They were not manufactured at the same facility at the request of PLAAF.
China chose KnAAPO.

The differences in Su-27 was most due to the fact that Mostly PLAAF wanted their plane in much shorter time frame instead of becoming a guinea pig.

China did receive all of its Su-30MKK before India had an operational regiment flying.

China has its own 5th Gen fighter program and has never actively participated in Joint development with any country aside from the US.

Don’t mix engine and airframe. The MiG-21 was a well thought design (for the mission), but the Russians lacked comparable engine technology.
Most fighters of that time were close to “perfect”, otherwise they wouldn’t had been produced. I would – with hindsight – sacrifice less weight for speed and more for high angle of attack controllability.

I think for the mission of the light fighter The F-5A (probably with a dedicated engine) and the Mirage III were good solutions. BVR capability was only achievable with a second guy. The electronics didn’t allow a single seat BVR fighter.

In those days visibility was key to win an engagement, so keep the aircraft small and make the pilot able to look outside (one key shortcoming of all these Mach 2 optimized airframes, including the MiG-21).

I do not think only the Russians in the 1960s all the designs were underpower for today`s standards, the Mirage III is an example and the F-4 was no better, it needed even 2 engines.

Late 1960s fighters like the MiG-23 or AJ-37 were heavier and had more powerful engines but the R-11 and R-13 were basicly as powerful as any contemporary design of the same weight and power

Salyut tried to sell a 3D nozzled AL-31FN, and that engine is more advanced than the one in the MKI because it has complete 3D TVC, instead of just 2D. Salyut tried to sell the engine to China but the engine failed to meet the minimum 1000 flight hours requirement, though it managed to reach 750 hours. China have already shown this engine like in three Zhuhai air shows already, and China has already its own 3D TVC nozzle (AVEN) back in 2004, but the PLAAF does not appear to be that interested in pursuing TVC any more as opposed to next generation WOBS SRAAMs that can make TVC issues moot.

what engine does have a Thrust vectoring nozzle in China? what model?
Up to my knowledge thrust vectoring has only been tested in real flight in Russia and the US, Europe has only done static tests and already the Su-30MKI is flying and is armed with good missiles, the Su-30MKI is still the best fighter in Asia with the exception of the F-22 when is deployed in Japan

Maybe operational TVC , however i bet designs exist almost everywhere where their is an interest in the pursual of 4.5 gen – 5 gen aircraft . I think that the EF typhoon has had TVC nozzle tested on the engine (not on the aircraft iirc) , i think someone posted pictures of that in this forum .

Besides the Pegasus no other operational engine has been built in a nation other than Russia or the US that includes TVC.

The Eurofighter has the technology but never has been implemented or even showed in an airshow, contrary to the Su-35BM, Su-30MKI and MiG-29OVT.

For China inspecting the Su-30MKI is a good chance of industrial spionage and reverse engineering.

Since when did anyone need Russia’s permission to be ‘allowed’ to operating in the international market? :rolleyes:

And this is relevent because?

What kind of messed up reasoning is that? You compete on the international market on merit not some baseless impression of entitlement. Russia has no ‘reserved’ market other then maybe within Russia itself. Everyone else is free to choose to buy from whoever they want.

If China was thinking of selling fresh built Flankers, then fair enough. But Russia has no basis wahtsoever to think it has a monopoly on the supply of parts, services or even upgrades to Flanker operators. Their customers can choose to hire whoever they want to do whatever they want to their Flankers and the only issue would be possibly voiding the servicing warranty with Russia. And anyone can sell whatever parts and services as they want. If someone takes offence at that, then he is stupid and need to learn what a market is.

Man Russia has priority over any deal related to any Sukhoi Product, that is a reality, when China and Russia struck a deal for the Su-27 license production they commited to respect certain rights Sukhoi has, why? simple the Su-27 is a russian intelectual property, number one we do not know if China will or will not sell spare parts but already getting money from a Sukhoi product is making her a competitor of Sukhoi in the international markets.

Once China starts competing with Russia in the international Flanker market is betraying the Russians if they are taking an amount of money is reserved to Russia, China can betray Russia, but certainly it won`t please the Sukhoi company if they do not get any royalties from any Chinese deal related to the Flanker it will sour the confidence the Russian have in the Chinese and further more sour their political and military relations

In my book the F-4 Fantom WAS perfect.:cool: Once is was equiped with a gun…

8AAMs in A2A configuration, a real bomb truck in A2G, Naval and land version, not much more to ask for.

The F-4 is a good looking beast, my favorite american fighter of the late 1960s, but i hate its rear end, however its fore fuselage is very beautiful specially in the F-4E, but the critics i have heard of it all claimed it was not very agile and its designs had many mistakes retified folding the wings and dropping the horizontal tailplanes

I have said it before and I will say it again now, read what has been written and understand it before launching into a rant about some imagined issue that has nothing to do with what has actually been said. :rolleyes:

In my last post I point out that it was likely that the Malaysians would only be looking for the Chinese to help with some basic maintaince and servicing not covered in the orignal servicing contract with the manufacturer. How the hell did that turn into ‘high end parts replacement and upgrades’? :rolleyes:

Besides, you can’t even get basic facts right. China has not been operating Flankers for 2 decades.

It is difficult to know what it means but surely it won`t satisfy too much the Russians since a contract more or less gives them some rights to sell spares to the Malaysians, these maintainance rights were put into practice with the MiG-29s sold to Peru, and it is possible the Chinese want to give a look at the Su-30MKI type fighter.

For the Indians and Russians is more or less a kind of political challenge by the Chinese since already Russia has warned China about suing Shenyang (Chinese Government) if they built additional Su-27s out of the numbers stablished and the posibility China might want to sell spare parts.

Even if the chinese do not want to sell spare parts it is more or less a tactic to analize a more advanced fighter type than their own.
However what type of advice the Chinese can offer? basicly training if they do not want to sell parts but maintainance always implies the posibility of selling spare parts and that is where the Russians and Indians might not like this possible move by the Chinese.

I guess as provisional fighter it is far better than no fighter. It is like a MiG-23 minus radar (and thus radar guided missiles) and the Mach1.8+ capability. Something like a further downgraded MiG-23MS.

The second package of the MiG-23-98 upgrade involves prolonging the aircraft’s service life up to 2,500 hours (a MiG-23 is currently undergoing repeated static and fatigue tests). The third upgrade package introduces new electronic warfare systems, radio communications, navigation systems, etc. The final package involves updating the ground service as well as improving flight preparation and combat mission planning.

A modernisation offer has also been prepared for the MiG-23BN attack aircraft and MiG-23UB combat trainer. The modernised MiG-23BN, called the MiG-23B-98, would be equipped with a Moskit radar in an underfuselage container and a new cockpit suite and navigation system. The new weapon system would include Kh-31A/P missiles and laser-guided missiles and bombs (with an additional homing container) as well as TV-guided weapons. For self-defence purposes the aircraft could be equipped with a helmet- mounted sight and R-73 AAMs. The modernised combat trainer would be designated the MiG-23UB-99.

MiG-27 upgrade

With 165 MiG-27L `Flogger-J’ aircraft made between 1986 and 1996, India is currently the world’s sole user of this aircraft (Ukraine has several dozen MiG-27s but intends to delete them). An initial agreement between India and Russia on modernising MiG-23s and MiG-27s was signed on 27 September 1994. The scope of upgrade planned for the MiG-27 is similar to that of the MiG-23B-98. A modernised MiG-27 with new avionics and `glass’ cockpit was shown in India during the Bangalore exposition of December 1996. The target design provides a Komar (`Gnat’) radar in an under-fuselage container and a helmet-mounted sight. The armament set will include Kh-31 ASMs as well as R-77 and R-73 AAMs (no AAMs are currently used by the MiG-27). Resumption of the MiG-27’s production in India is being considered.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/ruaf7.htm

MiG-23B-98

This is a strike aircraft featuring a 130-164% increase of combat efficiency against ground and air targets.

The aircraft is outfitted with:
v onboard automated control and pilot communication system (MVK digital computers with a correction plate borrowed from the space navigation system, a multifunction color liquid crystal display, and a multifunction control panel), which provides for communications through MKIO (MIL-1553V standard);
v control devices allowing for the use of the HOTAS concept;
v a radar illumination warning station;
v a new weapon control system (borrowed from the MiG-27M aircraft).

In addition to the standard armament, new types of rockets, including S-8, S-13, S-25, “air-to-air” R-73E and “air-to-surface”

COMBAT EFFICIENCY

Kh-29T,L and Kh-31P,A missiles and KAB-500KR,L air bombs, are introduced.

Main options offered include:
v reduction of signature;
v installation of the HTD, modern ESM assets and avionics;
v in-flight refueling;
v increased combat survivability;
v installation of pods with an optronic system of round-the-clock target detection, use of weapons with laser seekers and navigation with a multifunction radar, with target designation equipment of
“air-to-radar” missiles and with reconnaissance equipment.

The MiG-23B-98 aircraft may be developed from the MiG-23BN aircraft.

The MiG-23-98-1 aircraft’s combat efficiency against air and ground targets will equal that of fourth-generation fighters, and the MiG-23-98-2 will be their worthy
http://milparade.udm.ru/27/104.htm

Second version of modernization

In this version, the Sapfir-23 airborne radar remains aboard the fighter and the Moskit-21K airborne radar is additionally installed in a suspended pod, which does not require any changes in the configuration of MiG-23, MiG-23BN and MiG-27 fighters. Both the Moskit-21K and the Moskit-23 airborne radars are compatible with the same new armament.

The furnishing of the fighter with the Moskit-21K multifunctional airborne radar will enable to increase its efficiency due to:
increase of an air target detection range up to 50 km and the use of all RVV-AE, R27R(T) and R-73 air-to-air missiles;
use of the mapping mode and employment of the Kh-31A antiship active-homing missiles with a launch range of up to 50 km against waterborne targets, as well as the KAB500KR guided bombs, unguided rockets, aircraft gun armament and air bombs.

Third version of modernization

According to this version, the Sapfir-23 airborne radar remains aboard the fighter and the FRC radio correction channel is to be additionally installed in the nose section of the fighter. This version of modernization makes it possible to use, in addition to the armament available, the up-to-date RVV-AE active-homing missiles, as well as the R-27T and R-73E missiles. The furnishing of the fighter with the RVV-AE active-homing missiles instead of the R23R and R24R missiles increases the launch range up to 50 km during head-on air fighting.
In addition to the first and third versions of modernization, an active jamming station, automatically interacting with the airborne radar, can be installed on the fighter.

http://www.milparade.com/security/28/026x.htm