China Flanker Thread II

[Air Force Brat]

I think you are underestimating China's and the PLA's financial constraints.

That's right, US's high unemployment rates, and under-employment rates under the Obama administration have cut this nations buying power in half on the local level, particularly here in Central Obamastan. We have a largely agricultural economy here in Central Obamastan, and while farm productivity is up, so are the very large expenses of putting in and harvesting the crop.

As well a large percentage of the Chicago area subsist on govt programs for minor children, food stamps and medic-aid... that is a drag on the whole state, which is by and large socialist in the Chicago area, and conservative in the central and downstate area.

Illinois, Obama's home state for the decades prior to his becoming president,,, has continued to lose money, lose influence, and with our tremendously hi taxes drive away business!

As Zaphd reminded us, we must protect our industrial base, Boeing is across the river in St. Louis, still building F-18s and F-15's, so managing to maintain an industrial base and two or more defense contractors is increasing difficult, with the very difficult world markets??

So the Chinese Flankers may even find some buyers if offered outside of the country, and just as China has purchase those Russian SU-35s we will be seeing shortly if the initial order of 24 are delivered?? on time?? and will more be purchased, or are they just a momentary expediency to increase available front line fighters.

To be honest we haven't seen the evidence of a dramatic increase in the J-20 production?? will we??? I'm guessing yes, but there are indeed some serious financial constraints.

In any regard, the J-11D will likely be receiving lots of attention in the meantime, Flankers are very practical high end fighters,, their procurement will allow China to increase its defense posture and standing in the world in general.

 

[Lethe]

I think you are underestimating China's and the PLA's financial constraints.

The best way to improve the affordability of J-20 and other VLO aircraft is through economies of scale, which means not diverting much needed funds and personnel resources to irrelevant projects like J-11D.

That goes for J-15 and J-16 as well. Funds and personnel resources devoted to J-11D necessarily comes at the cost of those projects which will continue to be relevant even after J-20 is ready for service and full rate production.

Further, as a legacy platform J-10 is a much preferred target for further investment over J-11 for two key reasons: it is a cheaper aircraft in the first place, and unlike J-11 there is no immediate replacement for it on the horizon.

 

[Richard Santos]

The best way to improve the affordability of J-20 and other VLO aircraft is through economies of scale, which means not diverting much needed funds and personnel resources to irrelevant projects like J-11D.

That goes for J-15 and J-16 as well. Funds and personnel resources devoted to J-11D necessarily comes at the cost of those projects which will continue to be relevant even after J-20 is ready for service and full rate production.

Further, as a legacy platform J-10 is a much preferred target for further investment over J-11 for two key reasons: it is a cheaper aircraft in the first place, and unlike J-11 there is no immediate replacement for it on the horizon.

One way china improves upon the affordability of the J-20 is through the system where the Chinese parliament has no say in how many j-20 is procured, so there is no,pressure to secure a parliamentary base for the j-20 by the political, but totally uneconomic, expedient of disseminating j-20 subcobtracts to the Chinese equivalent of every congressional district, no matter how inefficient and under-qualified those subcontractors might be.

 

[jobjed]

One way china improves upon the affordability of the J-20 is through the system where the Chinese parliament has no say in how many j-20 is procured, so there is no,pressure to secure a parliamentary base for the j-20 by the political, but totally uneconomic, expedient of disseminating j-20 subcobtracts to the Chinese equivalent of every congressional district, no matter how inefficient and under-qualified those subcontractors might be.

Patronage is still a bit of a problem with Chinese procurement but in recent decades, especially after the 1999 Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade, the PLA's role in China's trajectory has been increasing, reversing a downward trend that began after 1979. With this increase in prominence, the PLA has been given much greater say over what equipment they wish to procure. Hence, we've been hearing of the PLA making demands to manufacturers to incorporate certain features or fix certain shortcomings a la the J-16 debacle. Additionally, with Xi's endeavour to forge the PLA into a modern military, priority has been given to fulfilling the PLA's requirements as opposed to political requirements. Therefore, while SAC may have been given undue attention by the Old Guard in the past, nowadays, SAC can be - and have been - told to go f*ck themselves and deliver proper tools of war by the PLA or they'll be dropped in favour of XAC or CAC.

 

[PanAsian]

The best way to improve the affordability of J-20 and other VLO aircraft is through economies of scale, which means not diverting much needed funds and personnel resources to irrelevant projects like J-11D.

That goes for J-15 and J-16 as well. Funds and personnel resources devoted to J-11D necessarily comes at the cost of those projects which will continue to be relevant even after J-20 is ready for service and full rate production.

Further, as a legacy platform J-10 is a much preferred target for further investment over J-11 for two key reasons: it is a cheaper aircraft in the first place, and unlike J-11 there is no immediate replacement for it on the horizon.

I feel the same way about China's carrier program but it appears that China is prioritizing wide spectrum and continuous development over maximal economy of scale for specific programs. This makes sense since they are playing catch up and catching up to a moving target in terms of cutting edge military technology.

There are too many unknowns as to how the J-20 will perform in actual combat for the PLA to bet too much on it especially given the known shortcomings and continued development of key relevant Chinese technologies. Flankers are also good enough for most tasks in the foreseeable future and still offer beneficial R&D opportunities.

The J-10 is in a less capable category than Flankers and J-20, and it may not be good enough for most tasks in the foreseeable future.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I feel the same way about China's carrier program but it appears that China is prioritizing wide spectrum and continuous development over maximal economy of scale for specific programs. This makes sense since they are playing catch up and catching up to a moving target in terms of cutting edge military technology.

There are too many unknowns as to how the J-20 will perform in actual combat for the PLA to bet too much on it especially given the known shortcomings and continued development of key relevant Chinese technologies. Flankers are also good enough for most tasks in the foreseeable future and still offer beneficial R&D opportunities.

The J-10 is in a less capable category than Flankers and J-20, and it may not be good enough for most tasks in the foreseeable future.

I'd say you wrapped it up nicely PanAsian, course folks will disagree with you, but that happens when you nail the crux of the matter! great post.

Yes the J-20 is a wonderful airplane, and likely very, very, capable! With upgraded engines it may be a "world beater" in the same manner as the F-22, but for now, production is limited by lots of factors, one being that to date Chengdu seems to have limitations on their manufacturing capacity.

and all this Shenyang hatred, that's totally bogus, folks hate Shenyang because the Chinese Flanker is indeed superior to the J-10, and will no doubt give the J-20 a run for its money in CQB with a gun!

Even the F-22 would have to be very careful if mixing it up CQB with an SU-35, and in spite of all the pronouncements that CQB is a thing of the past, we still run "intercepts with the Raptor every day" cause that's what real war-fighters do???

But this is the China Flanker thread, and Shenyang has the Flanker down, I would much prefer the Chinese airframes to the Russian airframes as the Chinese workers care a great deal about building one of the best airplanes on the planet!

Now I'm not gonna argue that Chengdu, may well produce a superior airplane, as the J-20 is a very HI end of the HI/LO equation, and I'm certain they get more development money and better facilities, but until we see lots of J-20's rolling off those assembly lines, it wouldn't be very smart to count Shenyang out! and they will KEEP building Flankers, CHINESE FLANKERS!

 

[b787]

and all this Shenyang hatred, that's totally bogus, folks hate Shenyang because the Chinese Flanker is indeed superior to the J-10, and will no doubt give the J-20 a run for its money in CQB with a gun!

the J-10 is not exactly inferior, flankers have an Achilles heel, they are expensive to operate, the Russians operate an air force with mostly flankers, for long range patrol over Russia the su-27 is superior to the MiG-29, however over Syria, which is a small country, it is far too expensive compared to a MiG-35, thus the Russian defense ministry has opted to buy a few super Fulcrums, same is the Russian navy, the Su-33 is far too big to give numbers, thus the new MiG-29K was introduced, in fact the aircraft is superior to the larger Su-33 in terms of capabilities in a much smaller platform, it is similar to the F-14 versus F-18, the USA opted for the Hornet in spite the Tomcat had its advantages but maintainability was not one.


China has followed the USAF example while Russia the USA navy philosophy, the MiG-29 is a Hornet equivalent, while the J-10 a viper equivalent, Russia has limited funds so they opted to create a Su-27 based air force on the basis of long range capability, let us remember Russia is twice as big as the USA, thus the Flanker makes sense if you try to prioritize strategic value.


in China the Flanker is the same in terms of maritime patrol, the J-10 is like the F-16 and F-2, limited to home base defense, more into the tactical strategy.

so there is no superiority, aircraft are measure into niches, the MiG-35 is still a better option in the low end niche

 

[Air Force Brat]

the J-10 is not exactly inferior, flankers have an Achilles heel, they are expensive to operate, the Russians operate an air force with mostly flankers, for long range patrol over Russia the su-27 is superior to the MiG-29, however over Syria, which is a small country, it is far too expensive compared to a MiG-35, thus the Russian defense ministry has opted to buy a few super Fulcrums, same is the Russian navy, the Su-33 is far too big to give numbers, thus the new MiG-29K was introduced, in fact the aircraft is superior to the larger Su-33 in terms of capabilities in a much smaller platform, it is similar to the F-14 versus F-18, the USA opted for the Hornet in spite the Tomcat had its advantages but maintainability was not one.


China has followed the USAF example while Russia the USA navy philosophy, the MiG-29 is a Hornet equivalent, while the J-10 a viper equivalent, Russia has limited funds so they opted to create a Su-27 based air force on the basis of long range capability, let us remember Russia is twice as big as the USA, thus the Flanker makes sense if you try to prioritize strategic value.


in China the Flanker is the same in terms of maritime patrol, the J-10 is like the F-16 and F-2, limited to home base defense, more into the tactical strategy.

so there is no superiority, aircraft are measure into niches, the MiG-35 is still a better option in the low end niche

Uh Huh?? but what you left out is that the USN then found the Hornet too dinky to do the job and phased out most of their Hornets, in favor of Newer, much more "right sized Super Hornets...the Marines on the other hand, who had been flying Harriers, refused to give up their Legacy Hornets, as the Hornet is smaller and more maneuverable than the Super Hornet.

The Marines are whole HOG into the ThunderHogge II, the F-35B for the same reason, is more to their taste, and they will make it a world beater in combat.

The Russians went for the Mig-29K for one reason, they were able to sell it to the Indians, as the Mig-29K was more suitable for the Indians who had been flying the Harrier off the ramp. I would say the Mig-29K may actually have a better useful load off the ramp than the SU-33, which seems to launch with very light loads off the Admiral Kuznetsov..

So the Indian purchase, allowed the Russians to buy a few of their own, just as the Chinese purchase of the SU-35 allowed them to build some for theirselves, the Russians are on a very tight budget, but they have been plowing considerable sums into better military equipment.

 

[Lethe]

There are too many unknowns as to how the J-20 will perform in actual combat for the PLA to bet too much on it especially given the known shortcomings and continued development of key relevant Chinese technologies. Flankers are also good enough for most tasks in the foreseeable future and still offer beneficial R&D opportunities.

To clarify, I do not think it was a mistake for China to continue to develop the Flanker platform under J-11D project, nor that it would be a mistake to advance J-11D to production status in the near future. My point is only that J-11D has a limited window of opportunity. At a certain point in the maturation of J-20 and its systems, J-11D becomes irrelevant. Any significant delay to the J-11D program -- as has reportedly occurred -- therefore imperils its continuation.

Even if J-11D is cancelled (with or without additional Su-35s) that does not mean the effort has been wasted. The lessons learned and systems developed can be integrated into J-15 and J-16 and upgrade programs for existing J-11s.

As for SAC vs. CAC, I would hope that China's economic and governance systems would allow it to maintain the benefits of multiple independent design and production teams without investing resources in a sub-optimal manner. What I mean by this is that China does not need to put J-11D into production in order to support SAC. If necessary, CAC designs can be allocated to SAC production facilities and SAC designers given other projects to work on. This is in addition to more straightforward measures such as further investment in esp. J-16.

 

[b787]

The Russians went for the Mig-29K for one reason, they were able to sell it to the Indians, as the Mig-29K was more suitable for the Indians who had been flying the Harrier off the ramp. I would say the Mig-29K may actually have a better useful load off the ramp than the SU-33, which seems to launch with very light loads off the Admiral Kuznetsov..

So the Indian purchase, allowed the Russians to buy a few of their own, just as the Chinese purchase of the SU-35 allowed them to build some for theirselves, the Russians are on a very tight budget, but they have been plowing considerable sums into better military equipment.

The original plans for the Russians were to operate MiG-29Ks and Su-33s from their carriers.
The Russians operate now both aircraft, i can not tell you if they are going to operate them for 2 or 3 decades more, but you have to see what the USA did and what China did or the USSR/ Russia.

The USA developed the F-15 and F-16s for the air force, the F-14 and F-18 for the navy.

Russia did not want to develop a F-16 type aircraft, the Russians thought the F-16 was a single engine prone to more accidents, while that is true, the MiG-29 is not as cheap, it is expensive and when the Russians suffered economically they opted for the Su-27 fleet because it is only 30% more expensive but more than 50% more effective in terms of range and weapons carriage .


China did what the USAF did, but remember the F-16 is hard to navalize so is J-10 so the Chinese went for Su-33 basically making the same mistake Russia did.

The USA navy went for twin engine low-hi mix, but the high mix was expensive, the F-14 was expensive to operate, su they did what the Russians did a Hornet fleet, why? new radars and AAM can basically replace the F-14 and new SAM basically get rid of the F-14.

China did not navalize the J-10, thus like Russia went for the SU-33, the J-10 still has not reach the numbers of the F-16s, more than 4000s have been produce, thus the J-10 is more comparable to the Gripen in producibility.


The J-10 must be very capable, like MiG-29 it must beat the SU-27 in WVR combat, and armed like the Gripen can beat it, but Flankers have a very big advantage:Range and weapons carriage, thus the SU-33 was a far more logic aircraft to adapt for the Chinese, but in an aircraft carrier the Hornet type aircraft is better, you can carry more than the Su-33 or F-14s, the superbug it is a great aircraft, in reality as big as the F-14 but it is easier to operate and it did not only replace the F-14, but also the A-6s, the the prowler and the lighter Hornets Cs (the Flanker is doing something similar in the Russian air force), the MiG-29K is a twin seat, more advanced aerodynamically, got rid of the canards and is far far more cost effective plus you can deploy more than SU-33s, but the reality the Russians like the french know the Hornet size and rafale size is the ideal size for an aircraft carrier aircraft.

China will need to move into an aircraft more like the J-31 if it will operate aircraft carriers, the J-20 is too big, and a Flanker fleet is not ideal to operate a USA navy type aircraft carrier, the Flanker is doing a F-14 type job, but it is pure defensive in both the Chinese and Russian navies.

Basically you can not navalize the Flanker as the F-18, the SU-33KUB is a good example, and the Su-34 is out of the question, lighter aircraft might have less range but are easier to deploy in terms of take offs an Landings