pot calling the kettle black.

Of course there is a difference between plans to make something work and actually making something work- the Chinese knew that so decided that copying an existing design was the easier way out..nothing to be crowing about and I don’t see any need for you to be boasting about that or to try and poke fun at other’s efforts, especially when those designs are based on their own effort, rather than tinkering around with known solutions.

always wanted to get in the last word in don’t ya 😉

and always going for that moral superority angle.

actually if we want to talk about “those designs are based on their own effort”…
I actually know quite a few guys who worked on LCA as consultants.
needless to say the whole schpew about “own efforts” only live in ardent nationalist like you.

hehe.

whatever that may be, your original post implied that IN was interested in just an off-the-shelf fighter rather than building one of its own which is what PLAAF wanted to do. Which obviously is not the case. India is doing the entire naval fighter program on its own without just modifying an existing design with some new structures and avionics. I don’t care what you say about it, because I know you are biased and that won’t change. But the facts don’t back you up.

I think biased is one you are.

There is a difference between plan to make something work to actually make something work, on target, on time, on performance.

It’s not like China can’t chew gum and walk at same time.

if we want to talk about programs in R&D stage than the new round of 5th gen programs would put a stealth fighter in size of JSF onto a chinese carrier.

Like the PLAN had a choice between the MiG-29K and the Su-33. They didn’t. They nabbed a Su-33 from Ukraine, and thats it. Not like they had comparative trials or anything.

Uh….

They did actually.

Chengdu offered an Navalized verison of J-10 and some thingelse.

PLAN went to the route with which schedule risks are minimized.

@blackarcher.

all this moral superiority crap about indigenious solution not withstanding.
The above tidbit shows it’s not like Chinese aviation industry doesn’t have the capability.

So disprove me, in the context of the Kuznetsov.

just go look at the range equation.

if all things are the same, including the fuel fraction, Bigger aircraft has bigger range.

Regarding the range issue, the MIG-29K can use the extra aircraft possible (given smaller footprint) to bring inflight refueling into the game (like we saw in recent pics of the MiG-29K and MIG-35 in testing).

With that in mind, it can achieve greater range than the Su-33 operationally can, especially with a large payload.

Given than the Ru Navy will operate both types, we will see soon which is the “superior” airframe for operations on a Kuznetsov sized carrier (not to even speak of the Gorshkov). My bet is on the MiG-29K.

oh the old bucket brigade argument again.

look, if that’s saves fuel then USAF would have brought strategic bombers with little or no fuel tanks.

Thats the point. Somebody serious would need more than just pictures to jump to conclusions or better still make reliable estimates. And I presume it was apron, not “porna”. Big difference between the two & I got thrown for a second.
.

Like AVIC chairman’s remarks? official media reports? that Mr. Pinko showed you? oh those are in chinese so they must not be true.
Oh those are suspect because he said work is “on going”.
(hell, work is still on going on F110 program so what does that mean? )

And yes, you did not mis-read, I said porn, airplane porn to be exact. the steady diet of glossy detailed airplane photo galore, machine of beauty and death in their most intimate moments, that clueless amatures like you have been devoured.

Porn porn porn porn porn.

some one said it right,
the signal to noise ratio on your posts are very very low.

rest of your posts do not deserve my time, my denigration and insults serves a purpose, to shock and awe people out of their self-inflicted tunnel-vision.
but those are reserved for the hopefuls, which does not include you.

(oh, p.s. try to imagine an stiff englishman making those above remarks, it might go down a bit better).

Hate to point this out, but when that article was written there were no F/A-18E/Fs in service. Further, the authors of the piece are well known proponents of the F-14 who were not personally involved in any of those operations (Kress was the engineering manager for Grumman on the F-14, Gilchrist was an admiral who retired in 1985 and was a paid spokesman and lobbyist for Grumman).

I have no doubt that the F-14D can outrange the F/A-18E/F on strike missions, but the numbers quoted in that piece are pure invention.

2002 SH was in service. may not be in Afghanistan by that time. but F-14D was certainly was.

yeah I know Gilchrist and Kress may have motives to be biased. but they made their point and even you concede that F-14D outranges the F/A-18E/F.

wasn’t RAF VC-10s employed as refuelers for USN became some what of a critical asset for USN launching strikes into Afghanistan from carriers in arabian sea?