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

sinosoldier, you really have no clue what you are talking about. It's clear that J-15's airframe has to be closer to Su-33 than the original J-11. After all, J-11B basically uses the same airframe as Su-27. Now, I have my doubts about SAC projects and their ability to deliver all these rumoured projects. After all, they developed J-11BS which was originally rumoured to be a fighter bomber, but turned out to be just a twin-seater like Su-27ubk. And now they have this new J-16 project for that role, which hasn't even started.

J-14?

tphuang said:

sinosoldier, you really have no clue what you are talking about. It's clear that J-15's airframe has to be closer to Su-33 than the original J-11. After all, J-11B basically uses the same airframe as Su-27. Now, I have my doubts about SAC projects and their ability to deliver all these rumoured projects. After all, they developed J-11BS which was originally rumoured to be a fighter bomber, but turned out to be just a twin-seater like Su-27ubk. And now they have this new J-16 project for that role, which hasn't even started.

Click to expand...

J-11BS is a twin seater maybe a political decision since J-11B is comfirm multi role. There is not reason, J-11B can deliver PGM and when comes to J-11BS and they can't do it. Probably PLAAF don't see the urgent need of twin seat multi role J-111BS. Instead getting more trainer to train up J-11B pilot will be priority.

challenge said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

J-14?

Click to expand...

Fan art !

yes,fan art,agree ,but it could be an "echo".

is PLAAF developing VTOL aircraft? according to japanese newspaper (I have to check it out) claim that China is developing VTOL aircraft.
few years ago report that China approaches yakovlev inquire the possibility of reviving the Yak-41 aircraft.since then,there is no news,posssible that China is developing there own VTOL jet.

tphuang said:

sinosoldier, you really have no clue what you are talking about. It's clear that J-15's airframe has to be closer to Su-33 than the original J-11. After all, J-11B basically uses the same airframe as Su-27. Now, I have my doubts about SAC projects and their ability to deliver all these rumoured projects. After all, they developed J-11BS which was originally rumoured to be a fighter bomber, but turned out to be just a twin-seater like Su-27ubk. And now they have this new J-16 project for that role, which hasn't even started.

Click to expand...

I don't really have doubt about whether they would be able to deliver these projects. Like I said they are really just Flanker variants with the only significant changes being the stealth versions, which would both be just stealth variants of the Flanker. So really it seems we are talking about basically two upgrades of the J-11 and two stealth versions of the J-11, one for the navy and another for the air force. It is hardly like building four entirely new aircraft.

tphuang said:

sinosoldier, you really have no clue what you are talking about. It's clear that J-15's airframe has to be closer to Su-33 than the original J-11. After all, J-11B basically uses the same airframe as Su-27. Now, I have my doubts about SAC projects and their ability to deliver all these rumoured projects. After all, they developed J-11BS which was originally rumoured to be a fighter bomber, but turned out to be just a twin-seater like Su-27ubk. And now they have this new J-16 project for that role, which hasn't even started.

Click to expand...

Again, the addition of canards to a J-11/Su-27SK airframe does not make it an automatic variant of the Su-33.

The airframe itself is composed of different parts like the intakes, centroplane, etc, and as far as that goes, those are directly copied from the Su-27SK airframe.

One of the supposed names of the J-15 was actually the J-11BH. The fact that the J-15 uses almost the same avionics and engines as the J-11B further impedes your theory.

You wouldn't call the Su-30MKI a variant of the Su-33, so stop it with the stereotypes.

BTW, tphuang, are you a big reader of Huitong's posts or Peishen's posts from CJDBY?

SinoSoldier said:

Again, the addition of canards to a J-11/Su-27SK airframe does not make it an automatic variant of the Su-33.

The airframe itself is composed of different parts like the intakes, centroplane, etc, and as far as that goes, those are directly copied from the Su-27SK airframe.

One of the supposed names of the J-15 was actually the J-11BH. The fact that the J-15 uses almost the same avionics and engines as the J-11B further impedes your theory.

You wouldn't call the Su-30MKI a variant of the Su-33, so stop it with the stereotypes.

...

Click to expand...

Dead Wrong again ! So You think Sukhoi developed different canards for the Su-33, then the MKI, MKA and so on ... and later SAC a new set for the J-115
??? (only for the revised Su-27KUB it was different).

The original canard-concept for the Flanker was developed esp. in mind for the Su-33 and later adopted for the MKI ... and again the same canard-configuration is used - as SAC got the T-10K-3 via Ukraine - for the J-15, endof that story, what-ever You want to think.

How can anyone only be so stubborn ???

Deino

Didn't China acquire T-10K-3 from Ukrane? That has to be a valid evidence that the J-15, looking almost identical to the Su-33 came from the Su-33, at least in terms of the airframe (T-10K-3 was a production prototype for Su-33)