Does the J15 have better performance over the Su33? Like the J11B, does J15 also have better engines and lighter airframe over their soviet/russian counterparts? And does the J15 keep the extra inner wing pylons found on the su33 and later flankers such as the su30?
A normal landing weight assumes a fuel residue of about 15-20%
Given the normal takeoff weight of 24900, the aircraft weighs at least 19t
Well, it should have better radar and avionics IIRC even in most basic/original variant
Outfitted AL-31F engine from Su-27S, Su-27SM, Su-27SK, J-11 and J-11A
For J-15, the same basic airframe design as the Su-33
But J-15T change to WS-10H engine instead AL-31F
I suppose J-15T only similar to Su-30SM2 (Russian Navy)
why is the lookdown angle so low on the J-11B
I find it unproductive when individuals continue to speculate about data despite the explicit national standards (GJB) already provided.
5 Likes
ofc
CCTV sources state that the J-15 has an empty weight of 17.5 tons , approximately 1.4 tons lighter than the Su-33. Both aircraft use the same engine, the AL-31-F-3 .
Yes.
My estimation is a broad approximation, as we don’t know the J-16’s exact internal fuel capacity – we can only infer from its range data that its internal fuel is no less than the Su-30MKK’s. Regarding the difference between operational empty weight and net empty weight, I applied the “Gaijin standard”, and absolutely omits some additional weight components. Another approach is to reference the Su-30SM : Gaijin lists the net empty weight as 18.83 tons, so another possible empty weight range for the J-16 would be 17,840kg (or 18,840kg) – (19,710kg – 18,830kg) = 16,960 to 17,960kg.
Bug report
Su-27, J-11 incorrect rip speed:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ApQSGr7WhfPc
2 Likes
Equipped aircraft + normal fuel refueling for the Su-27 family is 5290kg, + 4 missiles
The J-11B,J-16, are similar in design to the Su-27 UB and Su-30MKK, which means the fuel supply is exactly the same.
And the normal refueling is 5290kg.
5270kg for J-11B is right, but not for su-30mkk.
The Su-30MKK/MK2 differs from the Su-30MKI/SM (produced by the Irkutsk plant) in that it combines the nose of the Su-27UB, the rear fuselage of the Su-27M (old Su-35/Su-37), and other model-specific components. Its internal fuel configuration diverges from standard Flankers: Front Fuselage Tank (Tank 1) holds 3,150kg, Mid-Wing Tank (Tank 2) 4,150kg, Rear Fuselage Tank (Tank 3) 1,053kg, Wing Tanks (Tank 4) 1,552kg. At a fuel density of 0.785, total internal fuel capacity is 10,185kg (including 280kg in vertical stabilizer tanks). The Su-30MKK also has basic and intermediate fueling schemes:
- Basic: Tank 1 empty, Tank 2 partially filled – 6,962kg fuel.
- Intermediate: Tanks 2/3/4 and stabilizer tanks full, Tank 1 partially filled – 9,640kg fuel.
if using the basic scheme (6,962kg fuel), the operational empty weight of J-16 would be:
24,900kg (design takeoff weight) – 6,962kg – (2×210kg PL-15 + 2×105kg PL-10 + 100kg pylons) = 17,208kg.
2 Likes
Well, you wrote nonsense, the Su-30MKK is based on the same Su-27UB, and not the Frankenstein that you described.There was never any fuel in the vertical stabilizers
Nonsense
1 Like
SU-30MK KnAAPO
Stop writing nonsense and blatantly lying
I bet you haven’t carefully read this material, because the one you provided actually proves my point.
3 Likes
The center section of the Su-27M is not suitable for the head of the Su-27UB.That’s why there were additional jobs.Vertical stabilizers were taken from the Su-27M. Because the head and increased weight affected the stability of the track.The wing is standard from the Su-27UB enlarged profile
1 Like
Since you acknowledge the presence of Su-27M elements in the MKK design, we have no disagreement. This indicates that the internal fuel tank arrangement of the MKK differs from that of the Su-27S.
1 Like
It doesn’t differ, it’s still the same 5 fuel tank
Well that is not what your source says, it says the entire centre section.
2 Likes