The weight reduction achieved through composites is limited. The more significant weight savings in the J-11B and J-15 primarily came from advancements in integrated frame manufacturing processes. The latest technology in this area is the use of 3D printing/additive manufacturing for primary airframe structures, a technology it’s highly unlikely the J-11D has incorporated.
You should know that Thailand’s KH38 doesn’t even have scaled models or CG images. In my opinion, the technical feasibility of providing dual pyrons for J-10 fighter jets to Chinese flankers is much higher than that of providing KH38 for Thailand’s SU30
1 Like
The two technologies you mentioned during the J11D test flight may not be mature yet. More composite materials are indeed a usable weight reduction technology, although not as effective as the previous two. This is also why I say no one knows how much weight has been reduced
If you’re comparing it to the J-11B in WT, the J-11D’s empty weight would likely be similar, but compared to J-11B irl, the J-11D is probably heavier due to the addition of more avionics.
China does not lack the design and production capabilities for dual Pylons, including the J-20 and J-10, with at least three types of dual Pylons that can be directly transplanted onto the J16 without any issues in terms of space or weight
3 Likes
The avionics equipment may not only be increased, but also replaced. With the advancement of technology, devices with the same function can become lighter and lighter. For example, the radar of J11B is significantly better and lighter than that of SU27, and the supporting heat dissipation mechanism is lighter and smaller. Similarly, we cannot know whether the avionics system on J11D or J16 is losing more weight due to replacement or adding more functions
looks fixed plate aesa radar ? (so ±70* azimuth coverage , it does not look like its tilted so the same for vertical scan zones ) i think the devs mistook the j10c radar for some other radar in the dev server.
J11 is missing a pair of rocket launchers below the intake duct
Moreover, the rocket launchers on both sides of J11B are asymmetric
1 Like
I’ll agree with you when you show me an image of a J-11/15/16 with dual PL-12/15 racks
(they dont exist)
The J-10 and J-20 ones dont mean anything for the flankers
I don’t have the photos you requested, and similarly, you can’t find any photos of the SU30SM/2/THA carrying KH38. This doesn’t affect their appearance in the game because it’s based on technical feasibility, while J11/15/16 carrying dual Pylons is undoubtedly more technically feasible
4 Likes
Im not talking about the SU-30 and whatever missiles it has this isn’t the SU-30 thread, I dont care what they can and cant equip.
As long as there is 0 evidence of the Chinese Flankers carrying the dual pylons they shouldn’t have it in game either.
They are likely compatible irl but seen as unnecessary since 8+4 is likely seen as more than sufficient by the PLAAF since they rarely ever fly with full loadouts anyways, untill they decided to fly with more it’ll stay as 12 max
imo triple missile rack pylons for air to air missiles are a slippery slope, always have seen them in renders, brochures and patents for various nations but never have actually seen them in service
This is not an air-to-air missile mount, it is for use as a light to ground missile for drones and trainer aircraft. There are photos of it mounted on a drone
2 Likes
Double standards, very good.
3 Likes
Even though there is 0 evidence of the THA Flankers carrying the KH38 they still have it in game either.
2 Likes
There are no double standards. I dont care about the SU-30MKM MKK MK2 SM SM2 I dont use them, this isn’t a thread about them. If you’re so hell bent on issues about them take it elsewhere. This is a discussion about the J-11/15/16
its a discussion about chinese flankers in general, those include the su-30s exported
1 Like
