China Flanker Thread II

[sealordlawrence]

Very interesting. I guess you might be right about ex-VARYAG staying in NSF (despite previous rumours that it would go to SSF). That would explain a lot of things. Thanks.

I think it has been obvious for some time that Varyag would stay in the NSF (at least for several years), that is where the base for her air wing has been constructed and its where she has been rebuilt so there is an existing support infrastructure. Sanya has clearly been built with large ships in mind but I dont think Varyag is one of them.

[franco-russe]

Yes, as I wrote, 01 in NSF would explain a lot of things. But it appears not to be a development that the Chinese bloggosphere has got wind of until now.

I am not sure that the new airfield at Huangdicun is one of them. Apparently it is subordinate to the PLANAF Training Base and will have an independent role, no matter where the carrier(s) will be based. But it will make a lot of sense to base 01's fighter regiment there.

[sealordlawrence]

Last time I checked GE it had the foundations for a a lot of aircraft shelters.

[franco-russe]

Yes, I counted 24, but possibly a couple more.

[escobar]

J-11BS

1327324467_79730.jpg 1327324472_47947.jpg

Is the cockpit gold-tinted??

[Bltizo]

Sort of looks that way doesn't it? There certainly is some degree of tint.

And xinhui over on CDF posted those two pics under the J-16 thread they have over there but it looks like your standard J-11BS.

[Deino]

But is a gold-tinted canopy the only external) modification ??? Sorry, but IMO a J-16 strike version should at least feature an IFR-probe to reach the same range as the MKK ... otherwise we already expected a more or less unchanged J-11BS; anyway what a disappointment again from SAC.

Deino

[Bltizo]

But is a gold-tinted canopy the only external) modification ??? Sorry, but IMO a J-16 strike version should at least feature an IFR-probe to reach the same range as the MKK ... otherwise we already expected a more or less unchanged J-11BS; anyway what a disappointment again from SAC.

Deino

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

But the flanker airframe was already big in the first place and the PLAAF doesn't quite have enough tankers to support such large strikers anyway. I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs, makes the aircraft cheaper and requires less time to develop -- avionics is the most expensive part on an aircraft these days, but among the easiest to replace. So long as J-19 turns out up eventually I'm not complaining.

I'd still like to see what xinhui and hmmvw sayabout the J-16 claims though, whether it was a joke taken wrong or what.

[AssassinsMace]

Kanwa says there are two versions of the J-15 which the other is designated J-15R having "XXX" engines. Is Pinkov just trying to act like he's breaking news with the WS10(?) on a J-15?

[pakje]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...
I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs

wait can't the j-11BS not fire PGMs already?

[Deino]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

....

Sorry if You understod it this way ! It was in no way meant to criticise You; Sorry.

My statement was only meant - maybe if true as a critic to SAC - that this IMO won't justify a new designation (similar to the numerous Russian Flanker versions).

As such I hope these rumours are simply wrong ... or shame on SAC.

Deino

[SinoSoldier]

Ah you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying the tinted canopy was an indication it was J-16...

But the flanker airframe was already big in the first place and the PLAAF doesn't quite have enough tankers to support such large strikers anyway. I'd be content if J-16 was just a J-11BS with avionics capable of firing PGMs, makes the aircraft cheaper and requires less time to develop -- avionics is the most expensive part on an aircraft these days, but among the easiest to replace. So long as J-19 turns out up eventually I'm not complaining.

I'd still like to see what xinhui and hmmvw sayabout the J-16 claims though, whether it was a joke taken wrong or what.

Frankly I don't think J-16 exists at all. It is simply possibly an upgrade program to have air to ground ability on the J-11BS. Like how F-14 was modified to fire air to ground weapons.

[Bltizo]

Sorry if You understod it this way ! It was in no way meant to criticise You; Sorry.

My statement was only meant - maybe if true as a critic to SAC - that this IMO won't justify a new designation (similar to the numerous Russian Flanker versions).

As such I hope these rumours are simply wrong ... or shame on SAC.

Deino

Yeah no problem I didn't take it as criticism lol.
J-15 got a new number from SAC even though it was just a naval derivative so maybe SAC will indeed be following sukhoi with naming new flanker variants.

Frankly I don't think J-16 exists at all. It is simply possibly an upgrade program to have air to ground ability on the J-11BS. Like how F-14 was modified to fire air to ground weapons.

That wouldn't make much sense -- existing J-11B and BS can't fire PGMs, and I think PLAAF want it that way, to keep that aircraft focused on one role. J-11BS will simply act as trainers/two seaters in flanker regiments while J-16 will be in their own attack/strike regiments like MKKs or JH-7s. Whether adding A2G avionics to J-11BS validates a name change is another question but this mini project is certainly in existence.

I think people are expecting a bit much from this J-16 project tbh.

[SinoSoldier]

That wouldn't make much sense -- existing J-11B and BS can't fire PGMs, and I think PLAAF want it that way, to keep that aircraft focused on one role. J-11BS will simply act as trainers/two seaters in flanker regiments while J-16 will be in their own attack/strike regiments like MKKs or JH-7s. Whether adding A2G avionics to J-11BS validates a name change is another question but this mini project is certainly in existence.

I think people are expecting a bit much from this J-16 project tbh.

We saw models of the J-11B fitted with guided ground missiles, therefore the fact that the PLAAF is leaning towards multiroleism may be a catalyst for such an upgrade.

My opinion is that if they indeed decided to build a new J-11B variant (in 2012, mind you) they would have at least added some upgrades such as canted vertical stabilisers.

[Deino]

Yeah no problem I didn't take it as criticism lol.
J-15 got a new number from SAC even though it was just a naval derivative so maybe SAC will indeed be following sukhoi with naming new flanker variants.

Yes, but it features at least canards, a tail-hook + overall a different internal structure ... as such IMO a new number makes sense, but not for a simple pimped-up J-11BS ! As such also the combat-capable J-10AS and future BS should get a new name too.

Deino