Whoever made the wikipedia entry states detection ranges of 125km. But this is probably RWS or some extended range mode. Detection and tracking ranges do differ based on the range, and on the lookup/lookdown position of the plane.

What I am sure is that the second revision of the aircraft has a larger radar than the previous. They have nicely put enough space behind the radome for all sorts of components and ventilation. That gives the radar section good room for growth.

I feel the avionics suite between the J-10 and the JF-17 about the same, adjusted for export reasons. The JF-17 probably has more up to date stuff, only because it was a later plane. Later batches of the J-10 should catch up on the difference, especially on the cockpit.

Against the Su-30MK, the most immediate concern I would have is the plane’s TVC. Maneuverable as the JF-17 may be, something with TVC is most dangerous to face. Weapons load and radar isn’t that big of a concern. You can only carry so much while keeping your performance, and it takes only one missile to bring a plane down. A radar can be neutralized in some margin by EW, tactics, and RCS reduction measures. However, against a TVC equipped Su-30, having a J-10 or a Block 52 F-16 probably isn’t going to improve your chances a lot, although I think the J-10 is probably the more maneuverable of the three (F-16, JF-17 and J-10.)

The JH-7A carries pods through points along the fuselage. There are two points ahead of the centerline, similar to the J-10’s. Probably in two in the rear too. Thus it can carry two pods in the fuselage while carrying a tank in the centerline and bombs in the wings. The JH-7A can also carry the 6 250kg MER on the center and inner points of the wing.

The PLAAF also has dual rack rocket pods. I’ve seen them on Su-27s and Su-30MKKs, though I have not seen them on J-8IIs. Seeing ground ordinance on J-8IIs is rare since ground missions is not their primary purpose. Nonetheless, PLAAF has a basic requirement that every pilot and plane should be capable of ground attack when called for. I don’t see no reason why the dual rocket pods cannot be fitted.

I noticed that many military cargo aircraft like the C-5, C141 and even the Russian Antonov’s have their wings attached to the upper fuselage while modern passenger jets have their wings positioned at the bottom. Why the difference? What are the merits/demerits of both wing locations?

High wing gives better lateral stability than low wing. That’s why fighters use low or mid wings, less lateral stability. But for civil liners they increase lateral stability by dihedraling the wing, making it point up from the wing tips. If the wing tips is lower than the wing root, the wing is dihedral. Many upgraded civil liners go further by bending the wing tips up to increase stability further.

I think there is nothing wrong for using a high wing layout for a civil airliner. Its just that people are already used to the idea of a low or midwing passenger jet, and it does not pay to look different from all the rest, especially to people who don’t know much about aircraft design. People feel safe with familiarity so there is no need to rock the boat.

Абсолютного превосходства Китай достиг в классе тяжелых истребителей и истребителей-бомбардировщиков: у него теперь есть почти три сотни J-11 и J-12 (Су-27 и Су-30).

man use the logic the Russians are claiming a number in the region of 280 aircraft they say close to 300, of course you like especulations and specially those ones that make you fantasize the most, but the Russians calculate a realistic number because they were in the factories helping the Chinese building the Su-27s and they delivered and trained their pilots;)

Russia is aware of how many Su-27s china built and in fact they know a lot of the PLAAF because they are helping them to build their aircraft and are involved in their programs

Like I said before, they know what the Chnese are doing, and they have not opposed it publicly. That means they have made their peace long ago on this issue, and probably gotten a good offset for it already along with a new agreement. Like in any marriage, they were given the chance to object and its all behind them now. Issue is dead for both parties concerned.

Simply said, the old agreement no longer holds, by any means.

I gona tell you something you probably do not understand, for Russia and Sukhoi in 2006 they wanted to offer a Su-35 type for china as the base of a J-11B, the J-11B is a Sukhoi, not a Chinese design, in fact if China is very capable designing aircraft why not build their own heavy weight fighter? why they use a Su-27 airframe? you are just cheating your logic and your self, there is not such think as J-11, there is only the Su-27SK build in China as the J-11 under the Chinese designation.

But that is exactly what a license is. You obtain the rights to use that design. And what makes you think that a license is one that has a limited number of items?

Check the licensing agreements with every product you see, the vast majority do not have quantity limits.

Remember the Intel CPU wars? Supposedly only Intel chips are the ones that can run Intel instructions. Intel licensed the design to a number of companies, because of DOD requirements, that parts must have multiple vendors, so not to be reliant on a single supply. So Intel licensed to AMD, NEC, etc,.

But when Intel refused to license future generations of processor to anyone, these licensees went on to reverse engineer their own software compatible processors, e.g. Cyrix, NEC V series, AMD K series, and today the AMD Athlon. While they can execute Intel instructions, the design underneath is very different. Last true Intel licensed design for AMD was the AMD 486.

Same thing around the world. It is proven in court that you cannot license a product by its “look”, just like the Visicalc-Lotus-Excel spreadsheet wars, or Apple suing Microsoft for its Windows. You can copyright and license a trademark, and cartoon characters can be copyrighted and licensed as such.

But when it comes to technology, you cannot license something by its looks alone and you cannot sue someone because something they created looks very much like your own. You can only patent the structures and the parts that constructively lead to such a design, but never the design itself overall.

For china supporting Chengdu and the J-10 is better, and they have done it.

Chengdu is a seperate company and has its own plans. The twin engined big “J-10” as far as we know, appears to be private project in competition with the Shenyang J-11B, which is government and PLA sanctioned.

In fact the designation J-11B can be explained as simple as the MiG-29SMT or MiG-23MLD, this are designation for upgraded aircraft and despite they have a new designation they were not new aircraft but modified ones.

Wrong. The J-11B is a new plane. Maybe you should check the Jane’s article. Even if there is an upgrade program, the Chinese do not use “B” to represent such upgrades. In fact, PLAAF appears to keep seperate designations for brand new aircraft and upgraded aircraft. if the PLAAF upgrades existing J-11s to the same electronics standard as the J-11B, these J-11s will get a different designation (and no doubt will retain their engines, a reason Salut knows well which is why they are actively marketing their engine upgrades).

BINGO! Too many ignorant people don’t realize this. They always point to the F-15s advantage in thrust, acceleration, etc. But the F-18E/F has the advantage in everything you said, and that makes all the difference in the world. Sensors, radar, avionics, cockpit design is all better in the Super Bug.

Despite all that, good old fashioned running away is the best defense there is.

One thing that doesn’t seem to be mentioned/suggested in these threads.
What of the possible roles of Belorussia and Ukraine supplying Flanker components for maintenance of vanila Su-27SKs and possibly in part of the Chinese’s own upgrade package of their Flankers. Kanwa has reported before that there is quite a bit of purchases by the PRC from these 2 countries.

These are mostly involved in the training and participation of the Su-27 logistics, maintenance, and overhaul. China also bought a lot of surplus R-73s and R-27s from the Ukraine. It is possible they also bought parts for the Su-27s (I wonder if China bought used Su-27s for cannibalization). Ukraine also appears involved in naval development projects.

Crobato

Russian Sources and even western books do not claim what you are claiming, any aircraft manufacture needs to make money or die for sukhoi a batch of 30 or 40 J-11Bs represents huge losses, same for Lyulka, as huitong claims and Boris Aleshin says, cooperation and respect of the license are realities for both Russia and China in the J-11B program.

Russian and Western sources have often failed in documenting Chinese events with outright and often embarrasing mistakes, so I do not regard them as valid with regards to Chinese related news.

There is nothing about Boris Aleshin saying about the J-11B, just a hope they can participate in it.

It’s clear they got nothing to do with it. If the Russians were involved in any Chinese project they are the first to market such news around the world.

What you are trying to imply is Shengyang has built J-11Bs without the consent of Sukhoi, the J-11 is not a Chinese design, it is a Su-27, China does not posses the right to build more than what it is stipulated and allowed by the contract and that means only when money is paid.

The J-11Bs are most likely done with Sukhoi’s knowledge or knowing its existance, but not tacitly with its consent. Its just that I don’t think Sukhoi can do something about it, and Sukhoi may have gotten some sort of offset in return.

Sorry but it does not appear there is any stipulation that limits the number of domestically built Su-27s in China. The facts are saying so. Introducing as many as 3 possible new models (J-11B, J-11BS, and J-11C/H) do not indicate they are being limited to another 80 or so planes.

Just on the FC-1 alone it would take 400 planes alone to break even that program. Like the J-10, the potential numbers for the J-11B and its variants are in the hundreds.

If China did not sign a further contract when they halted the deliveries of kits saying we do not want more Su-27 this also means they can not build Su-27 by their own without Sukhoi`s and Russia`s consent

And what makes you think they don’t have Sukhoi’s and Russia’s “quiet” consent? Huh?

You think the Russians don’t know about it since 2001? The PLAAF journals first described the plane in December of 2003. I already told you that even in 2004, Phazotron already knew there are two Chinese institutes designing radars for that thing. Also in all during the time period, the Y-8 test bed flying the Flanker style nose has been busy testing the radar, with public photos of such.

Do you understand how legal processes work? How marriages work?

During the time of the marriage, you are allowed to say your objections. Failing to say so during the moment, you will hold your peace forever.

The Su-27Sk/J-11 is a USD $30-$35 million product, a batch of 30 is close to a billion dollar enterprise, grasp it Crobato the Russians are not stupid to let China build them, and China has not build them China has kept its word, China is modifying not building, if not the Russian press already would had reported.

And how will the Russians stop the Chinese eh? As much luck as they stopped the 2A46M style 125mm carousel autoloading tank guns? As much luck as they stopped the Kh-31, Orekh, Fregat, Bandstand, and Shtil copies? Guess who is marketing a Kashtan copy now, eh? As much luck as they stopped China making their own A-50s? Lol, Russia was willing to sell China more IL-76s even after they knew the Chinese were making their A-50 versions out of them.

There is no evidence as you claim in fact Russia forced China to buy Su-30MKKs because they did not allow them to build them, it was cheaper for China buy them than build them that forced China to limit the J-11 assembly to only 110 aircraft;)

BS. The Su-30MKK is not part of the 200 plane limit, which apparently does not exist. Russian and Western media has not mentioned that “limit” for years now, indicating the old reports are not as accurate as it seems. Newer news override old ones, and the plain solid facts override all.

Get a grip. The Chinese have literally built numbers of a reverse engineered Su-27, and with big plans for it to build not just lots more, but in different versions. How Sukhoi is involved is a mystery. If they are, they are not going to tell reporters about it under Chinese request. None of the improvements in the J-11B are in alignment with other improve Flanker projects, which does not indicate Sukhoi participation.