Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st October 2002 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
What's that long blister on the nose of chinese Su-30s and J-11s?
By: - 1st October 2002 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
Are you referring to the IRST?
By: - 1st October 2002 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
No,this thing -
Attachments:
By: - 1st October 2002 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
That's just the paint job.
By: - 2nd October 2002 at 11:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
Are you sure?That feature seems to be unique to chinese flankers as well.A new sensor?
Can someone else confirm?
By: - 2nd October 2002 at 12:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
No, just paintjob...
By: - 2nd October 2002 at 12:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
It's the paintjob, no question.
By: - 2nd October 2002 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The mystery of the J-11B
This is just the paint scheme. In similar fashion, VF-21 had a much more distinctive "cut-out" on the paint scheme.
http://www.topedge.com/alley/squadron/pac/vf-21_01.gif
TJ
By: - 4th October 2002 at 04:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To Xinhui
I heard you said this in the CDF:
"Read it from a bookstore today.
According to AFM, and stated by SAC's officals, IIRC, they already started to work on improved J-11 with PGM and SD-10 capablities, the Firecontrol Radar will be local make to take on local toyz and ground attack capabilites."
I don't think SAC could undertake both J-13 (domestic SU-30MKK) and J-11B (sinicized multirole single seater SU-27) simultaneously, and if this is true, then J-11B is much more likely to happen now.
Any comment? Any more details from that article?
By: - 4th October 2002 at 05:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
In AFM? If true, SAC has gone beyond the kit assembly stage pretty quickly on the Su-27SK.
A J-11B would be SAC's political answer to CAC's J-10 as a Chinese product.
Has J-13 been designated for a domestic built Su-30MKK? There's no word of actual license production of the MKK except for the possibility of maybe converting the current SU-27SK assembly agreement to SU-30s after the 80th plane.
I thought J-13 is simply a MKK in Chinese service.
By: - 4th October 2002 at 07:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-10-02 AT 07:20 AM (GMT)]to TJ,
Hmm, I can see where the J-10 prototype cutouts are coming from.
To Bearcat,
Yeah, it seems SAC is moving into the next stage quickly. For me, the news tend to raise more questions that it answers. The SU-30MKK is a tried and true product, but "J-11B" has many questions with regards to SD-10 and the domestic radar. For me it reflects a growing maturity in the tastes of the PLAAF by putting more concern on the integration issue rather than fancy toyz like TVC, phased array and canards.
As the "2001" pic shows, they were probably working on this for quite sometime now.
On the SU-30 license, I found quite a bit of articles collaborating the SU-30 license story, but I'm not sure if these articles are echoing a single source. It could be this is what Western media is logically expecting to happen and that such serious discussions were actually made. I should add that integration of Chinese weapons are not impossible on the SU-30MKK; just a bit difficult, that it will take time and persistence, and will vary from weapon to weapon.
"J-13" is the popular opinion what the domestic made SU-30MKK would be. The presence of a Chinese label designation indicates a domestically made product. Kh-31 and Tor-M1 are examples of Russian products with domestic labels now (as YJ-91 and HQ-17), while Russian missiles like R-27, R-73, and K-29T are in service with the PLAAF but still doesn't have a domestic number. Notice that most fantasy Chinese fifth generation art pics avoid the use of "J-13" sticking to J-12, J-14 and above.
Looking at the articles in hindsight again, I have an impression that there will be a "change" after the 80th J-11. Janes, Russian and Western media could have construed this change as a shift to the SU-30MKK considering the serious negotiations. But this change can also be interpreted as a shift to "J-11B", a multirole single seater that can host Chinese missiles. I must add that Western media gives far too less credit on the growing capabilities of the Chinese missile and radar industry (except on the ballistic missiles) to consider that the domestic missiles can perform well enough to be a vital bleep in the PLA's radar horizon. Notice the vaunted reputation of "R-77" and "Moskit" to the eyes of the US right wing, but no one gives a damn that the C-802 can be just as lethal (unless it's in the hand of the Iranians then it becomes a big threat).
When the PLA leadership hears stories about Iranians got their obsolete F-4s to being able to launch C-802s, and then wonders how come the far more technologically sophisticated Russians can't do so with the SU-30s, they would of course wonder about the issue of the sincerity of Russian support.
As a note, China's SU license forbids any changes or upgrades to the spec without Sukhoi's approval, but for Sukhoi to enforce that is like a geek telling the school's big high school football jock bully to follow the class rules.
By: - 4th October 2002 at 07:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
"Since I don't work for the COSTIND, don't know what they could nor could not do. but, keep in mind, PRC generally very open when comes it deals with weapons for foreign sells, but for those toyz of its own use, it keeps a very tight control."---Xinhui's.
In hindsight, I do wonder about something and that is, does SAC has the daring and the resources to actually conduct both projects together, as going to one system does not necessarily mean cancelling the other.
And yet another possibility---joining both---a "sinicized" SU-30MKK instead. Instead of using a single seater, we have a domestic made two seater body with the domestic radar and weapons. This combines the situational awareness and management workload of a two seater with domestic integration. This potential plane is more likely to be attractive than any of the alternatives presented. Maybe this could the J-11B.
By: - 7th October 2002 at 05:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
"As a note, China's SU license forbids any changes or upgrades to the spec without Sukhoi's approval, but for Sukhoi to enforce that is like a geek telling the school's big high school football jock bully to follow the class rules."
But this geek has brothers in the neighborhood gang with an established reputation for violence :)
Maybe the football jock will listen to "persuasion"?
By: - 7th October 2002 at 08:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
> But this geek has brothers in the neighborhood gang with
>an established reputation for violence :)
>
> Maybe the football jock will listen to "persuasion"?
Hehe, not on the jock's home turf, where the mayor could be the jock's father.
By: - 8th October 2002 at 15:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: To Xinhui
Actually I think that if China breached the license agreements the Russians would simply stop supplying them with weapons - it's in both nations interests to be nice to each other.
By: - 10th October 2002 at 05:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My latest theory
I look at part articles and this is my latest theory about the entire situation.
1. The entire Chinese SU-30 program was from the beginning, a long term program that includes two batch purchases and an option to license as part of an overall package.
In other words, the Chinese would not have bought the first batch if the Russians did not agree in principle that China could license the SU-30.
2. Although there is an agreement in principle that China could license the SU-30, there is no agreement in implementation. Part of which may lie partly in the Chinese side as they were not sure what that implementation may be. Chances are they are not even sure what the final specs are, and fearful they may be left ending up producing a basically obsolete aircraft for years to come.
There may be basic questions like having TVC or canards to match what the Indians have, but again, these result in a plane with a higher cost and complexity in maintenance. Building 200 SU-30MKK as we know the SU-30MKK know can result in the PLAAF too heavily reliant on Russian ordinance and that is not an attractive prospect for the Chinese leadership. Then there is also the cost of the SU-30 license upgrade, the sheer cost of the program, along with the sheer minimum number for the license (at least 200 planes)---money that could eat into other domestic programs like the J-10, FC-1 and JH-7A. Could be hard to digest. There is also questions if Shenyang could deliver the SU-30 in a timely manner, as production of even the SU-27SK seemed rather slow.
Thus the leadership would want to see an SU-30 that could use Chinese ordinance first like PL-12 or C802K, and they may want to see a cheaper implementation that Shenyang can build in a faster manner.
3. I could see the J-11 program being upgraded in three stages. The first stage is that the J-11s are already probably equipped with the R-77 capable N001V, just as the third batch of SU-27UBKs were. I don't think the old N001 are still even being made. The lowest possible available radar NIIP might be making is N001V or N001VE.
The second stage would be equipping the J-11 with the multirole Zhuk-27, which is less capable than the Zhuk-MS. Then add an indigenous digital cockpit to reduce pilot workload. You have a multirole SU-27 for the least cost. Zhuk could support PL-8 and as well as other easier to integrate Chinese AAMs.
The third stage would be to equip the J-11 with a domestic radar that can enable use of more sophisticated and harder to integrate Chinese ASMs.
4. Shenyang might still attempt to build a small number of SU-30MKKs to see if it possibly can. The 20 sets of Sokol delivered to China may either be upgrades to the first 20 SU-30MKK with N001VE, or they could be pre-ordered parts in an attempt to build a small preliminary number of SU-30MKKs.
5. PLAAF's acquisition of 100 FC-1 now seems more likely along with an equal number of JH-7A. J-10 program in full swing. This may all be indicators that the PLA might like to scale down the SU-27/30 program somewhat in favor of the local boys. China might find it cheaper to buy small numbers of highly advanced SU-30/35 as a top ender in the future rather than buying a large bulk in order to obtain a license to build an even larger bulk. Each Flanker is expensive to maintain too, and sheer hundreds of them could amount to a big maintenance bill.
By: - 15th October 2002 at 01:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: My latest theory
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-10-02 AT 01:24 AM (GMT)]
Not sure if this is true. I picked this up from a Chinese website.
http://secinfo.myetang.com/CHINEASE%20ARMY/AIR/J-11B.htm
J-11 represents the SU-27SK
J-11a represents the SU-27SMK (SU-30KI)
J-11b represents the SU-30MKK
I look at more information about SU-27SMK and there appears supposedly two phases.
SU-27SMK phase one adds the refueling probe and additional hardpoint.
SU-27SMK phase two adds multirole capability. However, the Kh-59ME support is deleted (that would require a second officer). In the case if SAC builds J-11a, I think PRC may go to Phase two directly.
Posts: 6,409
By: crobato - 1st October 2002 at 05:29
I have posted this picture and post before, but as time goes by, it boggles my mind even more. A quip from one of the Chinese websites (I believe it was airforceworld.com) on its J-11 article, seems to say that after the 80th licensed aircraft, production shifts to the J-11B.
But what is the J-11B exactly?
There seems to be two prevailing camps or theories, if not three.
The first, and probably the most popular opinion, is that it's the SU-30MKK. Jane's had mentioned shift of production to the SU-30MKK after the eightieth aircraft. There are other articles that support that China had serious negotiations with Russia for that license, and even suggest, it's a done deal. As much as 250 planes are expected from this license according to various reports.
The second theory is that the SU-30MKK is just a stopgap. China's license according to Jane's was the SMK variant. That the fact that the final product turned out to be the SK does not negate that the license is based on the SMK. How is that possible? This would be logical if the license made had some headroom for additional improvements---vital improvements that include R-77, refueling, multirole and increased hardpoint capability. There is nothing in that license that forbids building an aircraft underspec if said technologies were immature at that time. (At 1996, they probably were).
It may be that a number of SU-27s delivered in the second batch had Zhuk 27 multirole radar (which laid the root of Chinese websites responding that the SU-27s delivered were SMKs). I heard this mentioned in one Russian website as well.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/ruaf7.htm
"---a development version of the Zhuk-27 (Beetle) radar currently installed in the small series of Su-27s for China---"
Evidently, since China went to the SU-30MKK, such tests proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in the reversion of the license to building the SK and finding a temporary solution with the SU-30MKK.
But it does not mean end of the story. Later around 1999, even as the PLAAF procured the SU-30MKK, KnAPPO, which built the SU-27SK, the SU-30MKK and supplied the licensed J-11 kits for China, also revived and displayed the SU-27SMK concept, now as the SU-30KI. Although marketed for Indonesia, the prototype was shown half with PLAAF colors---which is no subtle hint as to its other intended market.
Then consider this Shenyang 2001 mockup, one does wonder---even during the time said negotiations to license the SU-30MKK is being done---that they're still working on a multirole single seater.
The third theory, which is also gaining popularity, lies in the recent leak by Phazotron that China is developing a domestic radar for the J-11 one or two institutes, CLETRI among them (developer of the JL-7A radar for the J-7E and JL-10A for the JH-7A). There is plenty of talk for a Sinified J-11, complete with digital cockpit, digital FBW, domestic radar and engine. But 100% is not possible since the contract was 70% maximum local content, 30% Russian sourced content. I guess the engines will stay Russian to maintain this content level, but the fire control radar---essential in order to support Chinese missiles will have to be domestic, or at least, a Phazotron radar capable of supporting such.
Theory #1 with SU-30MKK has its points:
1. It's already a proven quality.
2. Second crewman shaves off the workload of the pilot. Provides better situational awareness.
But theory #2 with the SU-30KI/SU-27SMK has its points:
1. Assuming that China's license is indeed SMK level, there would be no need to upgrade the license and pay more money. This comes in handy if indeed, Russia refuses the MKK license.
2. Single seater may be cheaper and faster to build. It is lighter, and has more performance.
4. A well designed digital cockpit can reduce pilot workload and eliminate need for a second crewman.
5. Shift from SU-27SK to -30KI/-27SMK production will almost be smooth and uninterrupted since the basic airframe remains unchanged. Something to consider if you wish to put more planes up in the limited time possible, as PLAAF requirements seem urgent or under time schedule.
According to Nemets, at least 60% local component percentage has been achieved already on the single J-11, meaning a great reduction in cost as more single seaters are built. To build a 30KI/27SMK, only radar and avionics are changed, while external changes are limited only to the IRST, refueling probe and additional hardpoints.
6. A midline licensed SU-30 allows Russia the confidence to continue trying to market smaller quantities of higher end SU-30s to China (e.g. SU-30MK2) to create a two tier structure among the Chinese Flankers.
Any of the two approaches can lead to #3, which is a
1. A Sinicized Flanker. If #1 is followed, we can have a sinicized twin seater, while #2, proposes a sinicized single seater.
Attachments:
