Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th July 2008 at 06:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I smell yet another flame war. :(
I think it would be better to look long term. Right now, the J-11B probably less capable than the Su-35BM going solely on the fact that the Chinese Aerospace industry is still a ways to catch up with the Russian Aerospace industry, but the gap is closing. In thirty years I'm sure the Chinese could develop a flanker in the same lines as the BM.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think they could field a "J-11BM" in no more than 10 years, and that might be a little bit on the high side. They've already been developing TVC, and there is a big stick in the ramjet-powered PL-12 under development. The only major area where they'd then be behind is in the radar field, and I think that in no more than 10 years they could field a comparable set.
The J-11B is really more analogous to a kind of Su-27SM "plus", with new engines and a wholly new radar set separating it from the Su-27SM's comparatively more basic upgrade (not qualitatively, comparatively, make sure you read that right). The Su-27BM is a far more complex change to the aircraft, offering increased capability over the Su-27SM and J-11B in terms of avionics, powerplant, and weapons fit.
So, the Su-27BM would be the "superior" aircraft on paper, followed by the J-11B and then the Su-27SM, between those three aircraft. Both of them are sensible ways forward. The Chinese J-11B is a more basic upgrade primarily involving the weapon system and powerplant when compared to the Su-27BM. Both of them are sensible for their respective air arms; China needs more BVR shooters and less reliance on Russian aerospace technology, and Russia needs something to bridge the gap between the Su-27SM and PAK-FA. In that light they are both credible FLANKER evolutions for their respective users.
Now, do try to be mature and refrain from any unsensible postings!
By: - 12th July 2008 at 07:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please be reminded that in Chinese based abbreviations, "M" does not mean Modification, or Upgrade, as they do with the Russians, rather the abbreviations are based on Chinese words, and in this case, "M" would mean "Export".
Thus J-11BM would mean J-11B for Export, which currently won't be happening without Russian complaint.
"G" as in "Gai" would mean Improved. So an improved J-11B would be J-11BG. However, if an all new letter is used, like J-11C, then its a further modified scale where J-11C > J-11BG.
The use of successive letters (A and above) would mean improved variants except for reserved letters:
G = Gai for Improved.
F = Air Defense, meaning specialized interceptor with long range missiles.
S = Two Seater
H = Two meanings, either for Bomber or Strike, or for Naval Use.
M = Export
By: - 12th July 2008 at 11:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One is already deployed and the other still under development stage.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 13:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I smell yet another flame war. :(
... In thirty years I'm sure the Chinese could develop a flanker in the same lines as the BM.
Man, you are ruthless!!
By: - 12th July 2008 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please be reminded that in Chinese based abbreviations, "M" does not mean Modification, or Upgrade, as they do with the Russians, rather the abbreviations are based on Chinese words, and in this case, "M" would mean "Export".Thus J-11BM would mean J-11B for Export, which currently won't be happening without Russian complaint.
"G" as in "Gai" would mean Improved. So an improved J-11B would be J-11BG. However, if an all new letter is used, like J-11C, then its a further modified scale where J-11C > J-11BG.
The use of successive letters (A and above) would mean improved variants except for reserved letters:
G = Gai for Improved.
F = Air Defense, meaning specialized interceptor with long range missiles.
S = Two Seater
H = Two meanings, either for Bomber or Strike, or for Naval Use.
M = Export
Do Chinese actually use mission-specific variant suffixes, except for the G? I've never seen them, only sequential ones (J-6IV, J-7E) or sometimes specific ones for export customers (F-7P). The one mission-specific variant suffix I know with Chinese designations is Z for recce, as in the JZ-8.
A further development of the J-11B would likely be J-11C. A -G suffix doesn't make sense since it only seems to be applied to export aircraft, which is out of the question for the J-11.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 16:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-27SM is not the same thing as Su-27SKM. It has uprated 13.5 ton engine, new FBW, LCDs, EW, IRST, 4000Km range and fully multirole with 8 tons payload. China still imports IRST.
I havent seen J-11B cockpit only the new HUD in yellow primer so more like test aircraft and there are plently of test aircraft at Sukhoi.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 18:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-27SM is not the same thing as Su-27SKM. It has uprated 13.5 ton engine, new FBW, LCDs, EW, IRST, 4000Km range and fully multirole with 8 tons payload. China still imports IRST.
I havent seen J-11B cockpit only the new HUD in yellow primer so more like test aircraft and there are plently of test aircraft at Sukhoi.
China imported a couple of sets of irst, that's it. J-11B is using domestic version or copy (depending on who you ask). We've seen J-11B in an active regiment already (if you ever goto flanker thread on SDF/CDF, you'd see them)
As for 10 years from now, who still cares about flankers? It should be all about 5th generation plane.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As for 10 years from now, who still cares about flankers? It should be all about 5th generation plane.
Can a chinese rip-off of a MiG 1.44 be classed as 5G?....it's Lavi all over again!
By: - 12th July 2008 at 20:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can a chinese rip-off of a MiG 1.44 be classed as 5G?....it's Lavi all over again!
You're right, it is like the Lavi all over again, where people make baseless assumptions and claim a Chinese plane is a rip-off of something else with zero evidence. :rolleyes:
The J11B has substantial structual improvements over the original flanker, reducing the weight, added slightly more powerful and reliable engines, vastly increase the life of the airframe and also treated the intakes to reduce RCS. That with all the avoinics upgrades makes it almost a different plane to the Su27SK.
The main area where China is lagging is engines, not radar, where the difference is not that great and reducing rapidly.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The J11B has substantial structual improvements over the original flanker, reducing the weight, added slightly more powerful and reliable engines, vastly increase the life of the airframe and also treated the intakes to reduce RCS.
Do you have data about that? Otherwise that are contradicting claims most of the time. To use some composite in some places may shed a few percent in weight at best, but do not bolster life of the airframe in general. Treating the intakes to reduce RCS will rise weight for sure, when the effect of that is limited due to the layout. To ease the temper, the Su-35BM do face the same problems.
What are those slightly more powerful and reliable engines?
The engines of the Su-35BM are quoted with 14500 kp in overspeed mode, when normal max AB is ~14000 kp f.e.. ;)
By: - 12th July 2008 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The main area where China is lagging is engines, not radar, where the difference is not that great and reducing rapidly.
So the WS-10A is neither powerful & reliable enough for J-10 (chinese chief test pilot's words), but it's ok for J-11?
A pirated planar-array 'Zhuk' from the early 90s shoe-horned onto the J-11 is close in capability to the Irbis-E?
Iirc, Jane's reported some years ago that MiG was heavily involved in china's next-gen. fighter with heavy 1.42 input, time will tell- no doubt.
Oh, why is TsAGI contractually working on 2 chinese fighters if china's industry is so advanced. I mean, by now they should be well versed on prince charlie's CFD packages right?
J-11 is closer to '27SM, not even the same league as '35BM, the closest capability analogy I would make is like comparing an F-18C to the Super Hornet.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you have data about that? Otherwise that are contradicting claims most of the time. To use some composite in some places may shed a few percent in weight at best, but do not bolster life of the airframe in general. Treating the intakes to reduce RCS will rise weight for sure, when the effect of that is limited due to the layout. To ease the temper, the Su-35BM do face the same problems.
What are those slightly more powerful and reliable engines?
The engines of the Su-35BM are quoted with 14500 kp in overspeed mode, when normal max AB is ~14000 kp f.e.. ;)
the more powerful engine is WS-10A, although it's not more reliable engine.
a lot of weight reduction comes from using lighter digital avionics
Can a chinese rip-off of a MiG 1.44 be classed as 5G?....it's Lavi all over again!
what are you talking about?
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China imported a couple of sets of irst, that's it. J-11B is using domestic version or copy (depending on who you ask). We've seen J-11B in an active regiment already (if you ever goto flanker thread on SDF/CDF, you'd see them)As for 10 years from now, who still cares about flankers? It should be all about 5th generation plane.
can you show me J-11B with new wide angle gree HUD pictures. Alteast that seems upgrade. the rest is just all talk. ur still importing engines and IRST.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm for certain that once the Chinese fifth gen aircraft is revealed, there will be an army of keyboard warriors armed and ready to go into twenty-page long forum s**tstorms about how the Chinese ripped off the Mig-1.44/F-22/Typhoon/Tie-Fighter and how the Chinese aerospace industry suxxorz compared to the European/Russian/American industry.
I'd bet my underpants on it.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the WS-10A is neither powerful & reliable enough for J-10 (chinese chief test pilot's words), but it's ok for J-11?
WS-10A is used on many J-10s this past year, there was a huge ramp up in production starting last October. That article you are talking about was talking about WS-10, not the WS-10A as is known now.
A pirated planar-array 'Zhuk' from the early 90s shoe-horned onto the J-11 is close in capability to the Irbis-E?
who told you it is a pirated planar array? You think if it was a pirated copy, they would still need to test it the Y-8 radar testbed for like 2 years? Stopped making stuff up.
Iirc, Jane's reported some years ago that MiG was heavily involved in china's next-gen. fighter with heavy 1.42 input, time will tell- no doubt.
What does Jane know? Half of its Chinese articles are rubbish. This is the same magazine that said 054A has 2 FCRs.
They only just decided late last year up at plaaf that the design work for 5th generation plane is going to CAC.
Oh, why is TsAGI contractually working on 2 chinese fighters if china's industry is so advanced. I mean, by now they should be well versed on prince charlie's CFD packages right?
huh?
J-11 is closer to '27SM, not even the same league as '35BM, the closest capability analogy I would make is like comparing an F-18C to the Super Hornet.
do you know the radar performance of J-11b? Do you know that it is using fiber optics communications? Do you know about the upgraded WS-10A that will be in production in a couple of years?
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd bet my underpants on it.
I hope they're clean :cool:
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you have data about that? Otherwise that are contradicting claims most of the time. To use some composite in some places may shed a few percent in weight at best, but do not bolster life of the airframe in general. Treating the intakes to reduce RCS will rise weight for sure, when the effect of that is limited due to the layout. To ease the temper, the Su-35BM do face the same problems.
What are those slightly more powerful and reliable engines?
The engines of the Su-35BM are quoted with 14500 kp in overspeed mode, when normal max AB is ~14000 kp f.e.. ;)
I remember reading an article on one of the forums that one of the main gripes the PLAAF had with the SK was of its short airframe life, and that the J11B had made significant improvements in that department (10,000 hours). Had a quick look but can't find that article just now, will keep an eye out and post it when I find it again.
The engines are WS10A, which is slightly more powerful, but has a 1,500 hour max time before overhaul, which is about double of the early AL31F. Thats more reliable in my book, as it can safely operate for much longer without needing to be overhauled.
As for the Su35's engines, well there is no doubt that they are far better then anything China can produce at the moment. Engine tech is one of the areas where Russian remains far ahead of China.
By: - 12th July 2008 at 22:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can you show me J-11B with new wide angle gree HUD pictures. Alteast that seems upgrade. the rest is just all talk. ur still importing engines and IRST.
well I uploaded a bunch of photos, it shows the IRST, MAWs, the wide angled holographic HUD, the cockpit and the FBW. In case you are wondering about the HUD on the cockpit photo, that's the old cockpit. We are not importing any engines for J-11B. Get it? That 180 engine imported was for replacements on our current fleet of imported flankers.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 12th July 2008 at 05:40
rather than that Su-35 vs European aircraft thread.
Seeing as how both the 35 and 11B are both the latest renditions of the basic Flanker series, they should be compared.
which is truly the best way forward in the flanker evolution and in practical use for its air force?