What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

[milosh]

BTW 120km is what journalist said not officer, he used data for internet which isn't realistic.

No take a look again, its the officer. And the data is from the manufacturer. There is no evidence in this documentary, that thy have missile with 250 km range.

You are right but officer later mentioned acctual missiles have ~250km range which is probable R-37M.

Nope it started in 2010:
Russia began upgrading its MiG-31 fleet to MiG-31BM in 2010.

Source?

Text you posed, for example this part:
Russia began upgrading its MiG-31 fleet to MiG-31BM in 2010.

You can find lot of sources which mentioned MiG-31BM in units years before 2019.

[garrya]

I actually think its close although the Mig-31 has a slight advantage in absolute top speed. What is the max cursing speed of a combat configured Mig-31 anyway.

And again, nobody has shot down anything with their missile's published max ranges. Its who is more capable inside the 20 nautical mile BVR bubble that counts.

Slight advantage?
F-15 max altitude is 18 km
Mig-25/31 max altitude is 25 km
It can fly almost 7 km higher

Top speed of clean F-15 is a little more than Mach 2.2 on a standard day, only on a cold day that it can reach Mach 2.5, and for a very limited time (like 1 minute if i recall correctly)

1322.PNG (83.96 KiB) Viewed 19962 times

bomb.PNG (658.31 KiB) Viewed 19962 times

33333.PNG (94.95 KiB) Viewed 19962 times

Besides,when you look at missiles designed to operate at high altitude such as R-40, R-33, Super530 they all share similar physical difference from AIM-120, they all have very big wings, which help they turn where the air density is low. By contrast, AIM-120 burn out speed is already lower than R-40 and R-33, then it is launched from lower altitude, lower velocity, then it has lesser wing area. Then it got smaller warhead as well. Go figure their relative NEZ

p0022839.jpg (38.76 KiB) Viewed 19961 times

s-l1000.jpg (19.24 KiB) Viewed 19961 times

Thats actually a terrifying scenario if you know that the elephant is out to kill you and all you have is a flashlight.

Now imagine you are on the 5 floors of a building while the elephant is on the ground floor.

I'm not trained in the art of BVR intercepts so I can't conclude on this. But theoretically, the Mig-25 can do most of the things the Mig-31 in your scenario did. We all know how many Mig-25s the teen series have shot down.

Mig-25 has short range radar with questionable look down capability and it has to goes against F-15, F-16 with AEW support. Most important, they didn't know how to use it, some pilot tried to dogfight with it AFAIK.

[mixelflick]

So getting back to what the Chinese think of the SU-35...

I wonder what they think about its missiles? The R-27 is hopelessly out-dated, I presume they instead ordered the R-77? Curious to know what they think there. If the reports about the PL-15/21 are accurate, I have to believe they'll be attempting to fit it to the SU-35..

In any case, the Flanker never really got the BVR weapon it really needs. I'm not at all convinced of the R-77's efficacy. So you wind up with a big, powerful fighter with an absurdly powerful/rangy radar but... without the weapons to take advantage of it. I can see now why the Russians put such an emphasis on "super-maneuverability". They never had much data on BVR successes, unlike the Americans.

Also, if the R-33 is such a wonder weapon... why not fit it to the Flanker/SU-57? In the Flanker's case, I'd think it'd be ideal, perhaps carried in the tunnel. In the case of the SU-57, it doesn't look so large as to prevent internal carriage. Granted, you may only be able to carry 1 to 4 of them, but still... A weapon with 100 mile range, that's said to be effective vs. everything from low and slow to fast and high? As in over Mach 3 and 70,000 plus feet high? Multiple shot too, unlike the R-27's which are carried (mostly) today by Flankers..

[swiss]

You are right but officer later mentioned acctual missiles have ~250km range which is probable R-37M.

Yes that could be possible against an AWACS.

Text you posed, for example this part:
Russia began upgrading its MiG-31 fleet to MiG-31BM in 2010.

You can find lot of sources which mentioned MiG-31BM in units years before 2019.

You are right. But it seems delivers startet in 2015. An operating in 2018

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... 0425&cat=3

This would also concur, with the German magazine who wrote about the upgrade in 2014.

https://translate.google.ch/translate?h ... ystemen%2F

The production rate is also slow with 60 upgrading Mig-31 from 2015 to 2020.

[garrya]

Also, if the R-33 is such a wonder weapon... why not fit it to the Flanker/SU-57? In the Flanker's case, I'd think it'd be ideal, perhaps carried in the tunnel. In the case of the SU-57, it doesn't look so large as to prevent internal carriage. Granted, you may only be able to carry 1 to 4 of them, but still... A weapon with 100 mile range, that's said to be effective vs. everything from low and slow to fast and high? As in over Mach 3 and 70,000 plus feet high? Multiple shot too, unlike the R-27's which are carried (mostly) today by Flankers..

They has RVV-BD

[mixelflick]

Also, if the R-33 is such a wonder weapon... why not fit it to the Flanker/SU-57? In the Flanker's case, I'd think it'd be ideal, perhaps carried in the tunnel. In the case of the SU-57, it doesn't look so large as to prevent internal carriage. Granted, you may only be able to carry 1 to 4 of them, but still... A weapon with 100 mile range, that's said to be effective vs. everything from low and slow to fast and high? As in over Mach 3 and 70,000 plus feet high? Multiple shot too, unlike the R-27's which are carried (mostly) today by Flankers..

They has RVV-BD

I can't read Russian, but ok....

Is this in service though, or is it another "brochure weapon" Putin loves spouting off about? It's nice to see/talk about these Russian BVR wonder weapons, but when I see things like 400km range I have to ask is if it's for real. Because from what I can see, the platform (radar), IFF etc. and weapon doesn't add up to a real, operationally relevant capability.

Something (sometimes all 3 or more) is always missing..

[juretrn]

Export R-77...
About the level of AIM-120B, nothing special at all

[disconnectedradical]

AIM-120 is obviously not going as far or high as R-33. All missiles design to go high and fast have big control surfaces, like R-33, R-37, AIM-54, etc. They're mainly for hitting big targets like bombers though.

[milosh]

Also, if the R-33 is such a wonder weapon... why not fit it to the Flanker/SU-57? In the Flanker's case, I'd think it'd be ideal, perhaps carried in the tunnel. In the case of the SU-57, it doesn't look so large as to prevent internal carriage. Granted, you may only be able to carry 1 to 4 of them, but still... A weapon with 100 mile range, that's said to be effective vs. everything from low and slow to fast and high? As in over Mach 3 and 70,000 plus feet high? Multiple shot too, unlike the R-27's which are carried (mostly) today by Flankers..

Why??? They have MiG-31 which carry four of them without any noticeable impact.

Export R-77...
About the level of AIM-120B, nothing special at all

RVV-AE is more agile because of non conventional control surfaces but range is similar to armaam B.

They have heavier variant RVV-SD which have more range.

[knowan]

RVV-AE is more agile because of non conventional control surfaces but range is similar to armaam B.

Substantially worse range than AIM-120B.

Besides,when you look at missiles designed to operate at high altitude such as R-40, R-33, Super530 they all share similar physical difference from AIM-120, they all have very big wings, which help they turn where the air density is low. By contrast, AIM-120 burn out speed is already lower than R-40 and R-33, then it is launched from lower altitude, lower velocity, then it has lesser wing area. Then it got smaller warhead as well. Go figure their relative NEZ

There's more to missile kinematics than that.

Top speed is less important than how long the missile can maintain speed. Bigger missile body and fins means more drag.

[milosh]

RVV-AE is more agile because of non conventional control surfaces but range is similar to armaam B.

Substantially worse range than AIM-120B.

Okey, I expect you have something like this for AIM-120B:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3 ... bbe02d3fdb

Without something like that we can't really compare both missiles.

Besides,when you look at missiles designed to operate at high altitude such as R-40, R-33, Super530 they all share similar physical difference from AIM-120, they all have very big wings, which help they turn where the air density is low. By contrast, AIM-120 burn out speed is already lower than R-40 and R-33, then it is launched from lower altitude, lower velocity, then it has lesser wing area. Then it got smaller warhead as well. Go figure their relative NEZ

There's more to missile kinematics than that.

Top speed is less important than how long the missile can maintain speed. Bigger missile body and fins means more drag.

Yes it isn't so simple but altitude is important.

Missile with big control surfaces when it is fired from highter altitude then target would have noticeable better efficiency then missile with smaller control surfaces which is fired against target which is lot higher This is who SR-71 with almost non exciting agility evade missiles for decades.

[knowan]

RVV-AE is more agile because of non conventional control surfaces but range is similar to armaam B.

Substantially worse range than AIM-120B.

Okey, I expect you have something like this for AIM-120B:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3 ... bbe02d3fdb

Without something like that we can't really compare both missiles.

I can make some educated guesses based on AIM-120 having boost-sustain motor versus R-77 with boost-only motor, followed by greater frontal area to weight and length ratios.

Add in Russian electronics being bulkier and it gets even worse for the R-77, because that means less room for fuel.

Based on those facts, the R-77 design is definitely inferior to AIM-120 when it comes to kinematics, even the AIM-120A/B.

[mixelflick]

So Russian BVR AAM's leave a lot to be desired. I don't think there's much debate about this, unless you happen to hang your hat on the R-33... In which case, I don't think we have any combat data on that weapon. It looks fearsome. The Russians say so, but without evaluating it in combat I guess even they don't really know.

That appears to be their achilles heel, along with engines and to a lesser extent avionics.

The Chinese apparently have the opposite problem: Great AAM's (but again, no combat data on them) along with very good radar. Their engines are abysmal though, way behind even the Russians.

But back to the topic at hand: Sounds like the Chinese were impressed with some areas of the SU-35, and less than impressed in others. They'll copy its engine though and that's what they bought it for. Remains to be seen how much of the tech makes it into the final iteration of their J-20's motors.

[milosh]

I can make some educated guesses based on AIM-120 having boost-sustain motor versus R-77 with boost-only motor, followed by greater frontal area to weight and length ratios.

Add in Russian electronics being bulkier and it gets even worse for the R-77, because that means less room for fuel.

Based on those facts, the R-77 design is definitely inferior to AIM-120 when it comes to kinematics, even the AIM-120A/B.

Well AIM-120 doesn't have dual pulse engine, I thought D version have but here was proven it doesn't. Older versions surely don't have dual pulse.

Reason why R-77 have smaller range isn't heavy electronics (it have very modern seeker) but control surfaces which have noticeable drag impact on missile range when speed is ~1Mach or lower.

[knowan]

I can make some educated guesses based on AIM-120 having boost-sustain motor versus R-77 with boost-only motor, followed by greater frontal area to weight and length ratios.

Add in Russian electronics being bulkier and it gets even worse for the R-77, because that means less room for fuel.

Based on those facts, the R-77 design is definitely inferior to AIM-120 when it comes to kinematics, even the AIM-120A/B.

Well AIM-120 doesn't have dual pulse engine, I thought D version have but here was proven it doesn't. Older versions surely don't have dual pulse.

Reason why R-77 have smaller range isn't heavy electronics (it have very modern seeker) but control surfaces which have noticeable drag impact on missile range when speed is ~1Mach or lower.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... design.htm

The high performance rocket motor utilizes a reduced smoke, hydroxyl terminated, polybutadiene propellant in a boost sustain configuration

Aside from that:



With a total AIM-120 length of 3700mm, that puts the entire guidance section of the AIM-120 at approximately 1520mm in length and the motor section approximately 1875mm in length.
With the RVV-AE length of 3600mm, the entire guidance section is 1630mm in length and the motor section 1765mm in length.

So the R-77 is already spending proportionally more volume on guidance electronics; 41% vs 39%, with proportionally less on rocket motor and fuel: 49% vs 51%.

Volume of the AIM-120 motor/fuel section is 47,713 cm^3, versus R-77 with 55,449 cm^3.
Frontal area of the AIM-120 is 1017.9 cm^3 versus R-77 at 1,256.6 cm^3.
Volume of the motor/fuel section divided by frontal area is 46.87 for AIM-120 vs 44.13 for R-77; higher is better.

Basically, even if they had equal performing rocket motors and fuels, AIM-120 would still come out ahead because it is has a higher length/diameter ratio and spends less volume on electronics.