But if the KnAPPO never took part in SU27UB or any other double seat development, and their only other double seat aircraft prototype was Su35 UB then that should be what they based Su30MKK on. Also Su30MKK is massively different from what is in the 2 SU30MK, as it has ECM bods rather than wing tip pylons and the double wheel structure was not adapted.
- The Su-30MK (Komsomolsk) has increased the maximum take-off weight to 38 tons, therefore, a new nose landing gear.
- For electronic warfare systems, special terms of the contract are possible.
- The Su-35UB / T-10UBM is a Su-35 combat training aircraft, the first flight was on August 7, 2000. The aircraft was created on the basis of the Su-30MKK and differs from it by other engines, PGO, more advanced radar. The aircraft differs from the Su-30MKI aircraft with engines and keels of increased area (similar to the Su-35). The aircraft was supposed to be equipped with an N011M radar with the ability to work on ground targets. 12 weapon suspension points, in-flight refueling system. In 2001, the aircraft took part in evaluation demonstration flights conducted with pilots of the South Korean Air Force (completed on November 1, 2001).
It is not comparable to a Eurofighter or Rafale. They blow the J-10 out of the water. It is comparable to an F-16C.
1 Like
I can’t really see why they are not compariable.
J-10 and Rafale are similar. J-10 has slightly better transonic and supersonic manuverbility while rafale has slightly better subsonic manuverbility because the canards of Rafale is slightly closer to its wings.
Eurofighter is a lot different from J-10 and Rafale with its airframe being more optimized for supersonic manuverbility.
5 Likes
Just based off Airshow videos this looks to be untrue so i’d like to know how you came to that conclusion
To be fair J10 has had the upper hand against JAS 39 in dogfight simulations, but so did the J11 which still currently holds worse agility than the JAS in game so I don’t really know how to compare them. J10 have some what of a good engine (depending on russian 31 or Chinese WS10) but should have just over 10t of thrust, it has similar wing size and the difference is that J10 has less thrust. J10A should be worse than Eurofighter, but I am not sure about J10’s later variants as WS 10 specifics are unknown, AESA radar unknown FBW unknown, just a lot of speculations, but J10 is capable of getting vector thrust so I suspect the FBW is quite advanced although special mods could be given to that particular J10B. J10C should have superior capabilities overall but all is unkown.
they are 2 different size, J-10 is smaller, so it can’t be compared in this way. I saw a analyse before, about J-10C and newest F-16, the result is J-10C is better in almost all way(about air to air fight)
these aerodynamic words are hard to remember, and I’m not some expert about this. So I can’t say in air fight which is better, J-10 or EFT
1 Like
Airshow rarely shows the full capability of an aircraft.
This is simply an estimation based on the airframe. Both J-10 and Rafale utilize close-coupled canards, while Eurofighter does not.
The true performance of J-10 should be classified.
1 Like
Which means exactly diddly squat. The rest of the airframe, intake, engine, weight distribution are all entirely different. Its like saying the Bf-109 and P-51 are both low mounted wing designs with inline engines so perform similarly.
1 Like
That’s why it is an ‘estimation’, this is everything we have by looking at the airframe. Even J-10 variants have different intake, engine, weight distribution.
For example, J-10C uses DSI intake, J-10A uses wedge-shaped air intake. Some batches use AL-31F engines, while others use WS-10.
It is simply meaningless to account for these elements without stating the varient.
Therefore the estimation is only based on the airframe alone. If you have information of intake, engine, weight distribution without leaking classified millitary documents, you are free to post them.
If this conversation goes any further we should move to the J-10 thread:
1 Like
The Su35 should not be deployed in the coastal zone anymore, I have more experience in judging Chinese aircraft than most people in the forum, once I heard the engine of the Su35, but now it is not, he may be sent to those less important places His importance in the coastal zone in terms of tasks has been replaced by UAVs like the WZ series TB1 CH series
Gonna rant here
I’m still puzzled as to why Gaijin thought this J-11A was a good idea
This plane is so frustrating to play
You have one pathetic datalink channel meaning you’ll never guide more than one missile at once, you have a buggy radar that will lose lock for no reason and same for ACM mode, you have a 10km HMD / ACM mode and a trash RWR. And to top it off you have the R-77 which is amongst the worst Fox 3s currently.
When did they think it made sense that we would grind THIS plane right after the J-11. And it’s so frustrating when you play the J-8F because you notice how great the PL-12, you know, the missile you don’t have on the damn top tier chinese Flanker.
The avionics are so laughably bad it’s night and day when you jump from this to NATO top tier jets
3 Likes
If I had to guess their logic was “Give everyone Fox-3 carrier” and then it came to China they just went with laziest option (heck, it even have blue Su-27SM pilons!), yet not the laziest (which would be actually good option of giving AIM-120 to ROC’s F-16 and up it BR alongside with giving it IRCCM missiles)
2 Likes
Gaijin could have simply combined J-8F and J-11 to form J-11B，having both unique Chinese missile weapons and the ability to counter Bluefor for Redfor.
However they just copy SU27 and gave ARH missiles
2 Likes
But they did think so. it’s like “it’s balanced before, so give everyone a arh missile will still be balanced.”
I think there are 2 reason, 1 is China TT need a plane with SARH missile and IRCCM missile, in that place(J-8IIM?), untile something can take it’s place or it won’t leave it’s position. 2 is, 3 arh carrieers in one update could be too much, you can’t get more than a new arh carrier and a old plane added arh.
We have 0 data (IDK if there are, but no precise authorised ones) on J10A radar, engine FBW or weaponary, same could be said about Eurofighter, specifications are relatively less classified, but still unclear as to accuracy. Fact that J10A was assessed with JAS39C (Thai ones, assume to be C to stay consistent with in game one for reference), and was considered less capable in a close quatre combat. This assessment I think is fair and double engine should allow better maneuverability. (assessment made based on J11 vs J10 and J11 vs JAS39)
That’s a tragedy
Gaijin should’ve known China would have many many options when it comes to Rank 8 top tier jets with ARH
They are gimping the nation for no reason
At this point I’m hoping that they give China combined tree the Mirage 2K-EI in the September patch to at the very least give them a solid air-air fighter, that plane has no A-G capabilities but would be a fine option.
Honestly surprised we haven’t gotten that thing yet, it’s a pretty simple copy paste.
2 Likes
This would require removing some vehicles from China (Which I am all for) Like the F86, F100, F104, F16 etc. I think this would be a good move. However, when you have a lineup of only a dozen birds it makes moving to top tier strange. They also balance based on this the RP needed etc. You would get an aviation tech tree with helicopter like ungodly RP for advancement.
The F-CK-1 is another good option.
Taiwan in game should also see the F16C Block 70 and F16V once we get to that point.
6 Likes