Come and think of it: the FC-1 was developed via the Super-7, the latter being admitted to be a pretty radical further development of the J-7/MiG-21. Couldn’t this FTC-2000 be a twin-seat development of the ‘original’ S-7 design, whereas the current FC-1 design has matured beyond that, discarding most (or all) of it’s Fishbed-heritage down the way?

That could explain why the FTC-2000 was developed in such a relatively short time by a factory which was already engaged in two high-priority projects (the J-10 and FC-1).

Sorry for the theory, but let’s wait for it to be proven wrong.

The rear 3/4 fuselage, the landing gear and the horizontal and vertical tailfins are definately the same as those on the MiG-21/J-7, and the nose is of course that of the FC-1. What i find interesting is that they did not take the cranked wing of the J-7E, but have developed yet another double-delta to fit on the airframe. If they were going to make a Frankenstein-design anyway, why not just take an existant wing as well?

To overcome a shortage in tankers, i presume? 😉

I can’t really blame you. But look at it from the bright side: these threads now have more replies than views!

Gamma-mutated tulips. You have forgotten what we are talking about already?

Ah, the decadent lifestyle on Albion! Better hope the jealous French don’t find out.

Figure driver is more like it.