@Roovialk again ! Any interest to discuss ot am I already on Your ignorer list ?

If you want to check out respected analysis on Chinese military affairs you would do good in looking at Dr. Andrew S. Erickson who specializes on the Chinese military. He is well respected in the world. Another person I hold in high regard is Peter Mathus of China Brief. He provides a structure deliberately designed to help you build a solid foundation for understanding the PLA and helping to develop a progressively more sophisticated perspective. These guys and others make a living watching China. They get paid for doing it. These sources will point you towards deeper understanding of what China is up to.

Yes, I also rate him high especially in his deeper understanding of the background, the internal structures … however he too is not always correct and – and You mention one very important point of concern – he is not really an independent researcher any more. Since he get paid for the things he concludes, he is dependent on the political “will” of those who finance his works.

As such always glad for a conversation and discussion …

Deino

😀

Uppps … not posted yet !??

Reportedly over Hama today … and later reportedly on arrival at Bassel al-Assad IAP/Hmemmem AB

Don’t raise your hopes on public statements. Every airplane maker has manufacturing constraints. And some will not sell to iran on time due to bigger customers in arabian

That’s indeed funny !

Who here in this forum raises all his hopes in regard to a possible Su-35 deal to China ONLY on public statements ???

Anyway You get me wrong: I’m not a member of the Airbus & Boeing-only family. I really wish the SSJ, the MS-21 and the C919 all the best (as well as Bombardier and Embraer) – and would even welcome a deal with the PLAAF for that formidable fighter (even if a few don’t think so I’m not really thin-skinned or hypersensitive, I’m only realistic) – but I wish especially the Russian media should take Your advice and keep on facts … instead of raising hopes based on public statements !

Deino

Can anyone finally ban that idiot !??

I have to say it on the record here, Deino, I respect you and you in-depth knowledge about China.. I really do.. But you’re slowly starting to lose it and your responses tend to become overprotective in nature, without any proven facts supporting it. The fact is that for general public, the J-11D stays a vanilla Flanker upgraded with latest systems because it is the easiest explanation, much simpler than an idea that it was somehow completely reworked structurally but no one can see that and no one has any data regd. this.. If new info / evidence about the J-11D being made of composites appears, then I will gladly change my mind. But somehow I can’t see what good would it serve spending so much effort reworking a 30-yr old design just to please few hard-core PLAAF maniacs..

A little bit of objective perspective would not hurt you, frankly speaking..

Thanks for Your kind words and You might be a bit correct … but why am I “overprotective” if there are indeed many reports that alone the J-11B has a much reduced weight in comparison to the standard Su-27SK/J-11A and given the fact that SAC now also produces the J-16 with the Su-30MKK’s tails containing fuel it is not that far off to assume that the D might incorporate a few more modifications too.

As such I might be indeed a bit overprotective … while a few others are too conservative in their assessment to think SAC still reproiduces a 20-old airframe without any changes.

The truth might be lay in the middle … as so often !

All the best,
Deino

Neither of that, actually. Structurally, the J-11D is … still a J-11.. which is still a basic Su-27. OTOH, the Su-27M was a thoroughly reworked Flanker (more range, more payload, better maneuvrability) while the Su-35S is what you get when you want to achieve the same, but already have TVC engines which negate the need for canards and enable you to save few hundred kgs. That means the J-11D is behind either Su-27M or Su-35S.

So much for the structure. Regd. the avionics, the situation is different. With alleged AESA {or PESA, who knows), wide-angle frameless HUD, loads of LCDs and all-digital computer suite, the J-11D leaves the old Su-27M behind and approaches the Su-35S. But {there is still a but}, it only flies in a single prototype thus far and it might take years to get it into service..

That would greatly depend on what weapons would be used. J-11D shall use indigenous ordnance which could evtl. be shared with JF-17 (at least some, that is..).. But as already said, the export of any J-11s is a big no… 🙂

Indeed interesting from where You have that knowledge that the J-11D is still a J-11 ad as such still a basic Su-27 !

Even the J-11B uses many different parts like composits in comparison to a vanilla Flanker and reportedly the J-11D has an even more modified airframe.
If this includes “more range, more payload, better manoeuvrability” … I don’t know, but I’m really surprised that again without knowing anything about the D-model other than two blurry images You come to such “facts” !

In the end however – like You also noted – China will never export any Flanker version to Pakistan, and esp. not the J-11D. As such the whole discussion is – typically like so many treads here – as useful as “What would Laos do if they get hand on a Klingon Bird of Prey ?!”

Deino