The all aspect missile approach warning system on the FC-1 is essentially a cheap and simple EO DAS, four optical apertures mounted around the fuselage provide 360 degree detection of incoming missiles, and the onboard computer display the information to the pilot..
Yes, only the airframe will be the same (different FBW, avionics, radar, engine etc...). I wouldn't consider it Su-34 equivalent, more in the lines of F-15E. They want to retain J-11's air superiority capability while expanding its multirole capability.
They were able to manage to obtain a single Su-33 from Ukraine in the mid 2000's I think. No doubt the experience they had with developing the J-11 line will speed up the process.
The system on J-20 has sensors throughout the body of the aircraft, offering 360 degree coverage. It's not a simple IRST like the ones on the Su-27SK. The source I've mentioned revealed details about J-20 two years prior to the first photos being seen. He's considered one of the best sources available, given the government's secretive nature. So far, he hasn't been wrong about anything yet. As far as China producing an EO sensor suite, J-11A, J-10B and J-11B are already being equipped with indigenously produced IRST. J-20 would be its first attempt to build something as complicated as EODAS.
The Su-34 has air-to-air capability. Not great but some. So the J-16 is to be a multi-role strike fighter?
They obtained a T-10K prototype. Yes it definitely helped.
Interesting. I suppose we will see.
Its not even remotely en EODAS.
Apologies. I meant to say "adjustable DSI" but I confused them with shock ramps.
I'm not qualified to pass on technical comment as its not my background. But from what I've seen in the past, shock ramps and DSI's are generally attempts to get around engine management issues in certain parts of the performance envelope - esp with shock ramps as they are a less graceful way to "boot" a performance requirement.
Not to draw comparisons, but wouldn't that imply that the aircraft like the F-15 and the Eurofighter have engines that "are unable to deal with performance demands" and are thus "mismatch of components and a hail mary attempt to patch a solution because its cheaper etc.....".
I guess thats my point.
A compromise maybe, but also an innovation I think. If we ask what the purpose of using a DSI is, it's to achieve a similar performance with a lighter weight solution. My understanding is that FADEC cannot adjust the speed of the airflow coming into an engine. That's purely left to inlet design, and a movable DSI sacrifices a bit of the weight benefits to make the DSI, a fixed solution to controlling airflow, more flexible through different speed envelopes. In this case it might be more a trade off between simplicity and flexibility.
They don't have it on yet, but they are working towards it. That bit has been confirmed by someone working with CAC. To be able to mimic EODAS is one of the primary goal they have at improving situational awareness.
Yes, it will be a multirole strike platform. They weren't happy with the air-to-air performance of Su-30MKK and MK2. Because of their added weight, they are not as agile and fast in the air as the Su-27/J-11 series.
So their main means of improving air-to-air performance is agility? Not new or more powerful radars, longer range BVR missiles, or any RCS reduction techniques? Agility is their focus?
From what I've read about China's air doctrine it sounds like they believe all else being held equal agility becomes the deciding factor in A2A combat. This kind of doctrine would make sense as it assumes China can only match the best avionics, missile, and RCS reduction technologies from other countries at this point in its development instead of besting them. (Of course, the overall system matters too, but if you think about it China doesn't have as many modern or advanced support assets in the air as the rest of the developed world.)
New sensors, weapons and various improvements come without a question, but sustained manoevurability is deemd to be the deciding factor in A2A encounters by PLAAF. The most important addition to J-16 would be a new variant of WS-10 engines with improved thrust.
All jet engines need subsonic flow unless they are ramjets that can use supersonic flow, in example is the SR-71 which only uses the Ramjet at high supersonic speeds.
Not if the DSI allows for a simpler movable inlet lip mechanism.
The DSI inlet main advantage is it is fixed and lighter, it has no moveable parts or splitter that increases maintainance, of course, you can add moveable parts, but these will add weight and vastly increase maintainance and costs, so then why you need a DSI? it is better to have then a F-22`s type inlet.
What I'm saying is that given how the DSI works, having an movable inlet lip is still probably a much simpler and lighter solution than say variable shock ramps. Why would a solution like this be necessary? Probably because part of the requirements for the plane is to have it move at speeds beyond what a fixed DSI would allow, or perhaps it has to do with how capable the engine is.