I’m surprised with all of the modernizations to the main wing they didn’t opt to change the inlets to a series closer to the wing roots, something akin to the F-105. The nose of the aircraft was already cramped, and to change to side body-mounted inlets would of alleviated some of the space problems.

That’s what they already did for the JL-9 aka FTC-2000 trainer. Other proposals included F-7MF (intake underneath) and the J-7FS (Crusader like nose).

I think the J-7 series is already on its last legs and the development budget is at a shoestring to make any more big changes (like adding a larger radar that can use the PL-12).

don’t know but isn’t there an error here? If you look at first division 3rd regiment should it not read 13x2x?

Its a typo really.

Thanks for the explanation. It sure can be complicated unless you know how it is done.

True. Also making somethings more complicated is that some regiments or divisions also break rules once in a while.

Currently the PLAAF revised its numbering system as of mid 2005 so these no longer apply. In a way, its also good, since it makes it easier to vintage-time the picture if its recent or old.

That is nonsense and you know that. To beef-up the structure of a fighter and replace certain parts will not make something new really.
China tried to learn to built a fighter like the Flanker in a similar way like India or some other examples. There is nothing wrong about that and it is a smart way.
Israel bought the refined Mirage 5 (Mirage IIIE) and transformed it in the Kfirs.
Israel beefed-up their F-15s to F-15E level (Baaz) and none claimed, that this does made it an indigenous fighter in total. The result and performance gains may justify that claim to some to degree, but in the end it is still the basic F-15. The F-4-2000 is another example. If the J-11B comes close to the canceled Su-27MF from the early 90s is open for discussion.
The H-7, J-8, J-10 and FC-1 are much more indeginous by that.
Something like the “Rafale” will be a future indeginous Chinese fighter. All parts designed and built in China.

Not specifically true.

There is only a minority of commonality between the F-16 and the Japanese F-2. There is only a minority of commonality between the Hornet and the Super Hornet. By minority, that is less than 50% commonality. In actuality, these examples are only 20 to 30%.

In the Chinese J-8I and J-8II, the commonality is only 30%.

The changes between the F-16A and the F-16C is truly serious enough to create a humongous weight gap between the two.

If I take a plane with a 4000 flight hour life and extend it to 6000 flight hours. You probably can do that with modifications on the same airframe design. If I take an airframe with 2000 flight hour life and move that to 6000 flight hours, there is going to be a lot more serious improvements underneath. Up to 8000 hours, really even more serious changes. There should be a threshold or a boundary where you simply cannot take the original airframe past this line and still call it mostly original.

From 2000 flight hours to 10,000 flight hours? That is a lot of changes (5X) and I mean calling it changes would be a euphemism.

You need to find an example where there is a comparable caliber or value in changes.

These change are multiplied by various factors:

New Engine—the WS-10A appears to be slightly heavier and a wider diameter.

Differing materials used—composite substitution, different metallurgical sciences and alloys resulting in a net loss of weight of 700kg.

All these factors add with the lifetime requirements will result in fundamental cascading changes throughout the plane’s structure.

True you will still call this plane rightfully an Su-27 by its mere appearance. Underneath its something very different.

[oh and please remember, the US allowed the Japanese to make the F-2 a superior F-16. The Russians because of their paranoia to the Chinese would not have allowed the Chinese in spirit to make a better Su-27 than what they have, even their upgraded ones.]

According to Crobato
you take 14045 where the 14 means division number after you minus 11. 14-11=3 so you get 3rd division.
14045 means 4th Regiment
1445 is the unit number

Come to think of it I was suffering major jet lag brain fart.

4th Regiment can only belong to the 2nd Division, not the 3rd, since the outline of the regiments go like this.

1st Division (1xx2x)
1st Regiment (11x2x)
2nd Regiment (12x2x)
3rd Regiment (13x3x)

2nd Division (1xx3x)
4th Regiment (14x3x)
5th Regiment (15x3x)
6th Regiment (16x3x)

3rd Division (1xx4x)
7th Regiment (17x4x)
8th Regiment (18x4x)
9th Regiment (19x4x)

more or less you get the picture.

Thus 14045 is an impossible number. It should be 14035 or 17045.

Do the Russian sources differ carefully between AL-31F and FN for the use in Flankers and J-10s?!
Thank you to Crobato for the answer about Chinese numbers.

Russian sources never fully declared the number of AL-31Fs delivered in China. The only documentable declaration was the last order of 180 AL-31Fs, but never declared in public what all the previous orders were, or how many were attached to the kits. The 180 engines seem to fit well as spare engines considering the size of China’s Flanker fleet.

They don’t however mix AL-31F and AL-31FN numbers. The AL-31F orders were a combination of Salut and UMPO deliveries while the AL-31FN were completely Salut’s.

Please disregard Flogger and his vague and outdated sources (never anything in 2007). I cannot care less what his “sources” declare—the absolute evidence is what is photographically and observably verifiable. Actual planes speak louder than words.

If you take what is claimed to be declared in paper, vs. what is actually out there, the results do not match. Remember the seventh regiment is confirmed operational in May of 2005, not 2006. This dichotomy between declarations in paper vs. the observed evidence is one of the mysteries of this coproduction agreement which is not easy to concile (been thinking on this for years now). Between paper vs. evidence, evidence has superior weight.

The bottom line, is that as of the middile of 2005, there are seven confirmed Su-27/J-11 regiments in operational status, not counting the Su-30 regiments which are seperate. We know what these units are, their regiment and division numbers, a good estimation of their unit size and basically their jurisdictions and locations.

It looks quite different from the Chinese version of the jet powered Styx, called the C-301 code name Kraken. The Kraken has its intake underneath, and does not claim supersonic speed.

Well, judging by the various pics, it’s like this:

centerline pylon has been seen with 1.400 liter tank, which should be over 1.2 tons. Some claim they’ve seen pics with 6 250 kg cluster bombs on centerline pylon as well. So that’s over 1.5 tons. Like Crobato said, innermost pylon has been seen with 6 250 kg bombs, though the middle plyon i’ve seen with only 4 250 kg bombs, not 6. Outer pylon has been seen with 250 kg bomb, and wingtip one, like is said, can hold at least small AAMs. All in all, 7 tons seems like the very least it can carry, with 7.5 tons being likely as well. What would be interesting to know is internal fuel…

The diagrams I;ve seen has inner and center pylons with the 6 bomb MER. I don’t know if the outerpylon can carry a 250kg bomb. Maybe it could since it can carry a tank there but it may not be wired or designated for it.