Wonder if PLAAF ever tested their double racks on Flankers (probably overkill, but I wouldn’t mind more missiles on later J-16s and J-15s)
They haven’t as far as I know, but they have put them on the j20 which is pretty funny
I mean, it’s not completely out of the question I guess.
Only Su-35 has the ability to carry 12x R-77s but ingame we have it on the Su-30SM, Gaijin has sorta set the precedent for ahistorical loadouts.
no, but I think there is no technical problem of using this.
Isnt this J-10B/C photo that shows additional missiles under belly?
it’s J-10CE
Whats the difference between C and CE?
CE has one less set of antenna on the back resulting in a lot of people mistaking it as J10B, but otherwise nothing as far as I know in terms of equipment. Maybe it can use NATO weapons or sth like that for Pakistan and now Egypt.
1 Like
E for export, basically same
some details may differ, customer customed.
1 Like
Is there a suggestion thread for J-10C? If not probably should be made (partially as a place to concentrate information about it, so if Snail does their usual people could argue from the get go (and also argue in favor of 10CE double rack for regular 10C))
1 Like
Anyone know if su35s or j-16 is lighter? Find it hard to understand why people call j-16d the ultimate flanker (at least air to air wise) when in reality it will probably have worse FM, worse engines, and less long range missiles (2 pl-17? i think) vs up to 6 r 37m on su 35s. R-77-1s are a lot worse than the pl-15s, true, and the pl-10s are likely better than the r-74m2s. Add on to that, j-16 carries up to 12 missiles vs the su35s 14 missiles. Keep in mind, I’m only talking about air to air, i could care less about ground.
J-16 empty weight is said to be within 18,000kg, public source is 17,700kg.
It also has improved engines (WS-10B) with up to 144KN of afterburning thrust, the thrust-to-weight ratio is much higher compared to J-11B and is comparable to Su-35S, and J-16 can definitely carry more than 2x PL-17, that photo was an early one just for testing purposes. It should be able to carry the PL-17 on at least most of the underwing pylons.
Flight-model wise it’s not any worse than Su-35S other than close range dogfight, and that is mitigated by having the better IR missile.
But the J-16’s true benefit lies in avionics, radar, and ECM, though how that will be implemented by Gaijin remains to be seen. One brigade operating J-16s in China made news by finding a way to defeat the J-20 in DACT, so it’s definitely one of the most capable Flankers alongside the newest Russian counterparts.
1 Like
The operational empty weight (including all necessary configurations for takeoff, excluding payload and fuel) of the Su-35S is over 19 tons, while the J-16’s operational empty weight is 17.7 tons. The J-16 has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio (WS10B engine provides ~144kN thrust), but it’s twin-seat configuration may result in higher drag at certain speeds. The J-16D is an electronic warfare aircraft, similar to the EA-18G, and is generally excluded from air superiority fighter comparisons.
In WVR dogfights, the Su-35S likely holds an advantage due to its thrust vectoring and radar with a wider scan angle. However, in beyond visual range (BVR) combat, the J-16’s superior AESA radar and advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (like the PL-15) give it a significant edge.
Should be at least 4, no problem under intakes, too long for middle, not sure about No.3/10 hardpoint.
And I think PL-17 should be better than R-37M, R-37M’s problem is that it’s based on old low length/diameter ratio body, causing extra drag and less propellant loading ratio
They’re pretty much comparable. J-16 its a bit more modern. But Su-35s have TVC. My guess is that they(China) study the Su-30MKK and dev it own “Su-35”. After all MKK are also made by Knaapo. With more use of composite materials. Russia its suppose to get a new Su-35s this years but what they will update its unknow.
I don’t see gaijin adding missile like R-37m. so don’t count in a equivalent to them.
That figure its wrong. It come from a Knaapo brochure where the Flanker was equipped with Khibiny pods. It even have the Wingspan data wrong 15.3 is not the real wingspan of the SU-35s. It should weight less than Su-30sm.
Also these are just name. Like India Super Sukhoi.
Edit; If Russian get Su-35s, China can also get it own one. If China equipped these Su-35s with China missile i feel like it could be better than the Russian TT variant.
6 actually. No. 3/10 hardpoints are capable of carrying heavy air-to-ground weapons(like bombs or AKF98A), while the PL-17 are lighter than them.
I was thinking about this. in weight it’s no problem, but not sure if such a long thing will cause some aerodynamics problem
Another possible figure is 18.4 tons, but I believe this applies to the Su-27M (old Su-35, not modern Su-35S). Additionally, the Su-35S’s operational empty weight of 19 tons remains lighter than the Su-30SM, which has an operational empty weight of 19.71 tons.
The No. 3/10 hardpoints and No. 4/9 hardpoints are positioned closely on the wing. Given their proximity and shared aerodynamic profile, there shouldn’t be significant additional aerodynamic interference when carrying ordnance like the PL-17.