China Flanker Thread II

[Ultra]

My take on the Flankers' roles within the PLAAF:

- J-11D will serve as an air superiority fighter (single seat, composites, and rumored upgraded engines are implicit of this); it should be China's equivalent of the Su-35 in terms of role and capability somewhat.
- J-11B/S will also serve as air superiority fighters (training for J-11BS), but with much less capability than the J-11D variant; their roles would be akin to that of the F-15C/D. When they get retrofitted with AESA radar they will be comparable to the F-15C Golden Eagle in terms of role.
- J-16 will serve as strike fighters within their air force, much like the F-15E does in the USAF; the jet should approach the F-15SG in terms of capability.
- PLAN air superiority fighters will consist of the J-15 while their strikers will be the J-15S / JH-7B.

I don't see an overlap anywhere.

Fully concur.
That's exactly what I thought too.

There is also the rumored J-18 a few years ago which is based on the flanker airframe but "stealthierized" which we may see sometime in the future.

I think currently PLA is just busy adapting the flanker airframe to various roles, since it is just such an excellent airframe - much like the Soviet/Russian did where they basically adapt flanker airframe into various roles (air-superiority, strike fighter/bomber, carrier escort, naval strike fighter/bomber).



What I havn't seen though is the electronic warfare variant like the EA-18G Growler :

It would be quite interesting to see such variant especially since China is busy developing its CSG fleets and probably would require such element in its defense.

 

[Ultra]

J-16 was always meant to be a tandem seating cockpit, and we've had pictures of J-16 for years so im not sure what source made you believe it would be like Su-34

What I meant is the PLAAF probably model everything else but the seating arrangement to be more like Su-34 since this is a flanker airframe.

But I find it interesting is PLAAF chosed the tandem seating arrangement over side-by-side. And I am curious as to the reasoning behind this - is it due to the cost of development issue? Since tandem seating is probably cheaper to develop as PLAAF already have blueprint for the twin-seating flanker airframe so minimal modification is required. Is there any advantage of using side-by-side seating arrangement?

 

[Blitzo]

What I havn't seen though is the electronic warfare variant like the EA-18G Growler :

It would be quite interesting to see such variant especially since China is busy developing its CSG fleets and probably would require such element in its defense.

I suspect such a variant of J-15 at any rate is under development
Pictures arose in novemeber last year of what studies for a J-15 with some stealth features, catapult compatibility as well as ECM roles, I posted them in the thread.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-15-carrier-multirole-fighter-thread.t6768/page-57#post-312515

What I meant is the PLAAF probably model everything else but the seating arrangement to be more like Su-34 since this is a flanker airframe.

Umm... that doesn't make sense. Su-30 is tandem seated and is also very much a striker derived from the flanker airframe. Just because Russia chooses to go with a side by side seat cockpit for their striker derived from the flanker doesn't mean China needs to or should. It's all dependent on their own requirements.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Fully concur.
That's exactly what I thought too.

There is also the rumored J-18 a few years ago which is based on the flanker airframe but "stealthierized" which we may see sometime in the future.

I think currently PLA is just busy adapting the flanker airframe to various roles, since it is just such an excellent airframe - much like the Soviet/Russian did where they basically adapt flanker airframe into various roles (air-superiority, strike fighter/bomber, carrier escort, naval strike fighter/bomber).



What I havn't seen though is the electronic warfare variant like the EA-18G Growler :

It would be quite interesting to see such variant especially since China is busy developing its CSG fleets and probably would require such element in its defense.

I believe that with time, the PLAAF would be less and less interested in a notional "Silent-Eagle"-esque upgrade of the Flanker design. The F-15SE hasn't attracted any major attention and the USAF chose to go ahead with its less ambitious Golden Eagle program instead. I do believe that such an idea did undergo high-caliber scrutiny within SAC at one point, and articles from prior years certainly suggests the notion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up in the trash can.

I think that a potential EW variant would simply involve the Flanker carrying detachable EW pods.

 

[antiterror13]

Just a wild thought ... to modify the intakes of J-11x or J-16 to DSI style like J-20 or J-10B ... not sure whether be any benefits

 

[delft]

Why do a J-11D then J-16 is on the way ?
J-16 for PLAN maybe ?

The role of J-11D vs J-16 was being discussed over on CDF too, this is what I wrote:




J-11B/BS and J-11D will be PLAAF's version of F-15C/D in role, although in terms of capability J-11B/BS may be more similar to unupgraded F-15C/Ds lacking AESA, while upgraded J-11B/BS will be similar to F-15C/Ds with their AESA upgrade. J-11D (making the reasonable assumption that there will be no J-11DS) will be equivalent to a F-15C upgraded with AESA, and a newer avionics set, and with some degree of A2G capability.
J-16 of course can be fairly compared to F-15E, with associated avionics and radar upgrades

What would your estimate of needed Flankers mean for the production of them?
One facility producing batches of J-11D, one producing batches of J-15 or J-16 as needed?

 

[Jeff Head]

What I meant is the PLAAF probably model everything else but the seating arrangement to be more like Su-34 since this is a flanker airframe.

The PLAAF modeled the J-16 on the J-11BS and on the J-15, with additional enhancements for strike, probably taken from the SU-30MKK/MK2s they have.

I have never heard at any time that they were modeling it on the SU-34. Do you have a link to a source for that?

But I find it interesting is PLAAF chosed the tandem seating arrangement over side-by-side.

They did this becasue they are actively building those types of airframes already in the J-11BS, and also the J-15S. They also have a lot of experience with the SU-30MKKs and MK2s. Apparently they are satisifed with that configuration for their needs.

. Is there any advantage of using side-by-side seating arrangement?

For the Russians, they wanted a new aircraft that they could use for the long range strike role which led them to add the side by side seating.

However, the US (and others) have shown, with refueling capability, that the F-15E tandem seating can perform the same function adequately.

With the larger cockpit in the side by side, with the additional space behind it, the Russians can however provide for better crew comfort.

 

[Ultra]

Just a wild thought ... to modify the intakes of J-11x or J-16 to DSI style like J-20 or J-10B ... not sure whether be any benefits

You mean like this?

Something I dig up from ages ago..... not sure where I found this.

 

[Jeff Head]

You mean like this?

How about this...



...the J-31.

Of course, now you have little resemblance to the J-11. Nose is all wrong. Vertical stabilizers, etc.

 

[Deino]

Via "hongjian" (CDF) ... PL-15 potted under J-11B