China's J-11

[T-95]

I was just wondering why the Chinese would want to buy a license to build a variant of the Su-27 when it doesn't even match up the F-15C's the US has? Are they putting some kind of advanced radar in it? And if not is there really any improvement from the Su-27 to J-11? I read on wikipedia that the Su-27 has a service ceiling of 58,000 ft. or something and that J-11 has a service ceiling of 65,000 ft., why is this?

[Chrom]

I was just wondering why the Chinese would want to buy a license to build a variant of the Su-27 when it doesn't even match up the F-15C's the US has? Are they putting some kind of advanced radar in it? And if not is there really any improvement from the Su-27 to J-11? I read on wikipedia that the Su-27 has a service ceiling of 58,000 ft. or something and that J-11 has a service ceiling of 65,000 ft., why is this?

1. Since basic Su-27 engine imporved quite bit.
2. J-11 reportly have more advanced radar - either chinese produced slotted array which is roughtly equivalent to F-15C radar or russian/chinese PESA which is obviously better.
3. J-11 is better than _current_ USA F-15C - unless you meant F-15C with AESA of course.
4. China dont have anything better anyway. Currently AESA is out of reach for all nations except USA. Some other nations have it in experimental/development stage.

[qwerty223]

1. Since basic Su-27 engine imporved quite bit.
2. J-11 reportly have more advanced radar - either chinese produced slotted array which is roughtly equivalent to F-15C radar or russian/chinese PESA which is obviously better.
3. J-11 is better than _current_ USA F-15C - unless you meant F-15C with AESA of course.
4. China dont have anything better anyway. Currently AESA is out of reach for all nations except USA. Some other nations have it in experimental/development stage.
Maybe India will be second? Either with US made, or the Russia Zhuk-AE.

[Chrom]

Maybe India will be second? Either with US made, or the Russia Zhuk-AE. In that case India will not be true "second" as India will not produce it by itself. Add useal procurement issues for MRCA... I really dont believe India will recive MRCA before 2012. I will probably bet on eurofighter/rafael - they have both experimental examples and decent platform to install. Russians are probable at the some stage as europeans, but they currently dont have airframe - only PAK-FA could realistically get it, and that will not enter service before 2012 at very least.

[swerve]

...
4. China dont have anything better anyway. Currently AESA is out of reach for all nations except USA. Some other nations have it in experimental/development stage.

Japan has its own AESA radar in service on the F-2. Reported to have major problems when entered service, though.

[T-95]

4. China dont have anything better anyway. Currently AESA is out of reach for all nations except USA. Some other nations have it in experimental/development stage.


UAE also has AESA's on their F-16's and the Russians are already offering their AESA for export though they have not used it themselves.

[qwerty223]

In that case India will not be true "second" as India will not produce it by itself. Add useal procurement issues for MRCA... I really dont believe India will recive MRCA before 2012. I will probably bet on eurofighter/rafael - they have both experimental examples and decent platform to install. Russians are probable at the some stage as europeans, but they currently dont have airframe - only PAK-FA could realistically get it, and that will not enter service before 2012 at very least.
Well, I guess we went far too away from topic, so i make it short here. AESA is in a quite mature state for both Euros and Russians. Despite of the Euros which no one have doubt on them, Russian is speeding up modernizations. Soon we will see bunch of upgrade for old SUs & Migs. PAK-FA is something like JSF, joint venture always bring dispute and take long time.

Back to J-11.
Agreed with Chrom, Chinese brought in Su-27 for the airframe. I guess (is not public either way), the contact means a empty airframe and strict regulations. Due to contract they cant do much modification on the airframe. Aerodynamics is not that important since it is OK for the next 10~15 years. But no permission to public blueprints/source code means hardly to find help from third party for avionics. I suspect thats the reason to introduce SU-30MKKs, for more technology transfer and licenses.

[T-95]

I heard that the Chinese make their own engines now. They are also bound to have some advanced avionics that they "developed" (meaning the Israelis gave away F-16 tech) through the J-10 program. I also heard something about the Chinese developing their own radar, is this true? And if so would they use it in their own fighters (J-11, J-10, ect...)?

[swerve]

UAE also has AESA's on their F-16's .

Yes, but that's an American radar.


and the Russians are already offering their AESA for export though they have not used it themselves.

Elta & Selex are also offering AESA fighter radars for export at the moment, & Thales would be happy to sell anyone an AESA fighter radar quite soon if the customer paid for accelerated development. Or they can wait a bit until the French government financed development has finished.

Everyone would love a deal like the UAE F-16 one, where the customer paid for development of an AESA radar. Money is the main constraint for the Europeans, Israelis & Russians.

[T-95]

Money is the main constraint for the Europeans, Israelis & Russians.

Money isn't a constraint?! Maybe for the Europeans but as for the Russians they do have lots of financial problems but they're done developing an AESA. As for the Israelis, they're not even developing one for jet fighters. And if you say that the Israelis don't have money constraints then you're lying to yourself they're military's very existence is dependent on US charity.

[T-95]

Money isn't a constraint?! Maybe for the Europeans but as for the Russians they do have lots of financial problems but they're done developing an AESA. As for the Israelis, they're not even developing one for jet fighters. And if you say that the Israelis don't have money constraints then you're lying to yourself they're military's very existence is dependent on US charity.

srry read your post wrong swerve.

[swerve]

... As for the Israelis, they're not even developing one for jet fighters. ....

They are: the EL/M-2052.

[tphuang]

UAE also has AESA's on their F-16's and the Russians are already offering their AESA for export though they have not used it themselves.

yeah, they are offering something that's in prototype stage. Why would China even want something like that? Even China has something in prototype stage.

[T-95]

yeah, they are offering something that's in prototype stage. Why would China even want something like that? Even China has something in prototype stage.

The Russian AESA is probably going be ready for service by the end of the year. They've already fitted it to the MiG-35 (which it self is ready for export) and have been advertising it in various air shows to show its ready for production.

can you plz tell us more about the Chinese AESA?

[qwerty223]

[QUOTE=T-95;102705]The Russian AESA is probably going be ready for service by the end of the year. They've already fitted it to the MiG-35 (which it self is ready for export) and have been advertising it in various air shows to show its ready for production.

nvm, jz get back to J-11

[T-95]

Can anyone tell me why the J-11 has a service ceiling of 62,000 ft. while the Su-27 has a 60,000 ft. and somehow that number goes down again for more advanced Su-30's and Su-35 (58,000 ft.). Isn't this a major disadvantage in battle? F-22 pilots said they're higher altitude advantage in Red Flag was a major advantage and was a contributing factor to their only 1 loss record.

[tphuang]

The Russian AESA is probably going be ready for service by the end of the year. They've already fitted it to the MiG-35 (which it self is ready for export) and have been advertising it in various air shows to show its ready for production.

can you plz tell us more about the Chinese AESA?
No, it's not. They finally got a working prototype, that's it. It's not ready for mass production. They don't have the capability to mass produce gallium arsenide. There is a huge difference between starting to test it and ready to export it on a mass basis.

[Chrom]

Can anyone tell me why the J-11 has a service ceiling of 62,000 ft. while the Su-27 has a 60,000 ft. and somehow that number goes down again for more advanced Su-30's and Su-35 (58,000 ft.). Isn't this a major disadvantage in battle? F-22 pilots said they're higher altitude advantage in Red Flag was a major advantage and was a contributing factor to their only 1 loss record. I dont know for sure but it may be due to higher/lower NTOW.

[T-95]

I actually think it's kind of stupid of them to spend so much money on those planes when they have a bad cockpit design, last for less 3,500 hrs.(American F-15C's last 5,000 hrs. w/o upgrades-8,000 hrs. w/upgrades) and have engines that can not go a week with out some kind of major problem.

[crobato]

What bad cockpit design? The J-11B has four MFDs. It uses a wide angle 3D holographic HUD. There is only two other aircraft I know that has this, the Rafale and the F-22. The sensors include an optical/UV missile approach warning system, which is a first for any Flanker.

The airframe is designed to last for 10,000 flight hours. Check recent Jane's issue. The engines are meant at least for 1500 flight hours before overhaul, which is 50% more than the standard series 3 AL-31F. The early batches of AL-31F were lasting only up to 750 hours.

The engines produce 13,200kg of thrust over the standard 12,500, and the use of composite and lightweight materials reduced the net weight of the plane by 700kg. That's 1400kg of extra thrust total with 700kg of weight reduction. That's probably the reason why the plane can fly slightly higher then the standard Flanker.

[T-95]

What bad cockpit design? The J-11B has four MFDs. It uses a wide angle 3D holographic HUD. There is only two other aircraft I know that has this, the Rafale and the F-22. The sensors include an optical/UV missile approach warning system, which is a first for any Flanker.

The airframe is designed to last for 10,000 flight hours. Check recent Jane's issue. The engines are meant at least for 1500 flight hours before overhaul, which is 50% more than the standard series 3 AL-31F. The early batches of AL-31F were lasting only up to 750 hours.

The engines produce 13,200kg of thrust over the standard 12,500, and the use of composite and lightweight materials reduced the net weight of the plane by 700kg. That's 1400kg of extra thrust total with 700kg of weight reduction. That's probably the reason why the plane can fly slightly higher then the standard Flanker.

I'm talking about the current J-11 your talking about the prototype thats about to go into production. And you can't really trust those figures that were on a magazine they really don't know. The Indians were having a lot of trouble with there engines. And please post a link where it says the airframe can last for 10,000 hrs. because the manufacturers website said it only lasts for 3500 hrs.

[tphuang]

I'm talking about the current J-11 your talking about the prototype thats about to go into production. And you can't really trust those figures that were on a magazine they really don't know. The Indians were having a lot of trouble with there engines. And please post a link where it says the airframe can last for 10,000 hrs. because the manufacturers website said it only lasts for 3500 hrs.

The 10000 hours is from a recent edition of JDW. The one from two weeks ago if you want to be exact. As for J-11 avionics, it's not that cut and dry. The avionics has slowly become more and more indigenized as the license production went on until J-11B, which is now fully indigenized.

[T-95]

I heard the Chinese reversed engineered a whole bunch of crap like our JDAM's HARM's and several A2G munitions as well as avionics from the F-16 Block 50/52. I guess we can thank the Israelis for this. Any ways this would make for a great "indigenised" J-11.

[tphuang]

I heard the Chinese reversed engineered a whole bunch of crap like our JDAM's HARM's and several A2G munitions as well as avionics from the F-16 Block 50/52. I guess we can thank the Israelis for this. Any ways this would make for a great "indigenised" J-11.

You heard wrong. They take concepts from Americans, so they know what kind of weapons should be developed, and then they develop them. Although, the LGB has a lot of similarities to the Russian KAB-500L I have to admit and YJ-91 is basically just Chinese version of KH-31

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Schumacher]

...... With all the troubles the Chinese went through to get the Speys, the WS10A is probably another licensed production (although Chinese propaganda will continue to suggest that it is a "chinese-made" engine. China's tech is not that advanced and many are prone to over-estimate their capabilities.
...........

So WS10A is a 'licensed production' from which other engine manufacturer ?

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[crobato]

The reason why the Chinese bought into the Su-27 is simple. It is the best available to the Chinese. In 1996, no european country could sell to China due to the TianAnMen. The J-8 upgrade programme was stalled. US had similar restrictions to the Europeans.

Even then, the Chinese could only get the Su-27SK model (which doesn't fire the R-77). It was only later in this decade that the Su-30MK models became available to the Chinese. That's why 170 out of the 270+ sukhois that the Chinese have are still the older version sukhois.

The Chinese actually got the Su-30MK at the start of this decade.


That's why if one reads the 2007 China military report to congress (drafted by the DOD), we'd see that China is finally license producing the Su-27SMK version and we'd probably see upgrades of its earlier Su-27SKs to this version.


The report was probably done by some clerk who should have known better, given the other errors circulating in the report.

China isn't license producing the Su-27SKM, the Russians have not confirmed this. The Su-27SMK is quite different from the J-11B, and both planes are well documented. Despite being very different inside, the J-11B still physically copies the Su-27SK down to the RWR housings near the engine intake.

On the other hand, the Su-27SKM, has offset IFR probe, offset IRST, 12 hardpoints, and don't show the RWR blades anymore.

Inside the planes are very different.

Su-27SKM uses twist cassegrain N001VEP radar from the Su-30MK2. The J-11B uses slotted array KLJ-4, which is related to the KLJ-3 from the J-10. The SKM uses Russian AAMs like R-77, the J-11B uses Chinese AAMs like PL-8 and PL-12. The former uses Series 3 AL-31F for the engine, latter the WS-10B, adding a total of 1400kg of additional thrust. The cockpit of the SKM uses 3 MFDs; the cockpit is the copy of the Su-30MK2. The J-11B cockpit has four MFDs, and a large wide angle wide screen 3D holographic HUD. When it comes to defensive measures, the J-11B boasts optical missile approach warning systems matched to the RWR and all interconnected to the flares/chaff system. The SKM uses the Pastel RWR from the Su-30MKK. The SKM still uses the old Su-27 analog flight control system, the J-11B uses a digital FBW.

To put it in another way, the J-11B uses a lot of J-10 related technologies. One can better put it as a Flanker with the soul of the J-10. The SKM is an Su-27 with the soul of an Su-30MKK.

The Su-27SMK (note the difference of the letter arrangement from SKM), is a defunct project in the nineties that planned for the use of the Zhuk-27 radar, offset IFR and IRST, 12 hardpoints and provisions for external fuel tanks. From the avionics point of view, its very different from the SKM.



Many analysts believe that the J11B is a 2 seater chinese copy of the J-11A. For myself, I think it is just a licensed SU-27 UBK version upgraded to SMK standard that received a lot of Russian inputs to develop. With all the troubles the Chinese went through to get the Speys, the WS10A is probably another licensed production (although Chinese propaganda will continue to suggest that it is a "chinese-made" engine. China's tech is not that advanced and many are prone to over-estimate their capabilities.


Analysts are full of crap. Starting with, Chinese designation do not use "B" to designate two seater, which is US parlance. The correct designation for Chinese two seater J-11 would have been either J-11S the S being the Chinese word for twin, or JJ-11, if its really just for training. They did not call the two seater J-10 JJ-10 but J-10S, which means the two seater J-10 is more than just a trainer and has unique capabilities of its own. That does not make the J-10S just a two seater version of the J-10.

The Su-27UBK is not licensed to China by any means. But making a twin seater isn't something hard for China to do. After all, the Chinese actually made twin seater MiG-17s and MiG-19s when the Russians never actually made such planes (only planned it). China never got the plans for the twin seater MiG-21F either, before their relationship with the Soviet Union turned cold, so they pretty much reinvented the concept for their own JJ-7.

[wp2000]

The reason why the Chinese bought into the Su-27 is simple. It is the best available to the Chinese. In 1996, no european country could sell to China due to the TianAnMen. The J-8 upgrade programme was stalled. US had similar restrictions to the Europeans.

Even then, the Chinese could only get the Su-27SK model (which doesn't fire the R-77). It was only later in this decade that the Su-30MK models became available to the Chinese. That's why 170 out of the 270+ sukhois that the Chinese have are still the older version sukhois.

That's why if one reads the 2007 China military report to congress (drafted by the DOD), we'd see that China is finally license producing the Su-27SMK version and we'd probably see upgrades of its earlier Su-27SKs to this version.

Many analysts believe that the J11B is a 2 seater chinese copy of the J-11A. For myself, I think it is just a licensed SU-27 UBK version upgraded to SMK standard that received a lot of Russian inputs to develop. With all the troubles the Chinese went through to get the Speys, the WS10A is probably another licensed production (although Chinese propaganda will continue to suggest that it is a "chinese-made" engine. China's tech is not that advanced and many are prone to over-estimate their capabilities.

Chinese forces are nevertheless growing potent as the 2007 report suggests. ~18 J-11A/Bs are added to the fleet annually. Between 24 to 48 J-10s (avg 36) are being produced annually (with ~250 projected to enter service by 2011/12). Add that to 300 J-8s and 600+ J7s make up a reasonable air defence fleet.
What? Many analysts believe J11B is a 2 seater Flanker? As far as I know, You are the first one to say so actually:) .

[wp2000]

Officially, the WS-10A is a chinese engine developed from the AL-31. Unofficially (by me guessing only), it is a license copy of the AL-31. Which version to believe is entirely up to the reader.
Officially? Which Official?
According to Chinese official (articles from the designers), WS10 core engine was derived from CFM56.

Do you have any proof for your Official and Unoffical version (license copy of AL31)? I'd like to verify them with some people.:)

[wp2000]

But I do agree that China can produce AL31 though. :cool:

[T-95]

Do any of the versions of J-11 use F-16 tech they obtained from the Israelis? Just to note if it uses J-10 tech then it uses F-16 tech.

[wp2000]

Do any of the versions of J-11 use F-16 tech they obtained from the Israelis? Just to note if it uses J-10 tech then it uses F-16 tech.
I believe they used more Wright brothers' tech than F16's

[T-95]

I believe they used more Wright brothers' tech than F16's

Some one on here said they used some J-10 tech on the "indegnized" J-11. As I understand the J-10 uses ALOT of F-16 tech so wouldn't this mean that it dose in someway use technology from the F-16.

[crobato]

What "F-16 tech" really? The most important F-16 "tech" is in the aerodynamics, and the J-10 doesn't even use the same configuration. Tailed airplane, clipped wings with LERX vs. delta wings with canard? A lot of other techs are not exclusive to the F-16 and are commonly found in many planes like FBW and composites. The FBW for the J-10 would have to be different from the F-16 due to their plane configurations. The Su-27/J-11 has a configuration closer to the F-16 but the plane is a lot bigger.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[crobato]

Ok, admit I spoke loosely. Should have done a bit more homework.

In mitigation,

1) the original WS-10 design based on the CFM 56 would never have achieved 13200 kg thrust. It would have to copy the F110 design which China doesn't have access to.


What makes you think it can't? There are obvious ways to increase the power such as raising the compression ratio.


2) to fit on the Su-27, you'd need a similar sized engine to the AL-31.

At the very least, substantial technologies would have to be adapted from the AL-31. That at least is logical.

Being similarly sized and even having compatible fittings does not mean the internal core is the same, like the WP-14 Kunlun to the WP-13A/B series.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[crobato]

So answer me this. If this was so easy to achieve, why did the Chinese never achieve self manufacture of the Speys? In the end, they still had to license the engine. The technologies are not that easily adaptable otherwise every single country in the world would be manufacturing jet engines.

The deal with Speys were from the beginning, to be licensed in the first place. That goes way back to the seventies. Why would you copy, when you can already license?


I'm no engine manufacturer but it doesn't take a genius to know when things don't add up. China did not acquire the technologies to manufacture such classes of engines until the introduction of the AL31.

Having the AL-31F would not give China to technology to manufacture such an engine.


Sure, there is always a possibility that chinese engineers taught themselves everything about engine designs. I find that very unlikely so like I said, I'd keep to my views and everyone else is welcome to theirs. It doesn't matter on this matter if I'm wrong or others think I am. China still has their engine.


In the fifties, China sent its young minds to study in the Soviet Union. When they came out of it, these young engineers are heavily versed and studied in the technologies of the Soviet Union, which enabled them to and develop J-6, J-7, J-8, Q-5, and their engines, among other things.

From the eighties till today China learned like everyone else, which is to send students to study in universities around the world. In so doing they have much greater contact with Western science, technology and engineering, and this is what they brought back to China. Guess what they would all look up to as models of engineering? Not to mention the influence of Israelis, French, and various Western companies like GE, Boeing and Airbus

China is exposed to CFM-56 technology longer than the AL-31F. There are a lot more CFM-56 based engines sitting in China around various airports and maintenance depots than AL-31F. J-10 first flight was with the original WS-10 before later, switching to AL-31FN due to the length of time of spool. As a note, China certainly didn't get single crystal blade technology from the Russians, who themselves were also quite late in having such techs.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[goldenpanda]

Weasel, I'd certainly like to think Chinese are more "ingenious" than the 200 countries that cannot build either a fighter or an engine. I imagine Chinese just twiddle with their thumbs, then "poof", some thing will come out from the deepness of their "ingenuity"...

Editted Out: Please do not insult another poster

[crobato]

So why was there a long break of 20 years before a new license agreement was signed for the JH7A?


Long break? Perhaps because the JH-7 wasn't given an odds on favorite to succeed, and development of the licensed version, the WS-9, was facing problems. Rather than just copy the Spey, the WS-9 may also be boosting the power, and that was probably hard for the Chinese state of metallurgy, which also prevented them from making an R-27 copy (engine of the MiG-23). The WS-9 went into production in 2004 after China mastered single crystal blade production. With that development, everything fell into place, including the WS-10A.


Exactly. Which is why I believe there were Russian inputs to allow integration into a sukhoi platform esp at the speed in which it was done.


Big wrongo there. The Su-27 was licensed to China. The AL-31F wasn't.

Big difference.

With the licensing of Su-27 techs, the Chinese knew well enough of the plane to make modifications of their own, like they did with the Z-9, J-7, T-55, etc,.


I do not disagree. However, certain engine manufacturing technologies are a closely guarded secret eg blade compositions. With the TianAnMen restrictions, its not that easy to obtain such technologies.

Yes, but B-2 and AEGIS techs seem even more guarded, and China apparently still got their ways.


Obviously the chinese did for the WS-10A and that puts a spanner into the "indigeneous-developed". "Ingeniously developed" maybe. Its still a su-27 by most definitions. Just a modified one.

WS-10A appears for me having a more western bent. Even the power ratings are similar to the PW F-100-220, -229 and GE F110-129, 24,000lbs for WS-10 and 29,000lbs for WS-10A. But why didn't they go for 27,500lbs like AL-31F?

Physically like the American engines, the Chinese engines seem to have a larger diameter than the AL-31F, and I placed the weight around 1760kg based on 7.5 to 1 TWR. That weight puts it right on the same weight as the F110 engines, and more than the AL-31F at 1574kg. Oddly enough, it is GE that has a limited partnership with Shenyang Liming developing stationary powerplant engines.

[wp2000]

So Weasel1962, you don't have any proof but just some personal speculations.

I have no problem with that. I was just interested in finding out whether you have any information (rather than speculation) on WS10A or not.

Anyway here are some bits that I know:

1. WS9/Spey license production was a pure political decision made a former Chinese leader Wang Zhen. He's a famous brave army general who knew nothing about aviation. But he had made some personal impact on China's military aviation development. His decision on buying Spey license was one of his famous jokes in china's aviation industry. Basically most people in the industry disagreed with that idea. The selected manufacturer and the R&D institute in XiAn city had no interest in this project. Coupled with the fact that PLAAF rejected the plane (JH7) in the early 1980s that this engine was targeted, WS9 did not make much progress until early 1990s when PLANAF's interest in JH7 reignited WS9. But still the manufacturer and design institute was not interested in it. They were seriously proposing to use WS10 on a modified JH7. As far as I know, it's only in the mid-late 1990s that WS9 was finally restarted, probably because China thought it'd better to make do with the current JH7 design and discard all the radical design changes.

2. WS10 was started in the mid 1980s, and it has been the top priority of China's aviation engine R&D and manufacturers. AL31 was never licensed to China. Even India only got the license in the last few years. China only got the complete overhaul tech transfer, not for manufacturing. Given the amount of resources poured into WS10, if WS10A is a license copy of AL31, it would be really a shame to spend 20+years to just start limited serial production last year ratther than full speed mass production.

Compare to India who only got AL31 license 3 years (?) ago, now they can produce TVC AL31 for their Su30MKI, as far as I HEARD.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Pathfinder-X]

When the J-10 program started in 1986, the original idea was to equip GE F110. Due to the Tiananmen Square incident and breakup of the Soviet Union, it was no longer an option after 1989. An alternative was needed, which came from Russia. The AL-31F needed more air intake than the F110, which caused a major redesign of the inlet, and the six support beams to be added to the intake.

J-11B is NOT a twin seater. I like to think of it as China first successful attempt to make a fighter-bomber. Previous planes such as J-11A and J-10, capable as they may be, are designed mainly for air superiority. The JH-7A flies like a brick and cannot equipped medium range A2A missiles if I'm right. J-11B is the first one that can do both, having it all in one package.

The best way to tell a J-11B apart from Su-27SK and J-11A is the holographic HUD in the cockpit. It also features the first working PESA developed by Nanjing 14th institute as one insider in Chinese forums pointed out, but he didn't give out much more than that.

[crobato]

Some points.

The AL-31F does not use more air than the GE F110. Its more like the other way around, because of the GE's greater power. In addition the GE also weighs more and has a larger diameter. Perhaps you are either referring to the PW F100 engine (used in the F-16A) or the PW F1120 engine (used in the Lavi). The support/blades would still be there regardless of engine used. If you checked behind the J-8II intake, you will see similar support/blades.

The JH-7A official mockup (or FBC-1A in defense expo displays) show PL-11 and PL-12 under the wings. The maneuverbility level should be comparable to an F-4 Phantom.

The best way to tell apart a J-11B from the other J-11s is that the plane has an entirely black nose that looks its made of carbon. Electrostatic strips appear on the sides of the nose. There is no way you can mistake that with other Russian made Flankers either. Other Flankers feature either a white or a grey nose. The PLAAF Flankers use a dark grey nose with a mouth like cutout in the bottom. Except for the J-11B.

J-10s and J-8Fs also feature carbon black radomes with strips. JH-7As however use either a green or grey radome.

The radar on the J-11B is not a PESA but a mechanically scanning slotted array.

Another simple way of identifying a J-11B is the missile it carries---PL-8, PL-11 or PL-12.

[eaf-f16]

Are any of the J-11's variants equal to the F-15C?

[Chrom]

Are any of the J-11's variants equal to the F-15C? J-11A should be more or less equal to 80x F-15C. J-11B should be about somewhat better than current F-15C - but then again we dont know much reliable info about J-11B.

[Yasin20]

i have googled the J11 jet and i seen it and it looks awsome i gess china makes better ones the russia becouse they dont drink vodka while they work

[eaf-f16]

i have googled the J11 jet and i seen it and it looks awsome i gess china makes better ones the russia becouse they dont drink vodka while they work

Is China's quality control better than Russia's cuz i know for a fact the IAF are having trouble with the Su-30MKI's engine and said it only lasts for 300 some hours before it has to go into maintenance again but then again it's a complex engine that is still in the test stages plus TVC puts a huge burden on maintenance.

[Chrom]

Is China's quality control better than Russia's cuz i know for a fact the IAF are having trouble with the Su-30MKI's engine and said it only lasts for 300 some hours before it has to go into maintenance again but then again it's a complex engine that is still in the test stages plus TVC puts a huge burden on maintenance.

Remember what whatever MTBO is given for engines or other system is just "generic" value, what is greatly depended on usage conditions. It is perfectly possible what IAF used engines on more heavy regimes than "average" and as such engines do not reach listed "generic" MTBO values. In that case obviosly "low" engines life is no-one fault. Of course, there could be problems with new TVC'ed engines also.

[Wale14]

The Russian AESA is probably going be ready for service by the end of the year. They've already fitted it to the MiG-35 (which it self is ready for export) and have been advertising it in various air shows to show its ready for production.

can you plz tell us more about the Chinese AESA?

china doesn't have AESA, does it :confused:

[tphuang]

china doesn't have AESA, does it :confused:

no AESA radar for production aircraft, but AESA radar for just about everything else. I'm waiting to see the next Y-8 radar plane pictures, because it's alleged to be testing the new AESA radar for J-10.

[eaf-f16]

no AESA radar for production aircraft, but AESA radar for just about everything else. I'm waiting to see the next Y-8 radar plane pictures, because it's alleged to be testing the new AESA radar for J-10.

Is it true that J-10 is going to be fitted with TVC, I know that the F-16 will have that upgrade available in 2010-2015?

If it true, why don't they do that with the J-11's and it's variants? Wouldn't it make it infinitely better than the F-15C (in dog-fights at least)?

[tphuang]

Is it true that J-10 is going to be fitted with TVC, I know that the F-16 will have that upgrade available in 2010-2015?

If it true, why don't they do that with the J-11's and it's variants? Wouldn't it make it infinitely better than the F-15C (in dog-fights at least)?

well, they would have to do modifications to accomodate the TVC engine. It is going to be tougher to do it to J-11 than J-10, since they know J-10's structure/aerodynamics far better. Also, the main issue is that J-10 is China's best A2A platform, whereas J-11 is better for its range and payload. So, J-11's future development is going more in the F-15E and naval direction. Whereas J-10 will continuously upgraded for better A2A capabilities.

[qwerty223]

no AESA radar for production aircraft, but AESA radar for just about everything else. I'm waiting to see the next Y-8 radar plane pictures, because it's alleged to be testing the new AESA radar for J-10.

AESA is not a new thing, problem is how to made it in an appropriate size to fit in to an aircraft.