Last I checked it was 4 regiments of J-11Bs with the PLAAF and 1 with the PLANAF.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Last I checked it was 4 regiments of J-11Bs with the PLAAF and 1 with the PLANAF.
thunderchief
Senior Member
One possible explanation for using WS-10A on J-11B , and not using it on J-10A , J-10B and J-15 could be alleged lack of responsiveness . For a strike and long-range patrol aircraft like J-11B that may not matter much . On the other hand , pilots of the air superiority fighters like J-10 and J-15 tend to use throttle a lot , and responsiveness of the engine is crucial in dogfight .
I'm sorry thunder chief, but that is a ridiculous notion.
One, I'm not sure why'd we consider WS-10A would have a responsiveness problem in the first place unless we are referring to the mid 2000s "spooling up" issue which has since been solved years ago.
Two, "responsiveness" (whatever that means) has no relation to the performance of a modern strike fighter versus an air superiority fighter because both would be expected to conduct evasive maneuvers in combat situations. If anything, the most significant difference between engines for a strike fighter and an air superiority fighter would be maximum thrust, because a strike fighter will rely more on speed to escape unfavourable situations rather than fight it out with an opposing interceptor. But that's not even a given, in today's multi role strike aircraft norm.
Lastly, j-11B isn't a strike fighter, it is an air superiority fighter. It isn't even equipped with precision air to ground weapons, and it's primary armament are PL-8s and PL-12s, so the entire premise is blown apart anyway.
One, I'm not sure why'd we consider WS-10A would have a responsiveness problem in the first place unless we are referring to the mid 2000s "spooling up" issue which has since been solved years ago.
Two, "responsiveness" (whatever that means) has no relation to the performance of a modern strike fighter versus an air superiority fighter because both would be expected to conduct evasive maneuvers in combat situations. If anything, the most significant difference between engines for a strike fighter and an air superiority fighter would be maximum thrust, because a strike fighter will rely more on speed to escape unfavourable situations rather than fight it out with an opposing interceptor. But that's not even a given, in today's multi role strike aircraft norm.
Lastly, j-11B isn't a strike fighter, it is an air superiority fighter. It isn't even equipped with precision air to ground weapons, and it's primary armament are PL-8s and PL-12s, so the entire premise is blown apart anyway.
I expect some J-11BSs would have been built for existing Flanker regiments too.
The J-15 is more of a strike fighter than the J-11B is.
Last edited:
Simply because the only air to ground weapons J-11B have been seen carrying are FFARs whereas J-15 have carried bombs, guided stand off/anti ship missiles and even associated models of ARMs!
I think we concluded in 2010 without a doubt that J-11B had no meaningful strike capability whatsoever too, hearing this postulation sure does take me back.
thunderchief
Senior Member
Yes , we are referring to that problem exactly , and I'm not so certain it was solved years ago
Modern strike fighters tend to cruise (loiter) over target area , or make high speed dashes . In any case , they don't need to change throttle settings so frequently as air-superiority fighters specialized for air combat.
Ok if you say so , but I thought that whole premise of developing J-11B over J-11A and Su-27SK was to add some ground striking ability
Primary function of J-15 would be to protect fleet , as PLAN currently doesn't have other aircraft to do so .
...No. It was to indigenize the Su-27. The J-11As were licensed productions. The J-11B was a continuation of the J-11A production with design improvements and indigenous systems and subsystems.Ok if you say so , but I thought that whole premise of developing J-11B over J-11A and Su-27SK was to add some ground striking ability
Naval fighters all split the air superiority and strike roles. Are you suggesting that fleet protection requires specialization for air superiority? If so are you suggesting the F-18 is specialized for air superiority?
...There's a reason why it's the WS-10A and not the WS-10. There's also a reason why the Taihang wasn't put into production in 2008 like originally intended (to fix the spooling problem).Yes , we are referring to that problem exactly , and I'm not so certain it was solved years ago
I think the development of the J-16 was the final nail in the coffin.
Last edited:
Yes , we are referring to that problem exactly , and I'm not so certain it was solved years ago
Why not?
Whether that is enough for any designer to allow for differences in "responsiveness" is another different matter.
Ok if you say so , but I thought that whole premise of developing J-11B over J-11A and Su-27SK was to add some ground striking ability
That is what everyone thought at the time as well, but we were proven wrong by 2010.
J-11B should be better thought as the PLAAFs F-15Cs that they can build entirely indigenously. J-16 will be the striker.
It's not a matter of "if I say so". It's simply a matter of watching and keeping up to date with developments. And given we received this conclusion two or three years ago and have consistently seen pictures of j-11B carrying virtually nothing but air to air weapons, the suggestion that J-11B is a striker is laughable
J-15 is clearly designed to be a multi role aircraft with some level of precision strike capability. It will also be capable of combat air patrol for the fleet of course, but offensive air to ground missions are also a big part of its job statement.