Wonderful pics…reminds me of the Su-27 prototypes flying with the AL-21 engines before the AL-31F come out. But that does not mean diddly squat as far as this MTOW discussion is concerned: rememeber we are talking about PLAAF sound bites on the MKK (I have seen the propaganda pics).

Blah blah blah. It means a lot to show that the PLAAF walks their talk.

I can show you pics of the Su-30 MOCK UP with Brahmos that does not mean much to this debate. I can show you RVV-AE on the MKI during the induction but you can show me the Kh-59 (?) being test fired. Does that prove that the MKI does have AGM and the MKK does not have AAM???

Nothing wrong with the Su-30 mockup with the Brahmos. No one is arguing that the IAF/IN has plans to integrate Brahmos later on with the Su-30.

The MKK has AAM—hehe—because we got pic of the ACTUAL plane being DISPLAYED WITH REAL R-77s. You want to see the pic too? And in the same PIC, you also have Kh-29Ts, Kh-59MEs, KAB-1500KRs, and all sorts of other weapons.

And we know the MKK has R-77s because Jane’s also reported the first delivery sometime in the year 2000 (about 100 pcs). The US has reported the Chinese making tests with the missile, and the Chinese themselves have announced results of such tests (4 out of 5 tries—one missile failed to fire. Managed to hit a pursuit target at 41km—right on spec.) The US KNOWS China has R-77s enough to justify the transfer of AMRAAMs to Taiwan in October 2003. The US will not transfer AMRAAMs to Taiwan (only stock it in a nearby US base) unless it is assured that the other side has the R-77s in order to preserve the balance of power.

Jai’s reference is from AI03 in NewIndia press (Feb 2003) and Harry’s from Hindu is from Dec 2003. And then you wonder why I have to equate you to Yahoo25. So only Indians seem to have the problem re-quoting similar #.

No. Both are quoting the same article and the same event. One is just echoing or copying from the other.

I remember Indians going around describing their MiG-29 radar as “N-109”—quoting it like the Holy Bible when it was clear that Jane’s typoed on an article.

And since you seem to have ALL the evidence please enlighten us about the semantic difference between MAX TOW and LIMIT TOW. This is the thrid time I asking you the question. Please try and answer it this time before you go about dissing the Chief of the IAF again.

You’re the one getting anal on this. The LIMIT TOW is like an emergency TOW load. It is generally not used in peacetime and routine exercises, but it will have that capability when it is called for.

Crobato:

You are turning out to be a more refined version of Yahoo25. You were talking about Orbat of ‘chinese flankers’ which now you insist relates to J-11 and not the MKK and yet I have yet to see pics or quotes from PLAAF sources talking about either. Most of the talking seems to be from Kanwa, CDF (you) and SinoDef which is all well hearsay.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing fantasy and reality.

FACT OKAY. We have posted a picture of a J-11 with engine nozzles quite different from the standard AL-31F. PLAAF generally likes to hide things sometimes, so the SERIES of pics (posted here before in this forum, and in the CDF, ACIG and Stormpages) are either leaks or semi-official (deliberate leaks) like the J-10 pics.

That item has also been announced in Zhuhai airshow and the event of its first flight has been posted in Chinese defense news, websites and in KANWA as well. The plane with the WS-10A engine took first flight in June 2002. The new J-11B (with Chinese avionics and engine) prototype took flight in December 2003.

FACT OKAY. The Su-27 mockup in Shenyang AC corporate office has PL-12s, Kh-31s, new generation PLAAF AAMs and PGMs. I’ve shown a PIC here.

I do agree that a pattern has to be repeatable. Harry and Jai showed to different reference which talk about the MKI being 38 and 39T machine respectively. You are also insinuating that the ACM of the IAF is lying (yeah I can see how that would be the case since we hear so much from the PLAAF about their a/c).

No Harry and Jai did not. They showed the same line item.

I am insinuating that the ACM can honestly be mistaken or he is can be misquoted or mispoken,.

Pics however, ARE NOT MISPOKEN or MISQUOTED just as easily.;

You insist that I am indulging in semantics but yet you seem to have a problem explaining the sematic differences between the FACTORY DOCUMENTED terms of LIMIT MTOW and MTOW in terms of take off weight of the MKK.

You are the one with major problem ACCEPTING the truth.

The 38.8MT did not come out accident. It was a spec by design and requirement as it was clearly and specific to the MKK only.

Crobato:
Dont you think its kinda ironic that you are vehemently defending the capeablities of an a/c that as you claim ‘no western media has access to’ using whats written about it. Its even more ironic that when the chief of a contemporary AF is quoted about a similar a/c you think its a quip or typo.

No I don’t find it ironic. I find it a continuation of your wishful thinking and failure to comprehend the differences.

You failed to comprehend the difference of the J-11 and the Su-30MKK. The J-11 is SOMETHING THAT WESTERN MEDIA HAS NO ACCESS TO. The MKK is quite WELL DOCUMENTED in comparison. What the difference? The J-11 is an indigenized machine. The MKK is not. What the Chinese do to their Flankers is something the Western media has no access to unless told otherwise.

MTOW in itself not a big deal, but the portent of the MTOW being 38T is max to/fuel, which should hint at other aspects of the said airframe including empty weight and structural compostion of the a/c and the mysterious ‘actual thrust’ of the AL-31FP which we all know is only 12,500kg as IAPO, Lyulka and rest of the jingbang says so. Or are supposed to say so….

Oh, more wishful thinking in your part. IAPO, Lyulka, Rossoboronexport (The Russian Goverment agency in charge of this) all says 12,500kg. So you’re better than the Russians and the factories that both make and use the product first hand?

There is nothing mysterious about it. It is your wishful thinking that wants to project something else.

But if i really wanted to fincky about semantics I would still argue based on the Ken’s brouchure posting that the MKK is listed at 34T max and 38.8T limit and unless someone can emphatically state the difference between MAX and LIMIT its a marketing gimmic which seems to be pretty close to what the chief of IAF has stated in a newsbrief.

Nonsense. Bottomline, you are the one engaging in semantics. Bottomline, there is NO FACTORY/DOCUMENTED/VERIFIABLE proof of your claim but a quip. The quip is worth a doubt and an investigation to verify—nothing more. But it does not constitute of a possible proof to itself. Like things that must be proven, evidence is a repeated, continious, and consistent process. It does not end with “one” tidbit—you need a consistent, repeated pattern of supporting evidence.

To answer an older question, I have no idea how good the JH-7A’s sensors (not the original JH-7) was, but at the very least, the JH-7A’s RWR is discriminatory enough to provide support for SEAD/DEAD missions via Kh-31P/YJ-91 missile.

Umm the russian version of the Fomin book came out in 1999. The english version of the same came out in 2000. Now I am sure if you had read the book you would realize that book does not seem to provide any factual data (testing, production, design, etc…) beyond 1998-99 (you can infer this by reading about events like MAKS and how he states that Su-35UB is to be flight tested in 2000 etc). If you could show me anything that indicates to the contrary, I would be happy to correct my opinion.

Formin’s book is updated regularly. Have you heard of editions? Much of the info on the Su-30MKK wasn’t even available on the year 2000. Do you know that? KnAAPO first published the actual MTOW of the MKK (38.8MT) around the 2001. For Formin’s book to reflect that piece of data, the edition of that book has be around 2002 and later.

The first production std MKI was delivered in fall of 2002. The first reference to it being 38T comes out in December 2003, the first private admission to “max payload/fuel load” comes a few weeks later. For that matter I cant find any reference to the composites being used on the MKI either, but you have been rather enthusiastic about MKK’s composite wing that Fomin mentions. Yet if you read newsreports emanating from India about HAL providing $30 million worth of ‘sub-assemblies’ like canards, stablizers and fins made of composites for the MKM contract you cant help infer what the MKI ‘program’ can do.

It’s still wishful thinking because that is not an actual reference but it seems to be like a typo, misspelling or misquote on your MKI weight figure. Composite wing or no composite wing that is not evidence to support a 38.8mt MTOW.

Also let me clarify, I am arguing that MKI has max payload/fuel load capeablity, now this can be done with MTOW of 34.4 T as you would like or 38 T if the ACM is correct (if the a/c can take off with 38T then it better have max fuel/payload given that most of the weight is due to structural reinforcements 😉 to allow for that, or its made of lead). But I can see how we should be trusting your views over the ACM’s statements.

My views? My views are the same as Sukhoi’s, Formin’s and not the least, Irkut’s views.

It must be said that the news coverage on China’s Flanker programs are often muddled and contradictory. Up to now there is actually no Chinese official acknowledgment of the actual numbers purchased from each order. One should be reminded to keep an open mind, as new events or disclosures might reveal truths about China’s Flanker program that may even overturn previous accepted ideas. Sources like Kanwa, Jane’s, Richard Fisher, JED online, Flight International, AFM, Aviation Week, may be fairly reliable but even these are not perfect.

So you like to quote me now? MTOWs are hardly classified material. They’re are often publicized because they are not considered sensitive.

ORBATs however, are sensitive. Western media HAVE NO ACCESS to the PLAAF orbat without going through publicized material. They cannot interview PLAAF officials asking about the orbats of the Chinese Flankers, and PLAAF officials are not going to entertain them. That’s why people like Jane’s are going to be in the dark unless they have people following Chinese aerospace news, which does not give them superior access over internet fans who have the same access.

Western media, authors like Formin, reporters like Pibu, can INTERVIEW Sukhoi, KnAAPO, and Irkut officials directly. They can pick up brochures and obtain all sorts of means to VERIFY information.

Not the same thing.

If F-15s would lose to MiGs and basic Su-30s (not enhanced Su-30MKs) in BVR, you’re in serious trouble. Exercises have both a BVR and a WVR element.

Against the French in another exercise, the Indians actually did better in WVR, but the French had the advantage in BVR (Mirage 2000-5s).

There is no DF-41 designation now, as far as I have discovered. Likely to be a DF-31A, which is apprently the modified longer range version of the standard DF-31.

China notified Russia of the test launchings of DF-31, DF-41 and JL-2 recently.

Nose and radome is rather small for a full combat fighter. It will only hold a small radar. I guess it has to be the L-15.