China Flanker Thread II

[Phead128]

J-16 = Su-30MKK
J-11D = Su-35

As a natural follow on to this, is the J-16 designed to be superior to Su-30MKK? Is J-16 competitive with Su-30MKI of India?

 

[ougoah]

J-16 should be in many ways a more versatile fighter than MKI because it is developed out from lessons learned from operating similar fighters of MKI's age and origin. J-16 carries an AESA and it's fair to suppose that the AESA is quite a matured product (Chinese radar manufacturers have developed quite a few AESA units and PLAAF has expressed issues with J-11D's and rejected it before so they don't buy things they consider unsatisfactory, but who knows where their standards are set). MKI carries a PESA radar that PLAAF should be quite familiar with by now (they have been operating Su-35s with a superior radar to MKI developed by same company). Rest of MKI's architecture and electronics is a mix of Russian, French, and Israeli stuff and they have not disclosed any particular special capabilities and honestly doesn't look like MKI has anything special to it so it's essentially a Su-30MK with canards, optimised for air superiority with some western avionics.

What's interesting is the weapons they carry. MKI can carry Brahmos and J-16 can carry domestic ordinance. Latest Chinese missiles seem to be superior to the older soviet era air to airs which have been quite underwhelming performers through history (archer is the exception). Best attributes of both is really in their range, payload, and powerful radars. Common weak point is huge RCS. WVR is all down to specific engagement and pilot skill, neither really has any significant edge over the other. MKI in far greater numbers in IAF service compared to J-16 (for now). J-16 being the far more modern "flanker" should be more than just competitive with MKI.

 

[plawolf]

The MKI is optimised for AA, with multirole capabilities, the J16 is focused more on strike, while still retaining much of the AA capabilities of the baseline Flanker.

The J16 is the successor to the MKK and JH7, and will start replacing the former as they are retired, at least for the Air Force. The navy may eventually replace their JH7As with J15s instead, as they will probably start to convert all their air regiments to become embarkable on their new carriers over time.

As such, even though they are comparable in terms of technology and performance, it will be unlikely that a J16 and MKI will go head to head in any war scenario, since being a striker, the J16 will most likely be carrying heavy ATG strike packages, and will be escorted by other air superiority focused PLAAF fighters if they encounter MKIs.

 

[ougoah]

MKI may be advertised and used by IAF as AA focused but it probably is very much as multirole as any Su-30MK since it is based off those. Maybe AA performance was enhanced by modified avionics and more capable and AA focused sensors but it's the only tandem seat AA focused fighter I know. It's such a waste to have a second pilot and all that extra weight if it's mostly used for AA. Tandem seat versions are usually for strike roles, naval, and electronic warfare like we see on Rafale, F-18, Typhoon, Tornado, etc. Pretty much all twin seated are to free up the pilot from these extra tasks. AA is relatively simple with decent software and computing. Not a single modern AA focused fighter has more than one pilot. Even F-35 with all its tasks can handle it with one pilot now that it has machine learning and limited AI to assist. So if IAF does use MKI purely for AA, it is not using the platform efficiently since even AA fighters of MKI's generation manage with one pilot.

 

[plawolf]

MKI may be advertised and used by IAF as AA focused but it probably is very much as multirole as any Su-30MK since it is based off those. Maybe AA performance was enhanced by modified avionics and more capable and AA focused sensors but it's the only tandem seat AA focused fighter I know. It's such a waste to have a second pilot and all that extra weight if it's mostly used for AA. Tandem seat versions are usually for strike roles, naval, and electronic warfare like we see on Rafale, F-18, Typhoon, Tornado, etc. Pretty much all twin seated are to free up the pilot from these extra tasks. AA is relatively simple with decent software and computing. Not a single modern AA focused fighter has more than one pilot. Even F-35 with all its tasks can handle it with one pilot now that it has machine learning and limited AI to assist. So if IAF does use MKI purely for AA, it is not using the platform efficiently since even AA fighters of MKI's generation manage with one pilot.

The MKI was custome designed to IAF specifications. It wasn’t an off-the-shelf design that the IAF shoehorned into a role it was not designed for, the IAF speficially asked for twin seats.

In addition to avionics, the MKI also has significant structural and FCS changes to include canards and TVC.

It is a multirole bird, but the primary emphasis was on air superiority.

There was even rumours that the IAF wanted their version of the PAKFA to be twin seaters.

I don’t really see the point of twin seater air superiority fighters either, but there have been other twin seat air superiority fighters. The most famous being the F14, but there were also air superiority versions of the Tornado. But those were all dated designs, with far more primitive radars and avionics requiring a dedicated weapons officer.

 

[ougoah]

Yeah I totally forgot about FGFA requiring two seats. F-14 is one of the first 4th gen fighters and it might have been used as a naval striker? I don't know whether if it's just the multirole nature or older electronics that required two pilots but most AA fighters are single seat and I'm curious why IAF goes for tandem seats, even in Tejas they have twin seat versions not just for training. It would make sense that either these twin seaters are for multirole, training, or they need to compensate for lack of sophisticated computing. Ideally AA fighters should just be for; receive and network info, analyse, optimise, decision, execution, and run. The better the platform/s, the fewer the pilots necessary.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Yeah I totally forgot about FGFA requiring two seats. F-14 is one of the first 4th gen fighters and it might have been used as a naval striker? I don't know whether if it's just the multirole nature or older electronics that required two pilots but most AA fighters are single seat and I'm curious why IAF goes for tandem seats, even in Tejas they have twin seat versions not just for training. It would make sense that either these twin seaters are for multirole, training, or they need to compensate for lack of sophisticated computing. Ideally AA fighters should just be for; receive and network info, analyse, optimise, decision, execution, and run. The better the platform/s, the fewer the pilots necessary.

Every Air Force has their own fighter dogma, it surprised me that you went in to detail about the MKI but neglected to mention OVT, (which should indicate a solid AA platform), also FGFA was from the beginning designed with a second flt officer station. The fact that J-20, J-31, SU-57, F-22, and F-35 are single seat does not prevent other Air Forces from employing a second flt officer to serve as WSO.

That second set of MK-1 eyeballs are an asset in nearly every situation, I note that USAF F-4s equipped their WSO with a stick, ailerons and elevator only, no rudder pedals, while the USN left their RIO without any direct control over the aircraft... just the difference in philosophy. At least one USAF WSO landed the aircraft from the back seat and saved the aircraft and pilot after a bad bird strike.....

 

[Deleted member 13312]

To be fair, there is also a certain amount of disadvantages that comes with 2 seated fighters, along with the benefits. Putting an additional person on board requires fitting the plane with additional pilot interface, electronics and life support systems, that could mean significant degradation of the planes flight performance if it was designed to fit only one pilot in the beginning. There is also the issue of finding enough people to man the crafts if the EWO is also required to be certified as a pilot as well.
It is not a clear cut benefit, otherwise every single modern fighter would be sporting multiple crew configurations.

 

[Air Force Brat]

To be fair, there is also a certain amount of disadvantages that comes with 2 seated fighters, along with the benefits. Putting an additional person on board requires fitting the plane with additional pilot interface, electronics and life support systems, that could mean significant degradation of the planes flight performance if it was designed to fit only one pilot in the beginning. There is also the issue of finding enough people to man the crafts if the EWO is also required to be certified as a pilot as well.
It is not a clear cut benefit, otherwise every single modern fighter would be sporting multiple crew configurations.

I'm only disputing the claim that only single seat aircraft are suitable for the A2A role, the IAF deliberately choose the MKI to be a two seater. The Russians on the other hand designed the Su-35 as a single seater.... PAK-FA has always been a single seater, but the Indians specified the FGFA as a two seater.

Its rather arrogant to assume that we know more than people who spec out their aircraft differently than we would?

There are always performance penalties when weight and complexity increase, but there may also be advantages that we are un-aware of??

 

[davidau]

..J11 fully loaded for the Western Flank...