China Flanker Thread II

[latenlazy]

Yes, although it wasn't clear which came first (the cancellation of J-11D or Su-35 purchases). It was also mentioned that the PLAAF was "very satisfied" with the Su-35 and that the aircraft is second to the J-20 in terms of capability.

So if we're reading between the lines right it sounds like SAC couldn't juggle both J-15 and J-16 production while also developing the J-11D, and the PLAAF decided to go elsewhere to meet its A2A needs. That said, if modernizing network integration capabilities was a key reason for developing a D variant, it seems peculiar to me that the PLAAF would go with a solution that does not actually address those goals, and in fact complicates them. Peculiar.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Sacrifice a domestic program, the cost of which could very well put one of China's biggest aeronautical firms out of business, to support a Russian project? Doesn't sound realistic at all.

SAC is not going out of business, the J-20 is going to require additional production capacity. That's all this is about. Those J-15s and J-16s are very fine aircraft, serving their respective roles very well.

 

[dingyibvs]

So then why does the SR-71 have a lower T:W ratio than an F-22? This isn't just a matter of total thrust. Unless you're talking about reaching mach 3 only on AB thrust you're going to need to tailor the engines specifically for higher mach regimes. Just slapping on WS-15s would't do.

I would have more to say about the feasibility and reasonability of such a platform, especially relative to other avenues that could achieve the same objectives, but that would be off topic.

Because all else isn't equal. If the SR-71 had double the thrust it would go faster than a SR-71 which does not.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Because all else isn't equal. If the SR-71 had double the thrust it would go faster than a SR-71 which does not.

Probably, but not neccesarily, those additional engines and inlets create drag, and there is a point of diminishing returns, the take the SR-71, you "might" gain" another 150 or 200 mph, or you just might melt the whole darn thing!

A Flanker with twice the engines/thrust, will drink twice the fuel for what might be a 10% increase in top speed, drag increases exponentially.

 

[latenlazy]

Because all else isn't equal. If the SR-71 had double the thrust it would go faster than a SR-71 which does not.

If you gave the SR-71 F119s pretty sure it would not be able to cruise at mach 3.

 

[dingyibvs]

If you gave the SR-71 F119s pretty sure it would not be able to cruise at mach 3.

If modified for Mach 3+ operations it would. Don't get me wrong, I'm not set on this 4 engines thing, just a proposal for a mean to achieve an end, which is Mach 3+ speed. If it can be achieved by 2 engines then all the better.

Probably, but not neccesarily, those additional engines and inlets create drag, and there is a point of diminishing returns, the take the SR-71, you "might" gain" another 150 or 200 mph, or you just might melt the whole darn thing!

A Flanker with twice the engines/thrust, will drink twice the fuel for what might be a 10% increase in top speed, drag increases exponentially.

It'll be a difficult task to manage obviously, but everything will be designed to be optimized at that speed. I do also envision a fighter-bomber that's heavier on fuel and lower on armament relative to similar aircrafts of its size.

 

[Air Force Brat]

If you gave the SR-71 F119s pretty sure it would not be able to cruise at mach 3.

Exactly right, no way! might be more fuel efficient?

 

[Air Force Brat]

If modified for Mach 3+ operations it would. Don't get me wrong, I'm not set on this 4 engines thing, just a proposal for a mean to achieve an end, which is Mach 3+ speed. If it can be achieved by 2 engines then all the better.



It'll be a difficult task to manage obviously, but everything will be designed to be optimized at that speed. I do also envision a fighter-bomber that's heavier on fuel and lower on armament relative to similar aircrafts of its size.

Not gonna happen, the SR-71 was more spacecraft than aeroplane!
Very expensive in this economy, not to mention fuel!

 

[latenlazy]

If modified for Mach 3+ operations it would. Don't get me wrong, I'm not set on this 4 engines thing, just a proposal for a mean to achieve an end, which is Mach 3+ speed. If it can be achieved by 2 engines then all the better.

It'll be a difficult task to manage obviously, but everything will be designed to be optimized at that speed. I do also envision a fighter-bomber that's heavier on fuel and lower on armament relative to similar aircrafts of its size.

Those "modifications" to the engine aren't trivial. You'd be talking about an entirely new engine. Engines work based on gas flow dynamics, and those gas flow dynamics aren't static at all speeds. The engine's mechanical function and design is tailored towards the performance envelopes they're meant to be used in. To talk about about a different performance envelope is to talk about a new design.

If you want to launch AShMs out of this thing, there's a limit to how "low armament" such a design can be. Furthermore, if you're talking about an expensive plane with relatively small payload for its size, you're going to need to purchase more units of this expensive plane than a less expensive concept with larger payload to make up for payload volume (who cares about their offensive capabilities if they don't deliver an adequate amount of offense), which would make such a concept even more expensive. There's a reason why this hasn't been done yet.

Anyways, perhaps we should take further discussions to a different thread. This is grossly off topic.

 

[kwaigonegin]

T:W only plays a small role in Vmax, not too dissimilar than an automobile in terms of HP or torque otherwise a semi tractor would easily smoke a Ferrari.

Besides why are we talking about SR 71? We have Aurora these days .