J-11 to J-19 aircraft INSIDER INFORMATION (from CJDBY)

I wonder how credible these information can be. That would be a huge sum of money if China can afford them all together.

more likely a proposal.

Why do SAC's design is always based on the flanker's series and cannot come out with it's own design?

SinoSoldier said:

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1092699-1-1.html

Development of J-11 jets to J-19 jets are as follows:

1): F -11: Chinese-developed Su-27SK variant. (Shenyang)
2): J -12: Cancelled single engine interceptor. (Nanchang)
3): J -13: Cancelled 1971 single engine fighter. (Shenyang)
4): J-J -10 -14:21 Twin-engine J-10 upgrade. (Chengdu)
5): F -15: Upgraded carrier-based J-11B. (Shenyang)
6): J -16: Upgraded J-11BS strike fighter, comparable to the latest F-15K. (Shenyang)
7): J -17: Heavy fighter-bomber stealthy variant of the J-11B, similar to the Su-34. (Shenyang)
8): J -18: Heavy stealth carrier-based fighter (developed from J-15). (Shenyang )
9): F -19: Heavily upgraded J-11B 5th-generation variant. To serve alongside the J-20. (Shenyang)

Click to expand...

Some of your translations kinda wrong, let me see if I can do better:

original text said:

四代重歼型号为歼-20,那么,歼-11到歼-19型号发展具体情况如下:
1):歼-11:中国SU-27仿制版.(沈阳).
2):歼-12:20世纪六,七十年代研发的超轻型歼击机;(下马)(南昌).
3):歼-13:20世纪七,八十年代研发的接替歼-6的单发常规布局中型歼击机;(下马)(沈阳).
4):歼-14:21世纪初在歼-10基础上发展的双发隐形重型歼击机,俗称"大十",后因四代重歼研发顺利,而下马转入方案技术储备.(成都).
5):歼-15:中国SU-33信息化提升版,是歼-11B的舰载发展型,是中国第一代舰载战斗机.(沈阳).
6):歼-16:中国SU-30MKK信息化提升版,是在歼-11BS基础上,瞄准F-15K/SG技术水平发展的远程战斗轰炸机.(沈阳).
7):歼-17:在歼-11B基础上发展的类似SU-34的并注入隐形技术的新一代远程重型战斗轰炸机.(沈阳).
8):歼-18:在歼-15基础上,注入大量四代机技术而发展的新一代隐形舰载战斗机,该机研发方案于2009年与歼-19研发方案一同被评审通过.(沈阳)
9):歼-19:是歼-11B高端四代机化隐形大改,该机作为四代重型多用途歼击机与歼-20搭配使用.(沈阳)

Click to expand...

1): J-11: Chinese copy of SU-27 (Shenyang)
2): J-12: Super light single-engine interceptor project in 1960s-70s (Cancelled)(Nanchang)
3): J-13: Medium weight, conventional layout single-engine interceptor project in 1970s-80s(Cancelled)(Shenyang)
4): J-14: Project initiated at the beginning of 21st Century, heavy-weight twin-engine stealth fighter developed from the basis of J-10, aka "Big 10", later cancelled due to 4th-gen fighter R&D proceeding on schedule, experience garnered are to be used on future projects.(Chengdu).
5): J-15: Chinese version of SU-33 with avionics upgrades, carrier-borne version of J-11B, 1st generation of Chinese carrier-borne fighter. (Shenyang).
6): J-16: Chinese version of SU-30MKK with avionics upgrades, variant developed from J-11BS, this is to be a long-ranged fighter-bomber with similar technological level as to F-15K/SG. (Shenyang).
7): J-17: new generation of long-ranged fighter-bomber based on J-11B, to something like the SU-34 but integrated with certain stealth technology. (Shenyang)
8): J-18: new generation of carrier-borne fighter with stealth characteristics, develop from the basis of J-15基础上, integrated with many of the 4th-gen technology. This proposal, along with that of J-19, have received the go-ahead in 2009. (Shenyang)
9): J-19: high-end, major modification to J-11B design to 4th-gen stealth standard, this is designed as a 4th-gen heavy-weight multi-role fighter to serve alongside the J-20.(Shenyang)

note: the original text "4th-gen" apparently using the Western standard reference, 5th-gen would be following the Russian reference.

FarkTypeSoldier said:

Why do SAC's design is always based on the flanker's series and cannot come out with it's own design?

Click to expand...

Policy of the company I believe, have it based on a proven airframe design would make the project a lower risk than that of a totally new design and faster work schedule.

The fact that they mention a twin engined J-10 already makes me believe this is fake.

FarkTypeSoldier said:

Why do SAC's design is always based on the flanker's series and cannot come out with it's own design?

Click to expand...

Because it works.

Centrist said:

The fact that they mention a twin engined J-10 already makes me believe this is fake.

Click to expand...

There was a translation error. It's fixed now.

FarkTypeSoldier said:

Why do SAC's design is always based on the flanker's series and cannot come out with it's own design?

Click to expand...

Why would Shenyang wanted to come out with their own design when the flanker series are highly successful and they are quite experience with designing a design based on the flanker design?

If a design is working excellently, there really is no need to change the design - modify it, maybe, giving it more edge - good enough. To overhaul the entire design and start designing from scratches again - no feasible and very costly.