China Flanker thread
- Thread starter renmin
- Start date
- Status
The original Su-30s, like the Su-30K should never had deserved even a new designation. After all, they're practically Su-27UBs with a new datalink and an IFR probe. That's not much of a change. This is not like the Su-30MK with the canards and TVC, which overlaps with the original Su-37 (now the TVC is moved down the Su-35). Sukhoi plays too much numbering games, but the bottomline they're still all Flanker to me.
The only ones with a significant redesign are the Su-27IBs, now Su-34.
Dedicated air combat aircraft don't cut it anymore in today's environment which requires versatility. Even the classic Su-27s and their J-11 siblings are often used and depicted in exercises doing a lot of bombing and rocket strafing. It's a waste of a magnificent aircraft to be used in the manner of a Q-5, but history has shown we have thrown big magnificent aircraft into all manner of strike roles, no matter how demeaning it looks.
The real difference with the newer models is the use of PGM and guided long range stand off weapons, not just plain bombs and rockets.
I don't disagree that the Sukhoi family should have never been broken into so many designations. I'm willing to bet that any su-40ishes will still probably be derived from the original su-27. Standard Russian marketing ploy, which easily extends beyond fighter aircraft. Plus, I wasn't saying single-role planes are a good idea, i believe quite the contrary.
Putting the Su-27Sk in strafing runs is entirely for show. I'm sure the PLAAF would NEVER throw a multi-million $ fighter into such a role. A Q-5 could proabably do a similar amount of damage for far less the risk, and the brass realizes that.
As to Chengdu J-10, well duh they're all derived from the same design which doesn't mean they are modernizations. Anyways, I thought that you meant that they were merely upgrades of eachother and apologized for any misunderstnading.
Putting the Su-27Sk in strafing runs is entirely for show. I'm sure the PLAAF would NEVER throw a multi-million $ fighter into such a role. A Q-5 could proabably do a similar amount of damage for far less the risk, and the brass realizes that.
As to Chengdu J-10, well duh they're all derived from the same design which doesn't mean they are modernizations. Anyways, I thought that you meant that they were merely upgrades of eachother and apologized for any misunderstnading.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Yeah OK. Q-5 being used instead of the J-11 yeah mostly so. But the JH-7A is designed as replacment for the Q-5 but not directly. The JH-7A can effectively perform the mission than the Q-5. So yeah Flanker would be "mostly" for air dominance in the PLAAF. Next Sukhoi aircraft that would be suspected would be a stealth one. So it wouldn't be derived from the Su-27 cause it requires modifications to lower its RCS and changes in which it holds its weapons(internal bay).
I dunno about that, the experimental Su-47 has multiple stealthy characteristics (ie. internal weapons ways, composite frame, RAM), yet it STILL derived from the Flanker.
I have a hard time seeing the JH-7A doing low-altitude strafing/bombing runs. Although they are cheaper than a Flanker, there still isn't a a large quantity of them, and putting them to such a role would be wasting their PGM capabilities. So yeah, among the things the Q-5 does, this is one that the JH-7 doesn't replace.
I have a hard time seeing the JH-7A doing low-altitude strafing/bombing runs. Although they are cheaper than a Flanker, there still isn't a a large quantity of them, and putting them to such a role would be wasting their PGM capabilities. So yeah, among the things the Q-5 does, this is one that the JH-7 doesn't replace.
JH-7As could very likely perform similar roles as IDS Tornados do.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Yep. The JH-7A is designed as a strike attack aircraft while the Q-5 is a ground attack aircraft. So as I said it won't be a direct replacement for the Q-5.
Su-47 is a cancelled project, the aircraft built was only a technology demonstrater, but its technology will be implemented into future Sukhoi designs. And the to correct your last post the Su-47 does indeed have internal weapon way, and has a very low RCS with radar absorbment materials. Making it pretty stealthy. But in the end a dead project.
From my usage of "internet lingo", I always took "ie." to mean "including". I could be wrong.
I wasn't trying to make any kind of statement about the su-47, just using it as an example to show that the Russian can really, really stretch a design out. Now please stop being so annoying and trying to correct every post I make, you've taken every one the wrong way and I've had to write a new one explaining myself.
"ie." isn't an internet lingo. It's been used on academic papers, too. "ie." stands for "that is".
ff- Status