What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 10:11

garrya wrote:Radar wise, it is very plausible that Zaslon-AM can have longer detection range than APG-63v3,

Even if Zaslon has longer ranges than it's APG-63 contemporaries, historically speaking, absolute max range is not really what counts in a BVR fight.

the radar, EWS, RWR, avionics and other SA gathering equipment available to all teen series fighters far eclipse what the Mig-31 has. I would even dare say an the Super Bug is more dangerous for BVR than the Mig-31, better sensors, better RCS reduction, better weapons.

I think its a misconception to think that BVR is won by the guy who has the longest range radar and longest ranged missiles. So far, BVR combat is always within that 20 nautical mile bubble, well within the max range of both your sensors and weapons. Whoever has more advances there wins. So even an F-16 actually has the upper hand against a Mig-31 in most BVR fights.

garrya wrote:Kinematic wise, F-15 is not even close to Mig-31 in speed and altitude, and worse, RVV-BD and R-37 will also enjoy kinematic advantage over AIM-120 due to their sheer size

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.

garrya wrote:A big 4 gen like F-15 with LPI is like an elephant in a dark room with night vision goggles.

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

garrya wrote:1- AESA isn't the only kind of radar with LPI characteristic, PESA radar got some too, though not to the same level

Exactly, AESA is better at it.

garrya wrote:2- Zalson-M can detect F-15 from +350 km and F-16 from +189 km, let say RWR on F-15, F-16 can detect Mig-31 from twice that distance, what exactly do you think they can do? Approach from the frontal cone isn't feasible because iam sure you can't shot down something cruise 20,000-25,000 feet higher from > 180 km with AIM-120
Approach from the rear is even more silly, what is AIM-120D tail aspect engagement envelope when the adversary is 20,000ft higher and almost 1.4 Mach faster than yourself?


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.


garrya wrote:First you have to prove that they all prioritized maneuverability over stealth, they might copy F-35, F-22 because they want stealth more than they want agility

Fair, but then again, there is just as little evidence to support that the Su-57 is more maneuverable than the F-22.
A lot of people point to the 3D TVC system and LEVCON controls with all moving V-Stabs. To which I say, the F-22 has more Pitch movement in the TVC system, more thrust with current engines and larger V-Stabs. Empty weight listed on Wikipedia is for the T-50 so T/W ratio for the Su-57 cannot be calculated yet.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that data to conclude which one is more maneuverable, in what part of the envelope is too few and inconclusive so we cannot say the Su-57 is more maneuverable than the F-22 or vise versa.

Besides, personally I think anything with the high speed maneuverability of a Viper, or slow speed maneuverability of a supper bug can win any WVR fight against any manned aircraft.

The Raptor is already better than those 2 at their own game. In short the F-22 is already overkill for any maneuvering fight. But thats just my 2 cents.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3484
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:50

When referring to speed of an F-16 and nose pointing authority of the SH, I'm pretty sure he was talking about the F-35..

The F-35 was apparently designed to excel in all areas of air to air combat,something that wasn't overtly stated (or obvious) early on. It's primarily a sensor/shooter, and by all account excels in that role - killing enemy aircraft before its presence is even known.

But LM also ensured that if it got to the merge, its maneuverability, ability to re-gain energy etc. was "good enough" to defeat all comers. Even if it lacked said attributes, the advent of HOBS missiles makes future dogfights a mutual kill proposition. It's rather amazing to me that from BVR to furball, LM was able to cover all the bases - especially for $80 million/copy or thereabouts.

Makes you wonder how much cheaper it'd be if it was strictly a BVR killer/strike platform. I'm glad they went all out though, because our allies have no "big brother" F-22 Ace cards to play, as does the USAF..
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1781
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 07:22

With due respect, an air combat fighter design would have gone with dual engines to maximise thrust for long ranged AAM shots, heavier weights to mount a more powerful radar. Understand how people like to think the F-35 is a magic plane. The F-35 was designed as a compromise workhorse that balanced $$ with tech, much like how the F-16 was. Last gen, if air combat was required, they'd send an F-15. Today they send an F-22. Sending an F-35 will still get the job done. The PCA will be dual engined.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 830
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 12:32

zero-one wrote:
garrya wrote:Kinematic wise, F-15 is not even close to Mig-31 in speed and altitude, and worse, RVV-BD and R-37 will also enjoy kinematic advantage over AIM-120 due to their sheer size

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.


Just slightly advantage in absolute top speed? F-15 normal max speed is Mach 2.4 but how long it can fly that fast? MiG-31 showed time and time again it can fly for very long time on that speed. So F-15 can dash on Mach 2.4, MiG-31 can cruise.

What about altitude?
F-15 pilots:
Image

While MiG-31 pilots suits are something like this:
Image

Slight advantage in alitutide :wink:

zero-one wrote: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.


But you forget how crappy MiG-25 electronics were for 1980s.

In 1980s, MiG-31 was space ship tech interceptor.

It was digital, missiles with its own processors, mission info would be uploaded using memory device, it had advanced datalink (providing 800km radar info for group of four MiG-31) it shared info about targets, for example if one of four MiG-31 mark target others would know that target is his, PESA radar which allow engage six targets in same time which fly on noticeable different altitudes and speeds. First operational fighter/intercpetor with variant of FADEC (probable with some analog things) which didn't allow burning engines as with MiG-25, and on top of that if have excellent range even better then Su-27.

So MiG-31 was totally different beast then MiG-25.

To be clear I don't say MiG-31 is better as fighter compared to F-15. In dogfight it is dead as MiG-25 was. But saying is weak BVR platform is trolling.

In past we could say it wasn't good BVR platform against fighters, when active guided missiles became reality and it still use not so agile SARH missile. But today it carry R-77 (four of them) and new R-37 is lot more agile then R-33 plus it is ARH missile.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 15:18

milosh wrote:Just slightly advantage in absolute top speed? F-15 normal max speed is Mach 2.4 but how long it can fly that fast? MiG-31 showed time and time again it can fly for very long time on that speed. So F-15 can dash on Mach 2.4, MiG-31 can cruise.

I'm not gona dispute that, but please provide numbers, I know the the Mig-31 can reach Mach 3, but can it cruise there, can it stay supersonic without AB for extended periods. If you have sources, please share.

milosh wrote:To be clear I don't say MiG-31 is better as fighter compared to F-15. In dogfight it is dead as MiG-25 was. But saying is weak BVR platform is trolling.


I'm not saying its bad, but heres my argument. On paper it looks very very capable, however, historically speaking, BVR combat happens inside a medium range bubble. Most if not all BVR kills happened within 20 nautical miles. So my question is, what will the Mig-31 do if it is within the 20 nautical mile Bubble?

If BVR combat was simply, who can get to the target first, who can see the target first and who can get within weapons range first, then yes the Mig-31 is very formidable.

But it isnt like that, and again, I'm just speaking from historical accounts. BVR involves a lot of acquiring and re-acquiring targets, jamming and maneuvering in and out of weapons parameters or getting into better positions.

Will that change with today's weapons and avionics, maybe but let see first. But until then I would rank the Mig-31 lower than all the teen series fighters in the medium range BVR fight, maybe a bit higher than the F-14B and F/A-18A-C but certainly not higher than the late models.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1781
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 15:43

US experience may not equate to the way others operate their fighters. Mig-31 way of fighting will likely replicate mig-25 which was a lot of bvr long ranged shots. Missed a lot but sometimes get a few. I think most of the kills were by r-40s.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 830
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 16:41

zero-one wrote:
milosh wrote:Just slightly advantage in absolute top speed? F-15 normal max speed is Mach 2.4 but how long it can fly that fast? MiG-31 showed time and time again it can fly for very long time on that speed. So F-15 can dash on Mach 2.4, MiG-31 can cruise.

I'm not gona dispute that, but please provide numbers, I know the the Mig-31 can reach Mach 3, but can it cruise there, can it stay supersonic without AB for extended periods. If you have sources, please share.


I was writing about cruise speed, MiG-31 cruising speed is same as top speed for F-15. That is big difference especially for combat strategy.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1289
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 17:02

Zero-one, if you read Tom Cooper's F-14 book the Iranian sources claimed Foxbat kills/damage from over 60 miles and they claimed to have measured the Phoenix range at 115 miles so its NEZ was about half its maximum range in actual combat Yes most BVR kills are within the 5-20nm range but considering that usually time was taken to positively ID the aircraft and most performed evasive maneuvers which would reduce the range especially turning away and early AMRAAMs had about a 40 mile range this 20nm and under figure is no surprise.

However MIG-31s do cruise at Mach 2+ with their missiles and fly at extreme altitude so with big heavy long range AAMs it's not too much of a stretch to think they could rival those Iranian F-14 numbers. Teen fighters would most likely start out on the defensive jamming and evading incoming from a fast high altitude Mig-31 with probably an F-15 with AESA and AIM-120D having the best chance of matching its reach. F-22/F-35 on the other hand could pick their place, position and range of engagement at their leisure.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 17:39

milosh wrote:@swiss

BM version of MiG-31 is in service for years, 240km radar range isn't max range of radar, even old N007 have much longer range if you look radar screen and know what to look. 240km for BM is for fighter size target which is by Russian standard 3m2.


Well according to Tass deliveries are still going on.

Yes this would concur roughly with the statement it as a range of 400 km against a 20m2 Target. But like i said its on the same level like smaller modern western AESA Radar ( APG-80, -79 and RBE2 AA). And we don't no, is this range for volume or cuing search.



milosh wrote:According by commander of Russian AF R-37 is in operational or IOC, same you could here from MiG-31 unit commander in documentary about MiG-31, he mentioned ABM capability of new missiles they have and hypersonic speed of those missile which correspondent with R-37 info (Mach 6 class missile).


Do have a source for this claim.



milosh wrote:R-33E was export missile so no they probable don't have that missile in service.


According the manufacture it's the only r-33 they build actually.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 830
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 21:38

@swiss

Here it is:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=1099

Around 250km with actual missiles in future lot more officer mentioned anti satellite capability:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=425
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 23:10

milosh wrote:@swiss

Here it is:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=1099

Around 250km with actual missiles in future lot more officer mentioned anti satellite capability:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=425


Thanks for the link milosh. Nice Pictures. :thumb: But you have to take informations from RT always with a grain of salt. :wink:

At 6:50 the Officer said thy use R-33 miles with an operational Range of 120km, So this concur with the figures from the manufacturer. And you also see only R-73 and R-33. And this are still old Mig-31. Because the chief designer said at 16:00, the upgraded Mig-31 will have LCD screens. And the Migs in this clip defiantly have an old school cockpit.

So it seems indeed the delivery just has startet.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/22529/ ... HMURC1oRTY

http://tass.com/defense/1045485
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 07:52

marsavian wrote:However MIG-31s do cruise at Mach 2+ with their missiles and fly at extreme altitude so with big heavy long range AAMs it's not too much of a stretch to think they could rival those Iranian F-14 numbers.


I know its considered a game but I think DCS is quite realistic as far as simulators go. Over there, whenever a shot is done beyond 15 NM, its considered a wasted missile. Theres no hope for it to hit the target. MWR can easily detect the round and fighters can easily avoid it. The game's logic says that even if the missile tries to chase the fleeing target, it will be so out of energy by the time finally catches up. The only good thing that comes from firing these long range shots is that it forces the target to be defensive.

Historically speaking, thats how most engagements actually went. Even shots fired between 10 to 15 NM mis their targets, its only when targets fall below the 10NM mark thats shots really become deadly. At ultra long ranges, the missile's on-board radar can't track as well so it will need mid-course updates from the launching craft.

I'm not saying its impossible, but against today's teen series fighters, its literally a long shot with very low Pk.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 830
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 18:15

swiss wrote:
milosh wrote:@swiss

Here it is:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=1099

Around 250km with actual missiles in future lot more officer mentioned anti satellite capability:
https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac?t=425


Thanks for the link milosh. Nice Pictures. :thumb: But you have to take informations from RT always with a grain of salt. :wink:

At 6:50 the Officer said thy use R-33 miles with an operational Range of 120km, So this concur with the figures from the manufacturer. And you also see only R-73 and R-33. And this are still old Mig-31. Because the chief designer said at 16:00, the upgraded Mig-31 will have LCD screens. And the Migs in this clip defiantly have an old school cockpit.



It is irrelevant what missile you see, what is relevant is what officer said. ~250km with current missiles and new missiles will have much better range (which would be R-37M because it look like they only finish state testing in 2018).

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



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


Around ~100 to ~120 MiG-31 are upgraded to BM standard (depending from source), they don't plan to upgrade all MiG-31 fleet to BM stanard, only airframes in good condition so it is logical to see old MiG-31 in years to come, they are planing to start retire non upgraded MiG-31 in mid 2020s or to convert them in hypersonic cruise missile carriers.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 19:28

milosh wrote: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.

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


Source?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5798
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 05:41

weasel1962 wrote:With due respect, an air combat fighter design would have gone with dual engines to maximise thrust for long ranged AAM shots, heavier weights to mount a more powerful radar. Understand how people like to think the F-35 is a magic plane. The F-35 was designed as a compromise workhorse that balanced $$ with tech, much like how the F-16 was. Last gen, if air combat was required, they'd send an F-15. Today they send an F-22. Sending an F-35 will still get the job done. The PCA will be dual engined.



Laughable they would send the F-35. Unless, they just happen to have some F-22's with nothing to do! :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 13 guests