China Flanker Thread II

[hlcc]

Well , AL-31FN series III has approximately same thrust as AL-31F-M1 , according to the link you provided . Therefore , you could put two and two together :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

IMHO , AL-31FN series III is a AL-31F-M1 with gear-box on bottom . They started testing that engine last month , and no other plane except J-10 uses FN version therefore conclusion is clear

There's an English version of this announcement on Salut's website as well. Al-31FN Series 3 increased life time by 250 hours and the thrust by 1000kgf and it specifically mentions a contract with China. So seems like the maximum thrust for the Al-13FN Series 3 is 13700kgf.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[kwaigonegin]

It's not clear to me why Russians and Chinese do not find it advantageous to also paint interior parts of their plane a color that aids in fault spotting. I certainly think the idea had occurred to them. So they probably have some other reason why they paint the wheels of their plane the color they do. But look wise I think a green wheel does make an otherwise sophisticated plane look somewhat agricultural, like it ought to be diesel powered or something.

you mean like a John Deere? maybe PLAN pilots say something like let's plough the skies comrades!!

 

[Totoro]

if it's random posters rather than someone I think is reliable, I will rarely mention it or say something along the line of speculation on Chinese forum.

JH-7B is not exclusively PLAN just as JH-7/A was not. But as seen with JH-7/A, they did not get PLAAF orders until they satisfied the requirements of PLAAF and also entered in PLANAF in 3 regiments. I'd imagine JH-7B is for new units, not for replacements. I don't know anything else at this point.

thanks for you input. i am just anxious to see the plans for planaf then, as this would point out to actual additional regiments in planaf, over the existing ones. i somehow can't believe they'd trade in h6g for jh7b. Or even get rid of the j8 or j7 regiment for a new jh7b regiment. but i guess anything is possible, which is why i am so eager to know more.

On the other hand, when it comes to jh7a, plaaf was much more of a buyer than planaf for the last nine or so years. During that period planaf converted one regiment to jh7a, while plaaf converted four of its regiments.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think I need to interject here and to give you the benefit of my opinion, which is not only based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, but also ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE OF ANY TYPE IN THE PRODUCTION OF ANY AIRCRAFT - MILITARY OR CIVIL, EVER AT ANY TIME IN MY LIFE. Obviously I have whetted your interest and whipped it to fever pitch.

For the Russians, the Flanker is a family of indigenous Aircraft developed serially and each serial aircraft given its own designation. For the Chinese however the Flankers have been obtained through purchase and licence and represent the starting point of their own indigenous development projects. I believe therefore that the separate designations represent a new branch of aircraft development/specialisation that will run in parallel and which will quickly diverge from the original flankers and the other variants.

I appreciate your honesty SampanViking, my concern is that it is misleading, for instance the C-130, world renowned airlifter, circa 1955, is still in production as the J-model in 2014, Cessna is still producing the venerable 172, circa 1956, and who knows what letter designates current production aircraft. Both those aircraft are produced under the same type certificate, which would now be a "supplemental type certificate, licensing the various modifications etc to that basic airframe. While each upgrade or change requires flight testing, new weight and balance, perhaps an supplement to the POH of said aircraft, they remain true to type

With CAD/CAM those changes are simpler than ever to make on the production floor, whether it is a line production or batch production, such as the F-35, the various versions will be flight tested, A, B, and C, and spin tested, any variations or "anomalies" noted and placarded, speed limitations, white arc, green arc, yellow arc, red line, and dealt with in the simulator. Its really no big deal to "re-engineer" attach points, landing gear, tail-hooks, heavier or lighter skins here or there as needed. While I think I understand the motivation, for changing types and making it seem like more than it is. To conclude the C-130 has had fuel tanks all over the place, skis for polar landings, Fulton Recovery system, various armanment sticking out of the doors, and now a ground attack version with rockets under the wings---(real stooped) make every airlifter a threat, not just dumbo flying around dropping equipment, watch the opening segment of "Air America".
So for the Flanker, which is in all its iterations an absolutely gorgeous airplane, (cept for that UGLY Su-34), but its still a Flanker, and still flies good, its just heavy, and all of these newer airplanes are easier to fly, they work so well, just watch the J-15s shooting touch and goes on the carrier, so whether J-11A, J-11B, Su-27, Su-30, J-15, J-15s, or J-16, yes that is seven different numerical designations for the lovely venerable, "over-achieving", loveable, sweet, beautifull, but still a "Flanker", check the name of the thread, Chinese Flanker,,,,, I don't know why this bugs me, but it does????? brat

 

[SampanViking]

I appreciate your honesty SampanViking, my concern is that it is misleading, for instance the C-130, world renowned airlifter, circa 1955, is still in production as the J-model in 2014, Cessna is still producing the venerable 172, circa 1956, and who knows what letter designates current production aircraft. Both those aircraft are produced under the same type certificate, which would now be a "supplemental type certificate, licensing the various modifications etc to that basic airframe. While each upgrade or change requires flight testing, new weight and balance, perhaps an supplement to the POH of said aircraft, they remain true to type

With CAD/CAM those changes are simpler than ever to make on the production floor, whether it is a line production or batch production, such as the F-35, the various versions will be flight tested, A, B, and C, and spin tested, any variations or "anomalies" noted and placarded, speed limitations, white arc, green arc, yellow arc, red line, and dealt with in the simulator. Its really no big deal to "re-engineer" attach points, landing gear, tail-hooks, heavier or lighter skins here or there as needed. While I think I understand the motivation, for changing types and making it seem like more than it is. To conclude the C-130 has had fuel tanks all over the place, skis for polar landings, Fulton Recovery system, various armanment sticking out of the doors, and now a ground attack version with rockets under the wings---(real stooped) make every airlifter a threat, not just dumbo flying around dropping equipment, watch the opening segment of "Air America".
So for the Flanker, which is in all its iterations an absolutely gorgeous airplane, (cept for that UGLY Su-34), but its still a Flanker, and still flies good, its just heavy, and all of these newer airplanes are easier to fly, they work so well, just watch the J-15s shooting touch and goes on the carrier, so whether J-11A, J-11B, Su-27, Su-30, J-15, J-15s, or J-16, yes that is seven different numerical designations for the lovely venerable, "over-achieving", loveable, sweet, beautifull, but still a "Flanker", check the name of the thread, Chinese Flanker,,,,, I don't know why this bugs me, but it does????? brat

Fair comments. I suppose my point is that a Russian Flanker derivative will always be a Flanker. The question I have is; at what point does a Indigenous Chinese designed plane, based on an original Flanker, stop being a Flanker?

There is a supplementary point about Russian designations where Sukhoi's are SU and Migs are Mig, but it just occurs to me that I only know these from Western sources and so not entirely sure is these are the precise designations used by the Russians themselves?

 

[chuck731]

Fair comments. I suppose my point is that a Russian Flanker derivative will always be a Flanker. The question I have is; at what point does a Indigenous Chinese designed plane, based on an original Flanker, stop being a Flanker?

There is a supplementary point about Russian designations where Sukhoi's are SU and Migs are Mig, but it just occurs to me that I only know these from Western sources and so not entirely sure is these are the precise designations used by the Russians themselves?

Different organizations have different habits and practices in deciding when an aircraft has evolved so much and has become so different it warrants an entirely new designation. Often such practices are not consistently applied even within the same organization.

Take for example the Northrop f-5. F-5 underwent one very major redesign, but externally looked similar to the original, and continued to be called f-5. It underwent a second major redesign, emerged looking very different, and became restyled f-17. F-17 underwent yet another major redesign to acquire carrier capability, and was redesigned f-18. F-18 underwent a redesign every bit as major as that which transformed f-17 to f-18, but kept the designation f-18. Then the second version of the f-5 also underwent another major redesign to a single engine fighter, and was going to keep the same designation f-5. But politics and commercial reasons intervened and it was restyled f-20.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Fair comments. I suppose my point is that a Russian Flanker derivative will always be a Flanker. The question I have is; at what point does a Indigenous Chinese designed plane, based on an original Flanker, stop being a Flanker?

There is a supplementary point about Russian designations where Sukhoi's are SU and Migs are Mig, but it just occurs to me that I only know these from Western sources and so not entirely sure is these are the precise designations used by the Russians themselves?

and that is my point, a Flanker is a Flanker is a Flanker, as long as it is an Su-27 derivitative, its still a Flanker, the thread is titled, "Chinese Flankers" as well it should be... Now the J-20 is a Chinese Aircraft---one they should be proud of!'

but a Chinese Flanker, will still be a Flanker, a great Flanker, maybe a whole lot better Flanker, but still a Flanker, do remember that for a time, the Flanker was arguably the best fighter aircraft in the world, at least in the top five! I have at times wished I had choosen "Flanker Fan" as my alias here on the Sino Defense Forum, and yes Shenyang, I would be happy to be your new "marketing director". It would give me no pause for thought to proclaim as their marketing director, to say we build "world class fighter aircraft". brat

And for you engineers, I'm not taking away your accolades as I realize full well that when you change one thing on any aircraft, you may have to re-engineer the seven associated strutures around it. I love engineers, once I quit "improving" my car, it became much more reliable. I think the engineers of this world, who have designed these beautiful airplanes are the true "artists". brat

 

[chuck731]

If the same design change to a flanker, when implemented by the Russians, would not have caused external observer to give it a different name, then the design change, just because it was done by the Chinese, should not result in a different name either.

Flanker is a NATO name, and as an external observer, NATO had demand very drastic changes before according Russian designs a new name. Look at the Su-7/17/22 fitter family, or the mig-23/27 flogger family.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Different organizations have different habits and practices in deciding when an aircraft has evolved so much and has become so different it warrants an entirely new designation. Often such practices are not consistently applied even within the same organization.

Take for example the Northrop f-5. F-5 underwent one very major redesign, but externally looked similar to the original, and continued to be called f-5. It underwent a second major redesign, emerged looking very different, and became restyled f-17. F-17 underwent yet another major redesign to acquire carrier capability, and was redesigned f-18. F-18 underwent a redesign every bit as major as that which transformed f-17 to f-18, but kept the designation f-18. Then the second version of the f-5 also underwent another major redesign to a single engine fighter, and was going to keep the same designation f-5. But politics and commercial reasons intervened and it was restyled f-20.

Chuck the YF-17 was a prototype based on an engineering model called the XP-530, the YF-17 was completely "re-engineered", as the Navy F/A-18. Also the F-5G went from being a twin engine, to having a large single engine, so a complete redesign of the fuselage for 80% more thrust, and the wing for 30% more lift, prompted the Air Force to designate the F-5G as the F-20, because in their estimation, it was a completely new aircraft.... Good point, and good post although we are off topic, and my apologies to fellow posters, particularly for the wheel cover paint issue... back on topic!

Now I am patiently, OR NOT awaiting the J-15S, once we have a two seat J-15 it will greatly simplify carrier qual on the Liaoning, I have been very impressed with the J-15, in fact I could say it is my favorite of all the Flanker derivatives, although I very much like OVT, I would feel much safer in a Chinese Flanker. I am hoping to see at least six new production aircraft on the Liaoning for her next voyage, which I believe will be more Air Wing oriented????

 

[Air Force Brat]

If the same design change to a flanker, when implemented by the Russians, would not have caused external observer to give it a different name, then the design change, just because it was done by the Chinese, should not result in a different name either.

Flanker is a NATO name, and as an external observer, NATO had demand very drastic changes before according Russian designs a new name. Look at the Su-7/17/22 fitter family, or the mig-23/27 flogger family.

and once again, you make my point, a Flanker is a Flanker is a ..............