@Quadbike.

give me a good reason to be friend you.

The most important part of a fighter is its Airframe, the one that is the hardest to design, and the one that differentiates one fighter from the other.

China has illegally copied the Su 33 air-frame, hence it has made a carbon copy.

I am in the business too long to understand that the first part of reply is emblematic and regrettabally held by many if not all amature enthusiaists. re-enforced by day-in-day out of looking at shiny glossy airplane porn.

as for the 2nd part, it goes with out saying that that the sentence itself is contradictatory. especially in this day and age. in the days of Tiger Moths may be true, not today, especially not for a STOBAR carrier fighter with sophisticated fcs and avionics and engines.

But none of these guys who ripped apart Mercs/Beemers made exact copies, ripping apart a Merc & using its tech in your new car is ‘OK’. Not if its a carbon copy.

Btw his best selling car is a Corolla copy. his new one that takes in his new batteries? no.

Toyota started by making subtle copies. so does Daewoo/Hyaundai/Kia.

I am asking you to Look this through evolutionary lense.

But none of these guys who ripped apart Mercs/Beemers made exact copies, ripping apart a Merc & using its tech in your new car is ‘OK’. Not if its a carbon copy.

In previous post you said new fcs avionics, now you say it is a carbon copy, what is it? make up your mind.

I am confused, how is it a carbon copy if it has new structure and engines and avionics?

Avionics/ Flight control and software don’t make a new fighter, if so all mid life upgrades/new blocks would be termed new fighters.

did I say it is a new fighter? what part of it did I say it is a new fighter? why is it that you don;t read people’s entire post but drill in on a single part and make your generalized statement.

and,
If I were to give you a black box FCC and tell you to copy it. can you do it?

How is it superior ? the larger take off weight is offset by STOBAR operations, the larger radar aperture size offset by the larger RCS, the newer 29Ks include visible RCS reduction measures for example. There is also an 1064 TRM AESA radar developed for the MIG 35 that can replace the current Zhuk M. Oh and it has Top Owl HMDS & HOBS missiles. And can use almost all Russian A2G,Anti ship and anti air munitions.

😎

The guy who founded BYDs started in Auto business by buying mercedez/toyota/lexus/bmw off the show floors in autodealerships and give them to his 20 something engineers to disassemble so they learn how to build a car. His young engineers used stare at those shiny new cars they could never be able to afford, and couldn;t bring themselves to destroy them. so he would take the keys and scracth those car up. so his young engineers could bring themselves to taking the cars apart.

now he has a passenger car business that is ready to take-in his batteries.

so, why am I telling the story in an Britian based aviation forum populated by Indian and Russian aviation enthusiasts?

the point is, its like comparing apples to oranges.
IN is a good customer only interested to getting a new shiny car. ” look at those new features, it has 18 inch rims, boss stereo speakers, 450HP V8 engine AND a new rear facing camera! beat that!”

PLA is a bad customers who like the guy in interested in the car making business. of course. their cars would suck and be scratched up, and be laughed at because they are knock offs! but, they are in for the long game. they are into the game of copying so that one day they may be able to MAKE their own.

If we consider the same availability rates for MiG-29K and Su-33, wouldn’t larger number of MiG-29K offer higher sortie rates considering rest of the conditions to be equal ?

The prob is command and control.

no point of having large payload and range if you don’t venture outside of your KA-31/ Cake Stand TACAN range.