J-15 carrier fighter thread

[SinoSoldier]

I think we need to give it a rest.

J-11B, J-15, J-16 etc are all based off the flanker airframe, and calling them copies is not far from the truth. Personally I call them "PLA variant flankers" but they are still logically part of the flanker family with aerodynamics and airframes copied from the original design. Sure they might have better subsystems and are likely superior to the original aircraft they were based on, however it is still fair to call them copies.

Indeed, the J-15, J-11B, and J-16 utilize the ever-popular Flanker airframe, but that alone does not preclude them from adopting different sets of combat capabilities, compatibility with weaponry, and overall configuration, vis-a-vis the Russian lineage, owing to their uniques set of subsystems and the electronics to support them.

The word "copy" implies that the two sets of systems use the exact same blueprint, the same subcomponents, and hence exhibit almost the same characteristics and specifications. That is not true across the Su-27, Su-33 and the Chinese counterparts, aside from their fuselage lineage.

There is no doubt that the Chinese jets were structurally based off the Russian ones, but that wasn't the point. Unless, of course, the word "copy" is used in a different context in this discussion ... agreed that this discussion is quite pointless and should be put to bed.

 

[SinoSoldier]

First, the J-11 (not the J-11B) is a license built SU-27. Shenyang used Russian kits to build about 100 of them before starting the J-11B. The J-11B is the Chinese built, indegenous version of the J-11...and they used the J-11 plans they had gotten for the license builds of the vanilla J-11 to get there. They made as much as possible of it indegenous, and made it work with Chinese weapons and sensros.

As a result, IMHO, the J-11B and then later the J-15 are superior to the Flankers they were based on.

The J-15 is based on the J-11B work that China had done, incorporated with the T-10K-3 SU-33 prototype that China acquired from the Ukraine in 2001 to come up with the J-15.

Make no mistake...those aircraft are based on the earlier Russian aircraft.

If there had never been an SU-27 or a SU-33 for their carrier, then there never would have been a J-11B or J-15. Plain and simple. Some people label them as Chinese "knockoffs," and although you may not like that term.,..that is what they are. A knockoff is simply defined as a copy or imitiation of something. That's what these are. Chinese versions of the original Russian designs.

I personally call them a Chinese improved version of the original. I believe that definition also fits.

The Chineese took those designs, replicated them, and made them better for Chinese use using newer Chinese sensors, using as much strong, lighweight composites in the structure as possible, and integrating them with Chinee weapons systems.

Thanks for your input.

Everybody agrees that the J-11B, J-15, and J-16 are all based on the Russian Flankers. The point of contention in this discussion revolves around whether the word "copy" should be attributed to them. That term implies that the two aircraft families share almost exactly the same characteristics, and while this might be indeed the case airframe-wise, the technologies used on these two fighter jet lines are very much different. That would impart major discrepancies in the performance, handling, configuration, potential role, and logistics of the aircraft, and hence "copy" is quite a misused term in this case and inaccurate.

Put it another way, one of the reasons why different Sukhoi numbers are assigned to every major variant of the Flanker family is due to the fact that, despite their mutual fuselage design, the planes' different subsystems allow them to exhibit qualities that warrant them a separate designation; the situation is no more different than that of the PLAAF variants.

Again, this argument is only due to a rift in differing semantics, and thus should be put to rest.

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe I've just become jaded after so many years here, but at this point it doesn't really bother me if someone calls J-11B or J-15 or whatever just a chinese flanker copy.

Continuing to pine over the word copy makes it seem like its originality or whatever is important. It really isn't, not to me anymore at least. Unless the discussion is revolving around the more detailed capabilities of the aircraft, then who it doesn't really matter to me if someone uses the word copy or variant to describe any of the PLA flankers.

Because at the end of the day, J-11B/15/16, not to mention J-7, Z-20, Z-8, Z-9, all trace back one small step to an original airframe that was not designed in China, so the word copy from any average joe would seem correct. Most people attribute the airframe of planes to be the "true" plane, and subsystems, weapon suites, materials, are barely given any thought. That's fair enough.
People both like to and dislike to use the word copy because it suggests a lack of original thought, or the idea that it is associated with "cheating". They can think that, but more often than not, the PLA copies are better than the original. The reason PLA want "copies" is because they are proven airframes, simple. It isn't a lack of originality on the designer's part -- in fact, designing a plane may be the easy part, it is the entire testing process, building manufacturing lines, that's difficult and time consuming. And time is something the PLA don't have -- they needed their new platforms five years ago, their modernization (while impressive) is still slower than they'd like.

In other words -- the PLA wants "copies" of proven airframes because they're more mature than a new airframe. They're not vain enough to care whether their product is "original" or not because they have massive military requirements that need to be fulfilled quickly and at affordable cost.

I think dwelling too much on the word "copy" is missing the forest for the trees -- it's really a superficial discussion


---

that said, I disagree with the idea that clean sheet designs like FC-31 or Y-20 are "copies" of F-35, C-17 just because of physical similarities. In those cases, it is form following function, and IMO that argument is one worth having simply for the sake of logic. Afterall, if FC-31 and F-35 are "the same," then one could say a supermarine spitfire, P-51 mustang, and a messerschmitt bf 109 are all the same as well.

 

[Jeff Head]

...hence "copy" is quite a misused term in this case and inaccurate.

I really do not think it is.

The fact remains that the Chinese took the kits that were from Russia to make the J-11, studied it, built 100 of them so they knew it inside and out, and then made it indigenous and called it the J-11B. In the process of doing that, they improved the aircraft.

Of course they use different subsystems. That was the point. If they did not, there would have been no need to stop building the kits.

But the Chinese wanted to get away from reliance on Russian weapons and Russian electronics. So, they improved things where they could...and also built their own electronics, sensors, weapons systems, etc. into it. Which is exactly what they wanted to do.

There is nothing wrong with the word "copy," in this context. As I said, if there had never been a SU-27 from Russia and a deal to allow Chinese to build them as kits in China (the J-11), there never would have been a J-11B.

If there had not been the SU-27 that become the J-11B, and the SU-33 prototype, (it took both), there never would have been a J-15.

The Chinese took those designs, made them their own (ie copied them using indigenous subsystems) and then improved them in the process.

Of course they have different designations...the J-11B is not the SU-27. It is the improved Chinese version of it.

The J-15 is not the SU-33...it is the improved Chinese version of it.

I believe the biggest issue is cultural and somehow feeling that to admit that their was a reliance on the SU-27 to get to the J-11B somehow diminishes what was accomplished. That may be cultural, but it is not semantics. It's what happened...and rather than be diminished, the Chinese should be applauded and respected for getting away from a total reliance on another country for an important and good aircraft, making it their own, and improving the design in the process.

...hehehe, I also think, Sino, that you want to have the last word on it here and leave the discussion with a definitive statement that the word "copy," is not to be applied. Sorry, for the reasons explained, I simply do not feel that way, and there is nothing negative meant or implied towards China regarding it.

The best we are probably going to get is to understand each other's reasoning and admit that we simply disagree on it, with no negative connotation either way. And that is fine too.

How about we let that be the last word on it?

 

[delft]

In this discussion I miss one aspect. The technology available to produce the parts that originally were provided Sukhoi was different in China. When redesigning for J-11B that was one aspect that let to lower production costs. Remember how North American Aviation was asked to produce Spitfires for the British Empire. They said we can do better than that and they produced P-51 not only better, when fitted with the Spitfire's engine, but also under American circumstances cheaper to produce.

 

[lucretius]

In this discussion I miss one aspect. The technology available to produce the parts that originally were provided Sukhoi was different in China. When redesigning for J-11B that was one aspect that let to lower production costs. Remember how North American Aviation was asked to produce Spitfires for the British Empire. They said we can do better than that and they produced P-51 not only better, when fitted with the Spitfire's engine, but also under American circumstances cheaper to produce.

The Spitfire would run rings around the P-51 in a dogfight... The P-51's advantage was large fuel tanks and range.

 

[delft]

The Spitfire would run rings around the P-51 in a dogfight... The P-51's advantage was large fuel tanks and range.

That was an important advantage beside the lower costs.

 

[no_name]

P-51 had better high altitude performance and also range, a much needed aircraft to serve as strategic bomber escort. You can't say just because Mig-29 turns better than the Su-27 that it is a better aircraft.

 

[Air Force Brat]

P-51 had better high altitude performance and also range, a much needed aircraft to serve as strategic bomber escort. You can't say just because Mig-29 turns better than the Su-27 that it is a better aircraft.

Well said no-name, the P-51 went from an idea to first flight in 6 months, unheard of in that day, and it rivaled not only the Spitfire, but bested every other fighter in the known world. The Spit would turn and climb, but the Stang was also pretty slick in those departments as well as "fast" and "tough". I would put my money on the Stang since I'm a "colonist", you choose your own poison, the A started out with the Allison V-12, and was something of a pooch, but once the Merlin came over to roost, the show was on, and the Stang gave everybody and everything a run for its money, including the Me-262, shooting down the first jet fighter with those six lovely .50 cals..... I do love the Spit, the prettiest of all the Cox flying models, and I have acquired a couple of those, to hang from the ceiling some day, LOL.

Now back on topic gents-----

 

[Air Force Brat]

In this discussion I miss one aspect. The technology available to produce the parts that originally were provided Sukhoi was different in China. When redesigning for J-11B that was one aspect that let to lower production costs. Remember how North American Aviation was asked to produce Spitfires for the British Empire. They said we can do better than that and they produced P-51 not only better, when fitted with the Spitfire's engine, but also under American circumstances cheaper to produce.

and we seem to have missed your point??? LOL, the J-15 is a qualitative improvement over the SU-27 due to improved materials and workmanship, and prolly cheaper to produce as well. The J-15 and J-15s promise to be very successful in their own right, and it does seem a shame that the Su-33 wasn't upgraded and carried on with possibly the F-117 engines for the Kuznetsov, or maybe the way things are shaping up, I should say, I'm glad they didn't carry on the Su-33 and upgrade it with the F-117???? WOW?