Chinese author compares J-16 and Su-34 aircraft belonging to different classes

The Chinese information resource Sohu decided to compare the aircraft of the J-16 PLA Air Force and the Su-34 Russian Air Force. The very choice of aircraft for comparison looks very strange. After all, the Su-34, although it is positioned as a fighter-bomber, is still primarily used to perform tasks as a means of front-line bomber aviation. In Syria, the Su-34 was used in this format. And the Chinese J-16 is a multi-role fighter, which is usually compared in one way or another with modern modifications of the Su-30 (for example, the Su-30MKK) or the Su-35, although it obviously does not reach the last.

But the author at Sohu decided to choose the Su-16 fighter-bomber for comparison with the J-34 multipurpose fighter.

At the same time, the author writes that “if we compare these aircraft in terms of fuselage structure, engine parameters, avionics and weapons, then the J-16 has an advantage over the Su-34.”

From the article:

When creating the J-16, they began to rely on the advantages of fifth-generation aircraft. In addition, the advantages of the J-16 are manifested in the radius of combat use, in maximum speed and maneuverability. The maneuverability of the Su-34 is high, but still not enough to surpass the J-16, despite the fact that both aircraft left the development of the Su-27 project.

Further, the author states that “the only serious advantage of the Su-34 over the J-16 is the presence of the combat use of a Russian aircraft.”

In such a situation, the Chinese author should be advised to go even further and compare the Chinese J-16, for example, with the L-39 UBS. In the end, both have wings. In this case, the author of the material will be able to find even more advantages from the Chinese multi-role fighter ...

Comments

[cost]

The Chinese information resource Sohu decided to compare the aircraft of the J-16 PLA Air Force and the Su-34 Russian Air Force.

But the Chinese Sina, on the contrary, praises the Su-34:

Sina: ... From the point of view of general indicators, the Su-34 completely surpasses all models of front-line bombers of the Su-34 in terms of combat readiness, not only has a greater flight range and carrying capacity, but also is equipped with advanced electrical equipment. In general, this fighter meets the operational requirements of the XXI century ....

More details: https://inosmi.ru/inoblog/20200228/246939523.html

[svp67]

Quote: Rich

But the Chinese Sina, on the contrary, praises the Su-34:

Yeah ... that's just the PLA Air Force J-16 is really a "tough animal" ...

And if you also take into account with what "purely Chinese" speed it "multiplies", then it's not funny ...

[bars1]

H photo J-16 with "clusters" of guided bombs. In rich countries they do not bother with the invention of any ersatz like SVP-24, promoting this as a brilliant invention ...

[figwam]

Quote: bars1

H photo of J-16 with "clusters" of guided bombs.

And they are just pouring grapes in clusters, maybe some will fall))) These are ordinary free-falling bombs.

[voyaka uh]

These are not free-falling ones, namely precise bombs. An analogue of American JDAM. They are pointed by GPS.

[svp67]

Quote: voyaka uh

They are pointed by GPS.

It’s strange that it’s not according to Beidow

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

H photo J-16 with "clusters" of guided bombs. In rich countries they do not bother with the invention of any ersatz like SVP-24, promoting this as a brilliant invention ...

Is this how Chinese guided bombs are used? -

What are they controlled by? By chance and wind? )))

[Andrew's Answer]

by the will of the Chinese Communist Party

[Zaurbek]

VTOL is needed in any case ..... but it also stands on the Su25,30,35, 34. In terms of payload, the Su30 should be better, and not inferior in range. The radar there is more progressive. No built-in optics and CPU. But it is easy to build with an aiming container. The Chinese and Indians went along this path. And there is no full comparison of the Su34 with such machines.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: bars1

In rich countries, they don’t bother with the invention of any Erzatians like SVP-24, promoting this as a brilliant invention ...

Yeah. Instead, they use carpet bombing from strategic bombers. During the Storm in the B-52 desert, 27 tons of free-falling bombs were dropped. Among the US army commanders, the B-500 was extremely popular.
In general, to contrast the UAB and the SVP-24 is a little ... let's just say, it's unwise. Just because they do not replace, but complement each other, and our SVP-24 did not at all lead to the abandonment of the UAE, but it did provide a certain tactical flexibility that the United States does not have in this matter

[Doccor18]

Su-34 was originally designed as a shock. Clearly - 4th generation fighter-bomber.
Back in 2001, I bought the Aviation and Cosmonautics magazine with this hero on its pages. It incorporates all the best from the Sukhoi family: a comfortable post cabin, 8 tons of ammunition at 12 nodes. However, the design bureau also gave the aircraft the possibility of air combat, if necessary.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Doccor18

Back in 2001, I bought the Aviation and Cosmonautics magazine with this hero on its pages.

Ooooh, I don’t even know ...

The first flight of the T-10V-1 - the prototype of the Su-34, took place on April 13, 1990

And in the first prototype called Su-27IB was shown in Machulishchi, and the very first prototype, in which the new cockpit was slightly crookedly "sewn" to the fuselage of the Su-27. Then came real prototypes, then the first public name of the Su-32FN - a fighter of the fleet ... In general, there was already information on this aircraft before the 2001 A&K. By the way, our first pilots flew to Lipetsk in 1998 for retraining, but the first Su-34s were received in 2016.

[Zaurbek]

At the time of its adoption, the F16 participated in NATO competitions such as our air darts ... And it won everything. And there were planes like Tornado.

[Peter is not the first]

The aircraft was heavily loaded with weapons, a good advertising photo.

[figwam]

The maneuverability of the Su-34 is high, but still not enough to surpass the J-16

No way the Su-34 gives them peace, let them compare their copy of the J-16 with the Su-30SM, our maneuverability.

[Holgerton]

Still, the Su-34 would not surpass its competitors, of the rivals in front-line bomber aviation, only the Su-24 and Tornado, well, maybe some more Chinese crafts, and everything has already been discontinued.
It's just that stupid Americans and the Chinese are building fighter-bombers for themselves on the basis of combat training twin-aircraft, and Sukhoi has made the advanced (no sarcasm) Su-34, which is declared everywhere as an ordinary fighter-bomber, but just start comparing it with more the ancient F-15E Strike Eagle, or the Chinese shock J-16, as it immediately turns into an unparalleled bomber in the world ... a simple bomber, and in general it is not good for him to defend himself.
But this is boring, you can’t just take the Su-27/30 combat training base after finalizing avionics for working on the ground and the fuselage for new suspension points, you do not need a separate production line, this is relatively fast, simple and cheap, most of those . processes already exist, and even the cabin is not just like the Su-24’s horror, but not the developer's dream, well, who will give such a lot of money, agree?
It's another matter when you have an integral plan to create the latest fighter-bomber, which everyone and sundry will shield in the plan of a fighter simply because it is Sukhoi, but you cannot compare it with other fighter-bombers, because it will become clear that half measures for unification with the main fleet of fighters of the Su-27 family and half measures with an attempt to make an "updated Su-24" out of it yielded a really high-quality machine
Indeed, there can be no complaints about it in terms of solving combat missions, a tactical bomber is 10/10 out of it, but here you have to either pull on your trousers and erase the word "fighter" in the name, or remove the cross and display its proud "fighter" merits since he wants to be referred to as a "fighter-bomber" along with the F-15E and J-16.

[Zaurbek]

There is no one to surpass ..... F-111 is decommissioned, the Tornado is leaving .... The main American is the F-15E, which has already become a full-fledged fighter with AFAR, Rafal, EF ... and the peak for today is the single F-35. And the Indians use the Su30MKI with an aiming system.

[Mimoprohodil]

Here the site constantly compares the Su-34 with the Su-30

[Tusv]

Quote: Mimoprohodil

Here the site constantly compares the Su-34 with the Su-30

Why not equalize? Both super versatile death machines. The difference is that the peak of mortality in one machine hits the ground, the other in the air enemy

[Cowbra]

They have selective coronavirus there. Reporters immediately eats ISKCON

[knn54]

Chinese (and not only) "People" is eating.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Cowbra

Reporters immediately eats ISKCON

[Proton]

Sperley 27th and compare now, miracles are straight

[bober1982]

How can we compare aircraft that belong to different classes?
After all, the Su-34 is positioning itself as a fighter-bomber ......
This, Renmin Ribao, is so positioned, comedians.

[Al Asad]

Why then pay attention to this?

[Maks1995]

Again; And what was said there over the hill ...
The other day, on a star, they compared Su 35 (novye with 2 dvigatelyami) and F 16 (old man single-engine).

And nothing. Not confused by the difference.

[smaug78]

What a nightmare, on topwar such comparisons also do

[Thrifty]

Got it! There was no mention of your own school of aviation! They live in stolen ideas, and in their ambition and clever, as if on the contrary, the whole world in aviation uses totally only Chinese ideas and technologies! !!

[Peter is not the first]

At the pace of how they are developing, like the USSR at the beginning of the last century, soon we will not only use their products, but also technologies, such as the 5G Huawei. I would not want to, but everything goes to this.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

In fact, comparing these machines is both possible and necessary, since they perform the same function of tactical bombers.

the author writes that "if we compare these aircraft in terms of the structure of the fuselage, engine parameters, avionics and weapons, then the J-16 has an advantage over the Su-34."

And let's compare the color - whose is it prettier? As I have said many times, such "experts" simply do not understand what to compare, and they compare not what is needed, but what (as it seems to them) they understand.
If you are trying to compare, then determine which of these planes is best suited for your main task - that is, the functionality of a modern tactical strike aircraft. Do not know how - do not write.

[voyaka uh]

"implementation of the functionality of a modern tactical strike aircraft" ///
----
Avionics J-16 more modern ...
And AFAR, and an optical sight (like the Su-35). He takes accurate bombs, not FABs. Dropped bombs and with two explosives - a full fighter. Lightweight, manoeuvrable.

[Zaurbek]

Moreover, the SuVP-30 is also on Su35 and 24 .... you can definitely reset the OFAB.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: voyaka uh

Avionics J-16 more modern ...

Why do you think so?

Quote: voyaka uh

And AFAR, and an optical sight (like the Su-35)

Oh, this is the magic phrase AFAR
The Su-34 is equipped with the Sh-141 radar complex, which includes both the radar (and, there, it seems, there are two of them in one), and the RTR and EW station. Comparison with the J-16 is almost impossible, because it is not known what the Chinese generally have (and what is not worth it). That is, I fully admit that specifically the Chinese radar works better, although this still needs to be proved, but to speak throughout avionics ...

Quote: voyaka uh

and an optical sight (like the Su-35)

Come on! When they sawed the J-16 Su-35 ours have not yet set, so there was nowhere to tear

Quote: voyaka uh

He takes accurate bombs, not fabs

Su-34 is capable of operating UAB

Quote: voyaka uh

Dropped bombs and with two explosives - a full fighter. Lightweight, manoeuvrable.

Well yes. Only we are now interested in shock functions, and not with which microscope it is more convenient to hammer nails.
For example, the payload of the Su-34 (the difference between empty and maximum take-off) is 22,5 tons. The J-16 has 17,3 tons, that is, other things being equal, drying is 30% more capacious.

[Tusv]

The Chinese information resource Sohu decided to compare the aircraft of the J-16 PLA Air Force and the Su-34 Russian Air Force. The very choice of aircraft for comparison looks very strange.

Really strange. The duckling is the only one of all that flies now. Fighter - Bomber - F / B / A attack aircraft according to NATO classification and up to the heap director of electronic warfare. Really unparalleled in the world. Well, in general, the Georgians realized what kind of machine it was in their own skin

[Viktor Sergeev]

And 16 is better, it is more maneuverable.

[Grigory_45]

the author in Sohu decided to choose the Su-16 fighter-bomber for comparison with the J-34 multipurpose fighter

after all, the Su-34 is a front-line bomber, the successor to the Su-24. Yes, with the possibility of conducting air combat, but only that. This is a strike aircraft, for a fighter too heavy. I can not imagine the 34th as an escort fighter, for example. Nobody used it in that quality, and, I hope, it would never occur to anyone

[Mista_dj]

I wonder which project is the development of the "Sohu" edition !?
Murzilka or Funny Pictures?

[yfast]

English scientists on the Armenian radio.

[Mentat]

if you compare these aircraft in terms of fuselage structure, engine parameters, avionics and weapons, then the J-16 has an advantage over the Su-34

This author would have shown at least some conscience and modesty. To write about a certain J-16, which is actually a copy of the Su-27 with alterations that it is truly Chinese and is superior to something there - to show modestly immodesty.

It is clear that they don’t want to constantly admit that all of their incredibly advanced aviation is simply tracing paper with Soviet technology, however, constantly squeezing articles about "superiority", while selecting strange examples for comparison, are at least presumptuous and impudent journalists.

You can build the material in a completely different way: look at how we developed the idea, equipped it with modern avionics, achieved these weapons characteristics, increased efficiency, and more.

In this case, the majority of readers will express their approval and rejoice at the successes of the Chinese aircraft industry. And these strained, boastful finger-boiled fables cannot cause anything but disgust.