I have posted this picture and post before, but as time goes by, it boggles my mind even more. A quip from one of the Chinese websites (I believe it was airforceworld.com) on its J-11 article, seems to say that after the 80th licensed aircraft, production shifts to the J-11B.
But what is the J-11B exactly?
There seems to be two prevailing camps or theories, if not three.
The first, and probably the most popular opinion, is that it’s the SU-30MKK. Jane’s had mentioned shift of production to the SU-30MKK after the eightieth aircraft. There are other articles that support that China had serious negotiations with Russia for that license, and even suggest, it’s a done deal. As much as 250 planes are expected from this license according to various reports.
The second theory is that the SU-30MKK is just a stopgap. China’s license according to Jane’s was the SMK variant. That the fact that the final product turned out to be the SK does not negate that the license is based on the SMK. How is that possible? This would be logical if the license made had some headroom for additional improvements—vital improvements that include R-77, refueling, multirole and increased hardpoint capability. There is nothing in that license that forbids building an aircraft underspec if said technologies were immature at that time. (At 1996, they probably were).
It may be that a number of SU-27s delivered in the second batch had Zhuk 27 multirole radar (which laid the root of Chinese websites responding that the SU-27s delivered were SMKs). I heard this mentioned in one Russian website as well.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/ruaf7.htm
“—a development version of the Zhuk-27 (Beetle) radar currently installed in the small series of Su-27s for China—“
Evidently, since China went to the SU-30MKK, such tests proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in the reversion of the license to building the SK and finding a temporary solution with the SU-30MKK.
But it does not mean end of the story. Later around 1999, even as the PLAAF procured the SU-30MKK, KnAPPO, which built the SU-27SK, the SU-30MKK and supplied the licensed J-11 kits for China, also revived and displayed the SU-27SMK concept, now as the SU-30KI. Although marketed for Indonesia, the prototype was shown half with PLAAF colors—which is no subtle hint as to its other intended market.
Then consider this Shenyang 2001 mockup, one does wonder—even during the time said negotiations to license the SU-30MKK is being done—that they’re still working on a multirole single seater.
The third theory, which is also gaining popularity, lies in the recent leak by Phazotron that China is developing a domestic radar for the J-11 one or two institutes, CLETRI among them (developer of the JL-7A radar for the J-7E and JL-10A for the JH-7A). There is plenty of talk for a Sinified J-11, complete with digital cockpit, digital FBW, domestic radar and engine. But 100% is not possible since the contract was 70% maximum local content, 30% Russian sourced content. I guess the engines will stay Russian to maintain this content level, but the fire control radar—essential in order to support Chinese missiles will have to be domestic, or at least, a Phazotron radar capable of supporting such.
Theory #1 with SU-30MKK has its points:
1. It’s already a proven quality.
2. Second crewman shaves off the workload of the pilot. Provides better situational awareness.
But theory #2 with the SU-30KI/SU-27SMK has its points:
1. Assuming that China’s license is indeed SMK level, there would be no need to upgrade the license and pay more money. This comes in handy if indeed, Russia refuses the MKK license.
2. Single seater may be cheaper and faster to build. It is lighter, and has more performance.
4. A well designed digital cockpit can reduce pilot workload and eliminate need for a second crewman.
5. Shift from SU-27SK to -30KI/-27SMK production will almost be smooth and uninterrupted since the basic airframe remains unchanged. Something to consider if you wish to put more planes up in the limited time possible, as PLAAF requirements seem urgent or under time schedule.
According to Nemets, at least 60% local component percentage has been achieved already on the single J-11, meaning a great reduction in cost as more single seaters are built. To build a 30KI/27SMK, only radar and avionics are changed, while external changes are limited only to the IRST, refueling probe and additional hardpoints.
6. A midline licensed SU-30 allows Russia the confidence to continue trying to market smaller quantities of higher end SU-30s to China (e.g. SU-30MK2) to create a two tier structure among the Chinese Flankers.
Any of the two approaches can lead to #3, which is a
1. A Sinicized Flanker. If #1 is followed, we can have a sinicized twin seater, while #2, proposes a sinicized single seater.
Attachments:
Sign In
October 1, 2002 at 5:29 am