Chinese Sohu complained that the J-15 fighter is called a copy of the Su-33


In China, they expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the Russian media called the Chinese carrier-based fighter a copy of the Su-33.


Recall that at the time, the Chinese purchased the prototype of the 33rd “Dryer” from Ukraine, and then, having thoroughly studied it, launched a program to create their own ship’s aircraft. As a result, on the basis of the Su-33 glider, the J-15 appeared, which today is used as the base aircraft carrier fighter fleet Navy PLA. Such fighters continue to undergo trial operation on the Shandong aircraft carrier - the first built in China.

Words of dissatisfaction were published by the Chinese portal Sohu, which states that "the similarity of the J-15 and Su-33 is only external."

From an article by a Chinese author:

They (fighters) are similar in appearance, but inside the J-15 everything is completely different. Therefore, it is impossible to call the J-15 a copy of the Soviet Su-33. The Su-33 avionics system and the level of informatization lag far behind the advanced world level. In addition, Russia for its Navy cannot currently develop a new generation of aircraft carriers and fifth-generation carrier-based fighters for them. In such a situation, there is no point in improving the Su-33. They (Russians) no longer do this. The Su-33 as part of the Russian Navy has no future.

The following describes the latest avionics of the J-15 fighter, that before the creation of the 5th generation carrier-based fighter (J-31), there are massive orders for the same Shandong.

From the material:

J-15 receives new weapons and their control systems, designers improve the aerodynamic performance of this aircraft.

After all these words, one may get the impression that in China they are trying to convince someone that the development of the J-15 is “in no way connected” with the prototype Su-33 previously purchased from Ukrainians.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 25 February 2020 13: 18 New
    • 16
    • 2
    +14
    If you look closely ... drying is.
    1. neri73-r 25 February 2020 13: 24 New
      • 21
      • 3
      +18
      The strange logic of the Chinese, since we Russians do not make new modifications and modernizations of the Su-33, then its (airplane) copy of the J-15 cannot be called a copy! Oh how !!!! wassat
      1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 13: 29 New
        • 28
        • 4
        +24
        Quote: rocket757
        If you look closely ... drying is.

        Quote: neri73-r
        Strange logic in the Chinese

        Ah ah ah...
        The Chinese Xerox was called a Xerox and the Xerox was offended that it was a Xerox ...
        1. rocket757 25 February 2020 13: 39 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          "Xeroxes" have become so touchy oh, oh, oh.
          If you really look, they will create their own ... but not right today.
          1. letinant 25 February 2020 13: 50 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            And where is the Chinese insult that the J-11 is called a copy of the SU-27 (which is a fact) ?!
            “We ourselves created everything”: they say. And do not care that the planes are exact copies of planes from other countries, but we delivered new computers! And the auto industry, and shipbuilding. India suffers the same garbage, but a little bit worse.
            1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 13: 57 New
              • 8
              • 2
              +6
              Quote: letinant
              “We ourselves created everything”: they say.

              It’s not known what they’ll agree on ...
              They dug out the Black Sea, and the Caucasus Mountains poured from the soil from the "construction" of the Black Sea.
              And these, taking into account the quantity, will they “dig up” the Pacific Ocean over time and pour North America from the dumps?
              1. Range 25 February 2020 14: 16 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Yes, nevermind this is not a copy of their different aircraft names J-15 and Su-33, and the rest does not count. lol And one more Chinese, and another Russian. So maybe they are just twins? request lol
                1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 14: 53 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Quote: Spectrum
                  Yes, nevermind this is not a copy of their different aircraft names J-15 and Su-33, and the rest does not count. lol And one more Chinese, and another Russian. So maybe they are just twins? request lol

                  good
                  And there are buttons of a different color. repeat A completely different plane.

                  Murzilka Magazine, No. 10, 2015.
                  1. Yngvar 25 February 2020 15: 32 New
                    • 4
                    • 2
                    +2
                    Link: "Murzilka Magazine, No. 10, 2015"
                    Maybe Sohu?
              2. Wedmak 25 February 2020 14: 23 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                and from dumps North America poured?

                It would be right to "fall asleep", right now. )))
            2. Starover_Z 26 February 2020 00: 54 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: letinant
              And where is the Chinese insult that the J-11 is called a copy of the SU-27 (which is a fact) ?!
              “We ourselves created everything”: they say. And do not care that the planes are exact copies of planes from other countries, but we delivered new computers!

              That's what they want to get a few copies of the SU-57 to create a new, "unparalleled" J-31 (for example)!
        2. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 14: 05 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Of course offended. Because there are just copies, but there are very good copies! )))
        3. SSR
          SSR 25 February 2020 14: 54 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          Quote: rocket757
          If you look closely ... drying is.

          Quote: neri73-r
          Strange logic in the Chinese

          Ah ah ah...
          The Chinese Xerox was called a Xerox and the Xerox was offended that it was a Xerox ...

          More precisely the printer.)))
          But still, now everyone needs to call the Chinese a modernized Su-33. Su-33cina, another upgrade of the Su-33china.)))
      2. knn54 25 February 2020 13: 45 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        - that "the similarity of the J-15 and Su-33 is only external."
        Though admitted that it is not "accidental."
        But the "guts" by themselves, alas, do not fly.
        1. t-4
          t-4 25 February 2020 14: 45 New
          • 10
          • 5
          +5
          Quote: knn54
          - that "the similarity of the J-15 and Su-33 is only external."
          Though admitted that it is not "accidental."
          But the "guts" by themselves, alas, do not fly.

          I wonder how many VO visitors are ready to subscribe to your words, if it was not about the Chinese, but about this:

          Endeavor on the left, Buran on the right
          1. DenZ 25 February 2020 15: 01 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Well, it happened with us. (B-29 and Tu-4 from the same series). But the Chinese do it all the time (as for aviation, at least).
          2. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 15: 14 New
            • 8
            • 3
            +5
            I wonder how many VO visitors are ready to subscribe to your words, if it was not about the Chinese, but about this: .... I wonder if you subscribe to this. BOR-5 1966
            1. t-4
              t-4 25 February 2020 15: 51 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              You have a BOR-5 photo, and the date 1966 is the flight of BOR-1.
              No need to distort the facts.

              BOR-5 (unmanned orbital rocket glider) - experimental vehicle, overall weight model of the Buran orbital ship on a scale of 1: 8
              In total, five launches of BOR-5 were carried out. The first launch, which took place on July 6, 1984, ended unsuccessfully: the device could not separate from the launch vehicle. However, the next four launches in 1985-1988. were successful.

              What happened before since 1966 is not at all Buran.


              BOR-1 1966

              BOR-2 1969 g

              BOR-3 1973 g

              BOR-4 1982 g
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 16: 02 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                You have BOR-5 in the photo .... no difference, the aerodynamic shape of the “slipper” is equal to both Shuttles and Buranov, just the aerodynamic shape is rational for these devices, the same situevin and the Tu-160 with the B-1B lancer, Well, what can I say, the MiG-15 and F-86 is a saber, nevertheless, in this material we are talking about copying, and this is so. it’s not clear what the Chinese are outraged
                1. t-4
                  t-4 25 February 2020 16: 59 New
                  • 7
                  • 1
                  +6
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  You have a photo of BOR-5 .... no difference

                  laughing
                  Yes of course. The BOR-5 is similar to the BOR-1 as the Su-35 to the Su-2.
                  just the aerodynamic shape is rational for these devices, the same situevina

                  So the Chinese say the same thing! This is the whole article!

                  Actually, the article itself is not of interest; everything is clear here. All the advanced in all ages have been copied from each other and will be copied. repeat
                  It is interesting to read the comments. For this, a post was written with Endeavor and Buran.
                  We have valiant scouts, they have vile spies. They do not copy anything from us (although the similarity is to the point of confusion), but give them only the will - they all take it on.
                  soldier
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 17: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    BOR-5 is similar to BOR-1 as Su-35 to Su-2 ........ inappropriate and dumb comparison by Su, because BOR-1 and BOR-5 are links of the same chain. that is, the scheme of overcoming on the planning of descent from orbit, that is, entering the dense layers of the Earth’s atmosphere. and with what fright you dragged a comparison between a plywood gasoline and a reactive steel-composite monster !!! I’m wallowing with you, and with different tasks
                    1. t-4
                      t-4 25 February 2020 17: 24 New
                      • 6
                      • 0
                      +6
                      Good good...
                      If this is the only problem, let's replace Su-2 with Su-9 in my post.
                      OK? Is the first Soviet interceptor a missile carrier suitable?

                      PS.
                      you dragged a comparison plywood gasoline by the ears

                      But from now on, please in more detail. Are you talking about the Su-2? About which they write here:
                      Su-2 fell the happy fate of a soldier who fulfilled his duty, as they say, to the last drop of blood.

                      https://topwar.ru/114449-su-2-samolet-nezametnyy-vo-vseh-smyslah-slova-chast-2.html

                      Specifically, questions arise for you. Maybe you’ll wake up from the right side of the Dnieper? A?
                      Okay. Joke. All that I wanted to say - wrote the post above.
                      soldier
                      1. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 17: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        let's replace Su-2 in my post with Su-9 .... for a start, decide, and think twice (ideally, measure seven times before cutting), the Su-9 is different .. read it at your leisure ..
                        Su-2 had the happy fate of a soldier, .... maybe a certain role also fell on Po-2, and what ???? Does this change the fact that you should not put an equal sign between plywood gasoline and jet monsters, and what ?? on your part it’s somehow insane ...
                        Specifically, questions arise for you. Maybe you are completely on the right side of the Dnieper .... and this is how to read, from the mouth or from the source
                      2. t-4
                        t-4 25 February 2020 17: 59 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        Calm Vladimir, calmer.
                        We are just exchanging opinions here.
                      3. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 18: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        We are just exchanging opinions here ........ it’s absolutely true, but it’s worth it to be more careful, your examples are somewhat awkward, mine are quite the opposite, that is, comparative in technique, I gave examples of the similarity of the flying pipes MiG-15 and F- 86, but different but similar, T-160 and B-1B, similar but different, in the case of the Chinese Su-27 (33) this is banal plagiarism, it’s not clear what you are harnessing for Xiaopin .....
                      4. t-4
                        t-4 25 February 2020 18: 47 New
                        • 6
                        • 1
                        +5
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        it’s not clear what for Xiaopintsy harnessed .....

                        I need them like a hare stoplight.
                      5. Crimean partisan 1974 25 February 2020 18: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        well then stand in places, end up in the water ... the schucher passed that Ukrainians didn’t want to evacuate their yachts from the yokohama (cruise) ship, look at it, maybe a little Shary will move another topic, so neigh
      3. neri73-r 25 February 2020 16: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Sorry, but the idea and forms are clearly visible! And Endeavor and Buran were born from this idea, although they are similar only among themselves aerodynamically. According to the materials, the internal structure is completely different machines.
  2. figwam 25 February 2020 16: 11 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Quote: t-4
    Endeavor on the left, Buran on the right

    The Chinese bought the Su-33 (T-10K) from Ukraine and tore the aircraft apart to a screw, a particular difficulty for the Chinese was this folding wing, its mechanization, which they themselves could not reproduce. We did not buy a shuttle from the Americans, but did everything ourselves.
    1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 17: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: figvam
      We did not buy a shuttle from the Americans, but did everything ourselves.

      they did it themselves, of course, but, as directed from above, “exactly the same as theirs” (for the Americans, I mean). Their Shuttle was already flying, and it was required to create a ship with minimal technical risk, which would definitely fly. And in a short time Because the Shuttle and the Buran are so similar.
    2. t-4
      t-4 25 February 2020 17: 48 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Sergei. The fact that the Chinese xerilized the Su-33 is understood even by Chinese pandas in China itself.
      How Buran and the Shuttle were created, no one will say for sure who was tyrling who or what.
      But you as a healthy person can say that these two spaceships were created independently of each other and no one used the ideas of a competitor? It is physically impossible to create two such identical objects.
      You look, as the lawyers say, they look similar to the point of confusion. (the third time I’m sculpting this picture)
  3. letinant 26 February 2020 03: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: t-4
    Quote: knn54
    - that "the similarity of the J-15 and Su-33 is only external."
    Though admitted that it is not "accidental."
    But the "guts" by themselves, alas, do not fly.

    I wonder how many VO visitors are ready to subscribe to your words, if it was not about the Chinese, but about this:

    Endeavor on the left, Buran on the right


    Here you have presented photos of the Buran spacecraft and the Space Shuttle spacecraft. You claim that our country, bought this device from the United States, studied and created an exact copy. Understaffing their own avionics ?! The reusable ship programs started in the early 70s with the United States and the Soviet Union, and went in parallel. And what they look like is aerodynamics in the atmosphere and gas dynamics in outer space.
  • Grigory_45 25 February 2020 17: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: knn54
    And the "insides" in themselves, alas, do not fly

    it is worth changing the "insides", and the output is a completely different plane. As an example to you: the latest Tu-160M2 externally almost indistinguishable from veterans of the Tu-160, but the possibilities are completely different, many times higher)
    MiG-21-93 (Bison) - a new aircraft in an old glider, almost equal to even the relatively fresh F-16s.

    Today, the glider is not so important (they haven’t come up with anything new yet), but what is inside it.
  • rich 25 February 2020 13: 59 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Chinese Sohu complained that the J-15 fighter is called a copy of the Su-33

    That pie with eggs, that pie with jam, if you do not twist, all the same cakes that differ only in the filling yes
    1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 14: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Rich
      That pie with eggs, that pie with jam, if you do not twist, all the same cakes that differ only in the filling

      I won’t say how much cooking relates to aviation, but I like and know how to cook, unlike aviation, which I encountered either as a passenger or as a “combat load”.
      The main thing in the pie is not the filling, but the dough, the oven, the cook’s hands. If this is in order, then the stuffing can be shoved in a fig nevermind - it will be delicious.
      So
      What a pie with eggs, what a pie with jam, if you don't twist, all the same pies
      good
  • Fantazer911 25 February 2020 15: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    J - 15 is not a copy, take it to the side of the mount and is not a copy, but if you look closely it is actually a fake, since China did not engage in leasing assembly but only copied, forged, therefore the J-15 is a fake with new equipment!
  • TermNachTer 25 February 2020 19: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And the fact that the glider is entirely from the "drying", and the engines, most likely "torn", and yes - completely Chinese.
  • lexseyOGK 25 February 2020 13: 23 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    T. E create a flying plane is so garbage, the main stuffing. Chinese. They now have a period of such "All Chinese is the best."
    1. donavi49 25 February 2020 14: 05 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Well, to calculate the glider today is 15-20% of the plane. Avionics exceeded 50% of labor and money.
      1. PSih2097 25 February 2020 20: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, to calculate the glider today is 15-20% of the plane. Avionics exceeded 50% of labor and money.

        And R&D cost how much, not only for the aircraft itself, but also for its weapons ???
  • Whalebone 25 February 2020 13: 25 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    If something looks like a dog and barks like a dog, then this is the dog. Something the Chinese will not put their own aircraft on the deck. Apparently not working out yet.
  • KAVBER 25 February 2020 13: 28 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Great Chinese chauvinism in action
  • Mavrikiy 25 February 2020 13: 31 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    They (fighters) are similar in appearance, but inside the J-15 everything is completely different.
    Quite right, the chicken’s heart was transplanted to the eagle. request

    In addition, Russia for its Navy cannot currently develop a new generation of aircraft carriers and fifth-generation carrier-based fighters for them.
    And how can this be connected with the originality of the development of the Chinese aircraft? Marasmus.
    In such a situation, there is no point in improving the Su-33. They (Russians) no longer do this.
    Well, our plans are our plans. But Chinese snotty nose should not be poked in them.
    The Su-33 as part of the Russian Navy has no future.
    Well, of course you don’t understand there behind the stove, because you are darkness, not cultural.
  • Safer 25 February 2020 13: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Well, this is how to compare the Su-27UB and Su-30M2 (these are those without PGO), in appearance they are really identical, but the filling is different. And you should not pay special attention to such an agency as "Sohu". The Chinese simply copied the American "National Interest", and as usual absorbed all the shortcomings and did not bring anything new.
  • Paranoid50 25 February 2020 13: 34 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Words of dissatisfaction were published by the Chinese portal Sohu, which states that "the similarity of the J-15 and Su-33 is only external."
    Well ... Again, the talking kaolin was offended. recourse But, after all, a stronger offense is ripening ... yes How are they doing their Su-35 - haven't they really pumped it yet? laughing
  • Vasyan1971 25 February 2020 13: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not, well, in principle, you can recall the story with the Fiat 124 and VAZ 2101. With external similarity - completely different pepellets.
    https://yandex.ru/turbo?text=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.drive2.ru%2Fb%2F288230376151879725%2F
    If you do not take into account the muddy situation with the Chinese copy-paste, of course. Well, they do not push our avionics. By Chinese standards, that’s enough.
    1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 16: 15 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      Not, well, in principle, you can recall the story with the Fiat 124 and VAZ 2101. With external similarity - completely different pepellets.

      This is not quite the situation.
      Firstly, the VAZ 2101 (Fiat 124) was more than well paid, unlike the “Chinese Xerox”. And, secondly, the internal dissimilarity is a consequence of the fact that Italians were forced to remake the Fiat 124, which was falling apart on our roads. Even the stove had to be redone - who in Italy thinks of a car stove? ...

      And China is simply stealing technology, trying to do the same of “kakah and sticks”, and there - as God willing. So what will happen, it will come out - "Sohu" will still shout that "we are all ourselves and we are the best" ....
      1. Vasyan1971 25 February 2020 20: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        This is not quite the situation.

        Of course, there are nuances not in favor of China.
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        VAZ 2101 (Fiat 124) was more than well paid, unlike the "Chinese Xerox."

        China also has Ukraine boughtbut not stolen. Honestly paid. "Bad, not bad" - a question for the seller. Easy Come Easy Go. What do the Chinese have to do with it? Crank up a bargain. The scale, again, is different. Production (in the link is perfectly indicated) in comparison with one aircraft.
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        And, secondly, the internal dissimilarity is a consequence of

        And what, in fact, is the difference, as a result of which? The dissimilarity is in China and the dissimilarity. This is the third case. Stuffing is not "native", definitely.
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        And China just steals technology

        Strictly speaking, he does not steal, but is trying to reduce costs and time. I don’t have my own school, and that’s where I’m already, where with soap. In the World, this happens all the time - remember the same atomic bomb.
        Another thing is that the Chinese have completely lost their conscience with the brakes!
        1. Zoldat_A 25 February 2020 23: 01 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Vasyan1971
          China also bought from Ukraine, not stolen. Honestly paid.

          Quote: Vasyan1971
          What do the Chinese have to do with it? Crank up a bargain. The scale, again, is different. Production (in the link is perfectly indicated) in comparison with one aircraft.

          In fact of the matter.
          I bought a couple of planes - use it and there are no questions. But deliberately buying them in order to parse, copy and pass off as ours is a completely different song.
          And the USSR honestly paid for the drawings, for technology, for equipment. Why would the Chinese honestly not buy an airplane with technology from us? Well, yes, expensive, sorry for the money ... hi
          1. Vasyan1971 25 February 2020 23: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            And the USSR honestly paid for the drawings, for technology, for equipment.

            Exactly. Authentic Italians arrived, brought and mounted authentic equipment. All honor in honor.
            But the Chinese also paid honestly! Claims to sellers. Although, what claims may be made to them, if they are not that “alien”, they are ready to sell theirs for nothing. The same Motor Sich, for example ...
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            Why would the Chinese honestly not buy an airplane with technology from us? Well, yes, expensive, sorry for the money ...

            Tochnik. History is ugly from the human side, but if we are talking about state interests ... If there is an opportunity to save, then why not? The same Tu-4, for example. And the same story about Shandong and Liaoning. Purely practical approach.
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            But deliberately buying them in order to parse, copy and pass them off as ours is a completely different song

            Notch too, out there, on the Su-57 screwdrivers sharpen.
  • rotkiv04 25 February 2020 13: 40 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    What is the difference whether a copy is or not, the main thing is that they fly and swim, but in Russia, unfortunately, it turns up at the berths or modernizes for decades at best, and at worst for needles
    1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 13: 48 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Unfortunately, Russia has not yet cut the Kuzyu and have made instead of no more normal land aircraft.
      1. K-50 25 February 2020 13: 58 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: EvilLion
        Unfortunately, Russia has not yet cut the Kuzyu and have made instead of no more normal land aircraft.

        You guessed it or who prompted?
        Who makes ships out of ship steel? Probably only alternatively gifted like you. lol
        1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 14: 09 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          Is its content free? Having undressed this useless coffin, you can get resources for many more necessary things. At the same time, we will not build any full-fledged carrier groups in the next 30 years. Nowhere to apply them.
          1. PSih2097 25 February 2020 20: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            In this case, no complete (full-fledged) aircraft carrier groups in the next 30 years, we still will not build. Nowhere to apply them.

            offer your house, naval aviation will work out attacks on it ...
  • K-50 25 February 2020 13: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In China, they expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the Russian media called the Chinese carrier-based fighter a copy of the Su-33.

    As the saying goes - "you won’t throw words out of a song."
    So express displeasure or not, these planes will not be different anyway, but the championship is for the Su-33. lol
  • Guru 25 February 2020 14: 03 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It's like putting a digital stereo system on a VAZ 2106, new covers, steering wheel braid. And everything is Ferrari ready lol
  • cniza 25 February 2020 14: 12 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    After all these words, one may get the impression that in China they are trying to convince someone that the development of the J-15 is “in no way connected” with the prototype Su-33 previously purchased from Ukrainians.


    What do they justify, we believe in our eyes ...
  • nov_tech.vrn 25 February 2020 14: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Policy developed over the years. Super electronics hung on a lapped glider and purchased engines, great, but it is of course a modification by and large, but I really want it to be my own, Chinese.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • donavi49 25 February 2020 14: 20 New
    • 9
    • 5
    +4
    Well, in general, they are right on a number of points:
    - The Chinese drags 2 anti-ship missiles, which is important for the air group. Su-33 - can not drag RCC.


    - The Chinese are friends with containers and can strike the WTO. Su-33 - can throw cast iron and NARs by visual (pilot's eyes) detection. Probably after the repair they are friends with the GLONASS CABs, but there is no evidence, but in theory it can generally be hung and thrown on the AN-2 with minimal modifications.
    - The Chinese received a cabin with elements of the 5th generation. +/- it is something between Su-30SM / 35 and Su-57.
    - Let's be honest Su-33 dead plane. While the Chinese are actively raping the J-15. A version with an increased composite component is already in production. On the approach version with AFAR. The J-15D is already undergoing tests - a spark, which Sukhoi could not do at the time.



    Su-33 another 5-6 years and will go down in history. J-15 - will meet the 40th year.
    1. PSih2097 25 February 2020 20: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: donavi49
      The J-15D is already undergoing tests - a spark, which Sukhoi could not do at the time.

      and su-34 on the basis of what is done ??? Su - 27KUB:
      1. donavi49 25 February 2020 21: 14 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        And where is that Su-27KUB? Dead? He died. And degenerated into another plane. wink

        On the other hand, again - why? As the Soviet shipbuilding program died, so all of these projects closed. For why? Now they have chosen the most pragmatic decker - the MiG-29K / UB, which has been brought up to a more or less modern level with Hindu money and was in serial production under the Hindu contract. By the way, they just recently got another MiG-29K crashed. You may have to buy 4-6 cars.
  • mr.John 25 February 2020 14: 27 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    Sometimes the student outperforms his teacher :).
    Indeed, China has developed a lot in this field, and also in the defense system, and this is of course thanks to copying and theft operations of all technologies, whether Russian or American.
    1. andrew42 25 February 2020 15: 05 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      I believe that the minus slapped purely for English. Here is the translation, and I personally agree with him: "Sometimes a student surpasses his teacher. Of course, China has developed a lot in this area, as well as in defense systems, and this, of course, thanks to the copying and theft of all technologies, both from Russia and from America." And now the question: why minus the evidence?
      1. dauria 25 February 2020 15: 21 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        And now the question: why minus the evidence?

        Perhaps for violating the rules of the site. Do not admit?
        f) With all due respect to other languages, the language of communication in the comments to the published articles is Russian.
      2. Sergey Medvedev 25 February 2020 16: 41 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: andrew42
        And now the question: why minus the evidence?

        Even this quote shows who is considered a teacher and who is a student. So the Chinese are trying to deny the teachers. Is this not obvious to you?
      3. mr.John 25 February 2020 16: 43 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        China has a wonderful relationship with Israel, and China has benefited a lot from the Israeli technologies. I do not have evidence, but I do not rule out that Israel has given many American techniques to China to consolidate relations, and these relations benefit Israel in the future, because there is a possibility that the old ally suffers from aging :)
        1. Piramidon 25 February 2020 16: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: mr.John
          China has a wonderful relationship with Israel, and China has benefited a lot from the Israeli technologies. I do not have evidence, but I do not rule out that Israel has given many American techniques to China to consolidate relations, and these relations benefit Israel in the future, because there is a possibility that the old ally suffers from aging :)

          Write in Russian, "Mr." God-chosen, or hire a interpreter. I will write more accessible:
          Write in Russian, mister, or hire a translator. Or go to your site.
      4. Piramidon 25 February 2020 16: 55 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: andrew42
        And now the question: why minus the evidence?

        You yourself answered your question. hi
        minus slapped purely for English

        For, there is no need here to stand out with its "polyglotry", a Russian-language site.
  • Mentat 25 February 2020 14: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    Well, to calculate the glider today is 15-20% of the plane. Avionics exceeded 50% of labor and money.

    Where are the gliders calculated in China that have even though not excellent, even acceptable characteristics for their generation? Give at least one single example. Forward.
    1. dauria 25 February 2020 15: 00 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Give at least one single example.

      Enough? Industry and people able to make a copy [- this is 99% of aviation. Constructors will be. And what will our designers do without industry? Center][/ Center]
  • Mentat 25 February 2020 14: 39 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Quote: donavi49
    Su-33 another 5-6 years and will go down in history. J-15 - will meet the 40th year.

    Are you trying to present this, dear marketer from China, as a certain advantage, highlighting in bold?
    The Su-33 will probably leave soon, because the military aircraft industry in Russia does not stand still and is one of the leading in the world.
    China will use a copy of the Su-33 until the 40s, as you say, because it simply is not able to build something better.
    Face the truth and do not bother with your eastern eyes.
    1. donavi49 25 February 2020 15: 11 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Well, that's what I wrote. That the Su-33 is everything. The Chinese will sit on the J-15 until the 40s, actively upgrading.

      However, in general, the Navy chose the MiG-29K / UB for the current Aircraft Carrier. The new decked aircraft is still in advance development and proposals. Requirements and an order if they write it out at the end of the program by the year 26. Real plane in the 30s. Prior to this, the MiG-29K / UB.

      However, more in general is not needed. On one Kuzyu, who is on the ventilator, and passing orderlies will either turn off the ventilator from the outlet, or press the tubes. In general, even if, as the USC declares, Kuzya finds himself awake, and not for show, because otherwise Putin’s anger will outweigh his friendly ties. Without a new ship, it makes no sense in a new or modernized aircraft (the MiG-29K / UB program in its current updated form, with an updated glider and avionics) paid by the Indians - no.

      In China, the situation is different. They already have 2 Avs, the third is already joining, work is underway on the fourth. They just make sense to constantly update and improve carrier-based aircraft.
  • The Siberian barber 25 February 2020 14: 55 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    At this pace, in about 20 years, the "plow" will be broadcasting to the whole world that the Russians have aviation, thanks to Chinese technology)))
  • semuil 25 February 2020 15: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The fact that the Chinese stuck an MP-3 player there does not mean that this aircraft was built from scratch.
  • Ros 56 25 February 2020 16: 41 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Have they really developed it, and the aircraft carrier is probably the same? Get rid of Sokha, you have almost all the military equipment inherited from the Soviet Union.
  • Hexenmeister 25 February 2020 17: 02 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The Chinese do not need to pay attention to this at all! Even if they completely “torn” the T-10K, there’s nothing wrong with that, the main thing is that the result is better than the source. Given the view in which the Su-33 is now, just installing new equipment on the J-15 will make it better than the Su-33. Another thing is that the J-15 "fight" not only with the Su-33, it is also important to understand the place of the J-15 relative to the entire possible line of fighters of all countries, including land!
  • exo
    exo 25 February 2020 17: 17 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The guys from the country of the coronovirus have completely lost their conscience. In what their craft of the military-industrial complex, do not look, unequivocally, from something copied.
  • Grigory_45 25 February 2020 17: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    After all these words, one may get the impression that in China they are trying to convince someone that the development of the J-15 is “in no way connected” with the prototype Su-33 previously purchased from Ukrainians
    and what is the author trying to convince us of? The only thing he managed to convince of was that he deliberately distorted (distorted) the words of the Chinese. Quote:
    They (fighters) are similar in appearance, but inside the J-15 everything is completely different. Therefore, it is impossible to call the J-15 a copy of the Soviet Su-33.

    Those. the Chinese do not deny that the glider is borrowed, but avinonika (avionics) and motors (WS-10) are worth their production. The Chinese did not see the Su-33, they got one of the prototypes - the T-10K-7.
    Again, the radar and weapons - Made in China, in addition, the Su-33 never carried anti-ship missiles (and indeed its ability to work on land / ships is very limited) - the J-15 carries YJ-83K anti-ship missiles.
    Also, the Chinese had a combat training "spark"

    As it is called a J-15 copy, the language does not turn. The Chinese have thoroughly worked on the plane.
  • Mentat 25 February 2020 18: 09 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: dauria
    Give at least one single example.

    Enough? Industry and people able to make a copy [- this is 99% of aviation. Constructors will be. And what will our designers do without industry? Center][/ Center]

    What is enough for? Are you a message to which you reply, at least read, or so, reflex outpourings of text on key phrases?

    Is this ... the product showing good flight performance within its generation?
  • Mentat 25 February 2020 18: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    After all these words, one may get the impression that in China they are trying to convince someone that the development of the J-15 is “in no way connected” with the prototype Su-33 previously purchased from Ukrainians
    and what is the author trying to convince us of? The only thing he managed to convince of was that he deliberately distorted (distorted) the words of the Chinese. Quote:
    They (fighters) are similar in appearance, but inside the J-15 everything is completely different. Therefore, it is impossible to call the J-15 a copy of the Soviet Su-33.

    Those. the Chinese do not deny that the glider is borrowed, but avinonika (avionics) and motors (WS-10) are worth their production. The Chinese did not see the Su-33, they got one of the prototypes - the T-10K-7.
    Again, the radar and weapons - Made in China, in addition, the Su-33 never carried anti-ship missiles (and indeed its ability to work on land / ships is very limited) - the J-15 carries YJ-83K anti-ship missiles.
    Also, the Chinese had a combat training "spark"

    As it is called a J-15 copy, the language does not turn. The Chinese have thoroughly worked on the plane.

    In Russia, such changes cause the addition of the letter “M” to the model naming. No loud statements of authorship and beaten with a heel in the chest.

    In principle, the level of this Chinese publication has long been understood. VO quotes it to increase the number of messages, i.e. arrived.
  • Mentat 25 February 2020 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: donavi49
    Well, that's what I wrote. That the Su-33 is everything. The Chinese will sit on the J-15 until the 40s, actively upgrading.

    However, in general, the Navy chose the MiG-29K / UB for the current Aircraft Carrier. The new decked aircraft is still in advance development and proposals. Requirements and an order if they write it out at the end of the program by the year 26. Real plane in the 30s. Prior to this, the MiG-29K / UB.

    However, more in general is not needed. On one Kuzyu, who is on the ventilator, and passing orderlies will either turn off the ventilator from the outlet, or press the tubes. In general, even if, as the USC declares, Kuzya finds himself awake, and not for show, because otherwise Putin’s anger will outweigh his friendly ties. Without a new ship, it makes no sense in a new or modernized aircraft (the MiG-29K / UB program in its current updated form, with an updated glider and avionics) paid by the Indians - no.

    In China, the situation is different. They already have 2 Avs, the third is already joining, work is underway on the fourth. They just make sense to constantly update and improve carrier-based aircraft.

    China really has a different situation, and its leadership decided that China needs aircraft carriers.
    At present, Russia simply does not need them in fact, and the maintenance of such vessels is very expensive, which is why they are not being built. Just throwing gigantic funds into the "amusement fleet", especially in an environment of economic and political opposition, would be, to put it mildly, unreasonable actions.
  • Viktor Sergeev 25 February 2020 18: 35 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Correctly call: worthless copy.
  • gvozdan 25 February 2020 18: 46 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    I support Chinese indignation. J-15 is not a copy of the Su-33, but a copy of the unfinished prototype of the Su-33.
    Engines copied from the old generation with a low resource of two three hundred hours of resource.
    The radar would have been copied but apparently it was not on the prototype)).
    Su-33 flew in 1987
    J-15 flew in 2009.
    22 years have passed. Plus 11 years until today. And the Chinese are comparing everything, even with the An-2 compared
  • Russian_man 25 February 2020 22: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tochnik. The similarity is ours, and the differences are Chinese. We made some kind of glider, and the Chinese did the rest. ... You need to remember this article very well and for a long time. Especially for a long time, if there are no further public apologies and rebuttals. This article, in particular, explains why the loopholes on the Great Wall of China before the restoration were turned in the direction of China ...
  • Mentat 26 February 2020 09: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    As an example to you: the latest Tu-160M2 externally almost indistinguishable from veterans of the Tu-160, but the possibilities are completely different, many times higher)

    But do not tell me, are both modifications not the same place of origin?
    Maybe this is some French conditionally A-250, brazenly called Tu-160M2, whose creators claim that this is their development? No?
  • Pavel57 26 February 2020 16: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not even a clone, but a copy.
  • 川 建国 27 February 2020 17: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author distorts the meaning of the fox search. The search does not deny that the J15 came from the T-10K-3. The Fox search only refutes the claim that J15 is a complete copy of Sue 33. In fact, J15 borrowed from Su 33 to a large extent, but also made significant changes. We do not want to steal and copy, but we cannot get a ship fighter in the near future. Therefore, we chose the purchase and imitation of su 33 and eastern ships on Liaoning Mountain. But we also changed a lot in Soviet production. In general, we inherited the Soviet Union and will develop it. Fifth-generation Chinese fighters will fly this year as a decked version of the J31.