Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

[nightcrawler]

^^ you have made your point extremely clear...u don't need to talk with them. Once you prove your point thats OK..thy don't want to listen its their choice. Anyway thnx for your informative replies

 

[rcrmj]

Oh, I’m sorry, next time I will bring you an aircraft engineer and his credentials to your door because apparently technical writings from accredited people are not considered sources.

name and their occupation? when you believe them creditable and they are, but otherwise? 8-year-old kid philosophy

And you and your fellow fanboys don't have any data from Sukhoi, but that doesn't seem to stop the fanboys from making up factitious claims.

arent you one of the fanboys club? keep making up those noncensical claims that T-50 is superior yet mostly a poor design did by lack of fund Russian scientists```` and it sounds you are the only one who has all the 'secretitive' Sukhoi data?--again 8-year-old ranting```most of your claims are factitious``

Further, i have a good understanding of how 'stealth' works. Everything i say can be varified, unless you are suggesting that experts in the field of 'stealth' are liars.

so do many many other members```yet your claim is still questionable`

 

[cn_habs]

Oh, I’m sorry, next time I will bring you an aircraft engineer and his credentials to your door because apparently technical writings from accredited people are not considered sources.



And you and your fellow fanboys don't have any data from Sukhoi, but that doesn't seem to stop the fanboys from making up factitious claims. Further, i have a good understanding of how 'stealth' works. Everything i say can be varified, unless you are suggesting that experts in the field of 'stealth' are liars.

You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation.
We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.

 

[rcrmj]

You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation.
We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.

I doubt he will accept this reality which proves over and over again that Sukhoi is losing its edge to CAC or even SAC...the only area that China aviation suffers are the turbofan engines, but it is not going to be perminant```10 years ago China wouldnt even think about in terms of innovation and R&D out-put in lines with U.S, Japan and Germany``but now China's position in R&D is non-questionable. One Chinese Company ZTE receives 400 more patent from PCT than whole Russia has in 2010``

now what left to Sukhoi was the Echo of the mighty Soviet, and persoanlly I believe it has been overrated

 

[ptldM3]

name and their occupation? when you believe them creditable and they are, but otherwise? 8-year-old kid philosophy

Besides quoting engineers that worked on aircraft such as the F-117 i have quoted various publications including scientific journals, and what have you quoted? Nothing, What about your fellow fanboys? The most credible sources you guys use is some blogs, pathetic.

Back to topic here is the references of one source i used:

Thinking in the US Air Force, 1907-1960, Vol. I (Maxwell AFB, AL:
Air University Press, 1989) p. 485.
33. Walton S. Moody, Building a Strategic Air Force (Washington,
DC: USGPO, 1996) p. 104-105.
34. Moody, p. 106.
35. Moody, p. 422.
36. Gen. Thomas D. White, quoted in Futrell, p. 514.
37. Fletcher Knebel, “The Coming Death of the Flying Air
Force,” Look magazine, Oct. 1, 1957.
38. Quoted in Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A
Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (Boston: Little
Brown, 1994) p. 147.
39. Quoted in Rich and Janos, p. 247.
40. Futrell, Ideas, Concepts and Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the
US Air Force, 1961-1984, Vol. II, p. 389.
41. Gen. William W. Momyer, USAF (Ret.), Airpower in Three
Wars (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 1978)
p. 125-126.
42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context:
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting
in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press,
1994) p. 11.
43. Maj. A. J. C. Lavalle, USAF, gen. ed., The Tale of Two Bridges
and the Battle for the Skies Over North Vietnam, USAF
Southeast Asia Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Monographs 1 and
2 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1976) p. 152.
44. Brig. Gen. James R. McCarthy, Lt. Col. George B. Allison and,
Col. Robert E. Rayfield, gen.ed., Linebacker II: A View From
the Rock, USAF SEA Monograph Series Vol. VI, Monograph 8
(Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1985) p. 173.
45. Werrell, p. 52-53.
46. Capt. Robert E. Wolff, USAF, “Linebacker II: A Pilot’s
Perspective,” Air Force Magazine, September 1979, p. 89.
47. Maj. Calvin R. Johnson, “Project CHECO Report: Linebacker
Operations, September - December 1972” (Hickam AFB, HI:
Hq. Pacific Air Forces Office of History, 1978) Appendix Five, p.
95; Wolff, p. 89-91.
48. Col. John A. Warden III, USAF, The Air Campaign: Planning for
Combat (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s International
Defense Publishers, 1989) p. 60.
49. Brungress, p. 28.
50. Quoted in Maj. William A. Hewitt, “Planting the Seeds of
SEAD: The Wild Weasel in Vietnam” (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air
University, 1992) p. 34.
51. Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, Keynote Address to HAVE
Forum, 1994, US Air Force Academy.
52. William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (New
York: Galahad Books, 1986) p. 247-251. The British also had a
wooden (but not composite and charcoal-coated) bomber,
the Mosquito, though its stealth characteristics were almost
nil because the radar waves that passed through the wood
outer structure would reflect off internal structures, such as
the skeleton, wing spars, bomb racks, the cockpit, and the
engines. The Mosquito probably had a lower RCS than a
metallic Lancaster or Halifax, though this amount was not
militarily significant. The Mosquito’s survivability was derived
from its performance rather than its RCS reduction. Doug
Richardson, Stealth (New York: Orion Books, 1989) p. 42.
53. Green, p. 249.
54. Green, p. 251.
55. Cited in Richardson, p. 96.
56. Rich, p. 24, 215.
57. David C. Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross-Section Engineering
(Washington, DC: AIAA, 1995) p. 6.
58. Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress
(Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 1992) p. 154.
59. Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume II: Operations and
Effectiveness (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force,
USGPO, 1993) p. 79. Hereafter referred to as GWAPS.
60. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, The General’s
War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf (Boston: Little,
Brown, c1995) p. 115.
61. GWAPS Vol. II, p. 123-124.
62. Thomas A. Keaney and Elliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power
Survey Summary Report (Washington, DC: Department of
the Air Force, 1993) p. 224.
63. Christopher J. Bowie, Untying the Bloody Scarf (Arlington,
VA: IRIS Independent Research, 1998) p. 15.
64. John Shaeffer, “Understanding Stealth” (Marietta, GA:
Marietta Scientific, Inc., undated paper) p. 15.

arent you one of the fanboys club? keep making up those noncensical claims that T-50 is superior yet mostly a poor design did by lack of fund Russian scientists```` and it sounds you are the only one who has all the 'secretitive' Sukhoi data?--again 8-year-old ranting```most of your claims are factitious``

Wrong, fanboy. I never made any claims about the pak-fa, the closest thing to a claim i made was about the wing geometry based off of know design laws and physics. Other than that i provided sources about how effective radar blockers can be after a couple of your fellow fanboys dismissed the technology, than again it had nothing to do specifically with the pak-fa. Further, it is you and chumps like yourself that constatnly emmbaress yourselves by guessing rcs, assuming the J-20 is stealthy because it had 'DSI' and a 'one peice canopy' and using terms such as 'super advanced'.

so do many many other members```yet your claim is still questionable`

this is a joke right? Are these the same member that claim the 'metal' in a canopy increases RCS or that canards do not increas RCS because they 'are like papers from the front'. Show me what you know, disprove my finding or else keep quiet and stay out of conversations you have no bussiness being in.

You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation.

Wrong, everything i presented is based off of know laws of physics, so unless J-20 engineers somehow magically managed to defy the laws of physics i think it is safe to say that my finding are not speculation. Of course maybe individuals such as Petr Ufimtsev, the man than wrote the book on stealth are idiots, maybe the designers of the F-117 are liars, maybe all of publishers i have quoted have formed a big conspiracy.

We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.

Are you kidding me? What the hell is CAC and Sukhoi has shares by both private companies as well as the 'state'. Furhter, how am i supoosed to take your comment seriously, when Chinese companies shamelessly copy the Sukhoi airframe? What is the matter, they can't come up with something on their own? I'm sure Sukhoi is trembling in their boots, afterall how can they compete with someone that copies them. At the end of the day Sukhoi sell aircraft all over the world, the SU-30 is wildly popular and for good reason. Superjest 100 has 189 orders and counting, India and Russia plan to purchase 500 pak-fa's, this is not counting other potential customers, the SU-35 and SU-34 have orders and many countries continue to purchase the SU-30. Yes how can Sukhoi compete with the world renowned (sarcasm) CAC?

I doubt he will accept this reality which proves over and over again that Sukhoi is losing its edge to CAC or even SAC...

Losing it edge, based on what? Your deluted perception?

the only area that China aviation suffers are the turbofan engines, but it is not going to be perminant```

Yet Russian components other than turbofan engines are used in Chinese aircraft......

now what left to Sukhoi was the Echo of the mighty Soviet, and persoanlly I believe it has been overrated

A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke 41 world records, how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke? Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?

 

[cn_habs]

Sukhoi used to be a world leader in aviation alongside of Lockheed/Beoing but we aren't in the 80's anymore and the Russian government is pretty much bankrupt.

The Russian government has in service:
11 Su-30s
14 Su-34s
11 Su-35s

Sooner or later, Sukhoi's financial struggles due to lack of order from its own government will become obvious.

In 1990's, China was still making J-7s which was first introduced in the 1960's.
In early 2000's, J-10 came out and its latest J-10B variant with AESA/IRS/DSI intake is comparable to the F-16 C/D.
In early 2011, J-20 makes its first public flight which is 1 generation ahead of the likes of Rafale and EF.

Given the progress of the Chinese aviation backed by the growth of its economy in the past 2 decades, we'll see how big of a difference there will be between the CAC and Sukhoi in 5 or 10 years or so.

 

[gambit]

A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke 41 world records, how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke? Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?

Given the population count and today's Internet, probably the amount of baseless fanboy assumptions, many of which practically defied the laws of physics.

 

[CardSharp]

Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.

"42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press," - Google Search

RadarGame_Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability

Besides quoting engineers that worked on aircraft such as the F-117 i have quoted various publications including scientific journals, and what have you quoted? Nothing, What about your fellow fanboys? The most credible sources you guys use is some blogs, pathetic.

Back to topic here is the references of one source i used:

Thinking in the US Air Force, 1907-1960, Vol. I (Maxwell AFB, AL:
Air University Press, 1989) p. 485.
33. Walton S. Moody, Building a Strategic Air Force (Washington,
DC: USGPO, 1996) p. 104-105.
34. Moody, p. 106.
35. Moody, p. 422.
36. Gen. Thomas D. White, quoted in Futrell, p. 514.
37. Fletcher Knebel, “The Coming Death of the Flying Air
Force,” Look magazine, Oct. 1, 1957.
38. Quoted in Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A
Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (Boston: Little
Brown, 1994) p. 147.
39. Quoted in Rich and Janos, p. 247.
40. Futrell, Ideas, Concepts and Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the
US Air Force, 1961-1984, Vol. II, p. 389.
41. Gen. William W. Momyer, USAF (Ret.), Airpower in Three
Wars (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 1978)
p. 125-126.
42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context:
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting
in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press,
1994) p. 11.
43. Maj. A. J. C. Lavalle, USAF, gen. ed., The Tale of Two Bridges
and the Battle for the Skies Over North Vietnam, USAF
Southeast Asia Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Monographs 1 and
2 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1976) p. 152.
44. Brig. Gen. James R. McCarthy, Lt. Col. George B. Allison and,
Col. Robert E. Rayfield, gen.ed., Linebacker II: A View From
the Rock, USAF SEA Monograph Series Vol. VI, Monograph 8
(Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1985) p. 173.
45. Werrell, p. 52-53.
46. Capt. Robert E. Wolff, USAF, “Linebacker II: A Pilot’s
Perspective,” Air Force Magazine, September 1979, p. 89.
47. Maj. Calvin R. Johnson, “Project CHECO Report: Linebacker
Operations, September - December 1972” (Hickam AFB, HI:
Hq. Pacific Air Forces Office of History, 1978) Appendix Five, p.
95; Wolff, p. 89-91.
48. Col. John A. Warden III, USAF, The Air Campaign: Planning for
Combat (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s International
Defense Publishers, 1989) p. 60.
49. Brungress, p. 28.
50. Quoted in Maj. William A. Hewitt, “Planting the Seeds of
SEAD: The Wild Weasel in Vietnam” (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air
University, 1992) p. 34.
51. Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, Keynote Address to HAVE
Forum, 1994, US Air Force Academy.
52. William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (New
York: Galahad Books, 1986) p. 247-251. The British also had a
wooden (but not composite and charcoal-coated) bomber,
the Mosquito, though its stealth characteristics were almost
nil because the radar waves that passed through the wood
outer structure would reflect off internal structures, such as
the skeleton, wing spars, bomb racks, the cockpit, and the
engines. The Mosquito probably had a lower RCS than a
metallic Lancaster or Halifax, though this amount was not
militarily significant. The Mosquito’s survivability was derived
from its performance rather than its RCS reduction. Doug
Richardson, Stealth (New York: Orion Books, 1989) p. 42.
53. Green, p. 249.
54. Green, p. 251.
55. Cited in Richardson, p. 96.
56. Rich, p. 24, 215.
57. David C. Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross-Section Engineering
(Washington, DC: AIAA, 1995) p. 6.
58. Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress
(Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 1992) p. 154.
59. Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume II: Operations and
Effectiveness (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force,
USGPO, 1993) p. 79. Hereafter referred to as GWAPS.
60. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, The General’s
War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf (Boston: Little,
Brown, c1995) p. 115.
61. GWAPS Vol. II, p. 123-124.
62. Thomas A. Keaney and Elliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power
Survey Summary Report (Washington, DC: Department of
the Air Force, 1993) p. 224.
63. Christopher J. Bowie, Untying the Bloody Scarf (Arlington,
VA: IRIS Independent Research, 1998) p. 15.
64. John Shaeffer, “Understanding Stealth” (Marietta, GA:
Marietta Scientific, Inc., undated paper) p. 15.

 

[CardSharp]

The sad part about this is, is the report you so authoritatively cite was written and researched by highschool students.

The core mission of the Mitchell Institute is to increase the likelihood that young people from every community in Maine will aspire to, pursue and achieve a college education. Each year, a Mitchell Scholarship is awarded to a graduating senior from every public high school in Maine who will be attending a two-or four-year postsecondary degree program. Selection is based on academic promise, financial need and a history of community service. The Mitchell Scholarship Program has awarded nearly $8 million in financial assistance to nearly 1,800 Maine students since 1995.

Mitchell Institute support programs create ongoing Scholar involvement in leadership and professional development, as well as community service and mentoring activities. The Mitchell Institute believes that through participation in these activities, Mitchell Scholars will be more inclined to remain in Maine to live and work after graduation. The Mitchell Institute strengthens the involvement of a new generation of civic-minded and committed citizens, all the while creating educational opportunity for Maine's young people.

THE MITCHELL INSTITUTE


What about this whole thing is suppose to make anyone change their minds about you just being some guy without a formal education who uses open source docs to say only he is qualified to post on the interwebz.

 

[rcrmj]

Are you kidding me? What the hell is CAC and Sukhoi has shares by both private companies as well as the 'state'. Furhter, how am i supoosed to take your comment seriously, when Chinese companies shamelessly copy the Sukhoi airframe? What is the matter, they can't come up with something on their own? I'm sure Sukhoi is trembling in their boots, afterall how can they compete with someone that copies them. At the end of the day Sukhoi sell aircraft all over the world, the SU-30 is wildly popular and for good reason. Superjest 100 has 189 orders and counting, India and Russia plan to purchase 500 pak-fa's, this is not counting other potential customers, the SU-35 and SU-34 have orders and many countries continue to purchase the SU-30. Yes how can Sukhoi compete with the world renowned (sarcasm) CAC?

Losing it edge, based on what? Your deluted perception?

Yet Russian components other than turbofan engines are used in Chinese aircraft......

A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke 41 world records, how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke? Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?

You have just proved my point that Sukhoi is overrated, as I stated in my earlier posts that the current Sukhoi is living with their past achivement! all the things you've listed like Su-27 and Su-30 were Soviet products, and what did post 1991 Sukhoi actually accomplished? apart selling conditional appalling Su-27s to China thats why we had to 'copy' in order to make it at least state operational```do you know how many russian built s-27s sold to China crashed??

and I used the word 'losing' not lost``do you even understand the meaning of 'losing' and 'lost' ?? delusional one is you not us``from 1992 t0 2011 we saw the development of F-35, F-22, upgraded version of F-16s, F-15s and F-18s and they even sucessfully tested the 6th gen fighter```and also during this 20 years we saw China maturing with her J-7s, J-8s, FBC-1s, FC-1s, J-10s and J-20s and other bunches``however, during these 20 years what did we witness from Russia?? nothing new but old bunches like the flanker families and the R.I.P Mikoyan!! and poor performance of russian weapons in quite a few conflicts``

why it is difficult for you to just accept the demise of mighty Soviet defence industry? in terms of budget, R&D output, number of scientist and natinal will china is out pacing Russia not by small but huge margin``arent these enough to justity my 'losing edge' to China??

think again do not indulge in the past 'sources'``` the mighty Soviet was long gone and the Russia nowaday is nowhere on the field of technology superpower like the america

 

[rcrmj]

Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.

"42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press," - Google Search

RadarGame_Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability

thats why i refer him as a fanboy `

 

[grey boy 2]

Given the population count and today's Internet, probably the amount of baseless fanboy assumptions, many of which practically defied the laws of physics.

Ha, old man, still here busying spreading your outdated anti-Chinese propangada as usual? "FANBOY"? what about yourself? did you forget you admitted you are also one of the "FANBOY" on this forum before? my friendly advice to you will be better to behave yourself, cut down your lies and feed on your women's money like most of your countrymen do. Easy life, isn't it great eh?
PS, seriously, how you still got the nerve to continue your so-called professionalism claim after your so-called J-20 "photochop" accusation being debunked right at your face? hmm, thick face professional?

 

[CardSharp]

thats why i refer him as a fanboy `

Not really my point. What I'm trying to say is that we're all here for shits and giggles, while he's working himself up into a lather calling people fanboys, as if that is the ultimate insult and he himself isn't the biggest fanboy of all.

 

[gambit]

Ha, old man, still here busying spreading your outdated anti-Chinese propangada as usual? "FANBOY"? what about yourself? did you forget you admitted you are also one of the "FANBOY" on this forum before? my friendly advice to you will be better to behave yourself, cut down your lies and feed on your women's money like most of your countrymen do. Easy life, isn't it great eh?
PS, seriously, how you still got the nerve to continue your so-called professionalism claim after your so-called J-20 "photochop" accusation being debunked right at your face? hmm, thick face professional?

Of course I am a 'fanboy'. But the issue is BASELESS assumptions from fanboys. Mine are not baseless. Even if any of my assumptions is wrong, it can never be considered 'baseless' because I support my arguments with credible third party sources. More than you Chinese boys can say for yourselves.

 

[ptldM3]

The Russian government has in service:
11 Su-30s
14 Su-34s
11 Su-35s

And your point is? The numbers are increasing esspecially when the SU-34 and the SU-35BM or SU-35S are brand new aircraft, and the Russian air force preferes the SU-35 over the SU-30 hense the low numbers. SU-34's, SU-35's, and pak-fa will replace older Sukhois. Lets keep on track, you fanboys loose every conversation so you revert to making fools out of yourselves by diverting the subject to numbers of aircraft, sources, companies, patents and a whole lot of other nonesense.

Sooner or later, Sukhoi's financial struggles due to lack of order from its own government will become obvious.

The Russian airforce has ordered about 100 SU-34's/SU-35S's, minumum. And is planing on purchasing 250 pak-fa's, the Superjet 100 is also has many orders in Russia, and nearly 190 worldwide. And why would it matter if the orders are in Russia or obroad? Money is money, Sukhoi's are selling everywhere from Guatamala to Vietnam, Malyasia, to India.

In 1990's, China was still making J-7s which was first introduced in the 1960's.
In early 2000's, J-10 came out and its latest J-10B variant with AESA/IRS/DSI intake is comparable to the F-16 C/D.
In early 2011, J-20 makes its first public flight which is 1 generation ahead of the likes of Rafale and EF.

J-10 and AESA? Reading too many blogs arn't we?

Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.

The man or girl asked for who my sources are and i provided them, did you want me to sent them via mail? Or did you want me to type every source free-hand? Your above statment is as obsured as your other statment regarding Google and searching sources.

The sad part about this is, is the report you so authoritatively cite was written and researched by highschool students.

No the sad part is that you cant read and that you think that i'm as gullible as some J-20 fanboys. Firstly your quote did not say anything about highschool students reasearching or writing anything.

Your quote only metioned that the Mitchell Institute awards scholarships, and nothing, apsolutely nothing about students researching or writing anything.

Here is who the author was:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dr. Rebecca Grant is an airpower analyst with 20 years of experience in Washington, D.C. She is President of IRIS Independent Research and serves as director, Mitchell Institute, for the Air Force Association. She has written extensively on airpower and among her most recent publications are several Mitchell reports, including The Vanishing Arsenal of Airpower (2009),The Tanker Imperative (2009), and Airpower in Afghanistan (2009).

Nice try, but the only thing you proved was that you have a reading imparment and that you are a liar.

apart selling conditional appalling Su-27s to China thats why we had to 'copy' in order to make it at least state operational```do you know how many russian built s-27s sold to China crashed??

India operates a very large amount of SU-30's and has been for 13 years, some Indian SU-30 pilots receive as much as 300 flight hours anually, some of the highest in any airforce, yet there has been only 2 crashes one of which is pilot error if im not mistaken, so Sukhoi's are actually very safe, infact when you factor in all the airforces that operate SU-30's you will find out that crashes are extremely rare.

Maybe China needs to train it pilots and technicians better than perhaps they would be crashing.

and I used the word 'losing' not lost``do you even understand the meaning of 'losing' and 'lost' ?? delusional one is you not us``from 1992 t0 2011 we saw the development of F-35, F-22, upgraded version of F-16s, F-15s and F-18s and they even sucessfully tested the 6th gen fighter```and also during this 20 years we saw China maturing with her J-7s, J-8s, FBC-1s, FC-1s, J-10s and J-20s and other bunches``however, during these 20 years what did we witness from Russia?? nothing new but old bunches like the flanker families and the R.I.P Mikoyan!! and poor performance of russian weapons in quite a few conflicts``

Yea and Russia didn't upgrade any of their airrcaft right? The SU-34 had 11 avionics upgrades before it even entered service. The SU-30 is offered with multiple avionics packages. And if you were not so naive you would know Russia has had a number of project besides the SU-30's, SU-34's amd SU-35's. KA-50, KA-60 Superjet, yak-130, pak-fa as well as heavy cargo aircraft are either in service or in development.