China Flanker Thread II

[kwaigonegin]

J-11B is single seat. According to the news, J-16 is based on the double-seat J-11BS airframe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is how does China designate their aircraft build? Do they give a new designation even if the plane is 99% identical to another? It's even worst than the Russians. If a new # is given everytime some minor modifications are made they will be running out of 2 digit numbering system pretty soon.
As an ex you have J-10A and J-10B. then you have J-11, J-15 and J-16 which are essentially based on the same airframe and fundamental design block. then you have the JF-17 which is a totally different aircraft all together.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

J-11B is single seat. According to the news, J-16 is based on the double-seat J-11BS airframe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is how does China designate their aircraft build? Do they give a new designation even if the plane is 99% identical to another? It's even worst than the Russians. If a new # is given everytime some minor modifications are made they will be running out of 2 digit numbering system pretty soon.
As an ex you have J-10A and J-10B. then you have J-11, J-15 and J-16 which are essentially based on the same airframe and fundamental design block. then you have the JF-17 which is a totally different aircraft all together.

[Quickie]

I guess what I'm trying to say is how does China designate their aircraft build? Do they give a new designation even if the plane is 99% identical to another? It's even worst than the Russians. If a new # is given everytime some minor modifications are made they will be running out of 2 digit numbering system pretty soon.
As an ex you have J-10A and J-10B. then you have J-11, J-15 and J-16 which are essentially based on the same airframe and fundamental design block. then you have the JF-17 which is a totally different aircraft all together.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------



I guess what I'm trying to say is how does China designate their aircraft build? Do they give a new designation even if the plane is 99% identical to another? It's even worst than the Russians. If a new # is given everytime some minor modifications are made they will be running out of 2 digit numbering system pretty soon.
As an ex you have J-10A and J-10B. then you have J-11, J-15 and J-16 which are essentially based on the same airframe and fundamental design block. then you have the JF-17 which is a totally different aircraft all together.

It started off with how we would expect variants are named i.e. J-11B, J-11BS, J-11BH, J-11BSH. J-15 is already a bit of a stretch but one can argue besides the canards there are also other changes to the airframe to warrant it. J-16? I don't really have a clue.

[A.Man]

Hainan Island, PLAN AF 8th Division, 22nd Rejiment Receiving J-11BS's

[70092]

According to a quite known military insiders, recently there are some military excersise between J-11B and J-10A at West China, and J-10A beat J-11B easily. so now J-10A basically have defeat all Su-27 families in China, even the J-11B, which should have at least comparable electronic upgrades as J-10A.

The insider also claimed J-10B's A2A performance is (surprisingly) considerably better than J-10A, the PLAAF is quite satified with J-10B until they get J-20.

http://www.****.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=...toread=&page=3

And there is alot of other info in that informative thread:

Due to the A2A performance gap between J-11 and J-10, the rule has been set for PLAAF's military competition between different divisions to only count these results between same-type fighters' dog-fights.

J-10 vs J-10 and Su-27 vs Su-27, whilst the match between different types of fighters are only count as friendly match.

Also due to the poor performance in these open competitions, PLAAF's 1st Division (stationed at Shenyang) have been critized by the boss of PLAAF, the commander of PLAAF suspect the training methods 1st Division employed has fundemntal flaws, and demand the commanders of 1st Division to improve their training approaches urgently.

Whilst Airforce divisions from Chengdu consistently outpeformance divisions in Shenyang, so I guess CAC really make the airforce divisions around them stronger, CAC vs SAC 2:0 now, just kidding.

[Hyperwarp]

According to a quite known military insiders, recently there are some military excersise between J-11B and J-10A at West China, and J-10A beat J-11B easily. so now J-10A basically have defeat all Su-27 families in China, even the J-11B, which should have at least comparable electronic upgrades as J-10A.

The insider also claimed J-10B's A2A performance is (surprisingly) considerably better than J-10A, the PLAAF is quite satified with J-10B until they get J-20.

http://www.****.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=...toread=&page=3

And there is alot of other info in that informative thread:

Due to the A2A performance gap between J-11 and J-10, the rule has been set for PLAAF's military competition between different divisions to only count these results between same-type fighters' dog-fights.

J-10 vs J-10 and Su-27 vs Su-27, whilst the match between different types of fighters are only count as friendly match.

Also due to the poor performance in these open competitions, PLAAF's 1st Division (stationed at Shenyang) have been critized by the boss of PLAAF, the commander of PLAAF suspect the training methods 1st Division employed has fundemntal flaws, and demand the commanders of 1st Division to improve their training approaches urgently.

Whilst Airforce divisions from Chengdu consistently outpeformance divisions in Shenyang, so I guess CAC really make the airforce divisions around them stronger, CAC vs SAC 2:0 now, just kidding.

Do the recent Su-35 rumors have something to do with the J-11B performance against the J-10A? I mean just imagine F-16 constantly beating F-15 or MiG-29 constantly beating Su-27? That can't be going down well with the PLAAF top brass.

[Lion]

Do the recent Su-35 rumors have something to do with the J-11B performance against the J-10A? I mean just imagine F-16 constantly beating F-15 or MiG-29 constantly beating Su-27? That can't be going down well with the PLAAF top brass.

No, it just that the J-10 are just too good. But seriously, I believe TVC will do good for Flanker.

[SinoSoldier]

According to a quite known military insiders, recently there are some military excersise between J-11B and J-10A at West China, and J-10A beat J-11B easily. so now J-10A basically have defeat all Su-27 families in China, even the J-11B, which should have at least comparable electronic upgrades as J-10A.

The insider also claimed J-10B's A2A performance is (surprisingly) considerably better than J-10A, the PLAAF is quite satified with J-10B until they get J-20.

http://www.****.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=...toread=&page=3

And there is alot of other info in that informative thread:

Due to the A2A performance gap between J-11 and J-10, the rule has been set for PLAAF's military competition between different divisions to only count these results between same-type fighters' dog-fights.

J-10 vs J-10 and Su-27 vs Su-27, whilst the match between different types of fighters are only count as friendly match.

Also due to the poor performance in these open competitions, PLAAF's 1st Division (stationed at Shenyang) have been critized by the boss of PLAAF, the commander of PLAAF suspect the training methods 1st Division employed has fundemntal flaws, and demand the commanders of 1st Division to improve their training approaches urgently.

Whilst Airforce divisions from Chengdu consistently outpeformance divisions in Shenyang, so I guess CAC really make the airforce divisions around them stronger, CAC vs SAC 2:0 now, just kidding.

Did they limit the J-11B's AESA radar?

[Lion]

Did they limit the J-11B's AESA radar?

I don't think those J-11B entering the competition has AESA yet.

[Air Force Brat]

This is one of those rumors that my inner baloney detector is showing a hit on. I wouldn't say no way, but I am highly sceptical, I think its possible, but not likely. If it did prove to be true, I would suspect some disparity in the talent of the drivers, if they said parity, I might say okay. Now let me say, I am a flanker fan, I really like the Flanker, so I'm not impartial, and knowing the J-10s origens, I'm not crazy about the the delta/canard planform, having said that, it obviously works well so. Having seen the Su-35 flying display I guess the real question is what are the parameters. I would say a good Flanker could have its way with a J-10, especially with canards and OVT on the Flanker! IMHO Brat

[SinoSoldier]

I don't think those J-11B entering the competition has AESA yet.

i wouldn't be surprised if they did since the news first came out in 2010

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

This is one of those rumors that my inner baloney detector is showing a hit on. I wouldn't say no way, but I am highly sceptical, I think its possible, but not likely. If it did prove to be true, I would suspect some disparity in the talent of the drivers, if they said parity, I might say okay. Now let me say, I am a flanker fan, I really like the Flanker, so I'm not impartial, and knowing the J-10s origens, I'm not crazy about the the delta/canard planform, having said that, it obviously works well so. Having seen the Su-35 flying display I guess the real question is what are the parameters. I would say a good Flanker could have its way with a J-10, especially with canards and OVT on the Flanker! IMHO Brat

The J-11B is not a Su-35 in the sense that it does not feature 142 kN engines and thrust vectoring, and even then the J-10A's canards and relatively unstable design allows it to achieve much higher sustained turning rates and angle of attack.

[Air Force Brat]

i wouldn't be surprised if they did since the news first came out in 2010

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------



The J-11B is not a Su-35 in the sense that it does not feature 142 kN engines and thrust vectoring, and even then the J-10A's canards and relatively unstable design allows it to achieve much higher sustained turning rates and angle of attack.

Yeah, I'll buy that, but only because you're such an upstanding fellow, so the J-10 has a close coupled canard, and it is fairly short coupled. I have to confess that I am more familiar with US, British, Russian, and French, so the Delta had gone out of fashion over here after the F-106. So I really have learned a lot on Sino Defense.

[Speeder]

Hainan Island, PLAN AF 8th Division, 22nd Rejiment Receiving J-11BS's

Many people in the web have taken this photo as China's J-16 - the new clone of Su-30MKK.

So this's J-11BS for sure?

I don't see the point why China needs "J-16" (it's said to be a copy/paste of flankers) for, must be another rumor?

[SinoSoldier]

Many people in the web have taken this photo as China's J-16 - the new clone of Su-30MKK.

So this's J-11BS for sure?

I don't see the point why China needs "J-16" (it's said to be a copy/paste of flankers) for, must be another rumor?

J-16 was built from J-11BS, which featured wholly indigenous equipment besides its airframe design.

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

Many people in the web have taken this photo as China's J-16 - the new clone of Su-30MKK.

So this's J-11BS for sure?

I don't see the point why China needs "J-16" (it's said to be a copy/paste of flankers) for, must be another rumor?

The Su-30MK2 was claimed by Kanwa, and we all know how reliable that is

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Yeah, I'll buy that, but only because you're such an upstanding fellow, so the J-10 has a close coupled canard, and it is fairly short coupled. I have to confess that I am more familiar with US, British, Russian, and French, so the Delta had gone out of fashion over here after the F-106. So I really have learned a lot on Sino Defense.

delta wing simply reduces drag. it's the canards that actually increase its turning rate

[Lion]

Maybe J-16 is a far more potent platform for A2G mode. We know J-10A and J-11B can drop PGM but firing KD-88, C-802 and Anti-radiation missile needs far more dedicated platform and system...Something like J-16?

It will be like the real F-15E strike eagle.

[Air Force Brat]

[/COLOR]

delta wing simply reduces drag. it's the canards that actually increase its turning rate[/QUOTE]

Well the delta obviously moves the center of lift aft, compared to a midwing design, and the canard restores/increases pitch authority, much like OVT. To take advantage of the high AoA capability, in addition to creating a vortex to increase lift. It is much shorter, and the mass is centralized, much like the newer sport bikes, Honda marketed mass centralization as a design philosophy. The Flanker has a large main wing in the center and lots of pitch authority, but is not nearly as dynamically unstable as the delta/canard configuration. So you sold me young man, I'm buyin it.