Pakistan has been offered the Chinese 4th generation J-11 (SU27)

[Myth_buster_1]

23 March.
Whereas the requirement of PN is there, do you not think that a platform that is already in the inventory of PAF could fulfil that role? Remember, that the dstance between India and Pakistan by sea is well withi nthe reach of all the platforms that are about to be inducted. . we also know that one of the problems of operations around the coast is corrosion, which is a current nuisance for PAF Mirage 5s. Idont think that this particular problem would be sorted out by Thunder, although the best performance appears to be F16s from this point of view. Will we buy more F16s for the navy??
If J10 gets a lot of composite component, its ferry range would easily cover this area. Can we go for this instead. Presumably JF17 next tranche will have more composites content. Would this make this plane more suitable for that environment?
I still think at least in the short term, it is unlikely that PAF would extend itself by adding another platform. Post 2015---- Who knows.
Araz

I think that F-16s and J-10s can be deployed by PAF to serve along with a more capable naval MR fighter squadron in PN. As i have said earlier that J-11 equipped with Su-33 systems along with PAF F-16s and J-10 could make a deadly combination!

 

[nitesh]

I think that F-16s and J-10s can be deployed by PAF to serve along with a more capable naval MR fighter squadron in PN. As i have said earlier that J-11 equipped with Su-33 systems along with PAF F-16s and J-10 could make a deadly combination!

23 march when you are stressing so much on J-11 equipped with SU-33 systems can you please elaborate which systems you are referring to and how it will enhance the capability

 

[shehbazi2001]

J-11 upgrading to SU-33? From where you get such ideas. For god's sake these are two different platform. SU-33 is a maritime bomber which can operate from an aircraft carrier. Does PN have/going to have an aircraft carrier?

Nitesh I think you are wrong............what you had in ur mind was Su-34, not Su-33. Su-34 is a dedicated bomber primarily of maritime nature.............not the Su-33. Su-33 is primarily a carrier-based fighter like TOMCAT but is multi-role and can do other things too.

And thus J-11 can be used to derive an Su-33 copy.

For your point of carrier based fighter, many nations use carrier-based fighters on their land air bases like F/A-18 Hornet. Many countries use Hornet for their air forces on land bases while in USA its being not used by USAF. Rather US Navy and Marines (USMC) use it.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I think PN can really benefit from a customized J-11 suited for Naval role. PN J-11 could inherent much of technology from Su-33.

International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > PLA Navy Carrier Update and Euro-Naval Notes

"This may indicate that while purchasing some Su-33s, the PLA’s real intention is to obtain the ability to produce their own version of the Su-33, to be based on the Su-27/J-11 now under co-production at the Shenyang Aircraft Company. Shenyang and KnAAPO, the maker of the PLA’s Su-27 and Su-30 fighters, have been at loggerheads since 2004 over the Shenyang’s desire to build a much-modified J-11 that would vastly reduce Russian content and potentially allow China to market their own version of yet another Russian fighter. KnAAPO and its parent company Sukhoi would like maximize their profits from future upgrade or modifications Shenyang may make to its J-11s. KnAAPO has also produced all of the Russian Navy’s Su-33s and would likely want to retain this business.

At Moscow in 2005 a Russian source was rather confident that China could not master all of the necessary modifications to turn their J-11s into carrier capable fighters like the Su-33. Compared to the basic Su-27, the Su-33 has a strengthened airframe covered with corrosion-resistant materials, much strengthened landing gear, the addition of "canard" lift devices and larger wing flaps to lower landing speed, folding wings, an aerial refueling probe, and a landing system that automatically controls the aircraft to land on the carrier deck.[5] The Su-33UB contains further aerodynamic refinements, uses more stealthy composite materials, and can carry a larger radar for attack missions. The Su-33UB has also been proposed for AWACS missions with the addition of a phased arrary radar atop the dorsal spine or under the fuselage. The Su-33UB demonstrated for the PLA in 2005 had also been modified with thrust-vectoring engines which greatly improve maneuverability.

But a year later it is possible to conclude that perhaps as far back as the late 1990s the PLA has been trying to develop an indigenous carrier capable J-11. Such a fighter may also benefit from Shenyang’s indigenized land-based J-11 program, which will likely incorporate new 13,200 to 13,600kg thrust WS-10A "Taishan" turbofan engines, new advanced PLA-developed radar and PLA-developed PL-12 advanced air-to-air missiles and new precision-guided ground attack weapons. A navalized J-11 based on this program would be decidedly superior to the Su-33 now in service with the Russian Navy.



Shenyang’s J-11 Ambitions: It is possible that for a number of years that Shenyang has been developing a carrier capable version of it J-11, benefiting from its program to create a new multi-role version of the J-11. Credit: Chinese Internet

To head off this program, and to appeal for future Russian Navy orders, Sukhoi is promoting upgrades for the Su-33. These will likely benefit from an upgraded version of the Su-35 that was marketed at the recent 2006 Zhuhai Airshow.[6] One major upgrade will be replacing the 12,500kg thrust AL-31F engines with 13,500kg thrust AL-31-F-M1 engines, which will allow for more rapid take-offs and larger weapons carriage. And while funding constraints have prevented radar and weapon upgrades, it is now possible to envision new Su-33s being equipped with new active electronic scanning array (AESA) radar like the Phazotron Zhuk-MFSE revealed in 2005. This radar can simultaneously track 30 aerial targets, two ground targets simultaneously, and locate naval targets out to 300km. Russian radar maker NIIP is also working on AESA radar. With additional development such phased array radar can themselves become weapons for delivering a range of electromagnetic attacks into enemy electronics. The Su-33UB’s ability to carry a much larger active array makes more attractive for such electronic weapons. The Su-33 can also be expected to carry the full range of Russian weapons, such as the Vympel R-77 active-guided BVR AAM, the 300km range Novator KS-172, the Kh-31 supersonic anti-radar/anti-ship, the Raduga 300km Kh-59MK anti-ship missile, and soon, air launched version of the unique 200km range Novator 3M-54E anti-ship missile and the 300km range 3M-14E land-attack cruise missile.



Phazotron AESA Radar: Revealed at the 2005 Moscow Airshow, the Phazotron Zhuk MFE is now undergoing testing. Credit: RD Fisher

Should China instead opt to fund a maximum Russian upgrade for the Su-33 instead of developing their own version, the PLA Navy could begin limited carrier operations by the middle of the next decade with a fighter competitive to, if not superior in some respects, to the U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F fighter bomber. In terms of range and maneuverability, it appears that the larger Su-33 with lower wing loading and higher thrust engines, will dominate the F/A-18E/F.[7] This advantage will multiply should the new Su-33 use thrust-vectoring engines. Such platform advantages may be regarded as obsolete considering the U.S. use of long-range off-board sensors like AWACS, UAVs and even satellites, plus the ability of new Helmet Mounted Displays for reducing the advantages of platform maneuverability. However, the Russian and Chinese investment in counter AWACS and anti-satellite systems could revive requirements for platform superiority, especially when both sides have Helmet Display systems."

 

[nitesh]

Nitesh I think you are wrong............what you had in ur mind was Su-34, not Su-33. Su-34 is a dedicated bomber primarily of maritime nature.............not the Su-33. Su-33 is primarily a carrier-based fighter like TOMCAT but is multi-role and can do other things too.

And thus J-11 can be used to derive an Su-33 copy.

For your point of carrier based fighter, many nations use carrier-based fighters on their land air bases like F/A-18 Hornet. Many countries use Hornet for their air forces on land bases while in USA its being not used by USAF. Rather US Navy and Marines (USMC) use it.

Agree to you on certain terms, but SU-33 is definitely not a fighter. Regarding F/A-18 getting used in land bases. Dear there is a lot of difference between the plane used from land bases then operating from carriers. For example. There is a lot of structural modifications required to allow a plane to be able to land on an AC so that it can take the stress that is introduced by arrestor wires. So although the name may be same, but they are different.

 

[shehbazi2001]

23 March.
Whereas the requirement of PN is there, do you not think that a platform that is already in the inventory of PAF could fulfil that role? Remember, that the dstance between India and Pakistan by sea is well withi nthe reach of all the platforms that are about to be inducted. . we also know that one of the problems of operations around the coast is corrosion, which is a current nuisance for PAF Mirage 5s. Idont think that this particular problem would be sorted out by Thunder, although the best performance appears to be F16s from this point of view. Will we buy more F16s for the navy??
If J10 gets a lot of composite component, its ferry range would easily cover this area. Can we go for this instead. Presumably JF17 next tranche will have more composites content. Would this make this plane more suitable for that environment?
I still think at least in the short term, it is unlikely that PAF would extend itself by adding another platform. Post 2015---- Who knows.
Araz

For the ferry range, a plane must carry almost all the three fuel tanks, leaving no or very little room for air-to-ground or anti-ship ordinance, keeping in view that at least 2 Sidewinders or other heat-seeker AAM shall also have to be carried.

I would rather like a fighter with more internal fuel.

For F-16 in maritime role, I think Norway integrated its Penguin AShM with their F-16s for anti-shipping missions. An study should be done to see if Harpoon can be integrated with F-16 at its centreline or inner under-wing pylon.

 

[shehbazi2001]

Agree to you on certain terms, but SU-33 is definitely not a fighter. Regarding F/A-18 getting used in land bases. Dear there is a lot of difference between the plane used from land bases then operating from carriers. For example. There is a lot of structural modifications required to allow a plane to be able to land on an AC so that it can take the stress that is introduced by arrestor wires. So although the name may be same, but they are different.

Su-33 is like Mig-29K. Both are carrier-based fighters and both are derived from land-based fighters with obviously various modifications.

Sukhoi Su-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Sukhoi Su-33 (NATO reporting name 'Flanker-D') is carrier-based multi-role fighter aircraft produced by Russian firm Sukhoi beginning in 1982. It is a derivative of the Su-27 'Flanker' and was initially known as the Su-27K. The main difference from the Su-27 is that the Su-33 can operate from aircraft carriers. Unlike the Su-27, the Su-33 is capable of aerial refueling".

(What I like about Wikipedia is its perhaps best for quick info, in 1 minute)

Su-33 is mostly compared to F-14, meaning that its a carrier-capable fighter.

See another link,
Sukhoi Su-33

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Su-33 is mostly compared to F-14, meaning that its a carrier-capable fighter.

See another link,
Sukhoi Su-33

Please read my previous post about upgraded J-11/su-33 vs FA-18 super hornet. Su-33 is in the same league of super hornet NOT F-14!

 

[shehbazi2001]

Please read my previous post about upgraded J-11/su-33 vs FA-18 super hornet. Su-33 is in the same league of super hornet NOT F-14!

Of course man, Flanker is the superior machine. Reference to F-14 was for identifying its role as carrier-based fighter, not for comparing their performances.

But I must tell you that Super Hornet is inferior to now-retired F-14D Super Tomcats. Super Tomcat was in the league of F-15C Eagle. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is even inferior to F/A-18C Hornet in flight performance domain except range and payload.

The maneuverability and top speed of -18C is better than -18E. The major advantage of Super Hornet is its range and increased payload at the cost of speed and agility.

The countries (even India) that either bought or are considering Super Hornet is due to AESA radar that comes with it. AESA+AMRAAM is better for BVR combat but it may be beaten by Flanker in close-in fight for reduced maneuverability. Only the AIM-9X+HMS can make it better in dogfight, which is I think already underway.

One another misconception seems to be about F-15E Strike Eagle. In air superiority role, F-15C is better than F-15E Strike Eagle, as seen from flight performance point of view. (The same C and E story as of Hornet)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Looking at the list of modifications done on the Su27 to convert it it Su33, there is a lot that Pakistan would not require because we would not be utilizing it for carrier based operations.

Using more and better composites to reduce corrosion and the radar signature would definitely be in the picture, but strengthening the airframe, strengthening landing gear, larger wing flaps (reduce landing speed), folding wings and an automatic landing system are all upgrades that would be of little use to us since we do not operate an ACC nor is one on the horizon.

So, composites, canards (though this would result in a larger radar sig. from what I have read) and definitely an improved radar.

Given the time frame the PAF might be looking at in terms of inducting this (if it does) the above upgrades should not be an issue. Even the second block of the JF-17 is expected to utilize more composites and a better radar.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

So, composites, canards (though this would result in a larger radar sig. from what I have read) and definitely an improved radar.

Given the time frame the PAF might be looking at in terms of inducting this (if it does) the above upgrades should not be an issue. Even the second block of the JF-17 is expected to utilize more composites and a better radar.

Sir i have failed to understand how is RS-400 better radar?

and i dont think that canards should be sacrificed for reduction of RCS because IAF fleet will already have longer range radars, such as AWACS, MKIs and new MRCAs and will be able to detect around the same distance as J-11 with or without canards.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir i have failed to understand how is RS-400 better radar?

and i dont think that canards should be sacrificed for reduction of RCS because IAF fleet will already have longer range radars, such as AWACS, MKIs and new MRCAs and will be able to detect around the same distance as J-11 with or without canards.

Oh I don't mean that the future Thunder radar will be the choice for a potential Pakistani acquisition of the J-11 - just that Pakistan will probably shop around to get the best product it can for it, as it is for the Thunder, rather than settle for whatever the Su27 has currently.

On the canards - I don't have any clue as to how complicated and expensive the modification process could be - and you would have to balance that with any perceived advantages.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

CXgSjPgiSAU[/media] - Sukhoi MAKS 2005(Flanker Series Highlight Sound Fix)

Su-30MKI
Su-27SK
Su-30MKK
Su-32 Strike Flanker
Su-33(Su-27K) Sea Flanker
Su-47 Byerkut

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Oh I don't mean that the future Thunder radar will be the choice for a potential Pakistani acquisition of the J-11 - just that Pakistan will probably shop around to get the best product it can for it, as it is for the Thunder, rather than settle for whatever the Su27 has currently.

On the canards - I don't have any clue as to how complicated and expensive the modification process could be - and you would have to balance that with any perceived advantages.

Radar should not be a problem for china if it intends to revers engineer Su-33 or remodify J-11 to Su-33..

Phazotron AESA Radar

 

[Myth_buster_1]

International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'

----Strategic Impact of the PLA Flanker

The configuration of in service PLA Flankers should not be seen as the end state of fleet capability. With modest flying hours accrued, the fleet has a useful service life – driven by structural fatigue and corrosion – into the 2030-2040 period. The high fraction of titanium alloys will guarantee longevity. By 2015 a good fraction of the fleet will be due for mid life upgrades.

The Flanker is a large and robust airframe, with good internal volume, and considerable capacity for avionics power and cooling. As its history to date demonstrates, technology insertion upgrades incur little difficulty. Therefore a PLA Flanker in 2015-2020 is likely to be significantly different in engine and avionics technology to current variants.

There are a number of candidate upgrades which can be predicted with a high level of confidence, given known development activity in Russian industry:

1. Supersonic cruise 40,000 lbf class AL-41F engines replacing the AL-31F. A derated AL-41F was being trailed in a Russian Su-27 in 2004.

2. Thrust vectoring (TVC) engine nozzles with 2D or 3D capability. Indian Su-30MKI is equipped with a TVC nozzle.

3. Digital Flight Control System (DFCS). Trialled in the 1990s Su-37 and later supplied to India, this technology will become standard for late build Flankers. The Su-37 included redundant sidestick controls for the pilot.

4. Canard foreplanes for enhanced high alpha agility. Production hardware on Su-33 and Su-30MKI.

5. An active phased array (AESA) fire control radar replacing the N-001 series. Russian industry has supplied the hybrid array N-011M to India, built AESA prototypes, and given availability of GaAs MMIC technology globally, will have no difficulty in manufacturing an AESA over the next decade.

6. A two color band FLIR/IRST sensor replacing the OLS-30, using QWIP imaging array technology. Russian industry has been negotiating to licence EU QWIP technology, which is based on mass production GaAs MMIC technology.

7. COTS based computer hardware running COTS based software. Given the use of this technology in the current N-001VEP upgrade, we can expect its use to extend across all systems over the next decade.

8. A Helmet Mounted Display with FLIR projection capability. Such an upgrade was being discussed some years ago, and would be easily accommodated with a FLIR/IRST sensor.

9. Full glass cockpit based on digital technology. Given the current delivery of first generation glass cockpits in Su-30MK and Su-27SKM, this is a natural progression.

10. Heatseeking and anti radiation variants of the R-77 Amraamski, and extended range ramjet powered variants of the R-77. All are in advanced development and actively being marketed.

11. Advanced digital variants of the R-73/74 Archer close-in air to air missile. These have been actively marketed.

12. AWACS killer long range missiles in the 160 to 200 nautical mile range category. The R-37/AA-X-13 Arrow remains in development for the Su-35, the R-172 was recently reported as the subject of licence negotiations with India. Su-35 upgrade marketing literature depicts the use of such missiles.

13. Cruise missiles for standoff attacks. China acquired Kh-55SM/AS-15 Kent cruise missiles from the Ukraine, and is manufacturing indigenous designs.

14. Advanced jam resistant fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalinks and networks. India used the Russian TKS-2 datalink to effect in the Cope India exercise against the F-15C. Further evolution of protocol software will see this technology grow to match current US capabilities.

15. Radar absorbent materials for radar observables reduction. Numerous Russian unclassified papers detail a range of technologies for surface wave suppression and edge signature reduction, with a specific aim of reducing legacy aircraft observables.

16. Aerial refuelling probes, pylon plumbing for drop tanks, and buddy refuelling stores. Production hardware available off the shelf.

These technologies will appear over the next decade on PLA Flankers, either as upgrades or as part of new build aircraft. It is a 'when' question rather than an 'if' question, and any analytical predictions which devalue the PLA Flanker on the basis of the limitations of the early build Su-27SK/J-11 deny the reality that Russian industry and the PLA are following the US pattern of ongoing continuous technology insertion.

It is illustrative to compare a notional 'Flanker-2015' configuration, equipped with these upgrades, against representative aircraft operated by the US or US aligned Pacrim nations.

A) Boeing F-15 Eagle variants (Air Force, Japan, South Korea, Singapore). All will be matched or incrementally outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015'. While the latest AESA equipped F-15SG currently outclasses in service Su-27/30 by virtue of the AESA and newer avionics, this gap vanishes. In range payload, supersonic and agility performance, the 'Flanker-2015' outclasses the F-15.

B) Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Navy/Marines). The AESA equipped F/A-18E/F has 4,000 lb more internal fuel over the F/A-18C, more pylons and better avionics, but retains the basic agility and performance limitations of the F/A-18C. It will be outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015' in all cardinal parameters, especially payload range. The author flew an F/A-18F in 2001, the aircraft being equipped with the APG-73 radar and then latest block of the DFCS software. The aircraft exhibited excellent high alpha manoeuvre performance and handling, competitive against reported Su-27 capabilities. Principal limitations observed were in clean supersonic acceleration, limited by the wing design, and radar footprint, limited by power aperture performance.

C) LM Joint Strike Fighter (Australia). The JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal parameters by the 'Flanker-2015'. The only clear advantage the JSF will hold will be in observables, with the caveat that Flanker support by lower band AWACS and GCI radars, and good FLIR/IRST capabilities will significantly narrow any margin of survivability produced by the JSF's reduced observables. While the JSF is being marketed as a Very Low Observable (VLO) design, its actual design indicates that at best it has potential for VLO performance in the forward hemisphere, and at best Low Observable capability in the aft hemisphere. The serrated circular engine nozzle is band limited in effect, and the absence of canopy frame serrations suggests that VLO performance in the forward hemisphere is borderline at best.------