Military Review

The essence of the project of the Chinese tactical "Drying" J-17: "Fullback" at the gates »5-th generation

27



The issue of the operational-strategic alignment of forces in the Asia-Pacific region, where China does not yet have any military-technical advantages over the US Navy and US Air Force, as well as the anti-Chinese bloc Navy, has already far from been in one of our materials. The program of the unobtrusive strategic bomber YH-X, capable of controlling the Pacific zone within the boundaries of the “three chains” strategy, is steadily advancing, noticeably (by 5 - 7 years) lagging behind the gain rates in the US and Japanese Navy. For example, General Dynamics almost once a quarter - the half-year manages to launch more and more new destroyers of Arle Burke-class nuclear missile systems; the last was EM URO DDG 115 USS "Rafael Peralta", launched on October 31 2015.


Launching of the most modern "Aegis" - the destroyer of the "Rafael Peralta"; Today, the US Navy has 65 of such ships, and even the technological shortcomings of the principle of the Idzhis radar link "AN / SPY-1D - AN / SPG-62" did not prevent the Arly Burke from becoming the main sea enemy for the Russian and Chinese fleets


Ships of this class are really being built at a staggering pace and go off the slipways as “hot pies with baking sheets”, which makes us regard them as the main strategic threat to the ocean and sea theater of war for both the Russian Federation and China at the same time as the pace of American renewal. fleet, no matter how unpleasant it sounds, it's worth learning.

But if the fleet and the Russian Air Force have something to oppose to the most powerful naval personnel of the US Navy in the middle and far sea zones (these are tactical high-precision medium-range bombers Su-34, long-range missile carriers Tu-22M3, and new Tu-160M ​​/ M2 with heavy pendants from hundreds of promising multi-purpose missile launchers and versions of the X-65 anti-ship missiles, as well as the Yasen and Antey missile launchers with the Caliber-PL and Granite anti-ship missiles), the Chinese air forces have nothing of the kind. Delays in developing and optimizing avionics for tactical strike fighters of the 5th generation J-20 also contribute to this, which does not allow the Celestial Empire to control even the middle operational borders of the state. A dangerous "gap" should have been closed as soon as possible, and for the time of shortage aviation The fifth generation of Chinese aerospace leaders still had to turn to the modernization of the project of the Russian high-precision front-line bomber Su-5.

The Chinese ambitious project was started in the middle of the 90s, when the specialists of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, who saw the Russian T-10В-1 (experienced Su-34) the most advanced attack aircraft complex, started designing a similar machine called J- 17, but as we see today, with some noticeable constructive rework. Initially, J-17 was planned as a worthy replacement for the aging H-6 medium-range bomber, but now, in light of the aggravation of the situation in the Asia-Pacific Region, their importance may reach the importance of the AF-radar transfer program of the AF-JAR and not only. Project J-10 can be a kind of saving option for the Chinese Air Force at the turn of the 17-s. and the most interesting fruit of engineering, which will force to argue more than one generation of military experts and lovers of military aviation.

The official information on the parameters of the avionics and radio-technical equipment of most of the prototypes of Chinese combat aircraft is provided fairly scarce, so it is impossible to accurately characterize their overall combat potential in one mode or another. More or less clear up the picture begins when the first photos of new products get into the network, as was the case with J-15S and J-20. If the future role of the J-20 in the Chinese Air Force is known from the moment of the first flight of the vehicle: low-altitude overcoming or suppression of air defense with further targeted strikes at strategic targets and destruction of AAC / unmanned and manned DRLO aircraft, then the appointment of a deck multipurpose fighter-bomber and interceptor air defense J-15S leads directly to several options, each of which is as close to reality as possible.

First of all, there is almost no potential in solving air-to-surface tasks (a similar drawback can be boasted of serial Su-33, which will soon be upgraded). The fighters are equipped with similar H001 and H001VE radars, which operate in air-to-air mode at the 110-140 km range, which imposes functional limitations on the aircraft compared to even the old F / A-18C “Hornet”, and given significantly a smaller fleet of deck fighters, the aircraft should significantly surpass the American already significantly modernized Super Hornet.

Secondly, the Chinese Su-30MKK and MK2, possessing a similar, not the best, radar H001BE can not provide advantages over the Indian Su-30MKI, equipped with a powerful radar "Bars". And in terms of the contract between the leadership of India and the company "Dassault" for the purchase of 36 fighter "Rafale", the possible risks for the PRC are increasing exponentially. J-15S, being the only two-seater “hybrid” deck modification Su-30MKK / J-15, is able to reduce these risks and win back a share of regional domination from the Hindus and the US Navy.


The J-15S is a double-deck, highly maneuverable multipurpose fighter, equipped with the most sophisticated avionics for conducting the DVB and attacking naval and land targets. The presence of the co-pilot - the system operator, as well as the device for the exchange of tactical information over the radio communication channel in conjunction with high-potential radar with PFAR / AFAR will allow the Chinese carrier-based aircraft to meet modern standards of the developed naval forces without the need to develop the DRLOiU carrier-based aircraft. A large radius of action (over 1500 km), in addition to the powerful radar and co-pilot, will allow Chinese aviation to counter the capabilities of the American decked F-35B / C in a marine theater. Accelerating the modernization of the J-15S will allow you to more quickly improve the equipment already in service with the Su-30MKK / MK2


With J-17, the exact same situation. The first photos of the prototype appeared on November, 1 on the Chinese Internet. This time a very original crossover of the gliders of the Su-34 front-line bomber and the promising X-NUMX-generation T-5 aviation complex was made, which led to fundamental changes in the important parameters of the fighter. Despite the fact that many observers and forum participants have already rushed to count the photo to the product of the graphic installation of Chinese enthusiasts, I would not be in a hurry with the conclusions, because the aerodynamic lines of the fuselage are consistent with the aviation trends of the XXI century.

Before us appears quite a full-fledged analogue of our Su-27IB (Su-34), but differs in the aerodynamic design of the front of the center section. The glider, which has the “free-carrying mid-plane” scheme, which is customary for “Dryers”, is equipped with the so-called mobile inrush part (FPS), which is well known to us in the design of the future low-profile PAK-FA fighter. This form of the swiveling part of the inrush not only allows you to fly at high angles of attack with different mass of weapons and the amount of fuel, but also contributes to a multiple decrease of the radar signature, since the rear edge of the moving plane is completely associated with the wing and does not form an additional EPR.

Another important design feature is the large area and width of these aerodynamic flows. Firstly, it contributes to the overall growth of the fuselage bearing qualities, since, in combination with the CCF, the influx has even a slightly higher area than the PGO of the Su-34, this reduces fuel consumption when flying at medium and high altitudes. Secondly, the huge inclined inrush almost completely overlaps the visible front and side projections of air intakes for airborne airplanes, which conduct patrol mainly from the upper hemisphere (it is quite clear that J-17 is a tactical strike aircraft that will operate at low altitudes), since air intakes J-17 are standard and do not belong to unobtrusive structural elements, the T-50 PAK-FA air intakes are similarly placed, but with a more original slope of edges towards the rear and lower directions relative longitudinal axis of the airframe.


The prototype of the Chinese multifunctional frontline fighter-bomber of the transitional generation J-17 in the air. The use of radio-absorbing and composite materials, as well as the use of oblique airframe elements will allow for a lower radar visibility than that of the Su-34; ESR can range from 1 to 1,5 m 2. The latest pre-production version of the J-17 can get V-shaped vertical tail and altered air intake geometry.


The nose of the fuselage of the J-17, like its Russian standard Su-34, has an increased mid-section of ellipsoid section, designed to accommodate a spacious and comfortable two-seater cabin, where the pilots are side by side, and will be able to perform long air operations without undue stress, as it is done in the "thirty". Theoretically, a promising radar with AFAR can be located in the flattened radome J-17 radar, which should work in both the synthesized aperture mode for sea and ground targets, and in the air-to-air mode, if without the support of such fighters as J-10A or Su-30MKK will have to face the enemy fighters gaining air superiority. The introduction of the J-17 LPI (Low-Probability Intercept) on-board radar is also not excluded, where airspace scanning is performed in a special low-power, low-noise, noise-less radio channel, thanks to which the possibility of identifying the LPI-radar carrier aircraft is reduced by warning systems for irradiating the enemy insignificant indicators. There is authoritative information that the Chinese corporation CASIC implemented the LPI mode in the MRLS with PFAR HT-233, which is part of the long-range anti-aircraft missile system HQ-9 (FD-2000) - analogue of C-300PMU-2 / Patriot PAC-2.

Photographs provided on the Internet raise a number of questions regarding the radar signature of the new front-line bomber. J-17 is sealed in flight from the surface, i.e. from the lower hemisphere, and therefore it is impossible to know exactly the geometry of the cockpit canopy, the angle of the bulkheads and other design features that strongly affect this most important tactical and technical indicator.

On one of the Chinese sites, the technical drawing of the J-17 aircraft is also shown, where the “strategic appearance” of the cockpit windows is clearly visible: the block of windows is more placed to the front hemisphere review and is a single-tiered design, while the lower edge of the windows gives a good view of the side and bottom hemispheres, an overview of the upper hemisphere is limited. This fact also indicates the striking purpose of the promising Chinese "tactic".


Technical image of J-17 from the Chinese Internet. The nose of the fuselage and the cockpit clearly demonstrate the maximum technical proximity to the 5 generation aircraft


The delay in the start of mass production of the inconspicuous J-20 strike fighter, associated with the long-term development of on-board network-centric electronics, radar with AFAR, and high LTX more aerodynamically "problematic" 5 generation aircraft, forced the Chinese aircraft industry to again turn to improving more proven and proven in battles and exercises of Russian multi-purpose fighters of the transitional generation of the Su-27 family.
Author:
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 10 November 2015 06: 55 New
    34
    But if the fleet and the Russian Air Force have something to oppose to the most powerful naval personnel of the U.S. Navy in the middle and far sea zones (these are tactical high-precision medium-range bombers Su-34, and long-range missile carriers Tu-22М3, and new Tu-160М / М2 with heavy pendants from hundreds of promising multi-purpose missile launchers and versions of X-65 anti-ship missiles, as well as Yasen and Antey MAPLs with Caliber-PL and Granite anti-ship missiles)

    The author is clearly divorced from reality and wishful thinking. At the moment, there are no Tu-22M3 missile carriers in the Russian Navy aviation. In 2011, all aircraft of this type were transferred to long-range aviation and relocated to the central part of the country (Shaikovka and Olenya airfields). Currently, most of the former "sea" Tu-22M3 do not fly and are waiting for their turn for repair and modernization. The Kh-22 anti-ship missiles have by now exhausted their resource and are obsolete.
    The author is at odds with the terminology request Our Air Force does not have "medium-range high-precision bombers", but there are front-line bombers Su-24M and Su-34. However, the anti-ship capabilities of these vehicles are greatly exaggerated. The armament of the Tu-160 long-range bomber performing the tasks of nuclear deterrence is not yet included in anti-ship missiles.
    There is absolutely nothing to comment on regarding the Tu-160M2 and "hundreds" of X-65 anti-ship missiles on the external sling that do not yet exist in nature. In the publication, everything was mixed into a bunch of CD and RCC. negative
    1. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 10 November 2015 10: 50 New
      -1
      "The author is clearly out of touch with reality ... Tu-22M3. In 2011, all cars ..."

      Oh, and after 2011 year there was nothing, no? Tu-22M3 in the Crimea did not relocate? And who has come off reality? :) And why is Shoigu spending millions, arranging exercises with the mass transfer of troops throughout the country? :)

      "The armament of the Tu-160 long-range bomber performing the tasks of nuclear deterrence is not yet included in anti-ship missiles."

      And they haven’t done it yet, no?

      "In the future, the bomber's armament is planned to be significantly strengthened by introducing the new generation Kh-555 and Kh-101 high-precision cruise missiles, which have an increased range and are designed to destroy both strategic and tactical land and sea targets of almost all classes."
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 November 2015 11: 00 New
        +6
        Quote: vladimir_krm
        "In the future, the bomber's armament is planned to be significantly strengthened by introducing the new generation Kh-555 and Kh-101 high-precision cruise missiles, which have an increased range and are designed to destroy both strategic and tactical land and sea targets of almost all classes."

        Here the main word IN PROSPECT.X-101 is being tested. About the X-555, everything is foggy and incomprehensible (I'm talking about the performance characteristics). And the author writes about things like the TU-160M2 as if they were already armed.
        Sincerely. hi
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 10 November 2015 11: 03 New
        +9
        Quote: vladimir_krm
        Oh, and after 2011 year there was nothing, no? Tu-22M3 in the Crimea did not relocate? And who has come off reality? :) And why is Shoigu spending millions, arranging exercises with the mass transfer of troops throughout the country? :)

        What does Shoigu have to do with millions and teachings? You reliably know that the Tu-22М3 are based in the Crimea, let me know at which airport?

        The meaning of my commentary on the Tu-22M3 was that we now have no missile carriers capable of fighting the AUG as part of the naval aviation. Or do you disagree with this?

        Quote: vladimir_krm
        "The armament of the Tu-160 long-range bomber performing the tasks of nuclear deterrence is not yet included in anti-ship missiles."

        And they haven’t done it yet, no?

        And you do not know?

        Quote: vladimir_krm
        "In the future, the bomber's armament is planned to be significantly strengthened by introducing the new generation Kh-555 and Kh-101 high-precision cruise missiles, which have an increased range and are designed to destroy both strategic and tactical land and sea targets of almost all classes."

        Keyword " in perspective". In addition, the Kh-555 and Kh-101 are KR, not RCC, do not confuse sour with insipid.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 10 November 2015 12: 28 New
      +4
      Quote: Bongo
      The author clearly broke away from reality and gives the wish for reality.

      I would rather say that he has some kind of chaos in his head. Literally everything is mixed up here: both the characteristics of airplanes and ships and their number and issues of military strategy.
      The article is simply a champion in terms of controversial or simply incorrect statements.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 10 November 2015 12: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Odyssey
        The article is simply a champion in terms of controversial or simply incorrect statements.

        This does not prevent the article from receiving "+" request .
    3. Garris199
      Garris199 10 November 2015 22: 16 New
      +1
      Plus. And it is also worth adding that the undoubtedly formidable and modern "ash" in the Navy is still only ONE and will not make much of the weather. When there are at least 6-8 of them, it will already be possible to take them into account.
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 10 November 2015 07: 03 New
    +4
    I wonder where the Chinese will take the engines? If we have stolen all our appearance, what will they do with the filling?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 10 November 2015 07: 07 New
      12
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I wonder where the Chinese will take the engines? If we have stolen all our appearance, what will they do with the filling?

      Avionics for aircraft, they are currently able to create themselves. For example, the on-board electronic equipment of Chinese AWACS aircraft and the software for it are completely Chinese-made. With engines, not everything is so simple, but it is a matter of time. In terms of technology progress, China is moving by leaps and bounds whether someone likes it or not.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Mera joota
      Mera joota 10 November 2015 08: 02 New
      +5
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I wonder where the Chinese will take the engines? If we have stolen all our appearance, what will they do with the filling?

      Shenyang WS-10. For the J-17 it will be quite enough, unless of course they dabble in armor.
      It is possible the J-17 will remain an experimental machine, it has no advantages over the J-15.
    4. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 10 November 2015 10: 39 New
      +8
      The Chinese are able to copy engines, that's just because of a lack of technology and all sorts of know-how, the engine resource is obtained in tens of hours instead of hundreds and thousands. But since there are many Chinese, this is a very unpleasant, but not too fatal problem - they will rivet them by the thousands and change as they fail. They also fight, and not measured by all sorts of body parts :)
      In addition, the Ukrainian Motor Sich, due to its plight, is now, according to the press, selling them many technologies, and almost moving to China itself ...
      1. mvg
        mvg 11 November 2015 22: 36 New
        +2
        How many thousand ??? In terms of hours ?? Even if KB Motor Sich completely moves to China, this will not add kilograms of hours. But, Bongo, rightly said about the "persistence" of the yellow ones. The WS-15 will be up to par .. And they recently rolled out a medium-haul liner with their own engines ... and we only recently tested the P-14.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 10 November 2015 09: 16 New
    14
    The question is, where did the author Yasen see at our Pacific Fleet? The first 885M will most likely not be there until the end of this decade. Not a single loaf upgraded by the 949AM project is available.

    Where did the author see the Tu-160M2? About0 The work has not yet begun plainly over him.

    Where did the author see the Su-34 in the Far East?

    Where did the author see forces in our Pacific Fleet that can withstand the US fleet? Conditionally speaking, one and a half multipurpose boats can go to sea there, but he is here, something about the confrontation from the USA is being denied !? We have surface ships, larger than the IPC capable of going to sea there you can count on the fingers.

    We are at sea not only cannot win the United States, but the same China, by surface shipbuilding, they have already bypassed us soooo. Comrades are already building an aircraft carrier.
    1. tomket
      tomket 10 November 2015 12: 19 New
      +5
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      We are at sea not only cannot win the United States, but the same China, by surface shipbuilding, they have already bypassed us soooo. Comrades are already building an aircraft carrier.

      But we have finished building the Gren! And now we will apply Mistral technologies to the fullest! Thirty years later, we will lay down the modernized "Gren"! Besides, everyone knows that we have "Caliber", which is more terrible than atomic weapons!
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 November 2015 12: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        And now we will apply Mistral technologies to the fullest!

        It is planned to start building an analogue of Mistral in 16-17, with a displacement of approximately 15 tons.
        1. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 10 November 2015 17: 39 New
          +1
          Unfortunately, hardly, fairy tales are ....
  5. vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 10 November 2015 10: 27 New
    +2
    Controversial, but very interesting article. This is not Majumdar and Kaptsov :) The author carefully monitored the work of Chinese designers. Thank.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 10 November 2015 10: 35 New
      +9
      Quote: vladimir_krm
      Controversial, but very interesting article. This is not Majumdar and Kaptsov :) The author carefully monitored the work of Chinese designers. Thank.

      The article is more than controversial, the author is very poorly informed about both our current capabilities regarding the fight against AUG, and about the Chinese ones. In my opinion, frankly controversial points are primarily related to the insufficient amount of material regarding J-17. Where are the "5th generation signs" visible in this picture? In my opinion, the aircraft depicted is very much reminiscent of our Su-34, which appeared back in the early 90s.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 November 2015 10: 30 New
    +5
    The article is strange. Especially, besides many points, I was puzzled by two theses about TU-160M2 and Yaseny. Today, we have only one Ash-tree. And about TU-160M2, the author apparently does not know that even if everything develops successfully, they will appear after 23 years.
  7. Rash
    Rash 10 November 2015 10: 35 New
    0
    Recently, an infa was held at the VO about the problems of flying the SU-34 at very low altitudes. Compared to the SU-24, the height was greater and the range was less and the shaking was greater. Interestingly, maybe aerodynamic influxes instead of PGO will solve the problem?
  8. dvg79
    dvg79 10 November 2015 10: 39 New
    +3
    Fuck, I apologize for the destroyer expressions every six months! After that, seriously talk about the confrontation with the US Navy? And they still cry a little money!
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 10 November 2015 15: 13 New
      +5
      Quote: dvg79
      B..d, I apologize for the destroyer expressions every six months!

      The author also got it wrong, since 2012 the US Navy has not accepted new destroyers. In 2016 there will be one. The pace of construction of the Chinese Navy is now higher than the US Navy.
      As for the Russian Navy, the very question of confronting the US Navy in the ocean zone is absurd. We are not fighting the United States for supremacy over the world and, accordingly, the fleet is not facing such daunting tasks.
      In the aspect of the struggle with the United States, the main task of the fleet is to ensure the deployment and combat stability of the SSBN grouping.
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 November 2015 10: 45 New
    +5
    I hope very soon the Mikoyanites will "delight" the amers with the appearance of the MiG-41, a new interceptor capable of flying at speeds of Mach 4,5-5. And something tells me that it will not only be an interceptor.
    1. tomket
      tomket 10 November 2015 12: 21 New
      +7
      Quote: NEXUS
      amers by the appearance of MIG-41-a new interceptor capable of flying at the speed of 4,5-5 max. And something tells me that this will not only be an interceptor.

      Time for amazing stories?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 November 2015 12: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        Time for amazing stories?

        No, the realities of today. By the way, the Americans have been talking about our new interceptor for a year now. And they are also voicing speed characteristics. Our sources talk about a speed of 4 mach.
        1. tomket
          tomket 10 November 2015 12: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          By the way, the Americans have been talking about our new interceptor for a year now. And they are also voicing speed characteristics. Our sources talk about speed in the 4 mach.

          Majamurd, or how does he constantly carry nonsense, so now order him to listen?
        2. BV330
          BV330 10 November 2015 22: 29 New
          0
          And jumpers on 4,5maha where to get something? Re-cut from D30F6? good
    2. tomket
      tomket 10 November 2015 12: 25 New
      +3
      Mikoyan’s design bureau was driven into such an ass that he only had the strength to modernize the MiG-29. When developing f-22 at the initial stage of ATF design, Lockheed and Boeing, in addition to the funds allocated by the MO, invested about 600 mil. and this is in the 80's. Will Mikoyan master pure project enthusiasm? Or there came a new Gurevich together with Polikarpov, who will quickly sketch you a new MiG and even with such breakthrough qualities ....
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 November 2015 12: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: tomket
        Mikoyan’s design bureau was driven into such an ass that he only had the strength to modernize the MiG-29

        Here is one of the articles on the project of the new interceptor.http: //agitpro.su/mig-41-tainstvennyj-proekt-novogo-perexvatchika/
        1. tomket
          tomket 10 November 2015 12: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: NEXUS
          Here is one of the articles on the new interceptor project

          Well, you just dumbfounded the source. What is said in the article boils down to the fact that they will cut the MiG-31 by analogy with the MiG-29-MiG-35. The most likely will be the processing of the MiG-31M. Tell me, this activity can be called a full-fledged study of the next generation interceptor project ????
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 November 2015 13: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            Well, you just dumbfounded the source. What is said in the article boils down to the fact that they will cut the MiG-31 by analogy with the MiG-29-MiG-35. The most likely will be the processing of the MiG-31M. Tell me, this activity can be called a full-fledged study of the next generation interceptor project ????

            I took the first source that came across. Google it and get acquainted with the subject of our conversation.
            Best regards hi
  10. Irkutian
    Irkutian 10 November 2015 17: 47 New
    +1
    Eugene, you should write books. Put a plus for artistry.
  11. NIKNN
    NIKNN 10 November 2015 22: 30 New
    +2
    The comments made the article more specific. However, labor requires remuneration (small and large pluses cannot be set), which means "+".
    With regards to China, the development opportunities are on their faces.
    China does not give in to the opponents and strive (and are they stubborn, how long have they flown on the MiG-19?) To oppose a worthy answer. Understanding that while aviation is not strong, it is working hard on the PKBR, a serious threat to the AUG (the states thought about the possibility of using aircraft carriers at distances greater than the radius of destruction of these weapons), because efficiency (price for quality) tends to the plinth.
    So they are also cunning, you won’t understand where they bluff, but you have to spend money on their bluff. wink
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 12 November 2015 00: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: NIKNN
      However labor requires remuneration

      No Nikolay, not everyone No. It is not worth encouraging the scammers, the author, even in the sources when preparing the publication, did not "rummage" properly, and this is how not to twist disrespect for the reader ...