China Flanker Thread III (land based, exclude J-15)

[Blitzo]

Which proved my point, Chinese Flankers not a totally reworked bird. SAC just full of BS with their propaganda.

F-15EX, the most capable F-15 variant ever developed, and one of the world's most capable 4.5th gen fighters wholesale, also still has an air brake.

(0:47)

Going by your logic, I suppose retaining the air brake means upgrades like APG-82, modern mission computer and datalinks and cockpit, modern flight control systems, EPAWSS, new structural materials, F110-GE-129 engines, are not worth mentioning then.

 

[Schwerter_]

F-15EX, the most capable F-15 variant ever developed, and one of the world's most capable 4.5th gen fighters wholesale, also still has an air brake.

(0:47)

Going by your logic, I suppose retaining the air brake means upgrades like APG-82, modern mission computer and datalinks and cockpit, modern flight control systems, EPAWSS, new structural materials, F110-GE-129 engines, are not worth mentioning then.

"bUt HaViNg ThE AiRbRaKe mEaNs ThEy'Re FuLl oF bS!!!111!!!!!111!!!!!"

"bUt HaViNg ThE AiRbRaKe mEaNs ThEy'Re FuLl oF bS!!!111!!!!!111!!!!!"

Jokes aside though, it’s crazy how widespread the (sometimes subconscious) notion that “altered structures and aerodynamics are inherently more impressive and effective than upgrading avionics and sensors” still is to this day.

Almost every military have decided to go with “keep the basic structure and outfit it with newer avionics, engine and sensor suite” when upgrading existing designs, not because aggressively redesigning the airframe isn’t beneficial, but that similar capabilities can be achieved much more economically by sticking with what’s already in place. Anyone entertaining the notion that major aerodynamic and structural changes are better should keep that in mind imo.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

J-16 pilot sheds some light on a recent intercept

对方一直压迫我们的机动空间，两架飞机扣下来追我，我的长机又追着他们”“如果我贸然抵近，他们随时可能开火，我关闭机上所有对外发射的电子设备，超低空‘消失’在黑夜，飞到他们僚机尾后，占据主动优势”

The pair of enemy fighter planes kept on flying aggressively and reducing their room for maneuver. They swooped down to chase him but his lead plane was chasing after the enemy pair. If he approached aggressively the enemy planes had the advantage and open fire at will. He shut down some signal emitting equipment and lowered his plane to very low altitude, essentially disappearing into the night. After which he flew behind the enemy wingman and gained an advantage in the engagement.

 

[Schwerter_]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

J-16 pilot sheds some light on a recent intercept


The pair of enemy fighter planes kept on flying aggressively and reducing their room for maneuver. They swooped down to chase him but his lead plane was chasing after the enemy pair. If he approached aggressively the enemy planes had the advantage and open fire at will. He shut down some signal emitting equipment and lowered his plane to very low altitude, essentially disappearing into the night. After which he flew behind the enemy wingman and gained an advantage in the engagement.

So he flew with radar off, at low altitude, in the night, in close proximity to possibly hostile fighters.

holy shit, even with FLIR pod and/or NVG that’s ballsy

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Which proved my point, Chinese Flankers not a totally reworked bird. SAC just full of BS with their propaganda.

So your definition of a "totally-reworked bird" is the elimination of speed brakes? That's it? Seriously?

 

[minime]

"bUt HaViNg ThE AiRbRaKe mEaNs ThEy'Re FuLl oF bS!!!111!!!!!111!!!!!"


Jokes aside though, it’s crazy how widespread the (sometimes subconscious) notion that “altered structures and aerodynamics are inherently more impressive and effective than upgrading avionics and sensors” still is to this day.

Almost every military have decided to go with “keep the basic structure and outfit it with newer avionics, engine and sensor suite” when upgrading existing designs, not because aggressively redesigning the airframe isn’t beneficial, but that similar capabilities can be achieved much more economically by sticking with what’s already in place. Anyone entertaining the notion that major aerodynamic and structural changes are better should keep that in mind imo.

Hey, I didn't downplay the importance of avionic & sensor suite in modern air combat.
I just feed up with SAC self bragging attitude, made the least effort but took the most credit habit.
Anyone familiar with CAE academician knows what I'm talking about.
If anything, the most impressive upgrades on the Chinese flankers are from the subsystem manufactures not SAC.
For SAC as a design bureau/institute, the innovation it brings to the table is minimum.

 

[Deino]

Hey, I didn't downplay the importance of avionic & sensor suite in modern air combat.
I just feed up with SAC self bragging attitude, made the least effort but took the most credit habit.
Anyone familiar with CAE academician knows what I'm talking about.
If anything, the most impressive upgrades on the Chinese flankers are from the subsystem manufactures not SAC.
For SAC as a design bureau/institute, the innovation it brings to the table is minimum.

Again! And please take this as a clear warning:

Either you show us such "SAC self bragging attitude" with the correct source and then we can surely discuss this since - at least I would agree it is not correct or justified - or you stop with these stupid word-twisting lies! !

From all i read - and in fact i read a lot - never SAC posted anything which can be rated as a self bragging attitude!

More likely you have a certain bias towards the Chinese Flankers, read some "self bragging attitude" posts written by some fan-boys and interpret it as "from SAC!"

So, ... please show us such comments or leave it!

 

[Schwerter_]

Hey, I didn't downplay the importance of avionic & sensor suite in modern air combat.
I just feed up with SAC self bragging attitude, made the least effort but took the most credit habit.
Anyone familiar with CAE academician knows what I'm talking about.
If anything, the most impressive upgrades on the Chinese flankers are from the subsystem manufactures not SAC.
For SAC as a design bureau/institute, the innovation it brings to the table is minimum.

You know what? I’m just about fed up with this view and too sick and tired of explaining the same things over and over again to different people. No offense intended, you can keep having whatever your problem is with SAC. So good day mate

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Hey, I didn't downplay the importance of avionic & sensor suite in modern air combat.
I just feed up with SAC self bragging attitude, made the least effort but took the most credit habit.
Anyone familiar with CAE academician knows what I'm talking about.
If anything, the most impressive upgrades on the Chinese flankers are from the subsystem manufactures not SAC.
For SAC as a design bureau/institute, the innovation it brings to the table is minimum.

Firstly - What is the SAC going to brag about? That their Sino Flankers could easily wipe out the F-35 squadrons single-handedly or something?

Secondly - Even those Sino Flanker subsystem manufacturers MUST consult, coordinate and cooperate with the SAC (and also the PLA) before any of their subsystems can make it onto the Sino Flankers - and vice-versa. Do you really think that they could just approach any Sino Flankers out there and install whatever they want without even going through the SAC?

Thirdly - Regarding your allegation that SAC only knows how to "made the least effort but too the most credit" - SAC is only doing what Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and the PLA CMC told them to do. In fact, China technically can instruct SAC to design a 4th-generation heavyweight fighter on their own without referring to any foreign designs, but the bigger concern for China is that it would waste much more time and effort that China didn't have. And the PLAAF and PLAN needs heavyweight fighters - BADLY.

Besides, reverse-engineering a fighter jet is on an entirely diffferent difficulty level than copying your friend's assignment/work. Without the necessary knowledge and skillset, not even Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin can do sh1t even if you throw an advanced alien spacecraft at them and tell them to reverse-engineer one. Those challenges and difficulties are especially true for the China of the 1990s and 2000s, back when they have very little skilled manpower to work with.

 

[Schwerter_]

Secondly - Even those Sino Flanker subsystem manufacturers MUST consult, coordinate and cooperate with the SAC (and also the PLA) before any of their subsystems can make it onto the Sino Flankers - and vice-versa. Do you really think that they could just approach any Sino Flankers out there and install whatever they want without even going through the SAC?

I second this. Honestly, EMC for modern fighter jets is a nightmare and anybody able to fit new and powerful avionics suite & sensors on an aircraft should at least get a pat on the back. It’s not as simple as old stuff out and new stuff in, there’s a very high degree of redesign, testing and optimization needed to make sure upgrades actually work and don’t interfere with each other.