Buying Russian Ka-31 and Ka-28 is only used as a backup.
What does that even mean? personal opinions are now facts? What would this 'backup' be for? In case China cant built an equivalent? Incase they can't meet manufacturing demand?
China was exporting AEW helicopters to Pakistan while purchasing AEW helicopters from Russia, so supply and demand can't be it. Logic tells us that they did it because the KA-31/28 were the better platform. No one is going to purchase expensive AEW helicopters if they are subpar.
Every time a Chinese member belittles Russian equipment ( which is daily) there is often an example of China purchasing the same equipment from Russia, the excuses are always 'we did it for political reasons' or 'we did it as backup'. Let's get real.
The main one AEW that will serve onboard CV-16 is domestic Z-8AEW which is more advance and powerful. Russian one which is more inferior will use in lesser important ship. Chinese always do things more precariously. You see US buy many foreign arms from Europe and Israel. Does it mean it is not capable of producing it? By doing it this way,it can reduce production cause and shorter development so that it can quickly mass equipped for lesser important unit.
Back it up. It's China that comes to Russia for AEW systems not the other way around, it also doesn't help that China was purchasing KA-31s and KA-28s from Russia While at the same time selling Pakistan the Z-9EC. And
what chip are you talking, give me specifics with a link.
And also TK-10 prototypes is a non workable aircraft which is not able to use on carrier. This comment is comfirmed by Russian analysis. Buying TK-10 is irrelevant. Even without it, we will still able to make our own J-15. We just buy T-10K as a backup in case we really could not figure out making a carrier version of flanke. See J-15S which is a twin seater and never produced by Russian.
Be honest with yourself, China purchased the T-10 to copy, end of story.
May I know which prototype we use as reference since Russian itself never has a twin seater Su-33 version?
One prototype T-10 and production SU-30MKKs gave China the ability to build there J-11BS or whatever it's called.
Why don't we see the JH-7, which is much newer than the SU-27 being produced in numbers like we see flankers?
Firstly most of your comments are off topic and of little value, in fact they are passive aggressive. In the future I will not answer you if you continue to bring up topics that are none related and provocative. For now I will answer your comments but next time If you deviate from the topic I will not burden myself in replying to random topics.
Eeh, what? JH-7 is comparable to Su-24. It has nothing to do with Air-Superiority or Multi-role fighters. They are mostly used for bombing strikes against ground targets and supporting ground troops.
So the JH-7 is a close air support aircraft? I think not, at least not a true close air support. The SU-27 can also conduct bombing raids but it's not optimized for it, that job would be better suited for the SU-30 or better yet SU-34. So while we keep hearing that it's easy to produce airframes and Chinese are superior (so they claim) we still see the Chinese building there air force and Navy on a Russian platform which they could have just used the much newer JH-7. Heck they can just uses the same avionics that's in the Chinese flankers and put them in the JH-7 to accomplish the same role.
Just as RuAF did against Georgia in August 2008, and still lost several aircraft against a country such as Georgia.
What has this got to do with anything? Stay on topic. Half of those losses was to friendly fire and the remaining was relying to heavily on close air support aircraft instead of SEADs aircraft.
There is no point for PLAAF to sit with a large number of JH-7. PLAAF is producing 4th and 4.5 gen fighters and is focusing on 5th gen fighters and fighter-bombers, including a new type of JH-7 which is rumored to be on of the J-type series; J-16 or rumored J-18.
Exactly, they are focusing heavily on Flankers instead of the JH-7 which is a poor argument for Supposed Chinese superiority in designing aircraft.
Now, RuAF has around 25 units of newer Su-34. I mean, do you plan on sending Su-24 or the newer Su-34 against F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22 or F-35 ? No, I don't think RuAF plan on doing that. Neither does PLAAF plan on sending JH-7 up against F-16, F-15, etc etc.
The SU-34 is based on the SU-27, and it's primary role is SEADs. The SU-34 can also conduct air-to-air but it's not optimized for that role. If Sukhoi wanted to it could just use SU-35 avionics in the SU-34 but that would be a wast considering the SU-34 cockpit was designed for long endurance flights and other components such as landing gear, boom, ect were designed with SEADS. Nevertheless, the SU-34 can perform air-to-air because it still has a strong Flanker lineage.
So asking why PLAAF hasn't built more JH-7, is really a useless question. It's like asking why RuAF plan on building total of 120 Su-34 and not more than that. Which is about the same number of JH-7 PLAAF has in service right NOW and is looking to replace them gradually.
Hardly a worthless question, there are flanker variants that can perform any role, wether it be air superiority, multirole, maritime, or a bomb truck. The Flanker has much better flexibility then any JH-7, so there would be little need for the JH-7. In other words the Flanker is a superior platform and the Chinese air force recognizes this.
Furthermore, it would be like asking you; since T-50 is so "superior", why does Russia plan on building 1.000 of these fighters but only 200 are for the RuAF? The other 800 are going to other countries. 144 to India, and the rest to other countries.
Again off topic and a foolish example. The T-50 is going to be expensive. The JH-7 is not, nor is there anything to really augment the T-50 unlike the JH-7.
If we compare this with F-22, 100% are under U.S. control, and if we look at the F-35 number, the U.S. plan on having 80% of all produced F-35s, and only 20% will go to other countries.
First example, the F-22 is banned for export. The second example, the F-35 was originally supposed to be a cheap aircraft where the US military could afford to replace F-16s and F-15s, instead the F-35 has ballooned in price to where the US may cut orders just like partner countries have, some countries even dropped out of the F-35 program altogether.
However, China on the other hand, will most likely go the same way as the U.S. J-20s only for China and most of the J-31 will also be for PLAAF, and some will be exported, maybe 20-30% of the total numbers.
That's speculation which runs rampant among Chinese on this forum. Good example, Chinese AEW helicopters are superior to Russian ones because I say so, and the only reason we purchased those Russian helicopters was because of backup, no wait, it was because we replaced crappy Russian avionics, no it was a political statement, or wait it was as a favor to Russia.
So, another question; where is the second stealth fighter for RuAF ? Since RuAF plan on getting only 200 PAK-FA T-50.
Stay on topic, those figures of 200 could change anytime just like SU-34 numbers kept increasing.
Oh, is it imaginary MiG LMFS, which is still being developed in theory? lol.
When is LMFS going to be ready? Do tell
When Mig says it's ready.
yet again off topic, may I add.
How is Russian Navy going these days? Oh, I guess straight down the hill from 2015, according to Russian admiral; although I don't need him to confirm what I already know, but it's fun linking to Russian sources, since many of you are in denial.
Russia losing it's navy:
Your link is from 2009 and it's like one paragraph long. Russia is spending over 650 billion on purchasing new military equipment including over 100 naval vessels. Russian shipyards have been delivering new frigates, corvettes, and submarines for the last few years and will continue so.
Again once again, it's completely off topic and low on your part.
More your assumption from your side, Russian media and rumor keep assuming that any China’s defence development must have to do with Russians.
It's called facts. Fact T-10 was purchased for the J-15 development. Fact J-11, J-15, ect are a copy of a flanker airframe. Fact Yakovlev assisted China. I can keep going.
Well tell you what, China went to Brazil for that matter. Because PLAN never wanted to learn their AC fleet and operation standards from Russia but western, and you know that western countries assisting China’s AC project is virtually impossible.
Brazil isnt considered 'western', we also have no proof that China didn't ask Russia. For all we know they did but Russia wasn't exactly thrilled at the prospect of training a navy that copied their aircraft design.
Your assumption is partially wrong again. China continues to develop flanker and its derivatives are because it’ easier to do on a familiar platform, and also, as I said it before, 300 strong flanker families are the backbone of PLAAF and PLAN
The Flanker may be familiar to China, but for China to spend as much money as it has on developing different variants of the flanker so it can continue to built up the flanker fleet to serve many decades tells you something about the flanker design.
China continues to built the flanker today and will do so for many more years, these flankers will serve decades. The J-20 and J-31 were designed with one thing in mind, the flanker was design with something else in mind, in other words just because China has the J-20 and J-31 does not mean that either of those aircraft are better then a flanker in terms of payload, range, maneuverability, and mission flexibility.
Again, China had none experience of building AW helis, buying those are for short cuts, you are over estimating the electronic warfare of Ka-31 or Ka-27. PLAAF and PLAN never wanted to rely their electronic warfare capability on Russians, but our indigenous Y-8 variants, Z-8 AW helis and Y-7 fixed-wing AC board AWACs, plus various electronic pods designed for JH-7, J-10 and Chinese Flanker variants.
China has helicopters foreign and domestic and China has an electronics industry, so why would it be difficult to put two and two together?
Besides your point is negated by the fact That china did have EW helicopter, in fact China was selling it's Z-9s to Pakistan while acquiring KA-31s and KA-28s.
Serving air-born AESA, China yes, Russia No, this is the most evident to people have common sense.
What difference does it make if it's airborne or ground based? Russia has AESA platforms for everything.
And also according to your line of thinking, I can safely say Russia does not have any superior radar, aero, weapons etc if none of it existed
You completely do not understand me. You gave an example of how China declined to participate in the pak-fa program by stating China had a superior design, superior radar, superior performance, ect. The problem is that the pak-fa didn't exist nor did any of it's avionics or weapons systems.
The fact that the aircraft didn't exist destroyed that fanboy rumor of 'we had superior design, 'superior radar', 'superior weapons'.
So who is more creditable?
A Russian defence enthusiast who reads on internet
Or
Those one who is developing real fighter jets like J-10, J-11B, J-15, J-16, J-20 and J-31?
I believe not long ago, people were still believing in those clueless Russian assumptions as ‘facts’ regarding Su-33 deal, arrestor, J-20, J-31 and China ‘buying’ T-50 and etc````
What is more logical, believing someone (if they are real) that they have a superior design when the design that they are talking about does not exist or believing someone's bullcrap?
The pak-fa rumor spung around by Chinese fanboys is like Ford claiming that by 2020 they they have a better car then Ferrari, yet Ford knows nothing about how the 2020 Ferrari will perform.