IAF's advantage in equipment and numbers does not preclude the Pakistani fleet from being a threat. A well-trained crew armed with 150 JF-17s is nothing to scoff at.
Yes but IAF too with the high nos of training hours, and there are no 150 JF-17 in numbers, nor it has achieved its full capabilities and integration, nor I have any information of any
FOC certification
Yes, but other nations will also have modernized to their own accords.
So do the IAF, the whole discussion started from the Indian members commenting India in a pathetic position in front of PAF, and PLAAF and my point is yes with PLAAF it has disadvantage, but don't think China have a plan to invade India, and have many important issues specially in her eastern sector and with PAF India have superior number and superior quality.
The reliability problems with the WS-10 have been solved in 2009.
Congratullation then !! Can you quote the MTO hours and whether its more economical to produced than buying Ai31 off the shelf.
Well, how do you know such tests are for further development of the Su-33 as opposed to another piece of military equipment, or for training?
Because no one setup the ski jump ring in the costal region for the training purpose for the plane, which is not been designed for the carrier operation but the point is the core issue, which hampers Su33 to Ski jump with the full load, from the short distance of the carrier operation 200-250 m takeoff length.
The picture was a response to your claim that the J-15 could only carry A2A weaponry.
That will prove the stuctural strength, but the pic with heavy load take off from the deck of the carrier will prove that, it is a true multirole capable carrier based fighter plane, which can carry A2A, and heavy anti ship cruise missile simultaneously e.g which MIG -29K is.
I highly doubt the J-20 was designed with any specific nation in mind, but rather to maximize advantages with whatever equipment it will sport once in service.
OK, thats why I guess where it is most benificial aka the area which will make the no fly zone for the US/NATO fighter planes like F-35, and Growlers to attain air superiority and take on SEAD mission.
My point was, since the Chinese will be loading their Tibet-based Su-27s with primarily air-to-air missiles, load factor shouldn't be much of an issue, even with the thin air.
But for the Strike mission, you need heavy load.
The J-11B/15/16 uses the same airframe design as the Su-27SK/UBK series, yes, but the other subsystems are unique to that subclass. The Chinese never intended to use Russian or Ukrainian avionics or weaponry aboard those aircraft in the first place.
Point is if you have a proven design, you would speed up the development process because if create a subsystem which works perfectly well, but not necessary the whole systems gives the desired result, but working on the proven system design and in this case the airframe of the proven Su 27, you remove the risk of failure, and kickstart you project in small time, than to create the whole product from the scratch.
I certainly believe that China have the capability to design the whole aircraft from the scratch, but the way they are doing the development like J-10 -- from the Lavi project, j11B/15/16 from Su27 blue prints and the airflight data speeds up the process, and to show our Indians members who are cursing our scientists to be too slow, and to show you the urgency shown by your leaders for the threat, which they considered as the priority.
In the same way how the fighter plane meant for the export the FC-1 design was purchased from the third country, that makes such a speedy development because the design was already created, and I don't want to discuss whether it is a Soviet single engine Mig 1.44 project or Dassault/Romanian IAR-95 design.
Most of Chinese imports from Ukraine consist of tank engines (which have been replaced by indigenous variants) and/or aircraft engines. I fail to see how this relates to the development and deployment of Chinese fighter subsystems.
A fighter plane development will speed up, if they are based on the blue print copy of the proven design, with the tooling, jigs, dies design and the subsystems like actuator, hydraulic, FCS, sensors, power generator, fuel pumps landing gears design with data to study and create indigenous components, whether to copy or modify/upgrade it because lot of time is not only required to design and build it but also to certify it, and there is no short cuts for the R&D. And Ukraine in the small window of the opportunity for the China gets the much needed cash, and China gets the tech. to jump start various indigenous projects by pumping large amount of money.
The seeker has been changed from time to time, and this is irrelevant to the development of fighter avionics.
The seekers have to be integrated with the Radars guidance system to work, and the Seeker is coming from the Russia which is of import variant of R-77 AE EW BVRAAM, and in case of Radar, you can assemble T/R modules antenna Gimble, Backend Radar computer, but actually Radar, is mostly Software, and lot of work was done by Russian OEM Zhuk scientists for China.
..... (But you must know that JFT would be equipped with AESA and IRST so problem going to be solved soon)
