I appreciate your honesty SampanViking, my concern is that it is misleading, for instance the C-130, world renowned airlifter, circa 1955, is still in production as the J-model in 2014, Cessna is still producing the venerable 172, circa 1956, and who knows what letter designates current production aircraft. Both those aircraft are produced under the same type certificate, which would now be a "supplemental type certificate, licensing the various modifications etc to that basic airframe. While each upgrade or change requires flight testing, new weight and balance, perhaps an supplement to the POH of said aircraft, they remain true to type
With CAD/CAM those changes are simpler than ever to make on the production floor, whether it is a line production or batch production, such as the F-35, the various versions will be flight tested, A, B, and C, and spin tested, any variations or "anomalies" noted and placarded, speed limitations, white arc, green arc, yellow arc, red line, and dealt with in the simulator. Its really no big deal to "re-engineer" attach points, landing gear, tail-hooks, heavier or lighter skins here or there as needed. While I think I understand the motivation, for changing types and making it seem like more than it is. To conclude the C-130 has had fuel tanks all over the place, skis for polar landings, Fulton Recovery system, various armanment sticking out of the doors, and now a ground attack version with rockets under the wings---(real stooped) make every airlifter a threat, not just dumbo flying around dropping equipment, watch the opening segment of "Air America".
So for the Flanker, which is in all its iterations an absolutely gorgeous airplane, (cept for that UGLY Su-34), but its still a Flanker, and still flies good, its just heavy, and all of these newer airplanes are easier to fly, they work so well, just watch the J-15s shooting touch and goes on the carrier, so whether J-11A, J-11B, Su-27, Su-30, J-15, J-15s, or J-16, yes that is seven different numerical designations for the lovely venerable, "over-achieving", loveable, sweet, beautifull, but still a "Flanker", check the name of the thread, Chinese Flanker,,,,, I don't know why this bugs me, but it does????? brat