China Flanker Thread II

[KYli]

Actually I don't know how many articles I've read. I guarantee you that nobody on this forum knows how many they've read either. On the other hand, I wasn't under the impression that I have any obligation whatsoever to provide you the answer to such a question.

Off course not, that is why how many articles you have read is irrevelant to this debate, because it doesn't serve as an indicator of your knowledge on Chinese military matters.

I don't really care what your opinion of my well balanced view is. You also don't seem to possess the faculties to understand the nuance of argumentation.

This is unnecessary.

I have never discredited SDF. Actually, I have not discredited Pinkov either. The validity of sources is never either/or, good/bad. They are more correctly thought of as being on a spectrum or gradation of validity, with more reputable sources and less reputable sources, more often correct and less often correct. Thus even someone like Pinkov can sometimes get some things right. Sites that routinely use other sources possibly several times removed from the original source, like SDF, do not necessarily deserve the status that has been accorded it in this thread.

Gradation of validity is judged by the eyes of the beholder. You can not just force or insist upon what is good and what is not good sources by your own belief.

I don't want to discredit Russia media, but they have been very contradictory from the very beginning. There have been interviews with Sukhoi's officials by Chinese media that gave different interpretation from what Pinkov or other media have said. Until Russia makes formal accusation directly at Chinese, I would reserve my judgement on this matter.

You seriously need to reread my previous post on huitong more carefully. And when did CDF come into this discussion? Don't get ridiculous and start putting up straw men.

My mention of CDF and Huitong is just to explain that they earned respect and trust from others because they are rarely wrong.

However, Pinkov and Russia media have been wrong too often.

SDF is imperfect, but its information is rarely wrong either. Eventhough its information is not first hand, this is not made SDF less reputable.

Both FAS (and Global Security for that matter) as well as huitong mention 30%. This constitutes prima facie support of my contention that Russia always intended to supply at least part of every Su-27 made in China and that this was in fact part of the contract. If you think my sources do not actually state what they obviously state on a plain reading of the text, then you need to find your own reputable source which directly contradicts the plain reading.

Sorry to say that I don't need to find any source to support my argument, because any breach of contract is only material unless the aggrieved party decides to pursue legal action. Until Russia formally indicates that its right has been violated and supported by facts. Your allegation is just allegation.

Russia's intention has nothing to do with the content in the contract. It might think that the Chinese might never be capable to produce anything comparable to what it has.

 

[tphuang]

By the way, it took me a while to find the Kanwa article on this so I don't want to miss the chance to post it.

On page 69 of the January 2010 edition of Kanwa, it had a section of J-11A assembly. Now, there are two different types of Kanwa articles: his opinion and his interviews. His opinions are generally pretty bad, so I would not take those seriously. So, any time that he does analysis on photos and things that he sees, it's more amusing than anything else. However, his interviews actually are kind of useful. It reflects exactly what the people that he interviews are actually thinking. By reading these interviews, we have a good idea what the Russians think about their negotiations with China and which weapons got copied.

So, in this article, he spoke with people inside the Russian military industry. They expressed that the 1996 agreement is continuing and did not get abolished. The original production target was 200, but clearly no longer assembles new su-27sk. But after first 105 were assembled, they are still following the original agreement to deliver parts every year. They said that they know China is possibly using it to assemble J-11B. So, they believe if this continues, they will no longer honour their agreement and deliver the parts.

Clearly, China is still getting the parts because they have already paid or is still paying for the parts. Russians are really not getting ripped off that badly here.

 

[challenge]

speaking of life span of fighter aircraft,what is the present status of israel and saude F-15 purchased in the early 80's?
according to US, several PLAAF SU-27SK purchased in the early 90's already been retired.life span is half that of USAF aircraft.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

speaking of life span of fighter aircraft,what is the present status of israel and saude F-15 purchased in the early 80's?
according to US, several PLAAF SU-27SK purchased in the early 90's already been retired.life span is half that of USAF aircraft.

Israel as far as I know is looking to get in on the F-35 to replace it's F-15s while as far as I know, Saudi Arabia has no intention of giving up their F-15s yet, although they are replacing their Panavia Tornados (both IDS and ADV) with Eurofighters. Russian aircraft, especially their engines, do not have the endurance of western aircraft and their operational lifetimes can be quiet short in comparison without a midlife overhaul. I'm sure somebody here can give you more solid numbers on engine life.

 

[Centrist]

the marinization of Taihang engine is under development. i think initial J-15 demonstrator/prototype still be equipped with AL-31Fs.as chief designer Zhang said, the mature engine powered the new aircraft.

What do you mean by "marinization" of the engine? What does that consist of? What changes need to be made?

 

[latenlazy]

What do you mean by "marinization" of the engine? What does that consist of? What changes need to be made?

Amongst other things, parts probably need special treatment for sea conditions. The air could be corrosive to certain parts.

 

[challenge]

chinese copy of Su-33 (J-15 ) Prototype spotted
BY:IDRW NEWS NETWORK / CHINESE MEDIA



A prototype of J-15 with arresting hook retracted beneath the redesigned tail cone has been spotted at Shanyang AircraftCompany . With all the attention paid to the Naval Aviation building up recently, it might not be a coincidence that the PLAN is not building any more destroyers. They just don’t have a bottomless funding as others have suggested.

The J-15 Flying Shark is manufactured by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. It is a carrier-based fighter aircraft, and is believed to be the Chinese upgraded version with advanced avionics and AESA radar of the Russian Sukhoi Su-33.

 

[noone536]

"it might not be a coincidence that the PLAN is not building any more destroyers. They just don’t have a bottomless funding as others have suggested."

i don't know about you but i heard this phrase somewhere in our forum. i think a memeber said it

 

[tphuang]

again, one should never use idrw as their source. In this case, it's written by some amateurish person. I don't know how this manages to happen, but challenger discovered another horrible source.

 

[RedMercury]

That line was ripped from xinhui's blog without attribution.