Oh, oh,

Tens of thousands of Chinese working in US R & D, so u call the results from them non american?

If they have consumed US education and R&D than there results are American. China is a consumer of knowledge not a producer of knowledge.

50 million fly away is a lot cheaper than 130m.

and that 130m is based on 183 aircraft it is not based on 3000 aircraft.

None of them bought a fighter of a new generation. Rather, an update of an old one.

and that updated is even better than what J-10 represents. Su-30MKA is in different class.

The problem is that you cannot turn large bombers fast enough. Response time is essential. By the time your air support gets there, the troops you are supposed to support are either dead, or the target has disappeared and moved on.

and the problem is that those who have these bombers also have Iskander-M (IIR warhead 2m), Tocka, Smerch. they can pulverize any arm formation at standoff distances. and have the airlift capacity to the battlefield. bombers are for destroying hardened structures like droping FAB-3000 bombs.

Large bombers are only good for fixed site infrastructure destruction. They are poor against mobile surface targets, including what by definition is your land army.

thats why u have multirole Su-24/Su-34/Su-27SM. One Su-34 can simultaneously engage 10 ground targets.

Seems to me you are the only person (and nutjob) who thinks large bombers are not high maintenance.

where i said this that they are not high mainatainance relative to J-7.

Sorry but even the pros in the USAF still rely on the most proven and simple solutions to get the job done. Why do it with a B-2 when you can do it in an F-16 at bases much closer, much faster, lower the cost? The response time of an F-16 flying from Saudi Arabia in a makeshift base to a target in Iraq, is much much faster than a B-2 flying from Diego Garcia. FYI, there is only two bases outside of the US that can support large bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2, and that is Diego Garcia and Guam, all in the middle of the ocean. In contrast, fighter bombers can literally be stationed in any makeshift base around the world, much closer to areas of conflict. The F-16 especially, because infrastructure to support the F-16 can be found just about in most parts of the world.

and do u even know how many billions it cost US to keep those airbases round the year. there is no such thing as make shift and have to appease host nations in various ways. like hand outs/trade agreements/intellectual property etc. It is better to have hundresds of supersonic long range bombers for one time wars than maintaining foreign airbases with out of station costs.

A MiG-31 costs you a lot more in fuel and maintenance than a simple J-7. A MiG-31 can only drop bombs and run away. Its wing loading is too high to loiter around, and is not very maneuverable. Once SAMs are launched when the MiG-31 is at low altitude the plane is dead, as it is unlikely to even turn past 4G.

MIG-31 job is not air to ground. Its role is for supersonic high altitude destruction of aerial targets from cruise missiles to bombers/awacs/refuellers. thats why it gives Strategic edge.

And where is your proof that all of them are operable?

and where is ur proof that there even 200 fighters in PLAAF operable.? there are 150 backfires with long range aviation, 50 with naval and 93 in reserve and 10 in upgradation. Other countries neither have the skill nor the fuel for these kinds of bombers.

Sorry but they do that too. China can manufacture a MMIC from scratch, from refinery to foundry. I don’t even think in Russia you can make a single LCD screen even for the HUDs.

World does not work on ur thinking. Those MMIC is foreign.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.130/pub_detail.asp
Like leaders everywhere they are beginning to believe their own spin and that the success of China is due to their skill alone. The reality is that 80 per cent of the Chinese export machine is the result of foreign companies.

here is some history lesson for You. when China couldnot even make its own toys

Nov 1991 E weekly
Also in Zelenograd is Elma, the main Soviet silicon/materials institute. Elma currently produces over six million silicon wafers (100mm, 125mm and 150mm diameter) annually. In addition it produces III/V, II/VI, LCD active matrix displays and solar cells. Elma also produces around four million photomask blanks (glass and chrome) each year

sept , 2002 ST Times.
According to Mikron’s deputy scientific director Gornev, “the American and Europeans, who already reached the 0.1 micron level, have abandoned this market sector despite the high demand.” The main exports have been the 0.8-2.0 micron chips, exported mainly to China and South Korea. While one chip produced by Mikron costs just one cent, its price skyrockets by about 10 times when assembled in China
At present, domestic consumption is limited to defence orders and electronic warfare. The knowledgeable knows that Russian electronics for military equipment has the highest degree of reliability.

Offcoures Pentium was discovered in China.

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/itj/Q21999/PDF/impliment.pdf
Vladimir Pentkovski is a Principal Engineer in the
Microprocessor Product Group Previously he led
the development of compilers and software and hardware
support for programming languages for Elbrus multiprocessor
computers in Russia. Vladimir holds a Doctor of
Science degree and Ph.D. degree in computer science and
engineering from Russia.

Why did the Israelis develop the ELM-2034 for the J-8II? It just like any other contract, you offer fairly to outside contractors and bidders. In the end, one Chinese company won (at least two aspired for the same contract). Its called competition.

where is sign contract and deliverdy of EL-2034 and where is certification of of it? and why it is not on CATIC official page. and there was no export order of J-8 in mid 90s like FC-1. So any order is for benefit of Chinese indigenous development as state funds have been used for its development and China was poor at that time for radar development export extravagance.

And who can afford 3000 F-22?

F-22 price is already known. $130m fly away for 183 aircraft. it will go substantially down if u order 3000 like JSF.

Anyone who thinks you can afford to build 3000 F-22.

the same can be said about JSF.

Really, which ones? And I’m not talking about used fighters. And how many can they afford.

Libya, Algeria etc. If some one can afford a new fighter of new generation it does not make a difference if it is single engine or twin engine.

Lol, where is your proof that big bombers like the Backfire will serve in a high intensity, high mission rate requirement conflict?

they are built for that purpose. for concept to operations. they can be refuelled and stationed far away from the conflict zone. u can load extensive EW equipment into and gives more flexibiliy in weopon choice.

The variable wing design is another negative. F-14s and F-111s are not capable of pulling the same mission rates as fixed wing aircraft due to the maintenance complexities of the variable wing. Much less those of the Tu-22 and Tu-160s.

Maintance complexity? everything has scheduled time and it is known to operational planners and around those they develop strategy of war. they are not some kids that they dont know about there own equipment.

You don’t know that a J-7 in the air is infinitely more useful than a MiG-31 on the ground. That’s what operability means.

there is no place for useless junk like J-7. u have to pay for pilot, fuel and maintainance and at the end lose the pilot to commmerical aviation due to low pay. It is better to have less, highly paid, highly skilled pilots with no fear of losing them with full simulator support.

Show ME the 200 Backfires that are operable.

these 200 are the least figures from globalsecurity. Russia is the only country that have the fuel for supersonic bombers.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060926/54288476.html
AKHTUBINSK (Astrakhan Region), September 26 (RIA Novosti) – More than 50 strategic and long-range bombers are involved in a major exercise that began Tuesday, the commander of Russia’s Air Force said

Idiot. Manufacturing technology is a science. Once you have learned it from outside sources, you are on your own to develop, refine and evovle that technology.
China has invested a lot of research in refining both GaAs and GaN in order to supply the domestic and export market. This is the largest potential telecom market yet. This is not a process you can get away with cheap labor. In fact, it is the OVERSUPPLY of GaAs and GaN from China that is causing prices of what is otherwise a supposedly expensive commodity to drop.

i dont think u can even do manufacturing research also.

http://www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=TGRBIS15GAAEUQSNDLRCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=164900716
Last year, Intel and a Chinese start-up struck a deal on the transfer of manufacturing technology and equipment, believed to be the first such deal that the CPU giant has made in China. The company licensed 0.35- and 0.25-micron CMOS process technology to Nanotech Corp., a semiconductor foundry based outside of Shanghai in Changzhou, Jiangsu Province

What an idiot. Show me the J-10’s radar is a copy of the Zhuk. There are pics of the J-8II radar for example, compare the servos on the back of the plate compared to the Zhuk’s. The servos is one of the most important thing in those radars, they are responsible for the mechanical scanning. In fact, neither does the servos of the JH-7A’s slotted radar also resemble the Zhuk’s, the ELTA’s and even the J-10’s.

If you check the Type 1471 radar in sinodefence.com, you will see the servos are not the same as the Zhuks. Now show me how the Chinese radar is a copy of the Zhuk, get some real proof.

no one is going to believe that. why develop Zhuk-8 for J-8 in first place in mid nighties other than paying money for tranfering technolgy? without Chinese money they would not have been able in certifying Zhuk-ME nor they would have started work on AESA back in 1998 or designing more radars after 1991 than in past 40 years.

http://www.cast.ru/eng/journal/2000/3-nikitin/?form=print
The fire control system of the aircraft is based on the same N-010 radar called “Zhuk” today but constructed on more modern elementary base. “Zhuk” has already worked in China on F-8-IIM fighter. Today we continue that very radar systems’ line that we have invested in and that is the most advanced today. We must work fast, we have no other way or we will be late.
Since MiG-29SMT is an export machine we can finish it at our own money without taking a single cent from the state either now or finishing off the aircraft at service in the future. This is the very concept to use export facilities in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry

4500kg for internal fuel, 4500kg for weapon load.

show me offical source. that is more speculation.

J-10 is not a Sukhoi product.

where i said that.

Furthermore, videos of the J-10 landing and taking off, landing in short distances from relatively steep anges, and taking off in short distances, quickly climbing and zooming up, suggest a plane with low wing loading and abundant power surplus.

we havent seen the full video to judge this. it havent been loaded.

M2K upgrade would have made sense if it was initiated a decade ago like Bison. there is no point of putting early 90s vintage RDY/ICMS for next 25 years at this price. and deal hasnt even been signed yet let alone implementation. money would better spent on foreign partenership for LCA.

Hell, the Su-30 belongs to a previous era as of 2005 when the F-22 went into squadron service with the 27th. But the VVS is still full of Flankers and Fulcrums.

but they are Inducting Su-34 which is missile proof and radar signature of a missile. and there are several hundred MIG-31 with supersonic radius of 720KM.

Large air forces? There is only the US who is moving the F-22 and it won’t be getting rid of its 2000 F-16s until the F-35 finishes up it production run. So there will still be lots of F-16s in the next two decades.

but USAF is not building F-16 either. they are left overs from previous times.

The F-16 was employed mainly as a strike craft by the USAF even though it was the most maneuverable plane in practically any inventory in the world. But of course why should that matter to whatever obscure point you’re trying to make? :rolleyes:

so does F-15E/B-2 and F-117. F-16 role comes after when the sky is clear

There are no thousands of Tomahawks. There were about 800 Tomahawks used in Gulf War II and less than half that in Gulf War I. The vast majority of the 15,000 “smart weapons” were dropped by aircraft, including most of the Navy’s.

800 against country without airforce. and even if majority of smart weopons is from Navy. F-18E is a swing role fighter unlike J-10. Just look at fuel tank size that J-10 carries. it looks smaller. than 2000Litres. it cannot carry heavy long range stand off weopons.

That said, any other air force in the world are pretty much hopeless against the USAF and USN and that includes Russia. Saying China should discard the J-10 is like asking Russia to drop the Su-30 from its inventory. Both as just as desperately overmatched by the USAF.

dont Put Ruaf in same category as PLAAF. just look at the airdefence, space and communication network of Russia, and the strength of there strategic aviation that can destroy anything with in hrs at great distances premptively. 80 bombers were used simulataneously in one exercise.

But there are 200 other air arms in the world that these aircraft could match up it.

nope J-10 is petty much hopeless against even M2K-5. just look at BVR distribution of M2K and larger external fuel tanks. I admit MICA is lighter so it carries 6 with 3 large tanks.

The whole of East Asia is F-16/ F-16-class (with the exception of Japan — and the Japanese have F-16-derived F-2s) majority for the next decade at least while the J-10 are being pumped out. Both South Korea and Taiwan is F-16 heavy with Taiwan.

Just look at currently F-15SG/F-15K/Su-30MK2/MKM. when these countries were poor they chose F-16/MIG-29 in previous era.

All of your statements are wildly inaccurate if not simply false.

I dont think u even understand it even the basics.

‘Swing-role’ is just a fancy salespitch term dreamed up by sales people to hype a moderate improvement over established multi-role radar and avionics packages that offers little substantive advanatges in real combat scenarios.

Existing multi-role radars can use BVRAAMs just as well as ‘swing role’ radars, and being ‘swing role’ doesn’t count for crap in a dogfight. Established multi-role radars can also conduct A-A and A-G in a single mission. The question is why anyone would want to. If you haven’t won air superiority, having fully loaded strike packages wondering around without escort is just asking for trouble, and if you have already won air superiority, the odd enemy boggies that might pop up sometimes will only be an annoyance, and under such consitions, even BVRAAM armed dedicated strikers would be able to take them out with ease.

you cannot achieve air superiority unless u destroy Radar/Sams/ airfields with longest/heaviest possible standoff weopons which only bigger swing role fighters are capable of carrying in quantity and has the legs to stay for any air to air fight and destroying incoming cruise missiles. there is very little chance of dogfight in presence of active/passive sensors of detection and ECM against smaller seekers. R-73/AIM-9X are now for BVR fight not the classical dogfight sense. J-10 utility is finished when China got J-11 license.

Then show me the empty weight figure from the manufacturer. Or show me any source that says 20 tons.
Also remember the SH is no small aircraft, pretty close to an F-15, and its a carrier fighter.

Oh, and the Boeing website says “Maximum combat radius without refueling: over 1,000 nautical miles”.

manufacture is already given as the weight figure. u can judge this even from F-18E weight that there method of calculating.
F-18E is carrier aircraft so as Rafale. how much weight difference is there between land and carrier version of Rafale. modern materials have this effect on weight reduction.
maximum combat radius can be true with external fuel tanks and CFT but they didnot mention any loads.