b mobile packet limit. J11a j11a manipulating a certain limit. In other words, j11a matching the Hornets trainer, Otherwise, the replacement pilots may be on the manipulation of the characteristics of the food and induced distress. J11a some ultra-maneuverable flight pilots to be disconnected from a telex to protect flew out. J11b j10a and most intuitive to feelings lie? 1, j10a feel j10a rollover rate faster and faster turnover rate, the pilots switched to a visual impression : Roller pull rod that, the stick is, it deals with pressure bar that stoop, the pole setting served basis, j10a response to the stick quickly and accurately. 2, j11b feel j11b roll, veered toward the 1950s, These mobility rate and the initial response to the state to accelerate the rate of change is slower in j10a This is more like test flight manipulation j10a reasons. We misunderstood j10a 31 degrees limit blink disk double the rate of significance. In aerial rarely used 31 degrees blink rate double disc, 31 degrees blink disk double the rate it indirectly reflected the best available fighter lift. Not always thinking about air combat in the 4000 m below the height, only fighters in the 4,000 m below the height, KM/H-----700 speed at 550 KM / H range, in order to drag out the biggest U-turn rate. Note : j11b have not yet j10a comprehensive confrontation tests, the following comparison is not directed at j11b. 11,000 meters in altitude "31 Ultimate blink of disk double the rate of fighters" and a "limit of 26 degrees blink rate double disc The fighters "in the same 850 KM / H speed turn and "31 Ultimate blink of disk double the rate of fighters" than a "limit of 26 degrees blink disk double the rate of aircraft," the greatest value available G. X. Xg higher, it is clear that the occupation j10a advantage is obvious. Of course, due to the supersonic j10a Balancing the advantages j10a made in a wide range of supersonic speed, can be pulled more than 7 G overload. This is the other type of fighter to do. However, the depth j11b strike capability j10a not have. J11b the ability to stay in the air than j10a fighter. So j11b j10a and is not interchangeable. [This afternoon in the final sopc_dsp 2007-4-26 06 : 10 AM edit] you related to the above two Mao asked that specific mention also know, j10a is now limited open, like what about the things this point on the trip, I fuzzy point about here, only to China and about some argument, saying those expectations and go to the direction of public opinion is inconsistent, Indeed those who do wrong argument tally with the facts, say, and F16 for frivolous contrast, in a puzzling results. F16 simply do not deserve that lotteries, j10 goal is to withstand the pressure of the North, but CCCP not exist. From the original tie in sopc_dsp published 2007-4-26 12:04 PM


Basically if you want the gist of it, the J-10's roll rate and transient performance appears superior to the J-11. It also appears to comment that the J-10A has a turn rate of 31 degrees a second, probably instantaneous in my view.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I'm not sure how much I understood out of that, lol.

Anyhow, got a picture of an article mentioning SAC finally finishing J-11A production in 2006 after 8 years.
 

Attachments

  • J-11A-LastProduction.jpg
    J-11A-LastProduction.jpg
    164.2 KB · Views: 61

kca90

New Member
So, J-11B is an upgraded su-27sk and J-11BS is an upgraded SU-30mkk.
Is that correct? or am i missing something?:confused:
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
So, J-11B is an upgraded su-27sk and J-11BS is an upgraded SU-30mkk.
Is that correct? or am i missing something?:confused:

Upgraded does not describe it truly frankly. Modernized is more like it. The only thing common the J-11B has with the Su-27 is the design. Other than that, it is build and appears redesigned from the ground up. Despite the outside physical being identical, the J-11B is as far off from the original as the Super Hornet is to the Hornet and the Japanese F-2 is to the F-16. New airframe with up to 10,000 flight hours, new radar, new avionics, new engine.

The J-11BS is the two seater trainer version of the J-11B, and can be _potentially_ be used in the same roles as the Su-30MKK. On the other hand, the J-11B should have some limited PGM capability like the J-10's, that is dropping LGBs and Beidou positioned bombs, but not longer ranged stand off weapons.
 

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
Upgraded does not describe it truly frankly. Modernized is more like it. The only thing common the J-11B has with the Su-27 is the design. Other than that, it is build and appears redesigned from the ground up. Despite the outside physical being identical, the J-11B is as far off from the original as the Super Hornet is to the Hornet and the Japanese F-2 is to the F-16. New airframe with up to 10,000 flight hours, new radar, new avionics, new engine.

The J-11BS is the two seater trainer version of the J-11B, and can be _potentially_ be used in the same roles as the Su-30MKK. On the other hand, the J-11B should have some limited PGM capability like the J-10's, that is dropping LGBs and Beidou positioned bombs, but not longer ranged stand off weapons.
Really...cause I thought this is how it went the Russian got the Su-27 then modernized it to the designated Su-30 then modernised that to the Su-34. So what I was under the impression was that the original manufacture of the license Su-27SK under the designation J-11. Then from the J-11A the PLAAF modernised it to the level of Su-30MKK3 designated J-11B/S.

Quite an impressive feat the J-11B while yes externally it looks simular to the standard Su-27 it is has actually undergone lots of changes within its airframe. Eg. Use of composites and strengthening the frame.

PLAAF is coming a long since the modernisation of the 1980s. Main rival of the PLA is the US. As USAF its main air superioty aircrafts consist of F-15/16/18. The PLAAF equivalent in response to the USAF is the J-10 can compete with the F-16/18 while the J-11 can compete with the F-15. So the only advantage the USAF hold in air superioty aircraft is the F-22 in which the USAF knows and so does the PLAAF. Your opinions would be good, but try not be negative about it please.
 

dollarman

New Member
The Su-27, 30, and 34 are completely seperate classes of aircraft. The first is a dedicated air superiority aircraft, the second is a multirole combat aircraft, and the third is a dedicated strike/attack plane. They are not upgrades/modernizations of eachother, although they are successively more modern because they were introduced at different times.
 

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
Umm yeah I know that, its the whole point where Russians went from Su-27 as air superiority to a multirole version Su-30. And actually yeah Su-30 and Su-34 are sort off derived versions from the Su-27 in basic design.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
The Su-27, 30, and 34 are completely seperate classes of aircraft. The first is a dedicated air superiority aircraft, the second is a multirole combat aircraft, and the third is a dedicated strike/attack plane. They are not upgrades/modernizations of eachother, although they are successively more modern because they were introduced at different times.

Well that is not completely true. What do you say about the Su-27SM then? It has the same multirole functionality as any Su-30MKK/MK2. In fact, that's where it got its systems from---the Su-27SM is practically a single seater Su-30MKK.

And what about the proposed Su-30KI then? Its really nothing more than an Su-27SK with a probe. Actually its the same aircraft that used to parade around in a different paint job and number as the "Su-27SMK" in Cyrillic. It looks like later, this very plane got turned into an Su-27SKM as we know it now.

Being multirole does not earn an aircraft a new number (Mirage 2000-9, F-16C, F-15E Strike Eagle). Its just marketing purposes---the Russian Air Force actually did not accept the Su-30 designation, and continues to refer to the aircraft as the Su-27PU or something. The Su-33 is another designation the Russian armed forces have not formally accepted and that is why the plane is also called Su-27K. The Su-27IB is the side by side seater that turned out to be the Su-34. ASIC designation still refers to all these aircraft as Flanker, and assigns letters to them instead. Su-30 is Flanker-G for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top