China Flanker Thread II

[by78]

A much better version of a previously shared image.

 

[davidau]

Most likely since it still has no AESA installed.

Thanks Deino. But are all fighters with AESA would have pitot tube fitted somewhere and not at the nose?

 

[davidau]

Maybe he is thinking about 2001 prototype?

Thank you siegecrossbow

 

[Twix101]

But is the radome actually smaller? Frontwise yes, but due to its angled installation, the number of AESA modules could actually be even larger.

View attachment 68676

I just noticed something that changed my previous assumption, the radome is as large as the standard Flanker variant. I got caught in a wrong assumption that the radome was BOTH smaller in height and width, my mistake. I remember a picture from quarter view that gave the impression that radome was smaller in both ways, this isn't the case.

So it is veryl well possible that this configuration help both optimize the number of AESA module and also helps reduce radar frontal cross-section.

 

[Deino]

PLAN Naval Aviation also started to use low visibility aircraft numbers!
This one looks like a 82 or maybe 92?

(Image via @牧星人拓拔尊 from Weibo)

 

[by78]

PLAN Naval Aviation also started to use low visibility aircraft numbers!
This one looks like a 82 or maybe 92?

(Image via @牧星人拓拔尊 from Weibo)

View attachment 69189

Looks like 82.

 

[xyqq]

A J-16 carrying two PL15 missiles at the centerline:



As well as two PL10 missiles on the wingtips.

 

[Deino]

A J-16 carrying two PL15 missiles at the centerline:

View attachment 69343

As well as two PL10 missiles on the wingtips.

View attachment 69341

Indeed, rarely seen in the tunnel between the engines.

 

[xyqq]

Indeed, rarely seen in the tunnel between the engines.

The construction number of 0117 indicates that this J-16 is the 17th of batch 01.

 

[Deino]

The construction number of 0117 indicates that this J-16 is the 17th of batch 01.

View attachment 69346

Most likely one from the 40th Air Brigade at Nanchang-Xiangtang.