If FC-1 is better then why did China buy J-10 only?

And if J-20 is only 0.43 more “combat effective” than a J-10, then why bother developing J-20 in the first place… or if FC-31 (not J-31) is more combat effective than J-20 then why has the PLAAF still not adopted an FC-31 variant for themselves?

But I think paralay’s just kidding…

As others have noted range has been revised upward by quite a bit recently, but it’s still a relatively high-speed, solid propellant missile with a large warhead for its size – it won’t be breaking records. Basically, it’s an alternative approach to building a winged glide bomb with some advantages and drawbacks – for example it retains a significant fraction of its range when launched from low altitude and has shorter time to impact, but it does make for a heavier and more expensive weapon. AASM/Hammer and PGM/Hakim follow a similar approach (slower with bigger wings and smaller rocket engine though, so a bit of a hybrid between Kh-38 and something like Spice or winged GBUs: unpowered with folding high aspect ratio wings).

Take your pick.

thanks for the info trident.

the greater speed of the weapon does sort of explain its lower range.

There are J-8IIs remaining, many have been upgraded to be able to fire PL-12 ARH BVR missiles.

I don’t imagine there is any reason to upgrade them much more beyond that capability.

first 901 (965, Hulun lake) commissioned, full displacement up to 50,000 tons

hull 2 under fitting out is visible along the pier behind 965.

@ TR1

What are these “much lower numbers” than were envisaged, and when? You don’t mean the “60 by 2020” line that was PR that no-one serious took as a real time commitment, surely?

As for issues, well, you have information the rest of us lack?

Regarding PAK FA service date/service number predictions over the last few years, have there been any predictions of PAK FA in service date/number from Russian authorities that you would deem as credible and/or not PR lines?

Because for those of us who aren’t as aware about which individuals in the Russian military/aviation industry/establishment are considered credible or whom should or shouldn’t be taken seriously for these matters, if someone with an official sounding title puts out a claim, it is going to be interpreted as credible.

Yes, birdstrike in one engine caused fire on one engine after flyover for the PLA parade.

Landed safely, pilot fine.

@ Janggobo

Going for a new platform without exploring the possibility to upgrade the existing platform/system is not a good idea. But its meant to do the job and oriented towards anti-shipping or anti-sub depending on the mission.

11356/Talwar class is like that of a T-72 family MBT, the basic design/layout is good and presents (and have shown) good upgrade potential. The current Talwar class does not have those integrated multi faceted arrays and publicized systems like Akizuki class.

Few changes/upgrades that I would love to see…

1) An integrated mast atop the bridge
2) It frees up the area aft of the island where currently the twin guidance unit and associated/other systems are installed.
3) This area can instead be utilized to install 4 x twin-quad packed Kh-35UE cells (like that of Bal-E costal syatem)
4) Larger sonar/dome
5) Podberezovik-EТ1 long range 3D radar atop the hanger

^ Install 4 such unit amidship after clearing the area.
This is what we will get in terms of air-defence and anti-ship/land attack cruise missile numbers after a modification which is very much possible.

Integrated mast (22350 cut/modify & paste)
36 x 9M317/M (based on the displayed model)
24-32 x Kh-35UE amidship (or Klub; consideration being weight rather than space)

OR

Integrated mast (22350 cut/modify & paste)
36 x 9M317M
16 x Kh-35UE amidship
64 x 9M317M amidship (containerized like that of Buk-M3)

^ It has got one of the most beautiful hull lines but a little cluttered above the bridge and amidship. With a good/simple modification/upgrade, even those cluttering will be gone.

I’m sure that the Talwar class could be modified to have all the features that you described, but would it be more cost effective than simply buying an off the shelf Gorshkov export variant? After all, for the Talwar class to feature all of the modifications you mentioned, that means substantial redesign work that the Indian Navy will have to fork out for.

and as for this part:

Regarding the missile load out, If I understood the MK41 VLS correctly, with your mentioned 24 x Type07 anti-sub missiles, we are left with 8 cells for ESSM. The armament carried by both ships will looks like this –

Akizuki
– 8 x Type-90 anti-ship
– 24 x Type07 anti-sub
– 32 x ESSM (quad-pack per cell) air-defence

Compared to the much smaller Talwar class
– 8 x Klub/Brahmos anti-ship/sub
– 1 x RBU-6000 (72-96 rockets) anti-sub
– 24 x Shtil-I air-defence
– 64 x 9M311 (32 x missiles per Kashtan-M mount) air-defence

And this is a frigate which is oriented towards anti-shipping.

I think comparing 9M311 as an equivalent to ESSM is a bit disingenuous, 9M311 is more like a RIM-116 equivalent, and the “32 missiles per Kashtan-M mount” are below deck reloadables rather than ready to fire missiles like the other weapons systems you listed for both ships.

Considering Akizuki fields a more capable area air defence capability than the Talwar class even when 24 of its 32 VLS are used for the Type 07 VL ASROC, One can alter the Akizuki’s loadout to anything like 16 or 8 Type 07s to have 64 or even 96 ESSMs in the Mk-41s to leverage an area air defence capability that vastly outstrips the Talwar class.

The Talwar class is a fine ship for its generation and for its displacement, but I think any comparison with a class like Akizuki needs to be fair as well.