China Flanker Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think both CAC and also SAC do know enough about aircraft design to develop a new design and - even only "knows" by rumors - that was CAC's proposal, but that would have been the way with a higher risk and (possibly) with a later in-service date.

So I think it's quite a logical solution to proceed with a proven design - esp. since Sukhoi has shown hat way is a good one !

Deino
 

vesicles

Colonel
Could You please explain or detail that ???

IMO - even if I'm not sure too - it shows a yellow prototype with the never seen before grey radome.

And to say the hook is psed ... I think the picture is too blurred ! :confused:

Thanks in advanve,
Deino

The way it blurs suggests CG to me. It's not motion blur and especially the trees and things look pixelated to me. I think a function on Photoshop does exactly that, IMHO.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
You're complaining about my sources when you yourself are quoting from Sinodefence? This is surreal.
sinodefence is not perfect, but better than anything you are using. And yes when it comes to PLA related stuff. I have read infinitely more articles than you have. So, I can make a good judgment of what is a good source and you obviously haven't shown the ability to do so.
Do you have any other sources that imply Russia would eventually allow completely domestic production of the Su-27? Sinodefense is not an independent source. Its articles are written by posters on SDF who themselves gleaned info off websites and other sources. If you can furnish those sources, your points may receive more credibility. Until then, I rate Sinodefense FAR lower than Russian media sources or FAS. Far far lower.
actually, you are wrong about that part, Russian newspaper are wrong all the time. I will give you a list of simple facts they got wrong:
1) they claimed that China bought su-33s, which they didn't
2) they claimed that China bought Zubr off them, which they didn't
3) they claimed that China was getting a ToT and local production of Mi-171, which they didn't
4) same with backfires
5) they got a bunch of stuff wrong regarding IL-76
6) they got AL-31FN deals for J-10 wrong multiple times
And those are simple facts that they can get directly off the Russian companies dealing with PLA. Now, when it comes to opinions like this one, they obviously only take the side of the Russian companies. And then, you factor in their natural lack of journalistic skill set, their reports are not the most trustworthy out there.

FAS on the other hand, what do they even know about PLA? You look at their website, how many years do you think they are behind in PLA orbat and stuff like that?

read their section on J-10
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is laughable

sinodefence hasn't been updated that much, but it's managed by one guy, dong feng. And generally speaking, the stuff up there are fairly reliable (although, I still trust my sources better). They get used by a lot of people.
I said 200 for the sake of argument. What actually happened was that China suspended the contract after about a hundred kits arrived from Russia. The contract stipulated licensed production based on both Russian and domestic content. Thus in fact producing ANY J-11's after China terminated the agreement constitutes a violation of the previous contract and a theft of intellectual property. Whether a potential lawsuit can be successfully prosecuted or where the case could be tried are completely irrelevant to whether a violation has actually occurred, or similarly, whether intellectual property was stolen. Russia counted on its own industries continuing to supply parts for all 200 aircraft under contract, as part of the contract. At this point, there are probably NO parts on the J-11B being supplied by Russians.
according to the latest kanwa interview with sukhoi, the parts for J-11As are still getting delivered. China had already paid for the royalties, the kits and ToT. Whether they choose to use the kits for new J-11Bs are up to China.

Now, they have little regards for the Russian parts, so they don't use them. But maybe the Russians should actually try to offer better parts instead of crying foul.
As for the 200 itself, unless China caves into heavy Russian pressure, I seriously doubt it has any intention to give any further money to Russia for any aircraft produced above 200, as flimsy and as mostly irrelevant as this number already is.
We don't know what's going to happen after 200. They might say to the Russians that j-11s are so different from su-27s that they don't need to give royalties or they might choose to pay Russians. What ever happen, we won't know for another 4 to 5 years at the current production rate.
The plain language of the text clearly states Russia is to supply 30% of the parts. If you want to somehow insinuate that it doesn't HAVE to be the case, YOU need to provide separate credible sources which state that Russia doesn't actually have to supply that amount.
as i said, the parts are still getting supplied, they are not getting used.

Who said China paid for all the technology? Russia required 30% of the parts to be Russian. At least those parts were not part of any TOT. I'm not even sure much of the rest of the 70% was transferred so much as self-learned. I believe that Russia probably anticipated that China would eventually be able to self-produce many of the parts and built that into the contract, but kept the 30% as a minimum to continue to provide profit for its own domestic industries.
they paid for all of the parts already. They paid for the technology, all the blue prints and such. They paid for the Russian engineers to come down and help them with domestic production. They just weren't capable of producing all the parts in the beginning, so they were supplied with parts. But that doesn't mean they didn't pay for the technology.
 

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
sinodefence is not perfect, but better than anything you are using. And yes when it comes to PLA related stuff. I have read infinitely more articles than you have. So, I can make a good judgment of what is a good source and you obviously haven't shown the ability to do so.
A ludicrous statement considering you have absolutely no idea how many articles I have read.

actually, you are wrong about that part, Russian newspaper are wrong all the time. I will give you a list of simple facts they got wrong:
1) they claimed that China bought su-33s, which they didn't
2) they claimed that China bought Zubr off them, which they didn't
3) they claimed that China was getting a ToT and local production of Mi-171, which they didn't
4) same with backfires
5) they got a bunch of stuff wrong regarding IL-76
6) they got AL-31FN deals for J-10 wrong multiple times
And those are simple facts that they can get directly off the Russian companies dealing with PLA. Now, when it comes to opinions like this one, they obviously only take the side of the Russian companies. And then, you factor in their natural lack of journalistic skill set, their reports are not the most trustworthy out there.
It's pure laziness to lump the entirety of the Russian media into one category of incompetence without looking at the merits of individual sources. Definitely more convenient, I'll give you that.

FAS on the other hand, what do they even know about PLA? You look at their website, how many years do you think they are behind in PLA orbat and stuff like that?

read their section on J-10
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is laughable
FAS is no longer actively updated, as most of its active military content has moved over to Global Security. On the other hand, this says absolutely squadush about the veracity of the content that is already present in reference to past events, such as the 1995 Sino-Russian Su-27 contract. In other words, you pointing out that the J-10 section of FAS is out of date is entirely meaningless.

sinodefence hasn't been updated that much, but it's managed by one guy, dong feng. And generally speaking, the stuff up there are fairly reliable (although, I still trust my sources better). They get used by a lot of people.
Nah. If we are going to use individuals, I'll use huitong, which I will take over dongfeng any day.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a $1.2 billion contract to license-build 200 Su-27s (under the designation of J-11 domestic use only, no exports) at Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) was reached in late 1995 and finialized at the end of 1996. Nevertheless this co-production plan would inevitably cost much of the limited resource available to PLAAF and to Chinese aviation industry, thus may have made some negative impact on other indigenous figher projects, such as J-10. The first two J-11s rolled out in December 1998 using the kit supplied by KnAAPO but were reported to have suffered QC problems. An annual production rate between 15 and 20 was achieved by 2003. A total of 95 kits were delivered from KnAAPO by summer 2004. The use of demostically made parts will begin after the first 60 are assembled using Russian kits and eventually 60-70% of the parts will be manufactured in China

according to the latest kanwa interview with sukhoi, the parts for J-11As are still getting delivered. China had already paid for the royalties, the kits and ToT. Whether they choose to use the kits for new J-11Bs are up to China.
First of all, you need to quote and/or link the source. Second of all, Pinkov's reputation is laughable and he gets trashed all the time. You have to wade through piles of garbage to find pearls of knowledge from this guy. If Kanwa is the best you can do, it's over.

they paid for all of the parts already. They paid for the technology, all the blue prints and such.
Actually, you have absolutely no idea that this is true or not true. You're just guessing that they paid for everything. If you actually had a source that unequivocally stated so, you would have pulled it out a LONG time ago.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
How many articles is irrelevant. Pinkov was the one that wrote about Russia stopping sales to China over copyright issues. Western journalists loved that story so much they rewrote it a million times. Then a Russian official said no such such thing ever happened. After that Pinkov claimed he never wrote the story but China did and falsely credited his name to it. Just like he also wrote the latest story about the PLAAF rejecting the bad quality of J-11Bs and they want Russian fighters. That's catching like wildfire in the Western press too.
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Right that minute ... again via =GT !

... the last two pictures with the J-11B's however (the one with the many PL-12 most likely a CG) seem to be heavily doctored ... :mad:

Deino
 

Attachments

  • J-15 bottom close.jpg
    J-15 bottom close.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 100
  • J-11B + PL-12 psed maybe.jpg
    J-11B + PL-12 psed maybe.jpg
    178 KB · Views: 101
  • J-11B yellow + psed strange.jpg
    J-11B yellow + psed strange.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 98

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Right that minute ... again via =GT !

... the last two pictures with the J-11B's however (the one with the many PL-12 most likely a CG) seem to be heavily doctored ... :mad:

Deino

Hmmm ... :confused:
I'm no longer sure if this is the J-15 ... looks identical to this MKI !!
 

Attachments

  • J-15 was only MKI.jpg
    J-15 was only MKI.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 103

Schumacher

Senior Member
A ludicrous statement considering you have absolutely no idea how many articles I have read.

....

It's actually not so much needing to know literally how many you've read, more like what you've written here making it obvious how little you know about PLA and military in general.
 

ZTZ99

Banned Idiot
It's actually not so much needing to know literally how many you've read, more like what you've written here making it obvious how little you know about PLA and military in general.

What a pathetically idiotic comment. If you have anything specific to critique, go ahead and point it out instead of being cowardly generalistic about it. BTW, contribute something related to Flankers or consider keeping your mouth shut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top