I'm not here to argue that the J-11 is worse or MKI better, Im here to correct you on your preconceived notions. This is where my problem is, you make assertions of having an advantage in air superiority based on the most trivial things such as being faster and lighter, you also failed to verify any of the claims and until this happens many claims can be regarded as speculation, and don't waste your time giving me a link to a blog.
The MKI uses the ELTA jamming pods, those pods rendered Bisons nearly impossible to track according to US pilots, case in point, the MKI used one of the finest and most proven jammers on the market, so while an aircraft is designed to overcome counter measures often times it will fail.
Just about any aircraft can engage other aircraft at long ranges, the problem is will the other aircraft allow this to happen? Other aircraft such as the MKI have powerful radars coupled with powerful counter measures. Now introduce awacs and the situation is allot more complicated that just engaging targets at very long ranges. Aircraft are also limited by their air-to-air armament, if an aircraft is armed with a 70-100km A2A missile it will likely not fire until ~35-50km, the reason for this is because the average 70-100km range is under ideal circumstances meaning both aircraft are coming at each other heads on, this simply does not happen in real combat, what happens is that the aircraft that is fired upon turned and in doing so it causes the inbound missile to change course and expend precious fuel, in doing so the missiles range is cut drastically. What Im getting at is the J-11 will have to get with in effective firing range, so by the time this happens the BARS will have a lock, actually even before 70km it should pick up a 3m2 target.
3m2 is the frontal rcs, the belly, side, and rear will have considerably larger figures. Most importantly is that this is in a clean configuration, obviously like all other aircraft the J-11 carries it's weapons externally, so the 3m2 rcs will increase.
No it does not, the mki gets allot of its maneuverability from canards as well as TVC, and fly-by-wire. The J-11 does not have canards, and does the J-11 have TVC? Possible, but I don't take fanboys claims as proof. I also know that weki is unreliable, it states that the SU-35 is also 20% heavier than it really is, chances are the MKI's real weight is also inaccurate.
Yet you fail to provide the complete list of performance I asked for, if you make a claim such as x aircraft is more maneuverable than Y aircraft than you better prove it.
Actually its about 15-20M2.
It's not about size it's about surface area.
The WS-10 is still a new engine that had a history of setbacks and design problems and Im supposed to believe that there is already an improved version that's fully operational and produces 135kn thrust? Things don't work that way. If there is a such thing as a WS-10B it is a long way from being fully operational. Of course i could be wrong but common sense, logic, and most importantly previous projects would say otherwise.
The MKI can turn just fine, the problem was the Indians tried showing off too much by going into post stall maneuvers, as for data-link if I recall correctly the Indian side used US awacs, hence they were confused, with Falcon feeding the MKI in it's native language there shouldn't be nearly as much confusion. Why do you even bring up datlink issues? For all you know Chinese datalink can be far worse.
