Posted on 09/17/2015 10:02:19 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
China’s Shengyang J-11 unlicensed derivative of the Russian-developed Su-27 Flanker has become the mainstay of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). While the Chinese-built jets are not able to match U.S.-built fighters one-for-one, China is building a lot of them.
Down the road, advanced derivatives of the J-11 might become every bit as capable as the most advanced versions of American and allied fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 or F-16.
Even fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters might be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese jets and the problems associated with the lack of bases in the Western Pacific.
What makes the J-11 special
There have been many iterations of the J-11. Those range from the original license-built models to the “indigenously” produced A-model to the upgraded B/BS-model, which uses a host of Chinese upgrades and avionics hardware.
China continues to develop other versions of the J-11 including the advanced J-15, which is designed to operate off China’s lone aircraft carrier Liaoning,which was purchased incomplete as a derelict from the Nikolayev shipyards in Crimea. Shengyang was aided in the development of the J-15 through the purchase of a Su-33 Flanker prototype from Ukraine.
The J-15, however, was more than just a reverse engineered copy of the original Russian Flanker design. The carrier-based aircraft is expected to feature a host of advanced avionics, including a phased array radar and new infrared search and track system. But while the carrier-variant has gotten a lot of attention, a parallel development that features many of the same advancements seems to be making headway.
The J-11D, which is currently in development, is arguably the most advanced land-based single-seat Chinese version of the Flanker. While it probably is not quite as potent as the Russian Su-35S, it is very comparable in a lot of respects. While almost all information concerning Chinese hardware is suspect, the new J-11D allegedly made its first flight sometime in April.
The new variant is purportedly equipped with a new electronically scanned radar — possibly an active electronically scanned array (AESA). But China wouldn’t need the Su-35 if it had developed a working, producible AESA. That could be why China and Russia have been taking so long to work out a deal to buy the Su-35 — the People’s Republic has reached a point where it doesn’t need the Russians as much as they used to.
The J-11D is also purported to use radar absorbent materials to help reduce the jet’s signature, possibly a new infrared search-and-track system (IRST) and revamped electronic warfare systems. It also allegedly features an improved version of China’s WS-10 jet engine — but the Chinese have had a lot of difficulties with producing a reliable motor for their aircraft. One reason China is interested in the Su-35 is because of that plane’s engines.
But would the jets ever meet in the skies over Asia?
While it is certainly important to consider all of the various possible U.S.-China fighter match ups, we must consider another possibility: there is important data points that suggest these planes may never meet in the skies above Asia.
Given the vast distances of the Pacific, land-based Chinese fighters have limited ability to strike at their more distant neighbors, but there is likely to be an “access” problem for U.S. forces in the event of a conflict, especially if when used in conjunction with an integrated air defense system.
If there were to be a war in the Western Pacific, the massive air battles that many might envision, are not likely to take place because the United States and our allies have few bases in the region to host tactical fighters like the F-35. More problematic is that even if jets were to takeoff from bases in Japan like Kadena or Andersen Air Force Base on Guam, the distances are vast.
Tankers would come at a premium and would likely to be among the first to be targeted. Moreover, the Chinese are almost certain to attack those air bases with massive barrages of cruise and ballistic missiles — potentially rendering them useless even if structures on the facilities are hardened.
Even if U.S. fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are superior to their Chinese counterparts (and they are), it is meaningless if they don’t have bases to operate from or tankers to refuel from. Further, without intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, those jets couldn’t be properly supported — and it becomes even more difficult when the Chinese attack the space assets and data networks that hold America’s fighting forces together.
The question shouldn’t be if the F-35 would be able to hold its own in a dogfight, the real question should be: Are short-range tactical fighters relevant in the Pacific theatre?
This article originally appeared at The National Interest, where Dave Majumdar is defense editor.
I saw a program about future air combat that featured a B-1b converted from a bomb truck to a missile truck. It carried 80-100 AIM-120D's on rotating racks and flew about 20 miles behind a flight of F-22's. They'd launch a handful at a time depending upon the threat, and the Raptors would guide them to the targets. The enemy would see the B-1b but not the Raptors or the incoming barrage of missiles.
The Terminator: [picking up guns] The 12-gauge auto-loader.
Pawn Shop Clerk: That's Italian. You can go pump or auto.
[hands the Terminator the pump action shotgun]
The Terminator: The .45 long slide, with laser sighting.
Pawn Shop Clerk: [hands the Terminator a .45 gun] These are brand new; we just got them in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. You can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk: [annoyed] Hey, just what you see, pal!
The Terminator: [looks around] The Uzi nine millimeter.
Pawn Shop Clerk: You know your weapons, buddy. Any one of these is ideal for home defense. So uh, which will it be?
The Terminator: [pointing the 12-gage shotgun towards the door] All.
Pawn Shop Clerk: I may close early today. There's a 15-day wait on the hand guns but the rifles you can take right now.
[sees the Terminator load his 12-gage shotgun]
Pawn Shop Clerk: You can't do that.
The Terminator: [shoots the clerk] Wrong!
“The Russians and Chinese have plans to beat us in the air.
1. Beat us by numbers. Far more SU-35’s and J-11s than F-15/16/18 variants.
2. Match us in technology. Russia has the SU-50, and the Chinese J-xx, are both knock offs of the F-35.
3. Beat us in technology. Russian and Chines 4th generation fighters have advanced AESA radar and plasma stealth.”
For generations the Soviets knew their planes did not match the quality of ours, but they built A LOT more of them. Their attitude was “Quantity has a quality all its own”.
That’s kind of funny. You actually point out some of the types of things I was hinting at.
And yeah, we are on Free Republic, so we probably are monitored. Lol.
PS Anything I do discuss is publicly available info, just mostly on obscure websites.
There are flying ME-262s clones now, with new engines.
I’d like to dig up one of the Mig-25s Saddam had, or get a ride in an SR-71 or B-70 Valkyrie.
Hey, is that a still image from The Bridges at Toko-Ri?
Remember this the Air Force is only accounting on the books so many F22 fighters.
We have No Idea what we have hidden behind the drapes.It like when they pulled the stealth helicopter out of their hat to launch that attack that got Bin Ladin.
I read an article recently about when the F-14 got the AIM-54C, which had a decent anti-fighter capability.
Seems some senior officer from DC (F-4 jockey) did a junket to Topgun and really wanted to go out in an F-5 and mix it up with some Tomcats.
So he and his flight are out there. They pick up the Tomcats coming in. Then the Tomcats salvo off a bunch of Buffalos, turn and go home.
DC Officer was LIVID. Stormed into the debrief and asked what the hell the Tomcat guy’s thought they were doing.
“We were flying anti-Flogger tactics, Sir”.
DC Officer stormed out, the Topgun instructor told the Tomcat pilots that they’d done good.
So here’s the thing, we can compare the datasheets on the Raptors and ChiCom Flanker knockoff all day long. But what’s going to matter is HOW they’re used. Remember that the F4F was a vastly inferior fighter on most points to the A6M Zero. Then the Thatch Weave was introduced.
So consider this. You have 100 Flankers vs 10 F-22s. The F-22s salvo off their AMRAAMs before the Flankers even know they’re there. The F-22s turn and leave.
Lowballing the AMRAAMs hit ratio, let’s say that 40 Flankers die. The other 60 are still forced to maneuver defensively burning up fuel and energy.
Now if there also happens to be F-15Cs or F/A-18s (which can carry something like 12 AMRAAMs plus a centerline tank) in the area ...
And thats just one of many possible scenarios.
Of course. Manned fighters will be expensive window-dressing in the next real war, and everybody knows it. The F-22 was canceled because - especially at its ludicrous price point - it was already recognized to be useless against newer technologies. The F-35, on the other hand, is just a defense industry payoff, a pretty toy to be sold to foreign militaries for fun and profit.
I didn’t mean to be a smart a$$ but you came across as kind of arrogant. But I understand where you were coming from.
Regards-
I have plasma stealth. :>)
I didn’t mean to be a smart a$$ but you came across as kind of arrogant. But I understand where you were coming from.
Regards-
I have a friend who works for Boeing. He can’t discuss anything he does or what he knows. One time he winked and said “feel confident”. Whatever that meant.
No worries. Guess I kind of did. Lol.
Back in the 1970s, when I was still in the Air Force, one of the big arguments was whether to build high-performance but expensive fighters, or lower-cost, lower-performance fighters, but many more of them: the so-called Hi-LO Mix. The mantra was "fill the sky with cheap airplanes." One of the questions that was ignored was, where are we going to get the pilots to fill those cheap cockpits?
Anyway, I developed a model for the situation, comparing an all-high-performance air force against an equal-cost HI-LO mix, using a range of mixes, few HI to many LO, all the way to almost no LO and mostly HI. I used a fixed ratio of cost to performance, where performance was expressed by the effectiveness coefficient in Lanchester attrition equations. That allowed me to make the two air forces equal in cost.
The result was probably not surprising. As you degrade the performance of the LO part of the mix, in order to reduce the cost per each and get more of them, you simply provide more targets for the all-HI air force.
I presented the results in a paper at an Operations Research Society meeting. My paper was nominated for an award, but lost out to another paper, primarily because I didn't use actual dollars in my analysis (I really had no way of doing that).
Sounds to me like we're having that same debate all over again. Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself.
The US can establish control of any Sea or Airspace it chooses.
When close to Russia that could be costly, but could still be done.
China is a video game joke.
Thank you!
The US can establish control of any Sea or Airspace it chooses.
When close to Russia that could be costly, but could still be done.
China is a video game joke.
Do you think we will be able to maintain that advantage?
Di the author take into consideration the command and control structure for fighter combat? If they practice the old Soviet era style technique that controlled aerial combat from ground stations it will end in a slaughter like the Israeli’s out in the 6 day war, and the why the Iraqi’s didn’t wage in aerial combat in the gulf war or enduring freedom.
That depends on the US Congress.
So far they have not demonstrated they are up to the task.
It’s stock footage used from the movie, “Men Of The Fighting Lady” from 1954.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.