Talk:Shenyang J-11

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

China Start‑class Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Su-27 article?

Should we merge this article with Su-27? Technically the J-11 is a Chinese-assembled Su-27SK from Russian-provided "kits", I don't think there's enough variation to really justify a completely seperate article. But if the PRC ever produce domestic upgrades (J-11B/C) with different technology than the Russians, then that'd be a different story. -- Adeptitus 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO Because I believe that the PRC has allready upgraded it with different technology than the Russians TheftByEating 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I agree with TheftByEating. Although still not known that it has already been upgraded yet and it is a licence production of Su-27. It is produced by a chinese company. However, it should be added on the list of variant of Su-27.(GMT)

Merge Cancelled - see Su-27 discussion for rationale

Update

I've completely updated the article, re-wrote some parts, moved some sections around, and added in an additional source as well. I will continue to revamp the article to cleanup grammar and add in additional information as I come across it -- ThePointblank 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing so. But please be careful: you overwrote the conversion of several inline links to footnotes. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting them. -- ThePointblank 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Picture?

I think an actual picture of a J-11 should eventually be found and used for this article, I have found a picture of the J-11B that could be used safely from the 47th issue of Joint Forces Quarterly for the Chairman of the Joint Chief of the Staff by national Defense University (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i47.htm). Semi-Lobster (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J-11B Images?

I'm curious to see the difference between the J-11B and its original Su-27 base. The Indians have the MKI version of the Su-27, complete with canards, so I'm curious about what the J-11B looks like and how it compares with the MKI. (Psychoneko (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

J-11 Picture

Midgetman43 has repeatedly attempted to use a picture of a Sukhi Su-27UBK fighter-trainer in this article, an article for the Shenyang J-11. I disagree with him on this matter as I believe that a Wikipedia page should have standards, and one of those standards it, at the very least to post the correct aircraft in the info box and not just post whatever somebody thinks is convenient. An example of this is that it would be utterly ridiculous to post a picture of a T-38 Talon right in the info box on the article for the Northrop F-5 even though both aircraft nearly have the exact same airframe and latter is based on the former. While as we all know the J-11 is based on the Su-27 airframe, it is an indigenised licensed produced variant. The main difference between the two is the equipment onboard and the country of origin. Moreover the picture in question is of an Su-27UBK. The Su-27UBK is SOLELY a tandem seat fighter-trainer aircraft, therefore it cannot even be classified as anything similar in role to the single engine J-11 fighter or to the similar tandem-seat Sukhoi Su-30MKK strike fighter aircraft. This is why I oppose the use of of File:Chinese Su-27.JPG for this article. While I may be willing to concede to a picture of a single seat Su-27SK, the use of a picture of an Su-27UBK trainer for an article on the J-11 fighter is out of the question in my opinion. Semi-Lobster (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its not based on the su-27 it its a licensed copy. the airframe is exactly the same, and there is no way to tell a difference between them except for the avionics and the radar, which some people also allege that it has been copied. its a lisence production, china cant export it. russia's sukhoui owns the airframe design not china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said RIGHT THERE IN MY PARAGRAPH THAT THE J-11 IS A LICENSED PRODUCTION, I also see no reason why that would be relevant to this topic as we are talking about a picture. The argument that because they share the same airframe that we should use a picture of an Su-27 is invalid because as I have pointed out, the picture in question is an Su-27UBK FIGHTER-TRAINER, there is no J-11 fighter-trainer, the only twin seat J-11 variant currently in development is the J-11BS strike fighter. Because there is no J-11 fighter-trainer variant we should not use a picture of an Su-27UBK in the info box. The info box is only for pictures of an example of the actual aircraft. If you wanted to put this picture underneath the info box with a caption stating that the picture is NOT of an J-11 but of a similar BUT NOT THE SAME J-11UBK fighter-trainer then I would be fine with that but such picture has no place in the info box itself. We have multiple precedents that just because an aircraft has more or less the same airframe, differences in roles such as this demonstrate that such pictures should not be used (we don't have a picture of a T-38 Talon in the Northrop F-5 info box, nor do we have a picture of a Mitsubishi T-2 in the Mitsubishi F-1 info box nor do we have a picture of an Sukhoi Su-28 in the Sukhoi Su-25 info box. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wade into the discussion as a third opinion, Wikipedia policy for images in infoboxes is that the image should directly relate to the subject at hand. Therefore, I would support the removal of the image until we have an confirmed image of the subject at hand. ThePointblank (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is directly related, it is a lisence production, the only difference is that it was produced in china and it has some different avionics. there is no way to tell a difference between a su-27 and j-11, unless its labeled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or it has the wrong number of seats. Therefore a simple reference to the main article will suffice, or perhaps just redirect back to the main article with a paragraph on the minor Chinese differences. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats more or less what I'm asking. For the image to be moved out of the infbox and into the article itself with an explanation that the picture is of a PLAAF Su-27UBK fighter-trainer (identified here http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su27.asp ) not of a J-11. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any sort of consensus or... what? Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've reached the conclusion that even China admits that there is no real J-11 and so no need for this article. For example:

http://www.chinatoday.com/arm/index.htm "J-11 (Su 27) Fighter"

Hcobb (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China Today is run by InfoPacific Development Inc. in Canada. Its just a website Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Daily says it's the same airframe. (Yes, the People's Daily is entirely staffed by CIA agents, so what?)

http://english.people.com.cn/90002/98666/98775/6803174.html

Hcobb (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you can take your vendetta or whatever to a new discussion section but the scope of this specific topic is the wikipedia policy of the useage of aircraft pictures in info boxes. You can go run off and start your other new section in this talk page on merging this article with the Su-27 so you can lose a merge vote just like what happened last time. If the only thing you have to contribute is something completely off-topic, by all means, post it somewhere else. Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the aircraft is diffrent enough to have it's own article, it's necessary to have an image of the example the article references. Near enough isn't good enough Midgetguy. Consensus is that the changes in the J-11 ammount to it being distinguishing enough to be a significant variant. Your opinion is in the minority in this case. (203.26.122.12 (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC))(Bobbo9000)[reply]

New article on the J-15

There's a new article on the Shenyang J-15 that editors of this article may be interested in and able to improve. I cleaned up as best I can, but I know exactly nothing about airplanes, so there wasn't much I could do in the way of expansion. Pais (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation Section

The "speculation section" in this article is unencyclopedic, and mentions such wonderful things as "rumors on internet military forums. I will remove it unless anyone has anything to say in its defense. Thanks -SidewinderX (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the explanation

...for the "FWS-10A"? I always thought Taihang was WS-10A? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issues with J-11B

My addition of a report on the rejection of the 2009 J-11 production lot by the Chinese Air Force was reverted with the explanation that Kanwa is not a reliable source. Actually, the source is Kyodo News which quoted a Kanwa report for part of the information. I am restoring the bit about the national day parade and ask that the reverting editor explain his rationale for reverting in more detail. Cla68 (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pursuant to the discussion with User:Cla68 on his talk page here the agreement is to remove this information for now until a more credible source reports on the matter because there are images from of the J-11 participating in the PRC national parade. (Another source [1]) Vedant (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

Someone provide specs or i'm going back to Su-27SK specs. The currents specs have gone without citations for far too long. --Nem1yan (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just "main article" link back to the Su page here? Hcobb (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-11B Split

Should the J-11B like the J-15 have a seperate article? It is a quite deferent warplane from the J-11 or J-11A which are more or less the basic SU-27SK. While the J-11B has evolved into something unique in the Flanker family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the plan to upgrade the entire fleet because the airframe and the engine is the same? Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the j-11 and j-11a airframes are made of standard metals and the j-11b is made out of composite matrials the j-11 and j-11a engines are a Russian made the al-31 and the j-11b is a Chinese made w-10a engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this article? The native engines just ain't useful yet. Hcobb (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is outdated read this links:http://enginespareparts.blog.com/2010/04/30/the-united-states-said-the-chinese-f-11b-has-been-installed-ws10a-engine-spare-parts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "U.S. global strategic networks 3" please? Hcobb (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ref" is a blog, and a very poorly written on at that. That's not a reliable source, and whatever "U.S. global strategic networks 3" is, I doubt it's much better. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a lack of specifications on the aircraft. Given the amount of information on it you could only justify an entirely separate article if it was a completely new aircraft, not simply an upgrade. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo please

Will somebody please ask the CIA for a copyright free pic? And if that fails then try WikiLeaks. Regards 122.148.41.172 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

number built

On page 45 of the given source found here it says there are 132 in service, but this number includes Su-27SK's from Russia. Technically the fighters are more or less the same, so while I'm not against listing the number built as 132 I would like some feedback on if anyone else felt otherwise. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subtracting the 69 Su-27SK's found on the PLAAF that leaves us with 63 J-11's produced. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours?

The source for the Further Improved Variants section says that the aircraft are "rumored" to be in development, not "believed". Those words carry completely different connotations and can not be substituted. There entire statement has questionable reliability, it could be argued that more verification is needed in order to add it. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust to weight ratio

Why is the thrust to weight ratio for the J-11A so low ? Only 0,66 dry thrust even the first SU-27 has a thrust to weight of greater than 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.162.20 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dry thrust is thrust without the afterburner. The afterburner greatly enhances the thrust of the engines, sometimes as much as doubling them. The Su-27 has a more than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio with afterburner, just at the J-11A does. In fact, their thrust to weight ratios are rather comparable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]