Just my 20-cents worth if I may!
Given the fact that the Russian`s can ill afford a significant sized fleet of production/service standard T-50`s. Would it not be wise for them to consider a high/low mix (a new lightweight 5th Gen fighter) arrangement of their fighter force.
It appears that the MiG-29/35 has fallen out of Russian favour in place of the ‘Flanker’ series. Which entails a high/high mix of Flanker/T-50 for a long time to come.

What happened to the LFI/MFI philosophy the Soviets once had?

Does anyone know if the Russian`s have been working on or considering a lighter 5th gen fighter design (MiG-33?)??

Regards
Pioneer

very interesting indeed ! the JH-7 reminds me of what the HF-74 design might have been like, albeit a little smaller, had it been given the go-ahead in the 70s..Would love to get my hands on that issue of IAPR or if anyone has scanned those pages..

My question to those who know the JH-7 better is regarding the specific role of the JH-7..when the PLAAF has the basic Su-27 and the Su-30MKK, what is the exact role that the JH-7 performs that these other 2 heavy aircraft cannot ?

Sorry Kramer, but you refer to the HF-74!
Out of curiosity, could you acknowledge what this design is please.

Regards
Pioneer

It’s preferable to have a sideways hinging canopy, no need to remove the canopy when removing/fitting the ejection seat during maintenance.

Thanks gents
I am sorry about my use of ‘Soviet/Russian style’ I do not think it was what I meant to say
I stand corrected – ‘me bad’😮
Thats why I am a grunt and not a pilot!!
Interesting point you make Robban – thanks

Regards
Pioneer

Nice little bird … but the undercarriage looks way too heavy!

I`m very impressed by this landing gear!
I`m curious as to if this landing gear is ‘truly’ indigenous.
One thing about the Indian`s, they truly appreciate the rigors of carrier ops.
I hear what you are saying regarding the weight it must impose for such a small and light design. I assume that that not just allow the aircraft to be handled a little rougher, but I would think it would contribute greatly to allowing the design to (possibly??) to return (land) aboard with a good proportion of unexpanded ordnance – if they are not expended! This means a lot of $$ saved over the life of the design – again another thing the Indian`s would be well aware and appreciative about!!

The odd thing that gets me is the sidewards opening cockpit canopy arrangement! Very Soviet/Russian style of the Indian`s!

Has anyone heard of the likes of Brazil showing any interest in the carrier-based LCA?

Regards
Pioneer

Just my 20-cents worth if I may……..

In my mind the Russian Air Force should be focusing and directing more important room and budget on other things than the incorporation of a toilet aboard a plane!
I see the primary difference between the F-15E vs Su-34 as being :
– The USAF has more than just a couple of token Strike Eagle`s not just in operational service, but also with years of operational service – unlike the Su-34!

– The USAF has a well establish infrastructure to support, deploy and operate their Strike Eagle as a weapon of war – not just as a token of what they would like and need!

– Yes the Strike Eagle is built around a 1960`s design! But when and where the United States decides to replace it it will be in a form greater than a squadron, which flies at military parades and every time Russia`s President (or is he Premier this week?) wants to rattle a bygone superpower dream. But the USAF are flying them now, dropping weapons from them now! (well I hope that the USAF is able to get its act together in the form of a F-15E replacement!:dev2:)

– Like in the case of the F-15E, the Su-34, no mater how good it is is not a strategic bomber, so in more cases than not it will need airborne refueling support. How much spare tankage does the Russian have these days?

– I often look at the Russian`s sabre rattling with its handful of Tu-160 ‘Blackjacks’ – a capable bombers? yes!, deserve respect? yes! But when was the last time the Russian`s sortied them in one pack?
This is the way I see the Su-34 becoming for the Russian Air Force, for the near future maybe a squadron at most!
So even if the Russian`s get their Su-34`s, will they have the money to train its flight crews to the designs max potential? Will they be able to afford to fly them at all? that is the difference in my eyes, between that of the F-15E and the Su-34.

Finally I would be more concerned that China (PRC) might wake up one day and smell the roses in terms of the Su-34`s capability and potential and produce about 100+ (or even more likely ripe off the design and mass produce its own variant and telling the world – ‘No this airplane is indigenous designed, unlike the Russian Su-34, see the PLAAF`s aircraft have two stickers here – the Russian`s only have one sticker’)

P.S do not get me wrong. I think the Su-34 (and all Flanker`s for that matter are excellent, effective and powerful fighters – in many ways I am envious of the Russian`s/Soviet`s designers ability to surpass Western types in simplicity, power and ruggedness!) I even often go as far as say that the Soviet`s/Russian`s clearly achieved what the United States could not with its own philosophy and requirement in its 1960`s TFX (F-111) program – a common airframe/engine family which could carry out a myriad of combat tasks and missions, which would equate to financial and operational benefits!

Regards
Pioneer

[QUOTE=Fedaykin;1590956]They don’t have access to the engines or the airframe of the J15 so the statement that they are not up to the same standards is rather mute and as I said petulent.

The Chinese are very tight lipped about aircraft development, they have shown themselves to be fairly capable in recent years and this is a project within the abilities of their aerospace industry.[/QUOTE

Over the past couple of decades, the PRC have proven themselves experts at reverse engineering military hardware! Do not underestimate them of their resolve!

As for the folding wing / carrier compatibility requirements of the PRC building a combat aircraft to service the riggers of carrier operations?
If they have their hands on a Su-33 prototype (via the Ukraine!) – then a lot of their problems and R&D has been done complements of the Soviet/Russia!

As for the Russian`s bally aching about the PRC cutting their launch for them in terms of export potential – I say suffer a weep and suck it up Russia. The Russian defence industry were more than willing to take whatever, where ever they could for $$$$$$$.

P.S. In my eyes the PRC/PLAN is a little crazy/overly ambitious to be deploying such a large and heavy fighter like the Su-33 / J-15 as its first carrier-based fighter-bomber. The Soviet`s/Russian`s themself have not been able to maximize their Su-33`s full potential (range, weapons load………..) due to its reliance on a ski-Jump (STOBAR) system for launching (not to mention the designs spotting factor aboard the Kuznetsov – 12 x Su-33 for a carrier of 67,500-ton is not overly impressive or productive). I think the PLAN would be better off initially with a navalised variant of their J-10 (or even the MiG-29K). The likes of the Su-33/J-15 would possibly better suited to the purpose designed and built indigenous carrier design – which would (one would hope!) operational experience from operating the

Just my thoughts!

Regards
Pioneer

I have always been a fan and supporter of High/Low mix of fighters.
i.e F-15/F-16, F-14/F/A-18, F/A-18/F-20, Su-27/MiG-29 mixes
Problem is I think many Air Forces have lost sight of this – especially with the proliferation of the likes of the ‘Flanker’ series.

Regards
Pioneer