China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

Possible they want do as Russians with Su-34 with some capacities but he is not a true EW/Wild Weasel aircraft as F-4G, EF-111, EA-18G with much more jamming/electronic systems really capable enter in a ennemy anti-air defence

Su-34 isn't a "true" wild weasel/SEAD/EW aircraft dedicated to the role... but I think J-16D will be.

They've gone to such lengths to optimize the aircraft like removing the IRST and gun, and the aircraft flies standard with what appears to be ESM/ELINT pods on the wings, and feature a variety of other antennae around the fuselage too. I expect later flights will include the EW pods, at which point they would also become standard for the aircraft.

I do believe J-16D will be to J-16 what the EA-18G is to the F/A-18F.

 

[FORBIN]

Pods comparison

 

[Blitzo]

Pods comparison

View attachment 22916 View attachment 22917

That comparison means nothing, because the J-16D will likely carry larger additional EW pods once test flights progress. We are seeing wingtip pods "only" because this is the J-16D's maiden flight.

In fact, having wingtip pods on the J-16D's maiden flight is strong support for the notion that it is intended to be a dedicated EW/wild weasel/jamming aircraft, as only dedicated aircraft of that type would typically have these sort of pods as "standard fit".

For instance, the first EA-18G for the USN maiden flight was also conducted with only wingtip ALQ-218 pods as well.
The first EA-18G for the RAAF also conducted its maiden flight with only wingtip pods (below)

 

[Blitzo]

To expand a little more as to why this J-16D almost certainly is a dedicated EW/jammer/wild weasel aircraft, and not a "Su-34" equivalent, here are some following points:

-rumours: the fact that we are getting such clear rumours about the role of this J-16D from a variety of sources is important.
-common sense: the truth is, it simply makes sense for the Air Force to develop an EW/jammer/wild weasel variant of the J-16 -- the Air Force requires a new generation EW aircraft which is survivable and also future proof, and the J-16 offers the perfect platform for adapting it in the same way that the F/A-18F was the perfect platform for the USN to develop a dedicated EW aircraft from.
-physical characteristics: we can see this aircraft no longer has an IRST or internal gun. But we also see its added a number of other antennae around the aircraft, which strongly points to an EW role. Just as importantly, we see the two wingtip pods, whose purpose are almost certainly EW as well (probably ESM/ELINT) -- and the fact that the prototype has flown with them on what is presumably the J-16Ds maiden flight (or at least one of its earliest flights) means that the pods are likely to be standard equipment for the

And on the flip side: it makes no sense for the Air Force to remove the gun and IRST from the J-16, and give the aircraft "only" wingtip pods, integrate all those additional antennae, and no additional capabilities to be a true EW/jammer/wild weasel aircraft when such substantial modifications had already been made. In fact, I would argue that if the J-16D were not a dedicated EW/jammer/wild weasel aircraft, then all the modifications we've seen on the J-16D from the J-16 makes no sense.

The only thing we are "waiting" for, is for J-16D to eventually be equipped with a number of large jamming pods like the EA-18G, but even without it, I think we have enough evidence and logic at our disposal to essentially confirm for the purposes of discussion, that J-16D is intended to be a dedicated EW/jammer/wild weasel variant of the J-16.

 

[plawolf]

The smaller radome is almost certainly because it is carrying a smaller radar than the standard J16 or J11D.

This may be from a completely different radar family as those used on other sino-flankers, and would have been chosen mainly for its compactness and low power draw, with raw performance probably a secondary consideration. Note the lack of slant. Getting as large a dish as possible in the space available was clearly not a priority.

Hell, the main radar may not even be a full standard fighter radar, and could instead be a specially designed one optimised for EW.

This in turn frees up more internal space for EW specific avionics, as well as reduce the power draw from the radar to leave more power available for the othe electronics.

Also note the use of WS10A engines right from the first prototype.

 

[Blitzo]

The smaller radome is almost certainly because it is carrying a smaller radar than the standard J16 or J11D.

This may be from a completely different radar family as those used on other sino-flankers, and would have been chosen mainly for its compactness and low power draw, with raw performance probably a secondary consideration. Note the lack of slant. Getting as large a dish as possible in the space available was clearly not a priority.

Hell, the main radar may not even be a full standard fighter radar, and could instead be a specially designed one optimised for EW.

This in turn frees up more internal space for EW specific avionics, as well as reduce the power draw from the radar to leave more power available for the othe electronics.

That could all be possible -- however, it could also be that the J-16D is using the same radar as J-16 and J-11D, but that all three have them arranged in different configurations for different purposes.

For instance, J-16 (as the first of the family to use the new radar) maintains the same radome configuration/size as legacy flankers -- internally its actual radar might be smaller than the radome suggests. [I do not believe the size of the radome or its surface area is always an indicator of the "actual size" of the radar it encloses -- some radars fit their radomes quite snugly while sum are substantially smaller -- a lot of it also depends on the size of the back end processing and power/cooling of the radar]

J-11D OTOH has a canted radome with a presumably canted radar, however that again does not mean the entire surface area of the canted radome is used for the radar, especially because there are additional reasons for why a radar may be canted, such as to improve coverage during turning maneuvers. Considering that J-11D appears to be an aircraft more oriented to that of an air superiority role, such a cant would make a degree of sense.

J-16D in turn, has had a few years to develop a more optimized version of the standard J-16's radome configuration, where the radome opens in a different way. It also optimizes the radome to the smaller array in a better manner, which also leaves more room in the nose for other electronics. Its EW/jammer/wild weasel role also means it doesn't "need" the outwards cant of the radar of J-11D in improving coverage during turning maneuvers.

Or maybe all the radars are different, or maybe some are the same, or maybe they're all variants of each other... the truth is I think any of these explanations at this stage could be made to sound equally plausible.

Also note the use of WS10A engines right from the first prototype.

Yes, and the J-11Ds used WS-10s for prototypes as well. In fact, since the first batch of J-11Bs used Al-31s, I think all SAC built land based flankers have used WS-10s, whether they be prototypes or serial production.
Though it would be nice if J-15s eventually all started using WS-10s as standard too. I suppose the navy is being prudently cautious.

 

[FORBIN]

During recent excercise in Thailand, Su-27SK and Thai Jas-39

 

[tphuang]

Yes, and the J-11Ds used WS-10s for prototypes as well. In fact, since the first batch of J-11Bs used Al-31s, I think all SAC built land based flankers have used WS-10s, whether they be prototypes or serial production.
Though it would be nice if J-15s eventually all started using WS-10s as standard too. I suppose the navy is being prudently cautious.

J-15 is not using WS-10 yet because the naval version is not ready.

as for radome stuff, I agree with plawolf's assessment.

 

[Blitzo]

J-15 is not using WS-10 yet because the naval version is not ready.

Current J-15s are obviously using Al-31Fs, but are they using specific naval variants of Al-31Fs... or are all Al-31Fs capable of naval/carrierborne operations to begin with?
I do not recall hearing about imports of any specific naval Al-31F variant.

as for radome stuff, I agree with plawolf's assessment.

At this stage I don't think there is enough evidence or logic behind any of the potential different explanations for the radome situation.
It's quite possible J-16D's radar is smaller than J-16's and/or a different EW version... but it's also plausible for J-16, J-16D and J-11D to all share a common radar design or family, and/or a common radar size, where the radar on J-16 may not take advantage of the full radome surface area (such as the case of APG-63V3 AESA compared to APG-63V1 or a number of other radars).

 

[tphuang]

Current J-15s are obviously using Al-31Fs, but are they using specific naval variants of Al-31Fs... or are all Al-31Fs capable of naval/carrierborne operations to begin with?
I do not recall hearing about imports of any specific naval Al-31F variant.
At this stage I don't think there is enough evidence or logic behind any of the potential different explanations for the radome situation.
It's quite possible J-16D's radar is smaller than J-16's and/or a different EW version... but it's also plausible for J-16, J-16D and J-11D to all share a common radar design or family, and/or a common radar size, where the radar on J-16 may not take advantage of the full radome surface area (such as the case of APG-63V3 AESA compared to APG-63V1 or a number of other radars).

It doesn't matter if J-15's AL-31F is a naval variant. They are developing a naval variant of WS-10. Once that's ready and fully tested, J-15 will use it.