China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

So, "PUPU" has officially "confirmed" that the J-11D program has been canceled. Rumors from Henri K. also suggest that the four prototypes have been dismantled.

Don't know what to make of this, but the dismantling of the prototypes could only mean one of two things:
1. The financial situation at SAC is dire, necessitating the cannibalism of existing J-11D prototypes.
2. The J-11D project has not been formally "terminated" but rather is undergoing a major design shift.

Not really -- if the J-11D really has been formally terminated, it would make sense to cannibalize the J-11D prototypes for other purposes, like supporting J-16D, J-15A, or J-15D development. Makes no sense to keep J-11D airframes around if they're not going to be doing anything.

If anything, it would be prudent to cannibalize the airframes of a cancelled programme if you have other programmes with high commonality.

 

[vesicles]

I hope the SAC would wake up one day and decide to come up with something of their own (I don't count the J-31 as a successful design, at least not yet).

The CAC has the J-10 and the J-20, as well as the JF-17. All different designs. All domestic. All successful.

SAC has nothing, nought, nil, nada, zilch, zip. All they have is, to use Inst's words, Sukhoi knock-offs. Every the other year, they churn another knock-off. Now, I don't discount the difficulties of modifying any of those Su-like planes. I would not be able to design even a single nail on any of those planes to save my life (I actually tried. I took a machine drawing class when I was in grad school. The first thing we learned how to draw was a nail. It confused the heck out of me and I ended up dropping the class after a week). However, it is getting embarrassing to keep churning out variations of those Sukhoi planes after so long. A design institute with the history and depth of the SAC should be able to shake the crutches and go solo long before now.

I hope the J-11D cancellation (assuming it's true) is a wake-up call for them. Someone needs to drag the SAC away from the Sukhoi design, no matter how much they kick and cry.

I feel that the SAC is becoming that big "baby" bird that would never leave the nest. And it is becoming a 40-year virgin hiding in his mommy and daddy's basement.

 

[Blitzo]

I hope the SAC would wake up one day and decide to come up with something of their own (I don't count the J-31 as a successful design, at least not yet).

The CAC has the J-10 and the J-20, as well as the JF-17. All different designs. All domestic. All successful.

SAC has nothing, nought, nil, nada, zilch, zip. All they have is, to use Inst's words, Sukhoi knock-offs. Every the other year, they churn another knock-off. Now, I don't discount the difficulties of modifying any of those Su-like planes. I would not be able to design even a single nail on any of those planes to save my life (I actually tried. I took a machine drawing class when I was in grad school. The first thing we learned how to draw was a nail. It confused the heck out of me and I ended up dropping the class after a week). However, it is getting embarrassing to keep churning out variations of those Sukhoi planes after so long. A design institute with the history and depth of the SAC should be able to shake the crutches and go solo long before now.

I hope the J-11D cancellation (assuming it's true) is a wake-up call for them. Someone needs to drag the SAC away from the Sukhoi design, no matter how much they kick and cry.

I feel that the SAC is becoming that big "baby" bird that would never leave the nest. And it is becoming a 40-year virgin hiding in his mommy and daddy's basement.

To be fair to SAC I think their continued production of Flanker variants isn't really something to be ashamed of as such, because the fact is that the Flanker airframe is a very flexible, adaptable and high performing airframe that can be suited to a variety of combat aviation missions. Sure, they could design a whole new 4+ generation airframe that might be unique and perform slightly better than Flankers in some ways, but that would necessitate a whole lot of money and time.

In the meanwhile, J-16 and J-15 variants are likely to continue being developed and produced for the foreseeable future simply because the Air Force and Navy needs a large number of strikers, carrier capable fighter aircraft, and EW aircraft, and those advanced Flanker variants fit the bill.


The fact that J-11D has been cancelled isn't necessarily a poor reflection on SAC's competency, but rather may reflect the Air Force's own assessment of the role of J-11D and their future force structure which makes the J-11D a poor choice for them.

SAC will probably be able to show their stuff in the Air Force's 6th generation fighter requirement or possibly if the Air Force decides to pursue a stealthy theatre fighter bomber (the "JH-XX" design which was supposedly an SAC offering), but until then, their greatest offering is likely going to be continued Flanker variants... and that is a reflection of the Air Force's own pragmatic requirement for advanced Flanker variants rather than SAC's lack of originality or anything, IMO.

 

[vesicles]

To be fair to SAC I think their continued production of Flanker variants isn't really something to be ashamed of as such, because the fact is that the Flanker airframe is a very flexible, adaptable and high performing airframe that can be suited to a variety of combat aviation missions. Sure, they could design a whole new 4+ generation airframe that might be unique and perform slightly better than Flankers in some ways, but that would necessitate a whole lot of money and time.

In the meanwhile, J-16 and J-15 variants are likely to continue being developed and produced for the foreseeable future simply because the Air Force and Navy needs a large number of strikers, carrier capable fighter aircraft, and EW aircraft, and those advanced Flanker variants fit the bill.


The fact that J-11D has been cancelled isn't necessarily a poor reflection on SAC's competency, but rather may reflect the Air Force's own assessment of the role of J-11D and their future force structure which makes the J-11D a poor choice for them.

SAC will probably be able to show their stuff in the Air Force's 6th generation fighter requirement or possibly if the Air Force decides to pursue a stealthy theatre fighter bomber (the "JH-XX" design which was supposedly an SAC offering), but until then, their greatest offering is likely going to be continued Flanker variants... and that is a reflection of the Air Force's own pragmatic requirement for advanced Flanker variants rather than SAC's lack of originality or anything, IMO.

Well, to paraphrase Equation, "it's all about the program".

It's not about how effective the Sukhoi airframe is, but coming up with their own design. Even if their first attempt is worse than the Sukhoi, that's ok. Just keep improving and keep coming up with new designs. In that sense, I applaud their efforts on the J-31. It's not successful yet, but at least they are trying. But they need to stop modifying Sukhoi variations.

It's a mindset. They need to come out of the Sukhoi box to be truly independent. To do that, they need to stop copying Sukhoi.

 

[Blitzo]

Well, to paraphrase Equation, "it's all about the program".

It's not about how effective the Sukhoi airframe is, but coming up with their own design. Even if their first attempt is worse than the Sukhoi, that's ok. Just keep improving and keep coming up with new designs. In that sense, I applaud their efforts on the J-31. It's not successful yet, but at least they are trying. But they need to stop modifying Sukhoi variations.

It's a mindset. They need to come out of the Sukhoi box to be truly independent. To do that, they need to stop copying Sukhoi.

The problem is that what they build is dependent on the buyer's requirements.

SAC are still building Flanker variants because the military wants them -- it makes sense for them to continue building Flanker variants considering the Flanker airframe is so flexible to begin with.
If the military wanted SAC to build a new 4+ original airframe design with certain parameters instead of buying Flanker variants then I'm sure SAC could churn it out, but that means time and money, and it would be a poor choice to invest in an entirely new 4+ airframe when you have a perfectly good Flanker airframe that you can continue modifying with good performance and with a solid logistics infrastructure already in place.


SAC took a risk in building FC-31, and it was an original design but right now they have yet to receive any interest and it looks like they're not going to.


If we want to blame anyone for having SAC continuing to build Flankers it should be the military rather than SAC themselves, or better yet we should blame common sense -- because it is entirely common sense for SAC to continue producing Flanker variants if it is the most affordable and flexible airframe that can fulfill the military's requirements.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Not really -- if the J-11D really has been formally terminated, it would make sense to cannibalize the J-11D prototypes for other purposes, like supporting J-16D, J-15A, or J-15D development. Makes no sense to keep J-11D airframes around if they're not going to be doing anything.

If anything, it would be prudent to cannibalize the airframes of a cancelled programme if you have other programmes with high commonality.

Normally, that would be true, although the speed at which the airframes have been disassembled (rather than repurposed as testbeds or kept in limbo for potential future PLAAF interest) seems to imply a shortage of parts or resources at SAC's end.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Also, the J-11D's cancellation has nothing to do with an alleged "acceleration" or "emphasis" on the J-20 program but rather continuous delays within the J-11D project.

Instead of additional J-20s, the PLAAF would be buying up to 90+ additional Su-35SKs to make up for the now-canceled J-11D.

Overall, this is a fairly major setback for SAC.

 

[Blitzo]

Normally, that would be true, although the speed at which the airframes have been disassembled (rather than repurposed as testbeds or kept in limbo for potential future PLAAF interest) seems to imply a shortage of parts or resources at SAC's end.

I wouldn't say that.

First, we don't know how quickly they were disassembled after the J-11D was cancelled.

Second, if J-11D was definitely cancelled with a definite signal by the Air Force given, then it would make complete sense to cannibalize them for other purposes as briskly as possible given SAC has quite a few Flanker variants on the go under development right now. There's no reason to think that there's any sort of shortage of parts, to me it just means they're being efficient. No need to keep those airframes around if they're going to be useless just sitting around and if their parts can be useful somewhere else, it would be poor business practice.

 

[SinoSoldier]

I wouldn't say that.

First, we don't know how quickly they were disassembled after the J-11D was cancelled.

Second, if J-11D was definitely cancelled with a definite signal by the Air Force given, then it would make complete sense to cannibalize them for other purposes as briskly as possible given SAC has quite a few Flanker variants on the go under development right now. There's no reason to think that there's any sort of shortage of parts, to me it just means they're being efficient. No need to keep those airframes around if they're going to be useless just sitting around and if their parts can be useful somewhere else, it would be poor business practice.

That is probable, given the commonality between the J-11D and other Flanker variants.

 

[Blitzo]

That is probable, given the commonality between the J-11D and other Flanker variants.

Exactly. Considering J-16D, J-15A and J-15D are all in varying stages of development, I think it makes complete sense to use their resources as efficiently as possible.

So if they did indeed cannibalize their J-11D prototypes fairly quickly after the Air Force shut the requirement for J-11D down, well that shouldnt' be a surprise, but it should rather be expected.