By: flateric
- 25th June 2011 at 19:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-35S:
Possibly no brake parachute anymore?
then I was dreaming while shooting these:)
Attachments
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th June 2011 at 21:59Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
then I was dreaming while shooting these:)
I know the prototypes still had chutes, but what about the production version? The tail sting is clearly different and lacks the tail cone hinges found on the parachute compartment of other Flanker variants :)
Compare the first picture which I took of #901 (and Su-27SKM #305) at MAKS 2007 to photos of the first production example:
By: tphuang
- 26th June 2011 at 01:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One is the original article and the other is a gross violation and outright theft of intellectual property rights.
Here we go again, they have right to build 200 under license production in the original agreement. They already paid the amount in full. Where is theft of IP if they paid for it? Of course, once they get past 200 and still don't pay for the additional airframes, I'd agree that's a huge problem.
WRT 2) huitong's site seems to imply 700kg was lost due to use of composites alone?
PKoschei, where'd you get the number for J-11B's empty weight from?
not sure if we will know the exact weight loss. My guess weight loss comes from use of composites + savings from lighter radar and using avionics.
J-11B does seem to have moved on to WS-10A now, although I think there are still plenty of issues with it. They are going to have to suck it up and go through the pain, because the Russians are not going to be sending them anymore AL-31F for J-11Bs.
The recent word is that it performed really well again MKKs in a major PLAAF exercise, but that's not really that shocking. The entire line of Chinese flankers is still a work in progress.
By: Blitzo
- 26th June 2011 at 02:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here we go again, they have right to build 200 under license production in the original agreement. They already paid the amount in full. Where is theft of IP if they paid for it? Of course, once they get past 200 and still don't pay for the additional airframes, I'd agree that's a huge problem.
If the Chinese side does pay additional royalties to produce additional airframes I have a feeling we won't hear about it.
J-11B does seem to have moved on to WS-10A now, although I think there are still plenty of issues with it. They are going to have to suck it up and go through the pain, because the Russians are not going to be sending them anymore AL-31F for J-11Bs.
Before it was quality control issues with mass production, I thought they mostly got that under control? Also, how does the WS-10A's thrust compare to AL-31F? I keep hearing conflicting reports from everywhere but I thought the general consensus was that it was a fraction higher.
By: Blitzo
- 26th June 2011 at 02:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why wouldn't an F-15 be capable of a BVR win against a J-11B(especially one with a (v)2 or later radar, and C7/D missiles)?
We can't say how capable the J-11B's radar is, and if they have any plans in motion to refit with AESA. And the PL-12 variant it is capable of using would change things a bit too...
What's the rough number of F-15s which have been fitted with V2 or above radars?
By: Pinko
- 26th June 2011 at 02:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One is the original article and the other is a gross violation and outright theft of intellectual property rights.
We have constantly observed your outright bashing of everything Chinese without due backup of your accusation. I would say it’s “It was a NO display of trained and disciplined valour”, An insult to your own good words displayed in your own signature?
Russia has no questions to China about “copying” military equipment
FARNBOROUGH. July 19 2010 (Interfax-AVN) - China is using Russian and Soviet know-how to develop and build aircraft, Alexander Fomin, first deputy head of the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service, said at a news conference at the Farnborough air show.
"It is an accomplished fact. China is vigorously developing its defense industry, not without Russia's assistance, of course," he said.
The Soviet Union built about 3,000 enterprises, while Russia handed China licenses to make aircraft and components," he said.
"We handed over a large amount of know-how to China, including information related to the defense industry. It is not surprising that it repeats itself in Chinese products," he said.
Asked whether China has developed a fighter jet which it claims excels Russia's Sukhoi Su-33, Fomin said, "I can neither confirm, nor deny this."
"Concerning the Su-33, Russia did not deliver such planes to China. If our Chinese partners have them, they were not received from Russian sources," he said.
Fomin said Russia has no questions to China so far. "We have an agreement on the protection of intellectual property rights. If we uncover copyright violations, we will deal with this within the framework of the agreement," Fomin said.
By: TR1
- 26th June 2011 at 02:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Btw I have a question : in BVR , is the US F-15 capable to win versus a J-11B ?
Cheers .
of course. The J-11/Su-27 has plenty of advantages, but the Eagle is a good airframe with excellent radar in the latest iteration. I suspect J-11B radar resembles a Su-27 sized Zhuk-M in performance, which is just fine, but certainly does not outclass say an APG-63V3.
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 26th June 2011 at 04:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have constantly observed your outright bashing of everything Chinese without due backup of your accusation. I would say it’s “It was a NO display of trained and disciplined valour”, An insult to your own good words displayed in your own signature?
hey wait a minute, why didn't you highlight the rest of the article, especially this part
Russia has no questions to China about “copying” military equipment
FARNBOROUGH. July 19 2010 (Interfax-AVN) - China is using Russian and Soviet know-how to develop and build aircraft, Alexander Fomin, first deputy head of the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service, said at a news conference at the Farnborough air show.
"It is an accomplished fact. China is vigorously developing its defense industry, not without Russia's assistance, of course," he said.
The Soviet Union built about 3,000 enterprises, while Russia handed China licenses to make aircraft and components," he said.
"We handed over a large amount of know-how to China, including information related to the defense industry. It is not surprising that it repeats itself in Chinese products," he said. Asked whether China has developed a fighter jet which it claims excels Russia's Sukhoi Su-33, Fomin said, "I can neither confirm, nor deny this."
"Concerning the Su-33, Russia did not deliver such planes to China. If our Chinese partners have them, they were not received from Russian sources," he said.
Fomin said Russia has no questions to China so far. "We have an agreement on the protection of intellectual property rights. If we uncover copyright violations, we will deal with this within the framework of the agreement," Fomin said.
By: uss novice
- 26th June 2011 at 04:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, IMVHO J11B < Su-35 - for all the reasons provided by Trident before, the Su-35 stands taller in present comparison.
however, I do feel that the Super SU-30MKI upgrade will probably be the most complete package although the 35 might edge it in kinematics. Lets hope we get some details at Maks
By: Pinko
- 26th June 2011 at 05:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
bgnewf's comments weren't really related to the question either but you still answered it :diablo:
now quit changing subjects, is the J-15 part of this license or not. and yes the J-15 is mentioned in the first post now, just for you.
Lol, how shameless behavior by editting and changing. :rolleyes:
Even the J15, per deputy head of the Russian Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service, it's "neither confirm, nor deny", which standing actually gives freehand to SAC for further developing. beause it had made it clear: the Russian Authority will stand out only when SAC violate IP rights. if you don't see Russian Authority says a word: means evrything ongoing is perfectly within IP agreement.
mate, i had dedated all those stuff when flogger/Mig-23MLD /Star 49 era. when you probably was still Hamburger or something, yet to be evolved to "hotdog"
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th June 2011 at 10:48Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I agree with quantum -- we dont' know enough about J-11B if you want to compare the number of changes it has with Su-35S.
I don't see why. While the info we have about the J-11B is definitely not as detailed (so it's anybody's guess whether something like the avionics databus is better or worse than its Su-35S counterpart), we do know enough to draw some conclusions. For example, I don't think we need SAC to spell out for us that the J-11B doesn't have TVC, a phased array radar or a refuelling probe, or that it has less thrust than the Su-35S and lacks full spherical MAWS coverage. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to point out that what can be seen of the structure is almost 100% identical to the basic Su-27SK, although there is of course some speculation involved in extrapolating further conclusions from that.
As mentioned before, knowing what both cost (and preferably also the Su-27SM) would make the comparison even more interesting though.
By: Blitzo
- 26th June 2011 at 11:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, we can draw conclusions as to what J-11B has and doesn't have based on what we can see (like lack of TVC, refuelling probe as you said), but that's as far as I would take it WRT the actual title of this thread.
By: Anonymous - 25th June 2011 at 11:03 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Déjà vu?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105427&page=3
Posts: 920
By: Griffon39 - 25th June 2011 at 11:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haha ok, I'll try to remember it this time!
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 25th June 2011 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with quantum -- we dont' know enough about J-11B if you want to compare the number of changes it has with Su-35S.
Posts: 702
By: flateric - 25th June 2011 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then I was dreaming while shooting these:)
By: Anonymous - 25th June 2011 at 21:59 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I know the prototypes still had chutes, but what about the production version? The tail sting is clearly different and lacks the tail cone hinges found on the parachute compartment of other Flanker variants :)
Compare the first picture which I took of #901 (and Su-27SKM #305) at MAKS 2007 to photos of the first production example:
Posts: 1,082
By: tphuang - 26th June 2011 at 01:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here we go again, they have right to build 200 under license production in the original agreement. They already paid the amount in full. Where is theft of IP if they paid for it? Of course, once they get past 200 and still don't pay for the additional airframes, I'd agree that's a huge problem.
not sure if we will know the exact weight loss. My guess weight loss comes from use of composites + savings from lighter radar and using avionics.
J-11B does seem to have moved on to WS-10A now, although I think there are still plenty of issues with it. They are going to have to suck it up and go through the pain, because the Russians are not going to be sending them anymore AL-31F for J-11Bs.
The recent word is that it performed really well again MKKs in a major PLAAF exercise, but that's not really that shocking. The entire line of Chinese flankers is still a work in progress.
Posts: 1,040
By: Bluewings - 26th June 2011 at 01:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
bjnewf :
So right .
quadbike :
lol ! Yes but try to tell that to the Chinese drivers :D
Btw I have a question : in BVR , is the US F-15 capable to win versus a J-11B ?
Cheers .
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 26th June 2011 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why wouldn't an F-15 be capable of a BVR win against a J-11B(especially one with a (v)2 or later radar, and C7/D missiles)?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 26th June 2011 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Chinese side does pay additional royalties to produce additional airframes I have a feeling we won't hear about it.
Before it was quality control issues with mass production, I thought they mostly got that under control? Also, how does the WS-10A's thrust compare to AL-31F? I keep hearing conflicting reports from everywhere but I thought the general consensus was that it was a fraction higher.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 26th June 2011 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We can't say how capable the J-11B's radar is, and if they have any plans in motion to refit with AESA. And the PL-12 variant it is capable of using would change things a bit too...
What's the rough number of F-15s which have been fitted with V2 or above radars?
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 26th June 2011 at 02:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have constantly observed your outright bashing of everything Chinese without due backup of your accusation. I would say it’s “It was a NO display of trained and disciplined valour”, An insult to your own good words displayed in your own signature?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98077&page=9
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 26th June 2011 at 02:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
of course. The J-11/Su-27 has plenty of advantages, but the Eagle is a good airframe with excellent radar in the latest iteration. I suspect J-11B radar resembles a Su-27 sized Zhuk-M in performance, which is just fine, but certainly does not outclass say an APG-63V3.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 26th June 2011 at 04:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hey wait a minute, why didn't you highlight the rest of the article, especially this part
so is the J-15 also part of this license? or is it a violation of IP rights?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 26th June 2011 at 04:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well it would depend on whether SAC paid for additional licenses/royalties I suppose, and whether the Russian side accepted it.
Posts: 1,071
By: uss novice - 26th June 2011 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, IMVHO J11B < Su-35 - for all the reasons provided by Trident before, the Su-35 stands taller in present comparison.
however, I do feel that the Super SU-30MKI upgrade will probably be the most complete package although the 35 might edge it in kinematics. Lets hope we get some details at Maks
USS.
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 26th June 2011 at 04:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What the hell are you talking, is the topic J15 or the guy was referring to J15 instead of J11B?
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 26th June 2011 at 05:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
bgnewf's comments weren't really related to the question either but you still answered it :diablo:
now quit changing subjects, is the J-15 part of this license or not. and yes the J-15 is mentioned in the first post now, just for you.
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 26th June 2011 at 05:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lol, how shameless behavior by editting and changing. :rolleyes:
Even the J15, per deputy head of the Russian Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service, it's "neither confirm, nor deny", which standing actually gives freehand to SAC for further developing. beause it had made it clear: the Russian Authority will stand out only when SAC violate IP rights. if you don't see Russian Authority says a word: means evrything ongoing is perfectly within IP agreement.
mate, i had dedated all those stuff when flogger/Mig-23MLD /Star 49 era. when you probably was still Hamburger or something, yet to be evolved to "hotdog"
By: Anonymous - 26th June 2011 at 10:48 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I don't see why. While the info we have about the J-11B is definitely not as detailed (so it's anybody's guess whether something like the avionics databus is better or worse than its Su-35S counterpart), we do know enough to draw some conclusions. For example, I don't think we need SAC to spell out for us that the J-11B doesn't have TVC, a phased array radar or a refuelling probe, or that it has less thrust than the Su-35S and lacks full spherical MAWS coverage. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to point out that what can be seen of the structure is almost 100% identical to the basic Su-27SK, although there is of course some speculation involved in extrapolating further conclusions from that.
As mentioned before, knowing what both cost (and preferably also the Su-27SM) would make the comparison even more interesting though.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 26th June 2011 at 11:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, we can draw conclusions as to what J-11B has and doesn't have based on what we can see (like lack of TVC, refuelling probe as you said), but that's as far as I would take it WRT the actual title of this thread.