China Flanker Thread II

[foxmulder]

Air superiority fighters are generally single seaters because they are inherently lighter and hence more agile. J-16s are not used for air dom roles. So, if PLAAF requires *more* air dom fighters which are cheaper than J-20, J-11D looks like a good option to me.

J-35 can be the solution, too but it will be probably more expensive than J-11D and it is not the same class with a "heavy" flanker. If his happens, they probably replace old J-10s.

J-11B upgrades will not increase the fighter count but can be option, too.

J-11D with J-20 tech infusion and maybe even some lessons from Su-35 looks very attractive to me.

 

[Blitzo]

Air superiority fighters are generally single seaters because they are inherently lighter and hence more agile. J-16s are not used for air dom roles. So, if PLAAF requires *more* air dom fighters which are cheaper than J-20, J-11D looks like a good option to me.

J-35 can be the solution, too but it will be probably more expensive than J-11D and it is not the same class with a "heavy" flanker. If his happens, they probably replace old J-10s.

J-11B upgrades will not increase the fighter count but can be option, too.

J-11D with J-20 tech infusion and maybe even some lessons from Su-35 looks very attractive to me.

So, what you're saying isn't untrue, but it's a matter of priority.

Single seat fighters do typically have a slightly lower weight than a twin seat fighter of the same type, therefore slightly improved thrust/weight ratio and slightly better kinematics.

However, we are now in 2021, and in the air superiority role, more important than a slight gain in kinematic performance, is the sensors, datalinking, EW, and payloads of the respective fighters.
Between J-11D and J-16, there is absolutely no reason why J-16 would not be at least as capable as J-11D in that regard, if not superior.
In fact, the J-16 with two seats may even offer some advantages in all of those domains, as the second pilot/WSO would allow much more multi-tasking and being able to control and monitor a modern complex battlespace better than a single seat fighter.


That is to say -- in comparing a J-11D and a J-16, in terms of their "suitability" for the air superiority role, they should basically be about similar. Whatever small gain in kinematic performance that J-11D may have over J-16 in terms of being a single versus twin seater is marginal at best in context of the other important factors in a modern air war (sensors, datalinking, EW, payloads etc, where J-16 arguably has an advantage over J-11D).

More importantly, in comparison to J-20 or J-XY, the air superiority capability of a J-11D (or a J-16) if all else is held equal, is far, far, far, far inferior.

Producing J-11D might make sense if the PLA didn't already have a large fleet of young J-11Bs that they can upgrade, but they already have this young fleet that can be upgraded to J-11D and J-16 level of avionics.

Furthermore, the PLA will still need to procure a large fleet of J-16s, J-16Ds and J-15s and J-15Ds in the near future as well, which are far more important aircraft than J-11Ds in terms of "taking up a Flanker production slot".



In short:
- J-11D is likely not any better than J-16 in the air superiority role. If anything the two aircraft are probably equal. Whatever small, marginal kinematic advantage J-11D may have is outweighed by the much greater importance of sensors, datalinks, EW and payloads, where a J-16 is either equal or slightly superior in.
- Both J-11D and J-16 (or any other 4+ generation fighter) are still decidedly inferior to a 5th generation aircraft in the air superiority role when all else is held equal.
- The PLA have a large fleet of young J-11Bs (including many single seaters) that can be upgraded to the J-11BG level which should be similar to J-16 and J-11D in avionics and payload standards.
- The PLA will still need to procure a large fleet of J-16s, J-16Ds, J-15s and J-15Ds in this coming decade anyway, which will take priority for Flanker production slots.


... All of those points taken together, I cannot really see why the PLA would buy another type of single seat Flanker type which doesn't offer much more than a J-16 or J-11B.
It might be a plausible purchase if SAC can further increase Flanker production to enable simultaneous production of J-16, J-16D, J-15s, J-15Ds, and J-11Ds, but again, the sheer overlap in capabilities between J-16, J-11BG and J-11D makes me doubtful of that.

 

[ougoah]

Don't forget PLAAF also has 24 Su-35s. While that's not an impressive number for PLAAF size it's still larger than most airforces around the world and a Su-35 would be leagues more capable than what most airforces currently field.

No more sense investing in 4th gen unless it's J-15 and J-16 since production is already geared for them. J-15 are still needed for future carriers and will certainly be upgraded to a new variant if production remains for 003 and beyond. J-16 is just the F-15EX equivalent in role. No stealth fighter will sensibly carry weapons externally so you do need a long ranged, high payload, missile truck. The J-16 can carry the long range BVRAAMs as well while it networks for CEC. I don't see the J-16 going anywhere. The flankers turn even better than the F-15 and aren't stupid enough to hang 20+ AAMs like the F-15's marketing material offers as a useless capability. There is an optimal payload weight when considering range and energy and the Russians found it and combined WVR competencies into the platform. The F-110 isn't more powerful than an Al-31FN or WS-10A/B.

 

[foxmulder]

So, what you're saying isn't untrue, but it's a matter of priority.

Single seat fighters do typically have a slightly lower weight than a twin seat fighter of the same type, therefore slightly improved thrust/weight ratio and slightly better kinematics.

However, we are now in 2021, and in the air superiority role, more important than a slight gain in kinematic performance, is the sensors, datalinking, EW, and payloads of the respective fighters.
Between J-11D and J-16, there is absolutely no reason why J-16 would not be at least as capable as J-11D in that regard, if not superior.
In fact, the J-16 with two seats may even offer some advantages in all of those domains, as the second pilot/WSO would allow much more multi-tasking and being able to control and monitor a modern complex battlespace better than a single seat fighter.


That is to say -- in comparing a J-11D and a J-16, in terms of their "suitability" for the air superiority role, they should basically be about similar. Whatever small gain in kinematic performance that J-11D may have over J-16 in terms of being a single versus twin seater is marginal at best in context of the other important factors in a modern air war (sensors, datalinking, EW, payloads etc, where J-16 arguably has an advantage over J-11D).

More importantly, in comparison to J-20 or J-XY, the air superiority capability of a J-11D (or a J-16) if all else is held equal, is far, far, far, far inferior.

Producing J-11D might make sense if the PLA didn't already have a large fleet of young J-11Bs that they can upgrade, but they already have this young fleet that can be upgraded to J-11D and J-16 level of avionics.

Furthermore, the PLA will still need to procure a large fleet of J-16s, J-16Ds and J-15s and J-15Ds in the near future as well, which are far more important aircraft than J-11Ds in terms of "taking up a Flanker production slot".



In short:
- J-11D is likely not any better than J-16 in the air superiority role. If anything the two aircraft are probably equal. Whatever small, marginal kinematic advantage J-11D may have is outweighed by the much greater importance of sensors, datalinks, EW and payloads, where a J-16 is either equal or slightly superior in.
- Both J-11D and J-16 (or any other 4+ generation fighter) are still decidedly inferior to a 5th generation aircraft in the air superiority role when all else is held equal.
- The PLA have a large fleet of young J-11Bs (including many single seaters) that can be upgraded to the J-11BG level which should be similar to J-16 and J-11D in avionics and payload standards.
- The PLA will still need to procure a large fleet of J-16s, J-16Ds, J-15s and J-15Ds in this coming decade anyway, which will take priority for Flanker production slots.


... All of those points taken together, I cannot really see why the PLA would buy another type of single seat Flanker type which doesn't offer much more than a J-16 or J-11B.
It might be a plausible purchase if SAC can further increase Flanker production to enable simultaneous production of J-16, J-16D, J-15s, J-15Ds, and J-11Ds, but again, the sheer overlap in capabilities between J-16, J-11BG and J-11D makes me doubtful of that.

Depends entirely on what PLAAF requires. However, a few things;

1) It is not a small kinematic advantage. It is literally a ton of weight diff and that is significant.

2) If anything all those modern sensors do make 2nd pilot a redundancy.

3) J-16 is meant for strike/electronic etc roles like Su-30 or F-15E primarily are. I see them as a replacement/expansion of JH-7 in PLAAF.

4) Right now, J-11B production does continue, so this on itself shows that PLAAF still likes single seater flankers.. and there isn't much in front of the current line to turn into J-11D.

We will eventually see. As I said I like J-11D's chances over J-16 or J-11B or J-35 in this decade. Especially, I think J-35 has very little chance in PLAAF anyway.

 

[Blitzo]

Depends entirely on what PLAAF requires. However, a few things;

1) It is not a small kinematic advantage. It is literally a ton of weight diff and that is significant.

2) If anything all those modern sensors do make 2nd pilot a redundancy.

3) J-16 is meant for strike/electronic etc roles like Su-30 or F-15E primarily are. I see them as a replacement/expansion of JH-7 in PLAAF.

4) Right now, J-11B production does continue, so this on itself shows that PLAAF still likes single seater flankers.. and there isn't much in front of the current line to turn into J-11D.

We will eventually see. As I said I like J-11D's chances over J-16 or J-11B or J-35 in this decade. Especially, I think J-35 has very little chance in PLAAF anyway.

1. In the context of modern aerial warfare, the kinematic advantage is relatively small in the scheme of things, given the much greater importance of sensors, datalinks.

2. That's not how it works -- an aircraft with a crew of two will always be able to multi task better than a crew of one, holding the sensors/processing/automation at a constant. In the context of a modern air war where the need to manage your sensors, weapons, datalinking, as well as managing the EW environment (including opfor EW), an extra person means you can make use of your sensors, weapons and datalinks better.

3. J-16s can also replace J-8IIs, older Su-27s and Su-30s. J-16s are perfectly capable as an air superiority fighter.

4. I don't think we have any evidence suggesting ongoing large scale J-11B production. In terms of unique capabilities J-11D can't do anything that J-16 can't already do, therefore aircraft like J-16, J-16D, J-15 and J-15D are all of greater priority than J-11D.


I think purchasing J-11D would be a waste of money when they have J-16 and J-11BG already in the works.
J-11D offers very little that J-16 and J-11BG cannot already do, whereas it is many times inferior to J-20 or a land based J-XY derivative.

 

[ougoah]

It's hard to know exactly how effective sensor fusion is for the most modern new fighters rolling off production floors and upgrade centres. However it's certainly better to have one more pilot in forming superior SA and maintaining communications with respect to tactical environment.

One thing is for sure though, air superiority is moving towards superior fighters (5th gen) and drones either acting semi-autonomously or controlled by nearby airborne commanders. This means the kinematic question will be dominated by drone capabilities and numbers. A J-11D or whatever single piloted flanker cannot perform any better than a few drones. They can't reach the targets without being detected much earlier and further. They can't offer any advantage if they do engage in close combat except for maybe whatever shortfall drones will still have over pilots. The drones however will cost less and won't risk the life of a trained pilot. Honestly the drones have much more potential for development.

It makes no more sense to continue J-11B production and it's probably why they have almost certainly stopped for a long time already. J-16s and J-15s have other utility that a J-11D variant just won't. J-16's are flexible enough to perform air superiority both BVR where it shines and WVR. As much as it may suffer due to increased weight and compromised aerodynamics, WVR has always been more a matter of pilot skill. With HMD and missiles like PL-10, honestly it doesn't matter quite as much to have the best WVR performer of which the J-11B and D probably wouldn't be anyway. Money spent on developing and fielding J-11D would be much better spent fielding more wingman drones like dark sword and whatever flying wing GJ-11 based equivalents exist.

PLAAF's philosophy surely is going to evolve towards J-16 further back, J-20 in front and everything networked and CECed with AWACS early warning EW etc with J-16, J-20 and/or other airborne heavyweight C4ISR directing drones and drone swarms. Where WVR, if there even is WVR, will be dominated by drone warfare and this line moving backwards and forwards according to numbers and effectiveness. The only reason for emphasising fighter agility and kinematic performance is in consideration of missile energy and defeating incoming missiles. This is why PLAAF puts range (energy) performance way above turning ability. J-10 being a more regional supporting fighter that can be operated with economic savings, is exceptionally versatile except for the limited range. Well at least this is why J-10s are placed everywhere around China.

 

[foxmulder]

When you look at the history of the modern aviation, 2nd pilot is almost always enters the picture when the aircraft becomes multirole and designed primarily for attack missions (or training or export multirole). For air superiority fighters, it has been always single pilot. F-15C, Su-27, Su-35, J-20, F-22, Su-57 even we can include medium/light fighters like Mirage, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mig-29, F-16, J-10... when the primary role is air-2-air, it is single seater. And yes, all those fusion of AI and sensors etc to make one pilot better at situational awareness and hence make any potential need for 2nd pilot redundant. If two-pilot was the better option, we have seen two-seater air-dom fighter designs but we simple do not. J-16 simply will never be better than a dedicated J-11D at air-2-air, at least that is what current aircraft designs tell us. So, I think we do not need beat the dead horse.


When it comes to PLAAF's future, certainly they may find J-16 good enough behind J-20 as a secondary air-dom fighter. However, this decision would be based on general organizational approach and doctrines and not based on capabilities of J-16 against J-11D. As I wrote at the very beginning, *if* PLAAF looks for a cheaper secondary air dom fighter to increase the current air dom fighter numbers, J-11D has a chance instead of continue J-11B production. J-11 turned into J-11B and as such J-11B production can urn into J-11D. J-10A, B, C is kind of same thing.

 

[kentchang]

When you look at the history of the modern aviation, 2nd pilot is almost always enters the picture when the aircraft becomes multirole and designed primarily for attack missions (or training or export multirole). For air superiority fighters, it has been always single pilot. F-15C, Su-27, Su-35, J-20, F-22, Su-57 even we can include medium/light fighters like Mirage, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mig-29, F-16, J-10... when the primary role is air-2-air, it is single seater. And yes, all those fusion of AI and sensors etc to make one pilot better at situational awareness and hence make any potential need for 2nd pilot redundant. If two-pilot was the better option, we have seen two-seater air-dom fighter designs but we simple do not. J-16 simply will never be better than a dedicated J-11D at air-2-air, at least that is what current aircraft designs tell us. So, I think we do not need beat the dead horse.


When it comes to PLAAF's future, certainly they may find J-16 good enough behind J-20 as a secondary air-dom fighter. However, this decision would be based on general organizational approach and doctrines and not based on capabilities of J-16 against J-11D. As I wrote at the very beginning, *if* PLAAF looks for a cheaper secondary air dom fighter to increase the current air dom fighter numbers, J-11D has a chance instead of continue J-11B production. J-11 turned into J-11B and as such J-11B production can urn into J-11D. J-10A, B, C is kind of same thing.

Carrying your "One is better than Two" argument one step further, zero is better than one so long-range networked UCAVs are the way to go. If we are fighting Air-Land Battle in Central Europe, quantity matters more, range much less. Not true in the Pacific. J-11D/Su-35 have terrific specs but simply superfluous for a country that can afford a few hundred J-20/J-16's/Y-20U's. It only complicates everything else and diverts resources (e.g. the engines) from J-15/16 productions. The U.S. Navy has an all-nuclear submarine force because it can, not because AIP diesels are inferior in most scenarios.

For the foreseeable future, the most credible threat will come from carrier-based F-35's. Land-based F-22's and F-35's can take off easily enough for one mission but where to find an uncratered runway to land afterwards is problematic. It is hard to imagine which neighboring country will allow F-22 landings without sequestration in order to stay neutral. The Japanese may be getting old but not all senile yet. There is no need for J-11D's to deal with carriers.

This leaves India where J-11D's are indeed useful. However, given the state of the Indian Air Force in the next decade, there is still no reason to introduce and build up a force of the J-11D's starting in 2021 as by 2030, the focus will strictly be on the 6th generation. Having a fleet of J-11D's in 2030 is like having a fleet of J-8II's today, not to mention the threats from Indian S-4/500's.

Lastly, just want to point out the U.S. is replacing the single-seated F-15C with F-15EX which has a two-man crew (a la J-16 as pointed out in an earlier post).

 

[crash8pilot]

Lastly, just want to point out the U.S. is replacing the single-seated F-15C with F-15EX which has a two-man crew (a la J-16 as pointed out in an earlier post).

Negative Ghostrider - despite the F-15EX featuring a back-seat, the USAF intends to fly it as a single-seater as per these articles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Air Force plans to buy between 144 and 200 F-15EXs, depending on whether the type will also replace F-15E Strike Eagles, which still have a decade of service life remaining. Despite the second seat, the Air Force intends to fly the F-15EX with only a single pilot.

In terms of numbers, the USAF could field in excess of 400 F-15D, F-15E, and F-15EX-variant Eagles (the F-15C being slated for retirement in the coming years) by October 2030. While the F-15D/E fleets are twin-seaters, the F-15EX is understood to be a single-seater with the rear cockpit station blanked off.

Getting a bit off topic here, but it seems like Boeing will be producing the F-15EX from existing F-15QA (based on the Strike Eagle) production lines for convenience and cost savings. Not as fuel/weight-saving as just having a single seat, but at least they're cutting the weight from backseat avionics and just generally having a 200 pound WSO at the back.

 

[crash8pilot]

Bringing all this back to the Flanker discussion though - I generally agree that the air superiority mission ought to be reserved for a single-seat fighter. Multicrew can be an asset, but it can also be a massive crutch. Being a commercial pilot myself (and I know its nowhere near military fast jet flying, but bear with me here), having multiple people in the flight deck doesn't necessarily enhance SA. If the skipper I'm flying with is on the same page as I am, well the outcome of 1+1 tends to be greater than or at the very least equal to 2. However if we're both not mentally in sync or if we have poor communication, we could both operate on different levels of SA and the outcome of 1+1 might be less than 2. While I have no experience flying fast jets, I believe the same lessons apply. The term SA gets thrown around a lot in the flying community, so I wanted to point out that just because you've got an extra body at the back doesn't necessarily guarantee enhanced SA.

While single-seat fighter pilots will joke that they'd rather have the extra gas than someone in the backseat telling them what to do, I've listened to many Tomcat, Strike Eagle and Tornado pilots say that a good RIO/WSO/navigator is worth his/her weight. In essence I certainly see value in having a two-seat air superiority fighter.... but you're not always guaranteed to have a sh*t-hot WSO in the backseat operating the targeting pod and other onboard sensors. That's why I think going forward that with AWACs support + enhanced sensors + AESA radar + sensor fusion could potentially provide more/better SA to a pilot than a human WSO could, whilst also eliminating the cost of training a WSO as well as the layer of human communication. Technology is getting to a point where processing capacity is superior to the human mind, and good human-technology interface (replacing pilot-WSO interaction/interface) will allow a pilot to focus his/her capacity on stick-and-rudder skills rather than working everything else on the jet.

But then at the very end of the day, the PLA has to deal with the cards they've been dealt, and to assign/prioritize their resources accordingly. Fact of the matter is existing J-11Bs still have plenty of lifetime on them, and SAC will have to reserve production capacity for J-16s, J-15s to match the launch of the 003 carrier, as well as J-15Ds and J-16Ds with EW becoming more of a contested aspect/spectrum on the battlefield.

If we took a scientific method to match with our theories and hypothesis in order to arrive to some sort of a conclusion, well we've observed the following:

1. Up till this week, we'd thought the J-11D was placed on the backburner
2. The J-11BGs that feature grey radomes have been seemingly confirmed to be upgraded with tech featured on the J-11D (AESA radar, enhanced avionics, EW jamming capabilities, PL-10 and PL-15 compatibility... etc)
3. As previously mentioned, existing J-11Bs still have plenty of life left on them, and still bring plenty to the fight - it'd be hard to justify replacing them this early on when the PLA still has other needs
4. Although designed as a strike platform and a direct replacement for the JH-7, J-16s have the necessary tools to be lethal BVR platforms (especially with the potential armament of PL-XX missiles that don't fit in the J-20 weapons bay)
5. Air forces from first world countries are trending towards using fifth-generation stealth supermaneuverabile aircraft, with the possible induction of drones and UCAVs into the combat air force into the late 2020s (almost definitely in the 2030s)

From these observations, I think we can arrive at these conclusions:

1. With the limited amount of J-11D airframes, I'd theorize that they serve as technology demonstrators rather than a new Flanker variant intended for procurement. Technology tested on the J-11D is then applied across a young PLA J-11B fleet in the form of midlife/block upgrades, thereby placing them into the 4.5 generation category.
2. Between enhanced J-11B + J-16s + J-10Cs, the PLA has multiple well rounded 4.5 generation combat air force to operate alongside their fifth generation stealth J-20 until drones/UCAVs and potentially a PLAAF FC-31 variant becomes available in this decade.

Opportunity cost is the profit lost when one alternative is chosen over the other. Given that the PLA and SAC have finite resources, well they'll have to manage their opportunity costs to gain the most utility for China's air defense needs. Although the concept of J-11D procurement sounds incredibly attractive, the PLA has other needs that require solutions to. That's why unless something drastic happens, I just don't think we'll see the J-11D go into full production for PLA procurement.