Talk:Shenyang J-11

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks for correcting them. -- ThePointblank 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
thread_title: Correct Picture?

message: 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)
thread_title:  J-11B Images? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: China Today is run by InfoPacific Development Inc. in Canada. Its just a website Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  J-11 Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article on the J-15 

message: 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)
thread_title: Speculation Section

message: ...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)
thread_title:  What's the explanation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ) Vedant (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical issues with J-11B

message: 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)
replies: text: Shouldn't we just "main article" link back to the Su page here? Hcobb (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: What exactly is a "U.S. global strategic networks 3" please?  Hcobb (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  J-11B Split 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  number built 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rumours? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thrust to weight ratio 

message: An image used in this article, File:Chinese-shenyang-j-11b-fighter-800x600.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chinese-shenyang-j-11b-fighter-800x600.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Chinese-shenyang-j-11b-fighter-800x600.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Is there a reliable 3rd party source that states that the J-11 and J-15 are more advanced than their Russian counterparts? If not, that sentence should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37and7 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a fairly recent addition, along with claims about potential sales to Mongolia, comparisons to the F-15SE Silent Eagle, and competition for sales against the Silent Eagle and Su-35. I've removed all of them. In addition to your points, the comparisons to the Silent Eagle and suggestion of Mongolian purchase of either these Chinese aircraft or the Silent Eagle seem unsourced and possibly far-fetched. Mongolia barely has a fixed-wing air force to speak of, and doesn't look to be seeking designs that are still in development, such as the Silent Eagle. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Have you any reliable source about this?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason why the interest in a four-year old post? MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More advanced than their Russian Counterparts? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Shenyang J-11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116173153/http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/chinese_fighter_development-3.html to http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/chinese_fighter_development-3.html
*Added  tag to http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301043727/http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/mair1.htm to http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/mair1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823154936/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-08/23/c_133578974.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-08/23/c_133578974.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112011052/http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j11.asp to http://sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j11.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920044646/http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/about/knaapo_aircraft/su-27sk.wbp to http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/about/knaapo_aircraft/su-27sk.wbp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: As I understand it, China has developed a number of Flanker related types, since the J-11. I thought it would be included in the development section of this article, but didn't see it. Maybe it could be included to explain I guess what superseded the J-11?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "developed into" section in the infobox which lists the J-15 and J-16, with links to their articles for information on them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that, but I feel like that fails to explain what must've been a crucial relationship, both from a design POV, and from an infrastructure & manufacturing POV.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "What must've been a crucial relationship..." sounds a little bordering on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If we have reliable sources on that relationship, then it could be added, but not before. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it worth having a paragraph on subsequent developments?