if the wa-10 engine is in production,then the recent purcase of russian al-31 just show the unreability of chinese engine.they dont wont to risk to equip all its fighter with wa-10 engines so they deversify its engines to make a balance between the safety(al-31) and stimulaty local production (wa-10)

Well there is a prevailing belief the russian engines are replacements for existing engines. Also is that shenyang liming cannot build enough WS-10s for the PLAAF’s demands — that is a quantity problem not a quality problem. The fact all new J-11B, BS and J-15 are being equipped with WS-10 lends some credence to that idea… the fact we’re only seeing J-10B being flown with WS-10 can be due to any sort of reasons but seeing it mass produced on operational aircraft says they’ve met PLAAF standards at least. What the actual numbers are is another matter, but certainly we do not “all know of” those stereotypes you said.Certainly not everyone believes them 🙂

Finally PLAAF are well known for their desire to have a back up for their programs from past experience in both developing their own products and buying from abroad.

Again, it’s a way of looking at things and nothing else- the IN is already into the game of MAKING their OWN naval fighter, without stealing someone else’s IP. That is the N-LCA. It may not be a Rafale, but it will do the job it was intended to do and will be done without resorting to theaving.

… Really? The thread just managed to steer itself back into safer waters, c’mon…

I’m no expert, but intuitively it seems to me that a platform as heavy as the Flanker is not an ideal match for a medium STOBAR carrier and that under those conditions a Fulcrum-based platform would offer competitive or superior payload/range characteristics at reduced acquisition and operating costs.

Anyone care to explain where I’m wrong in this?

Excellent we’re back on track.

My challenge/question to the payload/range thing; what’s the reasoning behind that? Is it because Mig-29K is lighter or what, because while it is lighter it also naturally has “weaker” engines (therefore smaller thrust to bring a smaller plane into the air compared to flanker)?. Has it to do with the fact flankers have massive internal fuel tanks compared to fulcrums so naturally they will not be full for most take offs?
(The claim is dependent on how procuring and operating a number of fulcrums compares to flankers of course but we can’t exactly produce an accurate capability/cost at all)

Also I read somewhere that during tests Su-33 could take off with full payload from the landing strip position if Kuznetsov was going 30 knots(?)

ROTFL, so when you are asked for actual evidence, all you can do is post yet another worthless rant about China versus India. Indeed, China is indeed better than everyone, the Indians, the Russians, the Americans, the Martians. Woe upon us, for having the temerity to ask the likes of you to actually post something sensible for a change.

Seriously, the more people like you posture and prance about, the more bizarre you appear.

A better question would be how good his chinese is, maybe he could direct you to some BBS sources. But then a lot of “facts” we hear about chinese military developments are word of mouth and in rare occasions do we get an interview with a PLAAF general or booth official or even CCTV program.

But there are a couple (at least two?) regiments of new build J-11B/BS that are equipped with WS-10, and even old J-11As are being refitted with WS-10 (one off, or fleet upgrade?)

There might’ve been a photo or two of that posted in the PLAAF thread a week or so ago, but there are more over at CDF if you want to make an account. http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=5630.msg174667#new

Not sure if that constitutes proof for whatever you were arguing about, but it should constitute proof the PLAAF was finally satisfied with WS-10 on a twin engined fighter after all these years around 2009-2010. #massproduction
The fact preproduction/prototype J-15s are equipped with WS-10 should count for something too.

Why is that article from Washington Post “random”, just because it points out that Chinese engines had a low MTBO? And where is it known that WS-10 has a higher MTBO? Details please.

You’re kidding right. Are you actually defending the credibility of that article, and of the washington post on the chinese military? You know there’s a certain hierachy to this right? Wrt the PLA, washington post is down there with your other garden variety news outlets and slightly above strategy page.

Details? Stick around on SDF or CDF for a few years and get a sense of a fraction of the details coming through… As I said, word of mouth. Understand who’s credible. That is both the fun and the bane of following PLA and in particular PLAAF developments.

—

Did anyone else see this coming two miles away with the title of the thread? Come on you sly hotdog, you knew this thread would boil down to this poostorm.

How do you know for sure its an upgrade? It could as well be inferior to the original Su-33 in several parameters for all we know.

EDIT: levsha basically said my paragraph in two sentences.

please relax bro, there’s already an appropriate thread for that issue. see earlier post.

Wow you are so witty.

A2A wise: which has higher top speed ?
I’m assuming Su-33 can’t take off with full fuel from a Carrier

I assume it’s a similar case with Mig-29K? Though if we’re comparing, it shouldn’t be fuel load but rather the range you can get from said fuel that counts.