China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia

[Speeder 2]

Yes it is identical. If a final product is exactly identical to the product then it is called "copy". You can give it any glorified name however it will remain a copy.

Nonsense, even though it's not entirely your fault as most people say the similar things due to the lack of abilities to forge an independent thought process, but blindly COPY others' remarks.

If go by book, it seems right to say that as along as it's a replica, it's a copy. In reality however, it's far from correct.

That was the whole gist of my previous post, which is: the more sophiticated the target system is, weapon tech or any tech, the more deviated the replication process will be to a point of seperating themselves entirely from simple process of copy, but becoming reverse-engineering, which is re-reinventing to a large entent.

In my analogy, one can copy a booklet; one cant "copy" a F-22A, which is called reverse-engineering.

It doesn't matter how big or small systems are, if the intention is to produce an exact replica without taking permission from an owner, then it is copying.

Nonsensical!

In an extreme example, can a country copy the Moon, or planet Earth? And why not?

Keep correcting the "newbies" but you never know one of these newbie is a scientist and working on defence research projects.

it doesn't matter. There are plenty of stupid scientists out there doing defence research projects, for example in India. I know little about defence but can still tear them apart , easily, in most debates in which intellect is required more than some specific skills or knowledge!

See my first post then you will know what I do or check introduction.

I'am not interested. Sorry.

It is very easy to copy mouser, as you already said one need to have access for tools and more importantly money.

Nonsense! You can't copy a mouser on your own, because you can't BUY those machines/material, knowhow and IP rights cuz no one will sell them to you ! before you want to copy a mouser, firstly you have to invent those machines, machine tools, material, koowhow, skills youself, alone. You'll not allowed to access to a third-part to teach you how! You can however be given a room load of cash in your house. But you are on youw own, understand ? That's the whole point of my previous anology!

Reverse engineering a fighter jet is funmentally different from Copying a mouse which is still a relatively very easy though because its not too sophiticated as what you see is what you get. For a fighter jet, or any sophiticated machine such as Ferrari auto engine, what you see is usually not what you get; one can't see them all and can't understand them all.

How many non-Ferrari ppl have Ferrari in their garages? how many of them are able to make a copy of it ( including its engine, etc)? NIL !


Am i wasting my time on you or what?

Chinese government spending billions for that and it is doing for several decades and now they have perfected the art of copying. As I wrote before it is a superb capability and requires great technical capabilities. However the end product is unfortunatly a "copy".

One's IQ level is the ultimate measure, not others.

Even being improverished to the extrem, North Korea can "copy" a nuclear bomb all by themselves without ANY access to ANY outside assistance, materials or kownhow. Is that bomb a "copy", even though it looks the same as some bomb made in USA or China? Is North Korea "copying" US or China's technologies without onwers' permission? Utter Bullock.

It was basically a re-invention process. Likewise so are most of what China is doing.

It seems you got confused between a person and a nation willing to be #1 in technology by copying.

This remark is so dumb that worths no response.

We are not talking about me or you here or our garage. It is countries we are talking about.

an individual( e.g. to "copy" a mouser, a computer), or a group of individuals( to "copy" a Ferrari engine), or a country( to "copy" a F-22A) , or entire population of the mankind ( to "copy" the Moon).... they are THE SAME as along as the analogy goes.

The only difference is the size of group (from 1 to whatever) , along with how sophisticated the target system is. Got it? My examples stand.

If someone have thousands of capable engineers/scientists working for them with virtually unlimited money, well give these things to any country and a original product, they will have their copy sooner or later.

That's right, depending on how capable those engineers/scientists really are!

So what measures how capable those engineers/scientists really are? ------->> their IQ

See, you are supporting my analysis subconciously ?? I thought you were against it?

Are we talking about copying from photos? Yes. Provide one production model of F-22A/P and then Why not?? It will take time, billions of dollors and thousands of manpower.

Again, nonsense.

Some systems are so advanced that even put it in front, you won't figure out how they work, let alone how to produce them in another 100 years or more.

Not anyone can copy F-22A. In fact probably not even China could do it perfectly even with a F-22 sample parked in PLA's backyard.

there are millilons combi of special materials makeups, one needs super-advanced fast computers to analyse them; there are parts made only by special high-precision and special utility machinaries that no way one is capable to make without; to make those machinaries needed is a huge task in its own right, possiblely as sophiticated as making F-22a itself....etc, etc.

A country is to "copy" F-22A, is the same in a nutshell as North Korea is to "copy" a N-bomb; or as an individual is to copy a mouser , a computer; etc. it's reverse-engineering as one can't copy in this stage. My analogies still stand. China is NOT copying in this stage, but reverse-engineering. The goal is the same, the process are drastically different! Finanlly got it?

they ( India) decided to work in old fashion way of R&D...

Every country chooses their own path. Your country have chosen one, so as mine.

Sorry, there is no "old fashion way of R&D" to begine with.

There aren't 2 paths on this.

There is only 1 path! Don't kid yourself and create dumb excuses here. Everyone is trying to emulate the previous seccessful samples. There is no one in this world, even a donkie, being stupid enough not to follow the previous successful path, but going for proven unsucceessful alternatives.

It is always the SAME path to start with. The difference only starts when the level of sophitication of copying required reached high enough to the entire new horizon of Reverse-Engineering and Reverse-Engineering-based innovating ( not copying any more) , some still succeeded in this path while others failed.

 

[trident2010]

^^^

Such a long replies but same illogical expalanations. I can see you are openly bashing person, profession and country to prove your puny point. You even questioning the IQ's of other persons. However, the truth is its a "copy". I am not saying it the owner which is Russia they are.

It is the only reason why all the western countries are denying you with new technologies since China will "copy" it again . Even worse thing is, the copy China make is "cheap" and "crap". Only countries who cannot afford to buy Russian/western hardware go for it. If they had a choice no one even look at "copies" made by China.

 

[Speeder 2]

^^ An idiot like you is completely wasting my time!

Resorting solely to ilogical crap after running out of thoughts doesn't help your IQ department.

No wonder you lot can't even produce a decent rifle after 60 years of "R & D".

So much for "another path" , a "path" for typical mentally challenged trolls.

Ciao!

 

[trident2010]

^^^ You again proved my point and now fell down to personal bashing. I wonder did you "copy" this also?? I think ,now since you cannot give logical explanation and you cannot "copy" it, you will be swearing in next reply. May be you shouldn't waste your time and utilise your time to "copy" someone's hard work. 60 years still trying, I think we can never learn how to "copy". Chinese are the master and leader in "copying" products. Hail to you !!

 

[topjumper]

^^^ You again proved my point and now fell down to personal bashing. I wonder did you "copy" this also?? I think ,now since you cannot give logical explanation and you cannot "copy" it, you will be swearing in next reply. May be you shouldn't waste your time and utilise your time to "copy" someone's hard work. 60 years still trying, I think we can never learn how to "copy". Chinese are the master and leader in "copying" products. Hail to you !!

This post is not worthy of a serious reply, Speeder you should just ignore it and let it be, he will eventually get tired of it when nobody takes he seriously. The end result is more important than anyone's lips work and China will be judged on that, nothing else. Look forward to our new planes! Peace!

 

[SomeGuy]

It is the only reason why all the western countries are denying you with new technologies since China will "copy" it again.

Wrong!

European countries wanted the arms embargo on China lifted.

The only reason why it wasn't was because America threatened to stop all co-operation and technology sharing with European arms companies if they sell to China.

 

[SomeGuy]

Yes it is identical. If a final product is exactly identical to the product then it is called "copy". You can give it any glorified name however it will remain a copy.

Going by your logic, your domestically produced MKI's are also copies!

It doesn't matter how big or small systems are, if the intention is to produce an exact replica without taking permission from an owner, then it is copying. Keep correcting the "newbies" but you never know one of these newbie is a scientist and working on defence research projects.

China has already paid license for the Flanker.
200 examples in fact, only which 95 have been assembled.
Leaving over 100 examples to be built with whatever materials and fitted with whatever systems they wish.

As far as reverse engineering is concern, it is well known fact that INS Arihant nuclear sub is built after doing reverse engineering studies of russian Charlie class nuclear sub. The only difference between India and China here is that we did not produced copy of Charlie sub.

The same can be said of J-15.
It was built after extensive study of unfinished T-10K prototype.

J-15 is a navalised version of J-11B, so it is not a copy of Su-33.
In fact if it is based upon J-11B, then it should be superior to Su-33 in many ways.

 

[SBD-3]

China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia

China's J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia's Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.

China since 2001 has been developing the J-15 naval fighter, which is believed to be a clone of Russia's Su-33 Falcon-D. China bought an Su-33 prototype earlier from Ukraine, and used it to develop the new aircraft.

The J-15 is expected to be stationed initially onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. China bought the unfinished Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier from Ukraine in 1998.

"The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.

The Su-33 is a carrier-based multi-role fighter, which can perform a variety of air superiority, fleet defense, air support and reconnaissance missions.

The aircraft entered service with the Russian Navy in 1995 and are currently deployed on board the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.

China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers since 2006, but the talks collapsed over China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial."

Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems.

The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.

ASIAN DEFENCE: China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia

I mean WTF? Russia itself will phase out SU-33 in favour of MIG-29K and who will they market SU-33 to in "Global Market"? how many countries do have ACC? Is russia planning to market SU-33 to UK,US and France,italy ? or Russia is afraid that J-15 will be offered to Indian Navy by China? Golbal market consisting of Thiland and Brazil.. So much for the Russian Millitary Analyst

 

[no_name]

Is India interested in Su-33 or Mig-29? In any case Russians need not worry competition from China.

Mikoyan is still an important company and right now they can just about sell Mig-29, so carrier craft is possible their only remaining niche (plus countries that have existing serving Migs)

 

[SBD-3]

Indian Navy is going with Mig-29.....But Russians are really funny

 

[dingyibvs]

Going by your logic, your domestically produced MKI's are also copies!



China has already paid license for the Flanker.
200 examples in fact, only which 95 have been assembled.
Leaving over 100 examples to be built with whatever materials and fitted with whatever systems they wish.



The same can be said of J-15.
It was built after extensive study of unfinished T-10K prototype.

J-15 is a navalised version of J-11B, so it is not a copy of Su-33.
In fact if it is based upon J-11B, then it should be superior to Su-33 in many ways.

Besides, the J-11B only uses the airframe design of the Su-27 so that components made for it would be compatible with the Su-27s(J-11As). Everything else in it is different. Avionics, Engines, Armament...etc, etc. are all completely different.

 

[SBD-3]

As far as reverse engineering is concern, it is well known fact that INS Arihant nuclear sub is built after doing reverse engineering studies of russian Charlie class nuclear sub. The only difference between India and China here is that we did not produced copy of Charlie sub. If western countries can do it, so can eastern countries. If Chinese can copy it, then Indian or any other county.
It is the matter of money, manpower and government policies what they want.

WTF? what do think of copying and reverse engineering?.....what is the distinction between copying and reverse engineering. If Russian cry that Iran is reverse engineering their products that means Iran is not Copying? They are one and a same thing and what makes copying "illegal" just because the west or Russkis have the sole right to become the everlasting monopolies on arms market? I really like interesting explanations ( rather manipulations of many Indian Posters) which circles only one single point (which can be conveyed in few lines). Anyways, Russkies have allowed India and Iran cuz they don't fear them to challenge russian products in the Global Arms market. China on the other hand is taking its pie of business from both West and Russia, so they don't like it. Thats why you see a lot of blaw blaw blaw blaw. China is close to building its 5th gen which speaks of its increasing capabilities. And let me inform you that what inspired China to "copy" J-11 was that they were not upto the standards of PLAAF. Russians Junked them with SK (export versions). The indigenous systems installed on J-11B are better than the ones on the J-11. Now honestly tell me that does China creates an "copied" aircraft which is 70% different from original aircraft.
here read the difference

J-11
The Chinese-built, Chinese variant of the Su-27SK with 70% components made in China, with some improvements over the original Su-27SK in the following areas: radar, flight instrumentation and added air-to-surface attack
capability.
· Radar: the original N001 radar on Su-27SK purchased by China in the
1990s is replaced by its successor, N001V, which like N001, can also
simultaneously track 10 targets. However, when engaging a target out
of the 10 tracked, the original N001 radar would lose all of the rest 9
targets tracked, and must restart a new tracking process after the
engagement. N001V radar on J-11 overcomes this shortcoming so that
during the engagement, the rest 9 targets tracked would not be lost.
The major internal structural difference between the two radars is that
the original TS100 processor in the older N001 radar is replaced by a
more capable TS101M processor in the newer N001V radar.
· Flight instrumentation: in comparison to Su-27SK with only one small
CRT multifunction display (MFD), J-11 has a total of two by adding
an additional one directly atop of the original small CRT MFD at the
top right corner of the flight instrumentation dashboard. This new
small CRT MFD is about the same size as the original one on Su-
27SK, and it is located to the right of HUD.
· Additional air-to-surface attack capability: The additional MFD is
mainly used to control the electro-optically guided precision
munitions such as TV guided or ImIR guided missiles in attacking
ground and sea targets, since the domestic Chinese electro-optical
pods and electro-optical guided precision munitions are extremely
difficult to be directly integrated into the Su-27SK. The images and
information for the electrical-optically guided munitions, as well as
those provided by the domestic Chinese electro-optical pods can not
be displayed on the original CRT MFD of Su-27SK, and they can
only be displayed on the additional CRT MFD added. Despite this
added air-to-surface attack capability, it must be noted, however, J-11
still lacks the full air-to-surface attack capability of later models
because due to the limitation of the radar, the radar guided air-to surface missiles can not be deployed.
J-11A
J-11 with further radar and flight instrumentation upgrade, most notably with the adoption of EFIS in its avionics.
· Radar: The N001V radar on J-11 is replaced by its successor,
N001VE, which has the same tracking capability like its predecessor.
The radar improvement is that in comparison to the older N001V
radar which is only capable of single target engagement, N001VE is
capable of simultaneously engaging two of the ten targets tracked with
semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles. The major internal
structural difference between the two radars is that the original
TS101M processor in the older N001V radar is replaced by a more
capable BCVM-486-6 processor of the Baguet series processor in the
newer N001VE radar.
· HMS: An improved domestic Chinese helmet mounted sights (HMS)
first begun to appear on J-11A, which soon became standard on all
versions of J-11, including retrofitting earlier J-11.
· EFIS: Most of the analogue dial indicators of the original Su-27SK
are eliminated, replaced by four color MFDs, which are part of the
overall EFIS system designed by China Aviation Industry Corporation
I. There are three large MFDs that take most of the space of the flight
instrumentation dashboard, with the MFD in the center is in a slightly
lower position than the other two on the sides. A slightly smaller color
MFD is located below the three MFDs, to the bottom right corner of
the flight instrumentation dashboard.
J-11B
This is the advanced version which uses more Chinese components,
including radar, engine, and missiles. The chief program engineer for J-11B is Mr. Guo Dianman (郭殿&#28385. China is interested in reducing its reliance on foreign technology for both cost reasons and a desire to improve its domestic research and design. It is reported that one regiment of J-11Bs are currently in service, but this seems to contradict with the latest information provided by the Chinese government: In May, 2007, the existence of J-11B was
finally acknowledged by the Chinese government for the first time when the state-run Chinese TV stations first aired the report on J-11B in PLAAF service. However, the official Chinese report claims that there are only two squadrons of J-11Bs in service, instead of a regiment, which is consisted of three squadrons (as of end of 2007). According to the Chinese report, which is agreed by some western sources such as Jane's Information Group, the J- 11B is superior to Su-27SK in the following areas:
· The wide adoption of composite material (mainly carbon fiber) for the
surfaces, reducing the weight of the aircraft for more than 700 kg,
while the life of the composite part is increased over 10,000 hours in
comparison to the original part built from steel.
· Redesigned air inlets of engine intakes to reduce the radar cross
section, this coupled with the adoption of composite material, and
application of radar absorbent material has reduced the radar cross
section (RCS) of 15 square meters of Su-27SK to just >3 square
meters of J-11B.
· Full air-to-surface / sea capability is added and J-11B is able to launch
various precision guided air-to-surface and air-to-sea munitions.
· Certified to be equipped with WS-10 (will be upgraded to WS-10A in
the future) turbofan engine, which is claimed to be cheaper to operate
· than AL-31F.
· Incorporation of on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS): With
the exception of Su-35 and Su-37, J-11B is the first of the Su-27
(Reverse Engineered) family to incorporate such technology. Due to
the adoption of western style design features such as fully digitized
computerized controls and solid state micro-electronics, Chinese
claimed that the domestic OBOGS is superior than the analog system
Russia offered to China.
· A Chinese multifunctional pulse-Doppler fire-control radar reportedly
capable of tracking 6~8 targets and engaging 4 of them
simultaneously.[8]
· Fully digitized solid-state avionics have replaced the analogue set of
the Su-27SK. In the mid-2007, the Chinese governmental television
station CCTV-7 released news clips of Chinese pilots in the cockpits
of J-11B, with the LCD of glass cockpit of J-11B clearly visible,
despite that the official report itself only claimed replacing the
original avionics with domestic Chinese fully digitized solid-state
avionics, and nothing of EFIS or glass cockpit was mentioned. In
comparison to the earlier EFIS on J-11A, the most obvious difference
is that LCD MFDs on J-11B are aligned in a straight line, instead of
the middle one being slightly lower. The arrangement, appearance and
layout of MFDs and EFIS of J-11B are similar to the general design
concept of the west.
· Missile Approach Warning System.

 

[oceanx]

...

but both russia and USA can nuke india with no negative consequences, there is no nation in the world that can nuke china with no negative consequences. in fact with our new ABM system or a first strike on india we can take out india with few negative consequences. ...

Apart from the obvious wild, glaring falsehood, how the h*ll did you go from some harmless rumor-mongering on airplanes to spewing this kinda diatribe?

This is wholly uncalled for and utterly beneath you! I am here very sporadically these days ... but ever since you attached that insignia of PLA GAD, senses have left many of your words ... and pity at that!

Why even bother with clowns like schindler? It just brings the forum down ... not to mention your own standards of decency. Would've been better to let it go and not have sullied your own character!

And small wonder countries all over the world either want longer range missiles, or at a very minimum a stash of HEU to sleep on ... in part thanks to loose tongue and foolish words.

 

[gambit]

Why should I 'reverse engineer' anything?

The only time I would 'copy' any product is when I have the technological parity to dissect the product and match its components, from source materials to manufacturing processes to methods of assembly.

Exclusive: A conversation with First Solar's Bruce Sohn, Part I--Developing 'copy smart' - Photovoltaics International

He discusses how his experiences at Intel, where he helped hone the chipmaker’s “copy exactly” factory replication strategy, have been “mapped” to the PV company, including its own “copy smart” approach to cloning manufacturing facilities--and even its engineering, procurement and construction arm.

Intel developed a cloning program where a successful fab would transfer all knowledge to a newly built fab where all proven processes, from equipments to softwares, would be replicated. No deviations allowed. Any yield differences, usually lower in the new fab and always occur, must be studied and eliminated. There is no need for the new fab to start from scratch.

Reverse engineering is not cloning. Quite often, the need to 'reverse engineer' an existing product stemmed from a technological disparity with usually the inferior belonging to the one who is doing the 'reverse engineering'. To 'reverse engineer' a product mean I would have to examine my own materials, manufacturing processes and assembly to see if I can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance. This includes the human factors as well, such as educational level and experience. In other words, unlike Intel with its 'Copy Smart' program, I have no controls over the source materials, processes and assembly stages. All I have is the final product. What if the product is made of steel but all I have is pig iron or aluminum? What if the product required steel? Aluminum would certainly make my version lighter but would not have the same characteristics and performance.

Reverse engineering must not always stemmed from a technological disparity. A competitor may have that parity but decided to see if he can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance based on his own efforts using the original product as a template. For example -- I could build the wall from cut stone instead of concrete. Different materials and processes but seeking the same result. But to 'reverse engineer' either from an technologically inferior position or parity, is to embark on a very ambitious self forced maturity program and this make 'reverse engineering' inherently more difficult and fraught with as much failures as if one is developing a new product. Who knows but I may get lucky and my version may be superior to the original.

 

[中华人民共和&#]

Apart from the obvious wild, glaring falsehood, how the h*ll did you go from some harmless rumor-mongering on airplanes to spewing this kinda diatribe?

This is wholly uncalled for and utterly beneath you! I am here very sporadically these days ... but ever since you attached that insignia of PLA GAD, senses have left many of your words ... and pity at that!

Why even bother with clowns like schindler? It just brings the forum down ... not to mention your own standards of decency. Would've been better to let it go and not have sullied your own character!

And small wonder countries all over the world either want longer range missiles, or at a very minimum a stash of HEU to sleep on ... in part thanks to loose tongue and foolish words.

And your point is...?