Wow full of BS....![]()
Look at the J-11B's features and look a the MKI's features.
The facts are the facts.
Calling them "bullshit" will only reveal your lack of knowledge of them.
Or should I compare them again, just for you?

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wow full of BS....![]()

let me make this crystal clear to you chinese fanboys, China can't even build something close to the MKis capabilities now you wish to compete with U.S.A F-22 and future USA 6th gen fighters?....![]()
Weapons:
- 30 mm cannon
- 8 X R-77PD missiles (internal weapons bay)
- PL-9 missiles
- Max 18,075 lb payload
- 6 hardpoints (in internal bay)
- Electronic warfare module
Why would 6th generation jet require canon?
Because the standards are made up by him.

Not from Nicaragua...the sad part is, even our J-6's are enough to make nicaraguans run to the US as illegal immigrants.

Why would 6th generation jet require canon?

Hmm, let's see the aircraft that currently outperforms the MKI...
- J-11B. Can track & engage more targets than MKI.
Can fly faster,
more maneuverable,
It is much stealthier than MKI. It has RAM coating and MKI doesn't. J-11B will soon install AESA radar.
Oh, and we have the J-11BS strike version with 15+ hardpoints.
Ooh, how bout the J-10B?
Let's see...
It has 0.3 RCS, which is much much stealthier than MKI (in fact almost comparable to F-35).
It has AESA radar (MKI doesn't)
And J-10B has 3d thrust vectoring!
And don't get me started on the J-15...
BTW, the F-15 defeated the Su-30MKI quite badly during the Red Flag exercises.![]()
Why don't you listen to what this Red Flag pilot has to say about your so-called "4.5-generation" fighter:![]()
I don't know how credible your reports are since most everything surrounding Chinese aircraft is speculation but let me address you.
Tracking more targets mean little if you can't detect, engage and differentiate them. Assume you are within effective firing range and the radar you have gives you a high enough resolution to differentiate targets, now suppose your radar allows you to fire simultaneously at multiple targets...that's great but what if the other aircraft keeps jamming you?
This doesn't make much of a difference, especially if the difference is negligible.
Please do provide the J-11's roll rate, sustained turn rate, ect so we see for ourselves.
Is there a credible source which quotes its rcs or is this from a fanboy website?
I guess the Mig-21 is also comparable to the F-35 because it has the same rcs.
Based on what? Fanboy reports?
More fanboy speculation?
Please tell me what the fanboys churned up this time.
And the basic SU-30 defeated the F-15 at cope, there are many factors in both exercises you are not aware of such as experience levels and radars being in training mode, just to name a few.
Are you talking about the part when he said the MKI was slightly better than legacy US fighters but inferior to the F-22?
by the way, the J-15 is essentially a naval J-11B upgrade. Thinking fanboy? Go search up J-15 avionics.

The J-11B's radar is designed for counter-jamming (just like most other radars).
With upgraded BVR capability, the indigenous J-11B radar can engage multiple targets at very long range.
The J-11B also has a very small RCS (only 3 m squared). At long range, this is virtually all-stealth.
J-11B, first of all, is lighter than the Su-30MKI (20% lighter). 70% of the J-11B is made of composite materials (as opposed to the Su-30MKI). This already gives it a serious agility advantage.
Su-30MKI has a turning rate of 21 degrees/sec.
The J-11B also has a much higher climb rate than the Su-30MKI
J-11B's RCS is 3 m squared (achieved by application of redesigned intakes and RAM), while the Su-30MKI has an RCS of 25+ m squared.
The sole reason the MiG-21 has a small RCS is because it is small. J-10B is larger, and it achieves that RCS by applying DSI and RAM. The Su-30MKI is (1) large, and (2) doesn't apply reflection-reduction technologies.
J-10B uses the WS-10B engine, and if you know aviation engines well, you would know that not only does the WS-10B has 135 kN thrust, it has 3d thrust vectoring as well.
As for the video, I referred to the part when the pilot speaks about the maddenly low turning rate of the Su-30MKI, its blaring RCS, its inability to communicate with aircraft with its datalink, and its inability to locate the battle.
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.