J-11B vs Su-30MKI

[Obambam]

I really don understand how a China Item can be compared with anything in this world...All people knows... China item is known in this word with ultimate outstanding crap quality with zero credibility.

Whenever I am coming across any Chinese Item...First thing is coming in my mind is Yuuuuukkkkk.

I think China can learn from India's space programs and borrow Indian software and technology. This way China can launch its first man into space.

 

[Obambam]

They even offer the very latest too in case of India..

I read your comment with my eyebrows raised. For the sake of national security, I seriously doubt that they would. Especially with India who is sandwiched inbetween Russia and America. I don't think Russia likes to let their best technology get into the hands of the Americans via India

 

[sancho]

Before you start comparing J-11B to Su-30MK, know there are significant differences between their intended functions. Su-30MK was imported from Russia for the Chinese navy, not air force, as a maritime strike platform along with JH-7A. It is a tandem seat fighter-bomber with the primary role of engaging surface targets. J-11B on the other hand, is a single seat A/C designed for air superiority. It serves with the air force, NOT navy. With this in mind, here are the differences:

- Su-30MK has a strengthened frame to carry extra air-to-ground payload compared to J-11B, making it a bit heavier.
- J-11B uses WS-10A engines, while Su-30MK uses Russian AL-31F engines
- A holographic HUD and 3 MFDs were installed on the J-11B as upgrade.
- New radar was installed on the J-11B, with plans to install AESA later on.
- J-11B is able to use PL-12 (SD-10) and PL-9, where Su-30MK requires imported R-77 and R-73.

I'm not going to make a comparison with Su-30MKI since it will only turn into a pissing contest.

One of the better posts in this thread, because it's based on facts and specs, not on assumptions only!
But I think if we can add more of these facts here, it would not end up in a such a contest.

One of the basic misunderstandings imo, is the fact that Su 30MK versions are considered to be strike aircrafts, but that is not the case!

Su 27s (just like PLAAFs SKs) were air superiority fighters without strike capabilities. The Su 35 and 30 MK instead were the first Flanker versions that added these capabilities, which makes them useful in the strike role as well, but still mainly designed for air superiority. That is the reason why Su 30 MKKs were added to PLAAF, although they already had similar (but less capable) versions.
J11 is based on the Su 27SK air superiority fighter yes, but AFAIK (and S10 correct me if I'm wrong) at least the B version was multi role capable too.
The heavier airframe of the Su 30 MK versions, comes mainly from the twin seat config, in WVR combats this obviously gives an advantage to J11, in terms of maneuverability. On the other hand, having 2 pilots / a weapon officer, is one of the biggest advantages of the MKK in the strike role again.
The Su 30 MKI has of course the same base as the MKK and the higher weight of the twin seat config gives him the same disadvantage in terms of maneuverability, but the key point is the different aim on the roles they are meant for!

You said the MKK was aimed on long range maritime strikes, which is possible by the fact that it is a multi role fighter, with useful radar and weapons for this role.
Indian MKI however was not meant to be a fighter mainly for the strike role, it was intended to be used in A2A and A2G! That's why IAF took the base MK with twin seat config and added features to make it even more capable in A2A. The higher weight compared to single seat Flanker versions (including Chinese) is partially countered with the addition of higher thrust engines + 2(.5)D TVC (2D TVC with a tilted angle, to provide some thrust direction in the yaw axis as well) + canards. This combo adds to its maneuverability and makes it the best twin seat Flanker version (together with the MKM) in this field and even for J11B, it will be a tough opponent here.
In BVR it gets even worse, because as you stated, J11 uses Chines weapons, not Russians, while MKI has R77 missiles and the Bars PESA radar. This combo provides MKI with the advantage of first sight, first shot and when we add the Israeli EWS and jammers for self protection, it should be clear why the MKI is considered to be a very capable fighter in A2A combats.
The twin seat config in this case is not really a disadvantage, at least against 3 to 4. gen fighters, or other Flanker versions (except Russian Su 35 and Su 34), but gives additional operational advantages as well. IAF uses the advantage of 2 pilots and mid air refuelling for long range and long endurance patrols, reportedly up to 9h!
In A2G it still remains to be as capable as all Su 30MK verions, but adding western avionics will be helpful here as well (French navigation systems, litening targeting pod...).
Basically, the MKI does what Mig 29 and Mig 27 did before, but more capable as them and in both roles.
And because I already saw such a comment, no MKI is not perfect, but is one of the most capable fighters in South Asia at the moment. MMRCA as a fighter, is needed to complement MKI in certain areas, but as a competition has way more requirements than just the replacement of fighters.

That should explain the basic differents, I guess. J11 will be good air superiority fighters, like most of the Flanker series, but has some specific disadvantages to the MKI. Mainly because the MKI was aimed on different roles and beeing as multi role as possible.

 

[SQ8]

One of the better posts in this thread, because it's based on facts and specs, not on assumptions only!
But I think if we can add more of these facts here, it would not end up in a such a contest.

One of the basic misunderstandings imo, is the fact that Su 30MK versions are considered to be strike aircrafts, but that is not the case!

Su 27s (just like PLAAFs SKs) were air superiority fighters without strike capabilities. The Su 35 and 30 MK instead were the first Flanker versions that added these capabilities, which makes them useful in the strike role as well, but still mainly designed for air superiority. That is the reason why Su 30 MKKs were added to PLAAF, although they already had similar (but less capable) versions.
J11 is based on the Su 27SK air superiority fighter yes, but AFAIK (and S10 correct me if I'm wrong) at least the B version was multi role capable too.
The heavier airframe of the Su 30 MK versions, comes mainly from the twin seat config, in WVR combats this obviously gives an advantage to J11, in terms of maneuverability. On the other hand, having 2 pilots / a weapon officer, is one of the biggest advantages of the MKK in the strike role again.
The Su 30 MKI has of course the same base as the MKK and the higher weight of the twin seat config gives him the same disadvantage in terms of maneuverability, but the key point is the different aim on the roles they are meant for!

You said the MKK was aimed on long range maritime strikes, which is possible by the fact that it is a multi role fighter, with useful radar and weapons for this role.
Indian MKI however was not meant to be a fighter mainly for the strike role, it was intended to be used in A2A and A2G! That's why IAF took the base MK with twin seat config and added features to make it even more capable in A2A. The higher weight compared to single seat Flanker versions (including Chinese) is partially countered with the addition of higher thrust engines + 2(.5)D TVC (2D TVC with a tilted angle, to provide some thrust direction in the yaw axis as well) + canards. This combo adds to its maneuverability and makes it the best twin seat Flanker version (together with the MKM) in this field and even for J11B, it will be a tough opponent here.
In BVR it gets even worse, because as you stated, J11 uses Chines weapons, not Russians, while MKI has R77 missiles and the Bars PESA radar. This combo provides MKI with the advantage of first sight, first shot and when we add the Israeli EWS and jammers for self protection, it should be clear why the MKI is considered to be a very capable fighter in A2A combats.
The twin seat config in this case is not really a disadvantage, at least against 3 to 4. gen fighters, or other Flanker versions (except Russian Su 35 and Su 34), but gives additional operational advantages as well. IAF uses the advantage of 2 pilots and mid air refuelling for long range and long endurance patrols, reportedly up to 9h!
In A2G it still remains to be as capable as all Su 30MK verions, but adding western avionics will be helpful here as well (French navigation systems, litening targeting pod...).
Basically, the MKI does what Mig 29 and Mig 27 did before, but more capable as them and in both roles.
And because I already saw such a comment, no MKI is not perfect, but is one of the most capable fighters in South Asia at the moment. MMRCA as a fighter, is needed to complement MKI in certain areas, but as a competition has way more requirements than just the replacement of fighters.

That should explain the basic differents, I guess. J11 will be good air superiority fighters, like most of the Flanker series, but has some specific disadvantages to the MKI. Mainly because the MKI was aimed on different roles and beeing as multi role as possible.

How is having Chinese weapons a disadvantage?

 

[sancho]

How is having Chinese weapons a disadvantage?

SD 10 having less range then R77. AFAIK J11s uses only Chinese weapons, while Su 27SK and 30 MKK uses Russians, but correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[localoca]

SD 10 having less range then R77. AFAIK J11s uses only Chinese weapons, while Su 27SK and 30 MKK uses Russians, but correct me if I'm wrong here.

the J-20 showed that everybody was wrong about China, now China its only behind U.S.A in fighter jet tech.. India can't even make a proper 4th gen...

 

[aakash_2410]

The Chinese Air-force is refusing to accept the J-11B for service as it has unacceptable leves of vibration during take-off under load and some g manauvres ..

so not really a vs contest until they become operational.

Well, obviously chinese won't buy these refurbished stuff. They're gonna have more J-20s. But how about exporting them to their 'ally'? loool Just like Jf-17. Such a 4++ gen. [claimed by some members] but china didn't even buy a single aircraft.

 

[aakash_2410]

the J-20 showed that everybody was wrong about China, now China its only behind U.S.A in fighter jet tech.. India can't even make a proper 4th gen...

loool Russia?! and look who's talking? And btw what was Tejas then?

Have you guys made even a SINGLE aircraft on your own?! Even your third generation JF-17 is chinese plane which they didn't even buy. hmmm. I wonder why? :$

 

[localoca]

loool Russia?!

Russia can't even make a proper 5th generation air plane, India can't even make a proper 4th gen fighter...

1st U.S.A with Raptor
2nd China with J-20 REAL stealth fighter
.
.
.
.
.
.India with LCA

 

[S10]

Su 27s (just like PLAAFs SKs) were air superiority fighters without strike capabilities. The Su 35 and 30 MK instead were the first Flanker versions that added these capabilities, which makes them useful in the strike role as well, but still mainly designed for air superiority. That is the reason why Su 30 MKKs were added to PLAAF, although they already had similar (but less capable) versions.

Wrong. Su-30MK were specifically ordered for the navy, and landing gear and airframe was strengthened at Chinese request. In addition, its radar is optimized for air-to-surface missions. BARS was offered, but the navy decided they wanted something that Russian had in service, not a new product. It is much heavier than a standard Su-27SK and was never intended for use in air superiority role. You should know that the naval aviation is NOT tasked with air superiority. It's mission is quite simple: destroy sea targets.

J11 is based on the Su 27SK air superiority fighter yes, but AFAIK (and S10 correct me if I'm wrong) at least the B version was multi role capable too.

Sure, you can say F-22 is multi-role too since it can also deploy air to ground munition, but it's not intended as such.

The heavier airframe of the Su 30 MK versions, comes mainly from the twin seat config, in WVR combats this obviously gives an advantage to J11, in terms of maneuverability. On the other hand, having 2 pilots / a weapon officer, is one of the biggest advantages of the MKK in the strike role again.
The Su 30 MKI has of course the same base as the MKK and the higher weight of the twin seat config gives him the same disadvantage in terms of maneuverability, but the key point is the different aim on the roles they are meant for!

You said the MKK was aimed on long range maritime strikes, which is possible by the fact that it is a multi role fighter, with useful radar and weapons for this role.
Indian MKI however was not meant to be a fighter mainly for the strike role, it was intended to be used in A2A and A2G! That's why IAF took the base MK with twin seat config and added features to make it even more capable in A2A. The higher weight compared to single seat Flanker versions (including Chinese) is partially countered with the addition of higher thrust engines + 2(.5)D TVC (2D TVC with a tilted angle, to provide some thrust direction in the yaw axis as well) + canards. This combo adds to its maneuverability and makes it the best twin seat Flanker version (together with the MKM) in this field and even for J11B, it will be a tough opponent here.

Fighter planes do not operate in a vaccum environment.

In BVR it gets even worse, because as you stated, J11 uses Chines weapons, not Russians, while MKI has R77 missiles and the Bars PESA radar. This combo provides MKI with the advantage of first sight, first shot and when we add the Israeli EWS and jammers for self protection, it should be clear why the MKI is considered to be a very capable fighter in A2A combats.

Considering there is a difference betwen export SD-10 and PL-12 (range, seek etc), and also that PLAAF wasn't all that impressed with R-77, I'll take that with a grain of salt. A pretty big leap of faith for you to say that Su-30MKI will have the advantage of first sight and first shoot, not knowing much about J-11B.

That should explain the basic differents, I guess. J11 will be good air superiority fighters, like most of the Flanker series, but has some specific disadvantages to the MKI. Mainly because the MKI was aimed on different roles and beeing as multi role as possible.

It's a little far fetched to come to that conclusion, when little of known of J-11B.

 

[S10]

SD 10 having less range then R77. AFAIK J11s uses only Chinese weapons, while Su 27SK and 30 MKK uses Russians, but correct me if I'm wrong here.

SD-10 is the export version of PL-12, with reduced range and a different seeker. J-11B can carry Russian weapons, but Su-27SK and Su-30MKK were not compatible with Chinese weapons.

 

[aakash_2410]

Russia can't even make a proper 5th generation air plane, India can't even make a proper 4th gen fighter...

1st U.S.A with Raptor
2nd China with J-20 REAL stealth fighter
.
.
.
.
.
.India with LCA

You've got to be kidding me. Russia not on the list? lool What is T-50 then? What ecatly is PROPER 5th generation aircraft?!

And btw at least India is on the list, pakistan is nowhere on the list.

 

[localoca]

You've got to be kidding me. Russia not on the list? lool What is T-50 then?

I didn't put Russia on the list but its in third place after China high tech...

What ecatly is PROPER 5th generation aircraft?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it Must be a Duck...

 

[Obambam]

Lets look at the bigger picture. America, China, India and Russia are all great countries which specializes in a range of things. Some are better at one thing and the others with other things. If only we get together collectively, then you can see how great we 'humans' have advanced and then truely appreciate our greatness. This list serves no positive purpose but to anger and polish our own egos.

 

[CardSharp]

Lets look at the bigger picture. America, China, India and Russia are all great countries which specializes in a range of things. Some are better at one thing and the others with other things. If only we get together collectively, then you can imagine how great we 'humans' have advanced and then truely appreciate our greatness. This list serves no positive purpose but to anger and polish our own egos.

Maybe when aliens invade. Without a 'them' there is no 'us',


it's human nature, sadly.