I makes me laugh how you call it Russian junk, when Russia is the only Western nation besides Israel selling high tech military equipment to the PLAAF and the PLAAF is basicly based upon Russian junk as you called ,

And that is only because there is a formal embargo on China. Otherwise, China would be buying European weapons and China has asked European countries to lift that embargo.

But guess what, did the Chinese look to Russian engines for their ZTZ-99? No. The design of the engine was German. The engines for the 054A frigate is of French design.

Though basically the PLA will still copy/mimic whatever they think that actually works on the Russian side, like the Fregat, Orekh, and Bandstand radars. But note on the things they didn’t copy some of which surprises me, like the vaunted R-73 missile, the R-77, the R-27. Of all the Russian missiles the Chinese had access to, the one they felt worth copying was the Kh-31.

any way i know the Russians are involved in many Chinese programs and you might call it Russian Junk,

Actually, many within the PLA don’t have a high opinion on Russian material. For example, the comment that the Kilos are the “Su-27s of the PLAN’ were not meant as a complement.

Really where? You are lying through your teeth again.

http://www.salut.ru/index.php?lang=eng

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=444

“The value of the cooperation with China for “SALUT” is difficult for overestimating. I think, we are only at the beginning of this way. Having started to cooperate in military sphere, we gradually move aside civil sector. It is important to pass from model “the seller – the buyer” to partner relations where we shall develop, make and sell production together. Our productions is power, gas-pumping, waste-utilizating, water-desalinating and ozonating units, creation of engines of following generation for civil aircraft and many other things. On these directions we can cooperate with the Peoples Republic of China through joint development and manufacture. We should supplement each other, and forms of co-operation can be the most different and always mutually advantageous.”

Funny that it talks more about civilian uses and has ignored mentioned of military uses aside from the beginning (most likely on the overhaul of AL-31Fs).

I may not know Russian but the order of the machine translation is still clear. The interview is spoken after the AL-31FN is mentioned. You cannot deny the order of the statements no matter what dictionary you bring.

If your alleged partnership on the WS-10A is true, it would have been followed up by other articles in other magazines and media throughout the world from Janes to AFM to Asia Times to AW and AN, to Kanwa, China, HK and Taiwan media. This is one way we prove an article—THERE IS A FOLLOWUP confirmation from others. The article you cite is 2006, and a year and a half later, THERE IS NO FOLLOWUP on what you suggest.

The PL-11 is a dead project?

How does the J-8II have a BVR capability if it’s not an upgraded J-8F or H with the PL-12?

PL-11 is pretty much dead end project, but remains deployed. J-8D and upgraded J-8B has the capability to support the PL-11, so these planes still have a BVR SARH capability. J-8Bs that were not upgraded can only use the PL-8.

Su-27UBK does not have 12 weopon station nor it can lift 8 tons with maximum fuel and its fuel capacity is also less. There are considerable difference in Avionics also

So you’re really running out of answers huh? The UBK can actually lift 8 tons of fuel. Differences in avionics and two additional and rather minor hardpoints do not add up to 20% increase in weight unless Russian designers are that incompetent.

Just look at Phantom Radar and associated weight and its lift capacity. Load capacithy of Phatom is not only because of twin engine but beacuse of its structural strength.

Which also makes the plane more complex.

777 LR is not a economy plane. It has more range than 747.

Bull. The 747 range varies with the engines used and fuel capacity. Suffice to say, the 777 is not any longer ranged than the 747. Try to actually fly some airlines will you? Guess which aircraft has been dominating trans Pacific travel.

B-52 are much easier to build than MIG-21.

You have just lowered yourself to new lows of stupidity. Not withstanding you are forgetting that the B-52 is made to carry nuclear weapons.

how many countries can build Mach2 fighter and those how can build Mach 2 they can also build B-52 type slow moving plane provided funds are there except China where every thing is with external help.

What you judge a plane now because one is slow and the other is fast moving, irrespective of the load it carries.

You are really stretching here showing everyone the EXTENT of your SHEER STUPIDITY claiming that a two engined aircraft is less complex than a single engined aircraft by principle.

and for Superior Manufacturing u need Superior machinery and Superior Skills workers that cost alot.

And that is why Russia lacks a modern manufacturing infrastructure. It is because it is run by idiots like you.

It is not derived from hornet.

Really? Why does it still look like one, designated like one and named like one.

Just look at Composite materials alone. F414 is heavier engine than F404. if they were of same weight like 117S and AL-31 than we could say there is commonality.

Just because you use more composites and a different engine does not change its origin.

why u dont see those hundreds of Backfires built and BlackJack built? it is very difficult to put excellent small fighter. Development of cost of Single engine F-35 are much more than B-2.

What an idiot you are. Are you saying that the MiG-21 and F-16 is more difficult to make because of comparing to the sheer number of Backfires and Blackjacks built

LOL.

The more you talk the more you are showing your incredible stupidity.

The F-16s are built in the thousands alone. More than 3000 to 4000 in fact. The MiG-21 is built nearly 10,000.

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kraft/mig1.htm

more engines make the job easier but make it uneconomical for fuel.

Which is true, but it does not make the plane any simpler. You have to make more internal fuel storage and that makes the plane more complex.

These are not 2006 prices. these 1997 prices of UAE M2K-9. 30 ordered new and 30 upgraded. Now u are misrepresenting facts.

You are the one constantly misinterpreting the facts. Back up your claims please.

larger does not mean more expensive.

By far it usually is.

Read it 33 crashes of F-7 confirmed. 7 in less in than 2 years.
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/Pakistan.htm

So now it is seven in two years? And how many are due to bird strikes? India lost over 221 MiGs and has grounded its -Bis fleet a few times.

i highly doubt these figures. Infactory they will say anything to sell the product. Real life is different. and he was deducing Russian aircraft MTBO from Chinese factory. why he does not come now and support his claim.

And you are somewhat an authority? He is a military attache being given a VIP show around. The guys doing the show around probably is at the top. Chengdu has the original MiG-21F blue prints, formulas and specifications, spar by spar, bolt by bolt. You don’t think they know what the actual airframe life is for the real MiG-21?

It is flying not certification. U will have to eat ur words on this ARJ.

and Japanese discovered that knowledge by itself?

Certainly not with the Russians.

inflation and umemployment?

Funny that you keep lauding the Russian “economy” when it is rifed with corruption, unemployment, double digit inflation, lack of rule of law, and lack of modern manufacturing infrastructure.

In Cash? that Nuclear reactor that Chinese bought from GE and Russians are not on Cash. and ur talking about Civillian aeroplanes.

Lol. China bought its airliner aircraft and nuclear reactors all by cash. Americans do not take barter.

Snecma/Thales joined on risk sharing basis because they found Future in Russia. It is not like Russian were buying there engines and Avinics.This was not government run programe untill 2006. It is not like ARJ project which is collection of foreign parts and expertize with Government money.

Lol. Spinning and spinning. Of course, SNECMA is working to help develop the engines for the SSJ. Somehow the SSJ does not use foreign parts? Har har. Not with government money? Har har. Sukhoi is OWNED by the Russian government.

ARJ is surely underpowered. only 15000lbs thrust. No hope for future growth

Har har. EACH engine is capable of up to 18,000lbs of thrust, more powerful than the ones the SSJ uses and is a lot more proven.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cf34/cf34_20021104a.html

Press Release
Background Data: ACAC Selection Of GE’s CF34 Engine
November 4, 2002 — ZHUHAI, China – GE Aircraft Engines’ CF34-10 engine, currently undergoing ground tests in preparation for certification in 2003, has been selected as the powerplant for the China AVIC I Commercial Aircraft Co. Ltd (ACAC) ARJ21 regional jet.

The CF34-10A is part of GE’s best-selling CF34 engine family. Over the past decade, GE has invested more than $1 billion to develop the CF34-3, CF34-8, and CF34-10 engine models. Total CF34 orders currently stand at about 5,600 engines with about 1,400 in service worldwide. By bringing the comfort, speed and convenience of jet technology to regional aircraft, the CF34 has been a driving force behind the rapid expansion of the regional market worldwide. Today, regional jets are the fastest-growing commercial aircraft market segment in the industry.

ACAC is developing two ARJ21 models: a 79-passenger version that will enter service in 2007, and a 99-passenger version that will be certified later. The CF34-10A will be certified at up to 18,500 pounds to meet aircraft thrust requirements.

The ARJ21 is scheduled to enter passenger service in 2007. The CF34-10A is scheduled to be certified in 2005.

“We believe that the ARJ21 has tremendous market potential over the next 20 years, both in China and throughout the world,” said David Joyce, general manager of Small Commercial Engine Programs at GEAE. “And GE wants to be a part of this program–not just as an engine supplier, but as a strategic participant in the development of China’s commercial airliner industry.”

The CF34-10A combines the most advanced technology available today with nearly 500 million flight hours of experience gained on the entire GE product line, from the GE90, the world’s largest, most powerful engine, to the CF6 and CFM56, the best-selling, most reliable engines for 100-plus passenger aircraft. Key CF34-10A design features include: a wide-chord fan for higher thrust and high tolerance to foreign object damage; 3-D aerodynamic design airfoils in the high-pressure compressor, providing highly efficient, stall-free operation, as well as better fuel burn and higher exhaust gas temperature margins; a highly durable single annular, low-emissions combustor that meets or surpasses the most stringent emissions standards; and a single-stage high-pressure turbine for lower operating cost.

Maintainability has been an integral part of the design process, with access to line- replaceable units and engine servicing optimized through the use of a digital pre- assembly visualization tool.

CF34-10 benefits for the ARJ21 include:

-one engine with thrust capability to meet maximum passenger and payload requirements for the entire ARJ21 aircraft family;

-hot and high performance capability in Western China;

-an easily maintainable propulsion system;

-lower operating costs;

-lower maintenance costs; and

-GE’s world-class customer and product support.

GE completed assembly of the first CF34-10 engine in July 2002 and began ground testing in August. Overall, the CF34-10 engine will complete nearly 6,000 test cycles prior to certification in 2003. By the time the ARJ21 enters service in 2007, the engine will have logged half a million flight hours of in-service experience on the EMBRAER 190/195.

GEAE, a division of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), is the world’s leading manufacturer of jet engines for civil and military aircraft, including engines produced by CFM International, a 50/50 joint company of Snecma Moteurs of France and GE. GEAE also manufactures gas turbines, derived from its highly successful jet engine programs, for marine applications. In addition, GE Engine Services provides comprehensive maintenance support for GE and non-GE jet engines in service throughout the world. Visit GEAE online at: http://www.geae.com.

Yes, it will be called the United States Automated Force.

Keep cool, the is no way to argue with Star49. But in the 50s aviation technology jumped ahead in month intervalls similar computer-technology around early 90s. Four years in difference were a lot in those days.
In that splendid years, every month a new variant of an aircraft popped-up worldwide nearly.
Mach 2 is no yardstick, otherwise the J-10 runs into problems by your defenition.
I am still surprised to learn, that something like a hot heart can win over cold logic so easily, when it comes to something technical only.

Thanks.

Anyway, looking at other examples of licensing and indigenization similar to the J-11B.

US licensing and production of Harrier jets. Here at least the radar is changed, though the vital engine is probably too unique to be displaced with a substitute.

GB version of the Phantom. The original RAF Phantom was meant to have the Spey engine and a Ferranti radar. I think in the end, they got the Spey engine but the American radar still went on.

Looking at more recent Chinese precedents, I think what China is really after is the Z-9/Dauphine license. Seems to me China is pretty much free to build the Dauphine in any number and configuration it wants, ranging from PLAN ASW to PLA antitank variants. Whatever they agreed with Eurocopter, Eurocopter must have been paid handsomely—not only are they quiet about the issue, they are also marketing new engines for the Chinese Z-9s. Then again, look how Antonov is chumming up with the Chinese builder of Y-8s, and even working to improve on the Y-8s, which are unlicensed Antonovs.

Crobato

Let us do the translation correctly and simply and let us see what they say
Отвечая на вопрос китайского журналиста, как “Салют” планирует расширять сотрудничество с “Лимин” This means*: replying to the question of the CHINESE JOURNALIST if Salyut was planning to broaden the cooperation with Limin?

Here is again the sentence to sentence translation for everyone to read.

Shenyanskaya company Limin “has completed development and testing of the engine” Tayhan “fighter for” Super-10 “Shenyanskaya company CHZHUHAY, Nov. 2. (ARMS-TASS).

Shenyanskaya company Limin “has completed development and testing of the engine” Tayhan to light fighter “Super-10”, which creates a corporation “Avik-1. As reported in the press in the Air “Eyrshou China 2006” (AirShow China in 2006) by “Limin” Qiang Wei (pictured) “We turn to produce the” Tayhan. ”

The “Super-10” equipped with engines AL-31FN (References) production MMPP Salyut. This year, the company has completed a contract to supply China with 100 such engines.

Asked Chinese journalist as a “Salute” to broaden cooperation with “Limin” General Director of Moscow said that “we are working to improve the reliability and power, and the absolute interchangeability of the engine. We know that the start of the engine, usually with some difficulty, which may last for a long time. It is possible that during a period of “Super-10” will ship engines and Limin, and the “Salute.”

In addition, Thomas said, plans for increased cooperation and trade, not only with this engine. The two companies will also cooperate to create energy, refuse and desalination plants. “

Simply at some point, the article just stops talking about the Taihang and talks about the AL-31FN from the second paragraph on. So its not referring to the Taihang anymore, but the AL-31FN. Sorry I don’t agree with you that they’re talking about the Taihang beyond the first paragraph. Chinese reporter is questioning Salut manager and I doubt he is asking about the Taihang. That will be asking the Ford manager about a Chevy. Clearly the reporter is asking about the AL-31FN.

Even though the AL-31FN is not Liming, Liming is the one that will have to be in charge of overhauling the AL-31F in China. Thus the partnership is required.

Simply said, no one works with a potential competitor to help cut their throat.

Besides if Liming actually copied the AL-31F for the WS-10A, would Salut be screaming violation of patent? If indeed Salut is providing advisement for Liming, then it suggests WS-10A isn’t violating any AL-31F IPR.

The key words are this

“absolute interchangeability”

“It is possible that during a period of “Super-10” will ship engines and Limin, and the “Salute.”

The last sentence means that for a period of time J-10 production will actually have both engines being installed. That’s large production basis. This means China is looking for a quota of J-10s that can only be fulfilled having two engine suppliers simultaneously. This is similar to the F-16’s GE/Pratt and Whitney arrangement.

Crobato

Отвечая на вопрос китайского журналиста, как “Салют” планирует расширять сотрудничество с “Лимин”, генеральный директор московского предприятия заявил, что “мы работаем над повышением надежности и тяги, и над абсолютной взаимозаменяемостью этого двигателя. Мы знаем, что начало эксплуатации двигателя обычно связано с определенными трудностями, которые могут продлиться достаточно долго по времени. Поэтому не исключено, что в течение какого-то периода для “Супер-10” будут поставляться двигатели и “Лимин”, и “Салюта”.

they in fact even they talked to Qiang Wei who is General director of Limin, also they said Salyut is working with Limin they said in fact that Salyut and Limin are working to improve the reliability and power, and the absolute interchangeability of the engine. We know that in its early developement, the engine WS-10 TAYHAN, will have some difficulties, which may last for a long time. It is possible that during a period the “J-10” will use engines from both Limin, and “Salyut.”

This is what your articles said, under google translation.

OtChZhUHAY, Nov. 2. (ARMS-TASS). Shenyanskaya company Limin “has completed development and testing of the engine” Tayhan to light fighter “Super-10”, which creates a corporation “Avik-1. As reported in the press in the Air “Eyrshou China 2006” (AirShow China in 2006) by “Limin” Qiang Wei (pictured) “We turn to produce the” Tayhan. ” The “Super-10” equipped with engines AL-31FN (References) production MMPP Salyut. This year, the company has completed a contract to supply China with 100 such engines. Asked Chinese journalist as a “Salute” to broaden cooperation with “Limin” General Director of Moscow said that “we are working to improve the reliability and power, and the absolute interchangeability of the engine. We know that the start of the engine, usually with some difficulty, which may last for a long time. It is possible that during a period of “Super-10” will ship engines and Limin, and the “Salute.” In addition, Thomas said, plans for increased cooperation and trade, not only with this engine. The two companies will also cooperate to create energy, refuse and desalination plants.

After this translation, it appears to me you’re just a freaking dishonest liar. There is nothing there that says Salut is working with Liming on the Taihang engine. It only has the manager of Liming making a direct official announcement of the release of the Taihang engine during a Chinese air show and it makes no reference from him about Salut being involved. The involvement is added by the reporter to the general manager of Salut, and note it came after the AL-31FN is mentioned and thus it is not in reference to the Taihang. That means they are working to improve the performance and reliability of the AL-31FN, in cooperation with Liming, which may end up having to overhaul the AL-31FN in its facilities.

The text is discussing joint cooperation on the Super 10, so that some planes are powered by Salut engines, other by the Liming engines, and the interchangeability is trying to make both engines a little more compatible from the logistics standpoint.