Chinese purchase of Su-35

Blitzo · Jun 12, 2013

SinoSoldier said:
And yet somehow it is able to keep producing the new J-15 and is about to produce more J-16. Sorry, but that doesn't add up in light of the fact that the problem being theorized here is production capability

... yes it is able to produce new J-15s and J-16s because they may be compensating by stopping J-11B production. But PLAAF still needs J-11Bs, or something like that. They've managed to retool their production line for J-15s and J-16s, or may even have added another to produce J-15s and J-16s at the same time.

But they're losing J-11Bs cause of it. PLAAF and PLANAF still want their J-16s and J-15s on time. but PLAAF notes a shortage of J-11Bs. what do they do?

Su-35

So they push back the J-15 and J-16. There were numerous cases such as the J-10B and J-8 in which the program was stalled, but all that did was to push the timeline further back.

If they do procure Su-35 due to production reasons they've clearly made the decision to not push back J-15 and J-16 and procure Su-35 after an extensive cost-benefit analysis.

Of course we can argue "well they can just delay their fleet expansion, or just live with a regiment or two less of J-11b-esque fighters". Sure. Are they willing to afford a decrease?

Increasing production of it will make up for any shortage of J-11B that is currently rumored. If they can build J-11BH and J-15 simultaneously, then retooling a J-11BH line for a J-15 line would be significantly easier than adding a brand new one.

But that doesn't solve the problem that they'll have lost a year or more's worht of J-11B production which the PLAAF may have wanted. Not to mention retooling production lines doesn't happen overnight. And then there's J-16 production to factor in.

Look at it this way, there are X number of flankers SAC can produce between today and... let's say 2016, until an increased production line kicks in. X includes "A" number of J-11Bs/BSs, "B" number of J-15s, "C" number of J-16s. PLAAF needs to choose which it values more, because from now until 2016 they can only produce X number of airframes, and needs to divide that between J-11B, J-15 or J-16. If they sacrifice J-11Bs altogether, then "A" number of airframes can be split to increase J-15 and J-16 production, but PLAAF will lose their J-11Bs.

how do they circumvent that shortage of J-11Bs? Hopefully they would've had the foresight to refurbish old airframes etc... but if they still don't balance out... then buy Su-35s.

China has more Flankers than Russia, which has more men flying than China. Simple math is all it takes to show that China's shortage of fighter planes is miniscule or nonexistent and even if the problem is true, then China definitely is in a safe place to solve that issue than to turn to a country that is more likely to need Flankers more than China does. Especially when considering that China has not even retired its J-8 or J-7 yet in significant numbers when compared to old Flankers.

"Shortage" is in the eye of the beholder and on the group setting the marks for itself. The US complains about a "shortage" of missile defence capable destroyers in the future even though they have more PAR ABM capable burkes and ticos compared to the rest of the world added together.

You're either missing my point or purposefully ignoring it. I used the term "fighter shortage" generally but really it's a "heavy long range air superiority fighter" shortage. J-7s and J-8s are not equivalent to flankers. So despite the fact that they are still in service, if PLAAF's flankers are retiring, and/or if PLAAF are deciding to expand to heavy weight air superioroity fighter fleet/flanker fleet and SAC cannot keep up, then they will turn to russia to buy some planes to make up the numbers.
Sure PLAAF may have more flankers than Russia. But China is not Russia and PLAAF is not VVS.

Recent photos show that J-11BH production is still continuing. So why are they shutting it down? To make room for J-15? Out of money? Why are they buying fighters then? Isn't it wise to stick with the J-11BH instead of spending money to retool the line for the J-15 and J-16 which are also being built simultaneously?

No it isn't wise, because PLAAF and PLANAF may have a demand for J-16 and J-15 (PLAAF's MKKs are gaining flying hours, and PLANAF has a carrier wing or two to get operational), and J-11Bs are seen as the most expendable and replacable out of three?

PLA aren't exactly going to cut J-15 or J-16 production and turn to russia for Su-33 or more MKKs are they.

The sources have been repeating the same old story for years now and so far their claims on other military purchases have been falsified. So far government and company sources have either not reported it or have outright denied it.

I definitely agree the Su-35 deal is still shady. But my argument is that the PLAAF could definitely have a grounds for purchasing Su-35 on the basis of having a fighter (air superiority flanker) shortage, possibly due to a shift to J-15/16 production + retiring of old flanker airframes + possibly a fighter fleet expansion.

The Russian jet will mainly have a kinematic advantage while the Chinese one will have an electronic upper hand.

The Russian jet will have a definite kinematic advantage while radar is debatable (the much touted benefits of AESA versus PESA aren't so clear cut, but having much more thrust is universal). And that's assuming J-11Bs even have AESAs, or will have.

Such a predicament does not require the same exact mentioned circumstances, does it? China is not the only country that has faced domestic shortage problems.

When other countries have faced domestic shortage problems they turn to foreign sources. In this case China may well happen to have a shortage of flanker like fighters, so they're going to turn to Su-35 because that's arguably the best choice out there for their needs outside of asking Knaapo to produce J-11Bs at SAC prices. They're not going to suddenlybuy Mig-35 or something.

Blitzo · Jun 12, 2013

Engineer said:
The benefits of investing locally are long term. The benefits of buying foreign is extremely short term, and arguably there will be loss as Russian weapons would have to be restocked and consulting fees would have to be paid to Russia over the lifetime of purchased aircraft.

I don't deny that there are long term benefits of investing domestically, but it may take many years for that to kick in, and the PLAAF may need airframes before that. I'm not saying an Su-35 purchase needs to be exclusive of a concurrent investment into the domestic industry, but rather that a Su-35 purchase could produce airframes on the PLAAF's projected timetable at a more acceptable time than when a domestic investment.

My retorts are as follow. First, the newest SAC Flankers are not lacking in electronics and weapon suite vs. the Su-35. In fact, if we include criteria such as reliability instead of focusing on hard number in brochures, Chinese avionics would be better given China's healthy and mature IC industry. Second, PLAAF can always go for CAC if SAC is so incompetent. CAC is competent enough that there is no need to go foreign.

J-11B does not have A2G weapons, and J-15 and J-16 at the moment have not been integrated with as wide an array of A2G weapons as Su-35 have (we've seen mock ups of J-15 carrying YJ-91, KD-88/YJ-83K... no PGMs or shorter ranged A2G missiles). Until such time when J-15 and J-16 are equipped with some of the bombs and missiles we've seen at chinese airshows, Su-35 still has a wider weapons suite (Kab series, many tv guided rockets whose names escape me atm, moskit, Kh-31...).

Are you suggesting CAC produce flankers? Because it will take time to build up another CAC flanker line, let alone from the fact that may siphon away personnel from other CAC projects (will it cut into J-10A/B production? J-20 development? other projects? Are the PLAAF willing to compromise those for CAC meeting their flanker quota?0.

As for electronics, at the very least J-11B with its current non AESA radar is clearly inferior to Irbis E and Su-35 also features a rear facing radar. The more detailed EW/ECM I'm not as experienced with.

One should remember that investing domestically does not equate to investing into SAC.

But it will still take ages for investment into another contractor to actually start producing planes, and PLAAF may not afford to wait that long.

Said by Russian media, the same media that have been saying China is buying the Su-35 and Tu-22 for a couple of years already. We have yet to see any contract being inked.

Agreed, I take that with a hint of salt, but my argument is more towards the potential of a fighter/flanekr shortfall necessitating an Su-35 purchase, not that such a purchase is necessarily set in stone.

You are right that the issue of performance is irrelevant. The fact that Russians themselves stated any exported Su-35 will be fitted with Russian avionics pretty much rules out Chinese procurement.

who knows, they might be willing to compromise this time around. Never say never.

Engineer · Jun 12, 2013

Bltizo said:
I don't deny that there are long term benefits of investing domestically, but it may take many years for that to kick in, and the PLAAF may need airframes before that. I'm not saying an Su-35 purchase needs to be exclusive of a concurrent investment into the domestic industry, but rather that a Su-35 purchase could produce airframes on the PLAAF's projected timetable at a more acceptable time than when a domestic investment.

If there is a bottle neck somewhere limiting production capacity, then more effort should be put into fix that problem. Depending on another country to manufacture things for you when you need them the most is simply the worst decision possible, far worse than waiting a few more years for investment to come to fruition.

Bltizo said:
J-11B does not have A2G weapons, and J-15 and J-16 at the moment have not been integrated with as wide an array of A2G weapons as Su-35 have (we've seen mock ups of J-15 carrying YJ-91, KD-88/YJ-83K... no PGMs or shorter ranged A2G missiles). Until such time when J-15 and J-16 are equipped with some of the bombs and missiles we've seen at chinese airshows, Su-35 still has a wider weapons suite (Kab series, many tv guided rockets whose names escape me atm, moskit, Kh-31...).

It does not matter whether the Su-35 has wider weapon suite. Su-35 can carry dozen different types of Russian ASCM, but it still isn't going to be as useful as a Chinese Flanker that can launch YJ-62 as the only A2G weapon.

Bltizo said:
Are you suggesting CAC produce flankers? Because it will take time to build up another CAC flanker line, let alone from the fact that may siphon away personnel from other CAC projects (will it cut into J-10A/B production? J-20 development? other projects? Are the PLAAF willing to compromise those for CAC meeting their flanker quota?0.

You are being silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course CAC isn't going to switch production to Flankers. If SAC indeed is too incompetent to get the production number up, and that's a big if, then PLAAF could go for more J-10.

Bltizo said:
As for electronics, at the very least J-11B with its current non AESA radar is clearly inferior to Irbis E and Su-35 also features a rear facing radar. The more detailed EW/ECM I'm not as experienced with.

Irbis-E is merely a PESA, not comparable to AESA on J-15 and J-16.

Bltizo said:
But it will still take ages for investment into another contractor to actually start producing planes, and PLAAF may not afford to wait that long.

Agreed, I take that with a hint of salt, but my argument is more towards the potential of a fighter/flanekr shortfall necessitating an Su-35 purchase, not that such a purchase is necessarily set in stone.

who knows, they might be willing to compromise this time around. Never say never.

This is not a good argument for buying Su-35. As the proverb goes, that would just be treating the symptoms rather than the disease. Not only that, but your solution is trading quality with quantity, giving up force multiplier from seamless integration for just a few dozen additional aircraft that don't quite fit well with the rest of the air force.

Blitzo · Jun 12, 2013

Engineer said:
If there is a bottle neck somewhere limiting production capacity, then more effort should be put in to fix that problem. Depending on another country to manufacture things for you when you need them the most is simply the worst decision possible, far worse than waiting a few more years for investment to come to fruition.

Like I said, investing domesetically and purchasing a foreign plane are not mutually exclusive.

It does not matter whether the Su-35 has wider weapon suite. Su-35 can carry dozen different types of Russian ASCM, but it still isn't going to be as useful as a Chinese Flanker that can launch YJ-62 as the only A2G weapon.

Hmm but different targets will be more effectively dealt with a different type of weapon or missile. You don't need a KD-88 for something which a KAB 500 can deal with. Similarly hardened targets may only be effectively dealt with through large bunker busters like KAB 1500.

Practically that may mean litlle for the PLAAF, but the point remains that Su-35 has a slightly larger variety of weapons available to it than J-15 and J-16 do (until further evidence arises). If J-16 and J-15 can integrate LS, LT series, along with YJ-12 in addition to existing KD-88, YJ-91, Yj-83K etc, then their weapons suites will blow Su-35 out of the water.

At present though, no.

You are being silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course CAC isn't going to switch production to Flankers. If SAC indeed has production problem, and that's a big if, then PLAAF simply needs to buy more J-10.

I wasn't being silly. My whole argument has revolved around the fact that PLAAF may lack (air superiority) fighters (that are heavy weight and long range like flankers). PLAAF buying more J-10s don't exactly solve that problem, I don't need to tell you what the difference between J-10 and flankers are.
And even if PLAAF somehow do concede and decide to purchase more J-10s in the stead of flankers, assuming CAC aren't using their max capacity, they will still take years to increase production rate to a degree which the PLAAF may require.

Irbis-E is merely a PESA, not comparable to AESA on the J-15 and J-16.

I'm not expert in radar but I feel that is a bastardization of how they actually fare.

This is not a good argument for buying Su-35. As the proverb goes, that would just be treating the symptoms rather than the disease.

I never said they should "only" purchase Su-35. By all means invest domestically. But that's not going to change the fact that PLAAF may well lack a regiment or two's worth of heavy weight air superiority fighters that they would prefer to have.

Using your disease analogy, the symptom in this case is the PLAAF's fleet requirements is greater than what the domestic industry can deliver in a certain timescale. The disease may be down to a sudden PLAAF requirement in boosting their fleet size, or perhaps simply a compounding of many small delays in past years which led to an inability to meet PLAAF's demands. The PLAAF will take steps to remedy this for future. But they're still going to be missing out on available airframes, and whether they can tolerate that short term shortfall depends on them because the domestic industry may not be delivering in the time scale they need.

Not only that, but your solution is trading quality with quantity, giving up force multiplier from seamless integration for just a few dozen additional aircraft that don't quite fit well with the rest of the air force.

Well it's either be a regiment short of some fighters, or have a regiment of foreign aircraft... and there's no reason the russians couldn't be more willing to modify their aircraft to suit chinese needs this time. Networking with AEW assets, datalinking etc. I doubt the PLAAF will demand integration of chinese avionics on the Su-35 or even chinese weapons (they have stocks of russian munitions probably), but immediately ruling out some level of russian cooperation is premature imho

----
I'm trying to make sense of a realistic situation where PLAAF may purchase Su-35, playing devil's advocate to an extent. And I think the situation I've lined up is not out of the question.

AeroEngineer · Jun 12, 2013

Engineer said:
Such a preposterous theory highlights how there is no logical reason for China to sign a Su-35 deal in the first place. It reminds me of how early astronomers observed that Earth is orbiting the sun, only to have people came up with ever more ridiculous ideas to justify the faulty assumption that Earth is located at the center of the solar system.

As for J-20, the intended engine for the production version has always been WS-15. The existence of such a project indicates how there has never been any intention of involving Russian engines in the final products.

This is a fallacy called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, where you are asserting that something is true because many people are believing it to be true.

There were never any evidence of Chinese representative checking the Su-35. On the other hand, Russian military representatives were checking out the JF-17 in Pakistan a while ago. Now, why would Russians do that if they are not going to buy the JF-17?

No. China is already test flying the J-20 with AL-31 engines. There is no "going to use 117S" for flight tests.

Yet China is building more WS-10 engines instead of buying the 117S engines.

117S only has 142kN, while WS-15 will have 180kN according to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Of course, WS-15 is still a few years from being readied, but waiting for 117S engines to be delivered then perform redesign, integration and testing is going to take similar amount of time. So, not only does your argument on performance fail to work, your assumption that time being favorable to 117S would also be incorrect.

The conclusion is that China is not going to induct any Su-35. Simple.

So you believe that China will NOT buy Su-35. Man, I hope you are right, I HATE Su-35, it is making me sick already with all these stupid weekly reports.

I think it is just like the Tu-22M deal, it has been dragged on for over 15 years, now it is officially DEAD !! I hope the same aply for the Su-35 !

AeroEngineer · Jun 12, 2013

Guys, please lets END this disscussion for NOW.

Wait for official news to come out.

I am really SICK of Su-35 for now.

Engineer · Jun 13, 2013

Bltizo said:
Like I said, investing domesetically and purchasing a foreign plane are not mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive, but buying a foreign product put PLAAF under extreme limitations. Given recent trend in Chinese arms development, that is extremely unlikely something China will be willing to do.

Bltizo said:
Hmm but different targets will be more effectively dealt with a different type of weapon or missile. You don't need a KD-88 for something which a KAB 500 can deal with. Similarly hardened targets may only be effectively dealt with through large bunker busters like KAB 1500.

Practically that may mean litlle for the PLAAF, but the point remains that Su-35 has a slightly larger variety of weapons available to it than J-15 and J-16 do (until further evidence arises). If J-16 and J-15 can integrate LS, LT series, along with YJ-12 in addition to existing KD-88, YJ-91, Yj-83K etc, then their weapons suites will blow Su-35 out of the water.

At present though, no.

These are just the same arguments you have made in your previous post. Again, variety of weapons on the Su-35 does not matter. The issue is that Su-35 cannot use Chinese weapons.

Bltizo said:
I wasn't being silly. My whole argument has revolved around the fact that PLAAF may lack (air superiority) fighters (that are heavy weight and long range like flankers). PLAAF buying more J-10s don't exactly solve that problem, I don't need to tell you what the difference between J-10 and flankers are.
And even if PLAAF somehow do concede and decide to purchase more J-10s in the stead of flankers, assuming CAC aren't using their max capacity, they will still take years to increase production rate to a degree which the PLAAF may require.

J-10 is very much an air superiority fighter that PLAAF can order in the absence of J-11B. In trying to cater to this idea of Su-35 deal, you are creating this additional constraint that the aircraft PLAAF purchase must be heavy weight, long range, and a Flanker variant. This is essentially moving the goal posts. Also, let's not forget the J-10 have beat the J-11B in exercises, so the issue of weight class is moot.

Your premise for the Su-35 deal is that SAC can't produce fighters quickly enough. When CAC is competent enough to accelerate its production rate and fulfills PLAAF needs, then your premise does not exist anymore.

Bltizo said:
I'm not expert in radar but I feel that is a bastardization of how they actually fare.

If you look at Su-30MKI as a reference, Russian avionics are not as good as they are advertised to be. Performance numbers on Russian brochures should be taken with a grain of salt.

Bltizo said:
I never said they should "only" purchase Su-35. By all means invest domestically. But that's not going to change the fact that PLAAF may well lack a regiment or two's worth of heavy weight air superiority fighters that they would prefer to have.

Using your disease analogy, the symptom in this case is the PLAAF's fleet requirements is greater than what the domestic industry can deliver in a certain timescale. The disease may be down to a sudden PLAAF requirement in boosting their fleet size, or perhaps simply a compounding of many small delays in past years which led to an inability to meet PLAAF's demands. The PLAAF will take steps to remedy this for future. But they're still going to be missing out on available airframes, and whether they can tolerate that short term shortfall depends on them because the domestic industry may not be delivering in the time scale they need.

And I am telling you that this short term gain in increase of airframes is meaningless. If war comes and attrition goes up, inventory of foreign equipments cannot be replenished easily. At that time, China will be facing the same issue as it does right now. Having a few more airframes today does not necessary help in the future. My other point is that the number of airframes by itself does not determine combat effectiveness. A regiment of Su-35 may even reduce combat effectiveness of the air force due to integration issues and logistical problems.

Bltizo said:
Well it's either be a regiment short of some fighters, or have a regiment of foreign aircraft... and there's no reason the russians couldn't be more willing to modify their aircraft to suit chinese needs this time. Networking with AEW assets, datalinking etc. I doubt the PLAAF will demand integration of chinese avionics on the Su-35 or even chinese weapons (they have stocks of russian munitions probably), but immediately ruling out some level of russian cooperation is premature imho

----
I'm trying to make sense of a realistic situation where PLAAF may purchase Su-35, playing devil's advocate to an extent. And I think the situation I've lined up is not out of the question.

Russians may be willing, but China will not. I can assure you PLAAF will not let the Russians or anyone else get near Chinese data-link or access technical documents on Chinese avionics interfaces.

Blitzo · Jun 13, 2013

Engineer said:
They are not mutually exclusive, but buying a foreign product put PLAAF under extreme limitations. Given recent trend in Chinese arms development, that is extremely unlikely something China will be willing to do.

Agreed. Whether the shortfall in fighters is something the PLAAF is willing to tolerate and work through is up to their discretion.

These are just the same arguments you have made in your previous post. Again, variety of weapons on the Su-35 does not matter. The issue is that Su-35 cannot use Chinese weapons.

I thought we were comparing Su-35 versus Chinese flankers based on their own merits (in this case, range of weapons/weapons suite) and not on their compatability with the PLAAF logistics chain. Yes I agree, Su-35 can't use chinese weapons.

J-10 is very much an air superiority fighter that PLAAF can order in the absence of J-11B. In trying to cater to this idea of Su-35 deal, you are creating this additional constraint that the aircraft PLAAF purchase must be heavy weight, long range, and a Flanker variant. This is essentially moving the goal posts. Also, let's not forget the J-10 have beat the J-11B in exercises, so the issue of weight class is moot.

Maybe I was vague in my original few posts for which I apologize, but the lack of a heavy weight, long range air superiority aircraft was my point the whole time (sinosoldier mentioned J-7s and J-8s in an earlier reply regarding my use of the general word "fighter" where I realized the word could be easily interpreted as any "fighter" rather than my intended meaning of "flanker" or more specifically, air superiority, heavy weight, long range and persistent fighter. I mean when I mentioend "shortfall of fighters" I'm sure it carried across that I didn't mean a shortfall of J-7s or J-8s or even J-10s.).

And J-11B have in turn recently defeated J-10s in exercises I believe. Weight class isn't moot because range and persistence and the ability to operate from a distance is very much relevant.

If you want to say that I've moved the goal posts, fine. I've moved them.

I suppose now this part of the debate will transition to whether J-10 can be as persistent and long ranged an air superiority fighter as J-11B, and whether their difference is significant enough to warrant purchase of Su-35. I personally do not know, but it is one of the more probable causes for a potential Su-35 purchase.

Your premise for the Su-35 deal is that SAC can't produce fighters quickly enough. When CAC is competent enough to accelerate its production rate and fulfills PLAAF needs, then your premise does not exist anymore.

My overall premise is that the domestic industry cannot produce heavy weight air superiority flanker type fighters fast enough. Sub premises includes the SAC's inability to produce flankers enough, and the sub premise that no other contractor can produce heavy weight air superiority flanker type aircraft, as well as the fact that the time taken to set up or retool another production line to produce flankers will be too late for the PLAAF's projected fleet requirement.

CAC doesn't come into this, unless they can somehow produce an deliver flankers within the PLAAF's requested timeline.

If you look at Su-30MKI as a reference, Russian avionics are not as good as they are advertised to be. Performance numbers on Russian brochures should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fair enough, but that's a generalization I'd prefer not to accept so candidly.
Westerners also holistically accuse chinese engines of being unreliable, and we know that's not wholly true, I'd prefer not to dismiss the products of other nations on such a whim.

And I am telling you that this short term gain in increase of airframes is meaningless. If war comes and attrition goes up, inventory of foreign equipments cannot be replenished easily. At that time, China will be facing the same issue as it does right now. Having a few more airframes today does not necessary help in the future. My other point is that the number of airframes by itself does not determine combat effectiveness. A regiment of Su-35 may even reduce combat effectiveness of the air force due to integration issues and logistical problems.

That's probably the best counter argument to have come out of this entire discussion.

This is becoming very nitty gritty and out of my depth. I'm not sure how important having a desired number of airframes available is, to an air force's mission, and it's far out of my depth to weigh up how combat effective a PLAAF with 24 Su-35s will be compared to a PLAAF without 24 Su-35s, except possibly that the former may be able to conduct more sorties (but then again, the latter may be able to absorb personnel from that regiment of Su-35s and distribute them to other areas of the air force, improving functioning in other areas).

All I will say is that military arms often make a point to sustain a certain quantity of machines of a particular type... and the PLAAF will have to weigh up the costs and benefits of integrating a regiment or however many Su-35.

Russians may be willing, but China will not. I can assure you PLAAF will not let the Russians or anyone else get near Chinese data-link or access technical documents on Chinese avionics interfaces.

A potential limitation, but not unresolvable.

delft · Jun 13, 2013

SinoSoldier said:
Photos show that the J-15 and J-11BH fighters were being built simultaneously; production lines are likely closely linked.

There isn't.

Fair enough. However, it doesn't make much sense for the PLAAF to purchase planes to make up for their own numerical gaps, all the while producing the J-15 and J-16 at the same time. If their aim is to induct their new technology as fast as they can, then adding another new J-15 production line would solve the problem. If their goal to get fighters in numbers, they can stop retiring old ones. If the PLAAF were not producing any similar planes, then it would make sense for them to purchase. However, that is not the case.

Or perhaps they can stop scrapping old ones. Or perhaps they can increase their land based J-15s by a couple of regiments. Increasing J-15 production shouldn't be such a big issue even if the first batches are delivered to the navy instead.

If that was the case then Sukhoi would certainly have reported it; they haven't.

Chinese Flankers should more or less in the same league with the Russian jet and might even have an electronic advantage should the reports be accurate. However there has not been a single case in any country when something is purchased to make up for a domestic unit, all the while producing a newer variant of that domestic unit.

I understand that J-10, J-11 and J-15 are not produced on production lines but in batches. Production lines are for larger production rates. You say that J-11BH and J-15 are produced at the same time, suggesting that there are two batch production facilities for Flankers at SAC. These can no doubt switch for one version to another. What is the batch size and how many aircraft are in a batch - can anyone tell us that?
And, as Kroko also says, I'm not aware of a lack of production capacity for Flankers.

franco-russe · Jun 13, 2013

Much as I regret intervening in this boring discussion, which in typical SDF fashion has become very heated and degenerated into namecalling: Either China buys SU-35S, or she does not, we will know sooner or later, so let's just wait.

But I would think that China might buy it for the same reason as Russia. The Russian Air Force ordered 48, delivery 2011-15, and may buy another 48 to fill the gap until the arrival of PAK-FA in squadron service.

J-11/J-15 is produced in batches of 24. J-11B Lot 04 was delivered in 2011 to 111 Air Brigade Korla.

Then there was a pause, likely because Shenyang switched to building a batch of 24 J-15. Now they are building another batch of J-11B, also for the Navy, to re-equip 9 Div 25 Regt Lingshui.

I do think there is still a problem with deliveries of WS-10A engines, though.

Chinese purchase of Su-35

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Engineer

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

AeroEngineer

Junior Member

AeroEngineer

Junior Member

Engineer

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

delft

Brigadier

franco-russe

Senior Member