Even if we assume this weight includes external pods, the figure would still exceed 19 tons. Thus, I maintain the 19-ton estimate – which, in reality, is already a very optimistic assessment.
Let’s refocus on the J-16. According to the Concise Chinese Aircraft Manual (published by AVIC), the J-16’s design takeoff weight is 24,900kg and its design landing weight is 21,840kg. Per the GJB34A-2012 standard, “normal landing weight” assumes no external stores and 30-40% internal fuel. If we assume the J-16’s internal fuel capacity matches the Su-30MKK’s (10 tons), its operational empty weight would be 17,840–18,840kg. Subtracting the weight of 2 pilots (180kg), lubricants (30kg), countermeasures (≈280kg), and gun ammo (≈60kg) gives a net empty weight of about 17,290–18,290kg.
Spoiler
1 Like
So 17,290 being the lowest possible, 18,290 being the heaviest.
That’s still a bit lighter than Su-35S if the 19 ton figure is true.
17,690kg doesn’t seem too unfeasible then.
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