What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 14:54
by eloise
Very deep interview
https://mil.sina.cn/sd/2018-12-09/detai ... c7DTwlb24g
Google translate link
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... yyHuHz5zFw
- The SU-35 serves as an excellent benchmark for the Chinese military to gauge the effectiveness of their own development vs international standards.

- Su-35 is very maneuverable, possibly the most maneuverable fighter in the PLAAF

- The N035E is an excellent PESA radar. It's pretty much the best PESA radar you can practically develop.

- However, it's substantially weaker than the current generation of Chinese AESAs.

- The N035E radar has some interesting features, for example it is capable of detecting a target at extended ranges (350km) if it's only required to scan a small area (about the size of the HUD). This is not particularly useful without AWACs cueing.

- ESM/ECM systems are not as good as the J-16s. If the J16 were to be rated a 10/10, the Su-35 would be an 8.5/10 on ESM and 8/10 on ECM performance.

- The IRST is also worse, due to the state of the Russian electronics/optics industry.

- The R-77 and R-73 can be used on China's older stock of Russian fighters (Su-27/Su-30MKKs).

- R-77/R-73 are unremarkable, and performance trails the Chinese PL-10 and PL-15 missiles. (Wouldn't the PL-8 and PL-12 be a better comparison?)

- The Su-35 has an interesting feature, the "БОСЭС" or "Duel" which, if programmed with the capability of the opposing fighter, can automatically track the enemy in real time and recommend optimized decisions. It presents a good look into the Russian understanding of air combat modeling - and China may seek to do something similar for their 5th generation fights. (Coupled with advances in Chinese AI technology).

- The 117S engine is very good. It has 13% more dry thrust than the older AL-31F, which is already superior to the domestic WS-10.

- The Su-35s have some form of datalink capability, and have some level of integration into Chinese air defense networks.

- The Su-35 is giving China lots of experience with a super maneuverable thrust vectoring aircraft, and is influencing Chinese decisions on where to go with fighter development.

- They've learned quite a bit via dissimilar air combat training exercises with the Su-35.

- "the 117S engine is also the key subsystem for the first time after the introduction of the Su-35" - I think this means that the engine is the primary reason the Su-35 was bought.

- The officer's dream heavy 4.5th generation fighter would be a J-16 with 117S engines.



- The N035E's look-up range is only slightly more than the J-16 radar's look-down range, and the former is not as effective as the latter in anti-surface mode

- The '8.5' and '8.0' scores refer to the Su-35's sensing and EW capabilities respectively assuming the J-16's are set at '10' for both

- The weapons package of the Su-35 is not particularly impressive

- The KS-172, even if imported, wouldn't compare favourably with China's own VLRAAM

- Strike munitions of the Su-35 deal are upgraded versions of the same munitions procured as part of the Su-30 deals almost twenty years ago and there is limited value in what can learnt from them

- A lot of the flaws on the PLA Su-35s cannot be attributed to Russian reluctance to export top technology but rather the Russians haven't encountered the issues on their own Su-35s

- This mirrors the situation of the early-2000s when PLA Su-30s were flown at a much higher intensity than their cash-strapped Russian counterparts in preparation for a Taiwan contingency, leading to the PLA giving the aircraft OEM much more information on the Su-30's flaws than Russian pilots who didn't get the chance to fly their aircraft as much nor in as diverse of scenarios

- The Su-35 has the S-108 datalink which allows up to sixteen aircraft to share fire-control data allowing one aircraft to guide the missiles fired by other aircraft similar to CEC

- The datalink capability was already available for the Su-30 but owing to the relatively weak performance of the N001VE radar, the capability wasn't very useful and the PLA declined to include it

- Real-war experience in Syria suggests the S-108's ECCM capability can be further explored (might've gotten jammed by Americans/Israelis?)

- The extraordinary manoeuvrability and the corresponding combat potential of the Su-35 can largely be attributed to the 117S engines; thus, mastery of 117S utilisation was priority no. 1 for the 6th Brigade to achieve combat-capability ASAP

- Upgrading Su-35s to use domestic systems is more difficult than upgrading Su-27s and Su-30s due to the former's integrated system architecture compared to the latter two's distributed system architecture -- changing one system on the Su-35 has ramifications for every other system

- Extensive Russian assistance is necessary to conduct upgrades of systems without screwing everything up, hence the Su-35 deal is called "Sino-Russo Su-35 Cooperation Project" -- it's not just a simple export-import deal

Aircraft no. 61271 began test flights at Zhukovsky Airfield after handover to the PLA, suggesting those were post-upgrade system integration tests

Su-35s are already compatible with Chinese AEW

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 15:21
by element1loop
In addition, due to the Russian optical device industry level, its OLS-35 forward-looking photo-electric radar (IRST) performance is far less than that of the 歼[J]-16 similar equipment; both airborne electronic reconnaissance capabilities have their own advantages, but the Su-35 airborne electronic interference The equipment is lagging behind in architecture and technology. If the detection capability and electronic warfare capability of the J-16 are set to 10 points, then the Su-35 can play 8.5 points and 8 points.


Interesting claims.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 21:14
by swiss
Very interesting Interview eloise.

I think that's says a lot about the Sensors and Weapon quality from the Su-35. When they are even behind the J-16. And concur with the statements, that the Russians are at least 20 years behind the US in sensor technologie.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 21:47
by knowan
Honestly not that surprising; China has a robust electronics industry, and has been investing far more money on developing new missile weapons over the last few decades than Russia.

With Russia wasting money on pointless programs like Avangard and Poseidon, it's no wonder China has pulled ahead of them.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 14:27
by mixelflick
Sounds like they're going to take what they learned, to upgrade their J-16's?

The PESA sounds absurdly powerful, but still a step behind our/Chinese AESA's. It also sounds like the sensors and weapons are a mismatch, meaning it can't take advantage of the PESA's max detection ranges. And it also sounds like the Russian's know that, thus the emphasis on super-maneuverability.

All of which is great news for the F-35. Its sensor suite is its real strong suite, along with its stealth. Which means even if the current weapons (AIM-120C-7's) aren't optimal, they'll still have a much higher PK. When it gets the 120-D, things will be even better. 9x integration is fast tracked, which makes any super-maneuverability advantage the SU-35 has null and void. Not going to out-maneuver that missile..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 14:59
by vilters
When the Chinese get their engines sorted out, they will be building great airplanes.

All in all, the Chinese are "on par" with their Russian friends, and will be taking over soon.

More devoted, dedicated, better industry with slightly less corruption.
And massive human and financial possibilities.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 13:33
by mixelflick
- A lot of the flaws on the PLA Su-35s cannot be attributed to Russian reluctance to export top technology but rather the Russians haven't encountered the issues on their own Su-35s

- This mirrors the situation of the early-2000s when PLA Su-30s were flown at a much higher intensity than their cash-strapped Russian counterparts in preparation for a Taiwan contingency, leading to the PLA giving the aircraft OEM much more information on the Su-30's flaws than Russian pilots who didn't get the chance to fly their aircraft as much nor in as diverse of scenarios

Somewhat hard to believe, given Russia deployed both the SU-30 and SU-35 to Syria to work the bugs out. But let's assume it's true... Does it logically follow that the Chinese have informed their Russian counterparts as to both aircraft's weaknesses?

I would think so, but don't want to assume. Whatever the case, this will probably be the last aircraft China imports from Russia, and that's bad news for the Russians. China was a HUGE buyer of Russian jets, possibly #1 (India has to be close). Given that, the Russians will have a lot less rubles floating around to fund their current projects (PAK FA, Hunter etc).

And it all happened so fast, didn't it? The Chinese started modernizing in the late 1990's and started pumping out purely domestically produced fighters like the J-10. Now we have the J-20 and JC/31, in addition to a rumored stealth bomber and other platforms in the works. Call it 20 years. In the grand scheme of things, that isn't very long. In another 20 years, we might see Russia buying fighters from China! Might. The Russians are awful proud people, and it's hard to imagine them swallowing their national pride, no matter how much sense it makes..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 14:02
by madrat
The Russians have infiltrated China for decades. Its impossible China could hold any such qualitative edge over Russia in secret. The Chinese rely on Russian sponsored education and those ties last a lifetime.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 14:48
by milosh
KS-172 doesn't exist it was export only project, it was offered to India and maybe China. India was interested but nothing happen.

Russia wasn't interested in KS-172 because they worked on R-37M. It is operational on MiG-31BM, Su-35 probable can carry it but what the point?

So I don't see why it is mentioned in text.

Also narrow scanning mode for Irbis-E isn't nothing special at least can't be nothing special in second decade of XXI century. If Chinese are impressed with that, then it look like their PESA/AESA radar don't have that capability :?
It look like Chinese didn't got L-band AFAR for their Su-35.

@mixflick

China ISN'T biggest buyer of Russian aircrafts. That is India. India will have ~270 Su-30MKI, China have only ~80 Su-30. Chinese also got around 100 Su-27 under licence deal for J-11, Sukhoi canceled deal when Chinese start modifying J-11 on their own and that was in early 2000.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 16:23
by zero-one
My take on this:

Positives:
-The Su-35 is very maneuverable and perhaps the most maneuverable fighter in the PLAAF, More than the J-20 which is good news.

-Even with their defense budget possibly half the size of China's, they still managed to come up with ESM and ECM suits that are close to China's best. Quite impressive if you ask me.

-Engine is better than anything the Chinese have. By a considerable margin judging by the number of times they went out of their way to praise it.

-The Duel mode seems like its a kind of A.I. that can suggest the best way to engage a certain type. I wonder if its the sort of system that will tell the pilot to go to the vertical against an F/A-18 or when will be the best time to go slow against an F-16.

-The Super-maneuverability of the Su-35 has opened new doors or tactical options for the PLAAF that it is now "influencing" their designs moving forward.

Negatives
-I can make an argument that the F-22 is more maneuverable than the Su-35. Lower wing loading, lift loading, more TVC deflection, higher T/W ratio, better thrust to drag ratio and we're not even getting into maneuverability at combat loads yet. So the F-22 will have a considerable maneuvering advantage over anything the PLAAF has.

-A lot of the reasons Sukhoi fans give to argue why BVR will fail and why the Sukhoi will get a chance to use it's much vaunted Super-maneuverability up close is because recent wars have never involved the most advanced ESM and ECM systems they have. Well it looks like the Chinese weren't very impressed with the ECM suits as well.

-Radar Stealth is "useless" because of the advanced IR sensors the Sukhoi has. The Chinese don't seem too impressed as well.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 20:20
by milosh
If Chinese are so impressed with AL-41 what would they say on AL-51 or what number new Su-57 engine have.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 20:27
by knowan
milosh wrote:If Chinese are so impressed with AL-41 what would they say on AL-51 or what number new Su-57 engine have.


Or for that matter, F-119 and F-135.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 01:48
by element1loop
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:If Chinese are so impressed with AL-41 what would they say on AL-51 or what number new Su-57 engine have.


Or for that matter, F-119 and F-135.


If the Su35’s 117 engine is only making 13% more go than an AL-31F ... it looks like this:

Su35
Fuel Load 25,400 lb
Empty Weight 41,274 lb
Weapon Weight = EMPTY
Full fuel Weight 66,674 lb
Under MTOW 9,386 lb … (less than half the payload potential of an F-35A)
Dry Thrust 38,217 lb … (19,108 lb)
A/B Thrust 62,602 lb … (31,301 lb)
Dry Thrust 100% fuel = 0.573
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel = 0.939
Dry Thrust 50% fuel = 0.708
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel = 1.160

Su57
Fuel Load 22,700 lb
Empty Weight 43,500 lb
Weapon Weight = EMPTY
Full fuel Weight 66,200 lb
Under MTOW 10,960 lb … (half the payload potential of an F-35A)
Dry Thrust 38,217 lb … (19,108 lb)
A/B Thrust 62,602 lb … (31,301 lb)
Dry Thrust 100% fuel = 0.577
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel = 0.946
Dry Thrust 50% fuel = 0.697
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel = 1.141

No weapons and the engines are still hanging out in the breeze.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 04:21
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:-A lot of the reasons Sukhoi fans give to argue why BVR will fail and why the Sukhoi will get a chance to use it's much vaunted Super-maneuverability


Russian 'super-maneuverability' is a euphemism for 'dead-man'.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 23:47
by milosh
element1loop wrote:
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:If Chinese are so impressed with AL-41 what would they say on AL-51 or what number new Su-57 engine have.


Or for that matter, F-119 and F-135.


If the Su35’s 117 engine is only making 13% more go than an AL-31F ... it looks like this:

Su35
Fuel Load 25,400 lb
Empty Weight 41,274 lb
Weapon Weight = EMPTY
Full fuel Weight 66,674 lb
Under MTOW 9,386 lb … (less than half the payload potential of an F-35A)
Dry Thrust 38,217 lb … (19,108 lb)
A/B Thrust 62,602 lb … (31,301 lb)
Dry Thrust 100% fuel = 0.573
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel = 0.939
Dry Thrust 50% fuel = 0.708
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel = 1.160


Something isn't right.

If Su-35 empty weight is ~18.6tons as you wrote then it is heavier then old Su-35:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... u35_02.jpg

new Su-35:
https://nationalinterest.org/sites/defa ... k=O3-Rm78O

If you check avionics new Su-35 is lighter, N035 weight noticeable less then N011 and new one doesn't have sting radar (N012 which old one have).

Materials and construction? Well:
Therefore, designers removed the canards (and the dorsal air brake) found on the Su-27M; the size of the vertical tails, aft-cockpit hump and tail boom were also reduced.[41] With such changes, as well as the increased use of aluminium and titanium alloys and composites, designers had reduced the empty weight of the aircraft, while maintaining a similar maximum take-off weight to the Su-27M.


Also Chinese are impressed with Su-35 TWR, it is noticeable better then J-11, 18.6tons empty Su-35 with would have worse TWR compared to J-11 (WS-10A have ~7% more thrust then AL-31F) and similar TWR as J-11 with old AL-31F.

element1loop wrote:Su57
Fuel Load 22,700 lb
Empty Weight 43,500 lb.


Were did you get Su-57 weight?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 01:26
by element1loop
Thank you for that question, it made me check.

I have a few "time-varying" Wikipedia empty weights for the Su35

Su35
Feb 2015 Empty weight: 18,720 kg (41,274 lb)
Mar 2016 Empty weight: 18,400 kg (40,570 lb)
Feb 2019 Empty weight: 17,200 kg [citation needed] (37,920 lb)

It gets lighter with time (which is the opposite of what usually occurs as jets enter service and capability expands).

I used the value I already had in the spreadsheet which was the first one above. I would admit though that the present number is more likely to be correct, I just had not updated the sheet with it (and now have).

--

For the 'Su57' (T50 actually), a spreadsheet note shows that I used a guestimate (and operational jets generally get heavier, not lighter).

Su57
Feb 2015 Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)

However I questioned this rounded "18,000 kg" figure at the time, as it was clearly just a guess.

In the end I used this instead within the spreadsheet

Empty weight: 19,730 kg (43,500 lb)

There’s a note attached to the cell stating:

“Claimed empty weight, but unlikely to have a lower weight than an F-22A, given it's longer, wider and holds more fuel plus has an internal bay and a larger wing, so is likely to be heavier. I'm guessing about 43,500 lb.”

Current Wikipedia claimed weight is still:
Feb 2019 Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)

--

The main dimensions I considered were these:

(F-22A)
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.92 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
Empty weight: 43,340 lb (19,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 64,840 lb (29,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally

(Su-57)
Length: 19.8 m (65 ft)
Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)
Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft²)
Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,270 kg (64,530 lb) at full load
Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,160 lb)
Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb)

Personally I think it remarkable that so many figures there are similar, though the Su57 is generally a bit longer, a bit wider, slightly larger wing area, almost the same loaded weight, but claims significantly more fuel volume (i.e. "empty space weighs a lot"). It also has the added structural and skin weight of large separated inlet tunnels. But is still claimed to be 3,360 lb lighter than an F-22A when empty? How? So I decided a weight similar to the F-22A would be much closer to the truth than the unreasonably light empty weight being claimed (by what is clearly just a guessed at 18,000 kg), for an even larger jet.

If this were football, the Russian ‘specs’ seem to demand a lot of unwarranted ‘free kicks’ (as do their related propaganda themes).

And when I look at various online ‘specs’ regarding the 117’s thrust I see the same sorts of unwarranted exaggerations, whereas this interview above is saying the thrust increase is much less than claimed (could you imagine what the F-16 capability would be today if evolving engine tech and thrust had increased by only 13% in the past 40 years?).

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:49
by charlielima223
element1loop wrote:
Russian 'super-maneuverability' is a euphemism for 'dead-man'.


If you can die and look cool while doing it... why not?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 06:24
by element1loop
Better than Russian Roulette.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 13:29
by marsavian
The Su-35 shows that the radar intercepts the target at 275 kilometers, which should be achieved in the normal mode.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 13:46
by mixelflick
Impressive, but... what kind of target?

An airliner? Fighter sized target?? F-33/F-35???

Even if it can detect say, and F-15 at that range does it have the capability to engage? Unless we're giving them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. super long range 400 plus KM air to air weapon), I don't see how its relevant. If anything, all that PESA power is going to show up as a flashlight in the dark and put the SU-35 at risk.

20 years ago, the SU-35 and its PESA would have been a phenomenal accomplishment. Today, it's been passed over by AESA's of various sorts. A lot of power helps in burning through jamming, but the cons outweigh the pros IMO...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 19:28
by knowan
mixelflick wrote:20 years ago, the SU-35 and its PESA would have been a phenomenal accomplishment.


Closer to 30 years ago, I'd say.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 15:03
by mixelflick
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:20 years ago, the SU-35 and its PESA would have been a phenomenal accomplishment.


Closer to 30 years ago, I'd say.


Going forward, rubles are going to be tight. I wonder what they'll put them into... upgrading the SU-35, or buying SU-57's? If the Russian press release was to be believed "no mass production of SU-57", it would appear as if the SU-35 will be their primary air superiority platform through 2030 - 2040.

Without upgrades, it will be showing its age soon...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 15:21
by marsavian
No doubt Su-35 will have an AESA front-end upgrade somewhere down the line. It's the Russian way, constant incremental evolution giving maximum bang for buck. Su-57 won't be mass produced until the new stealthier engine so it can be exported too. The aircraft currently coming off the line are Su-57 hybrids with Su-35 engines, their only real purpose is to keep the production line open and allow more testing.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:38
by charlielima223
marsavian wrote:The aircraft currently coming off the line are Su-57 hybrids with Su-35 engines, their only real purpose is to keep the production line open and allow more testing.


They have 12 models for development and testing... why do they need to produce more for testing? From my understanding the PAKFA isn't a concurrent program. IMO the only reason to keep the production line open is more for national pride.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:51
by weasel1962
@Marsavian. Agreed on delay intent. Right now production is only ~1 a year using the old engines. That's going to carry on for the next 2 years to allow time to complete the new engine development. Serial production contract has apparently been delayed until post 2020 and even then its at 2-3 a year with new engines kicking in midway.

http://tass.com/defense/1040167

They could use earlier batch Su-57s for training.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 03:04
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:Impressive, but... what kind of target?

An airliner? Fighter sized target?? F-33/F-35???

Even if it can detect say, and F-15 at that range does it have the capability to engage? Unless we're giving them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. super long range 400 plus KM air to air weapon), I don't see how its relevant. If anything, all that PESA power is going to show up as a flashlight in the dark and put the SU-35 at risk.

20 years ago, the SU-35 and its PESA would have been a phenomenal accomplishment. Today, it's been passed over by AESA's of various sorts. A lot of power helps in burning through jamming, but the cons outweigh the pros IMO...

The Su-35 can detect a 3m^2 target at 170km, in look down mode. In look up mode it's closer to 190-200km. If it's detecting something at 275km, it's either bigger than 3m^2, or a cued search.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 03:45
by weasel1962
What Sukhoi claims.

https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/256/

БРЛС обеспечивает большую даль­ность обнаружения воздушных целей – до 350 км по цели с ЭПР 3 м2.


Translation: Up to 350km for target with RCS 3m2.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 05:13
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:What Sukhoi claims.

https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/256/

БРЛС обеспечивает большую даль­ность обнаружения воздушных целей – до 350 км по цели с ЭПР 3 м2.


Translation: Up to 350km for target with RCS 3m2.

Cued search, yes (with a volume of 10 deg x 10 deg). Volume search 170km.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 15:26
by mixelflick
An SU-35 with AESA is an intriguing bird. But without the weapons to engage that far out, it seems to me it'd be akin to a flashlight in a dark room. Meaning, this isn't going to be a low probability of intercept AESA, is it?

In the end it's real undoing will be its large radar signature. Or at least large enough to show up on an F-22's, F-35's or even F-15's radar screen. Concerning and AESA equipped SU-35 vs. F-15, I wonder who'd hold an edge?

I have to believe the Eagle's AESA beats the Flanker's hands down, as this will pretty much be their first foray into the AESA world, correct? From there, it all comes down to detection range and BVR missiles. Unfortunately, the F-15 is going to have a much larger RCS than the SU-35, so it may be the SU-35 gets first look. First shot and first kill is another matter though, as I don't have much confidence in their R-27 and not much is known about the R-77.

I'll take AIM-120D's or even C7's any day, which should have a much better PK..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 16:44
by zero-one
R-27
https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... r-missile/
The maximum operational g-loading of the missile is 8g.


Am I reading this correctly,
With a speed of Mach 4, 8Gs translates to around just 2 degrees per second.

The R-77 seems like a more viable threat. I'm not sure why it is generally considered inferior to the latest AMRAAM models besides the common belief that Russian electronics are considered behind those found in the US, Europe and even China, which is mostly true, don't get me wrong.

But do we have any other substantial evidence to support that the R-77 isn't to be feared the same way we respect the S-400.
China wasn't very impressed which could support that notion, or maybe China thinks to highly of their own capabilities, another possibility is that China's air to air missiles are really in the class they claim to be now.

They have a larger defense budget than any single European NATO member, so all that R&D should have resulted in some stunning technological breakthroughs by now

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 17:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:Am I reading this correctly,
With a speed of Mach 4, 8Gs translates to around just 2 degrees per second.

The R-77 seems like a more viable threat. I'm not sure why it is generally considered inferior to the latest AMRAAM models besides the common belief that Russian electronics are considered behind those found in the US, Europe and even China, which is mostly true, don't get me wrong.

No. 8G is the maximum carriage limit, I'm sure. That speaks more to the pylons than the missile. Also, an R-27 isn't going to be flying at Mach 4. Its fins are too big.

R-77 isn't seen as much of a threat because it is, at best, equivalent to the AMRAAM A in electronics and range. It is agile, so in a near WVR fight it is a potent weapon, but I would bet on US ECM systems to wreak havoc with the seeker.

The R-77-1 might be up to AIM-120B standards. Really the R-27ET is possibly a bigger concern BVR. It has a higher claimed operational range than the R-77-1 and will give no terminal warning to anything that is not DAS or DASS equivalent.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 17:59
by zero-one
Thanks Sprst.
I know you're a big fan of DCS as am I (haven't actually played it but I watch all the analysis from DCS players)
How accurate is their aircraft and weapons modeling in your opinion?
over there, the R-77 is quite respectable at trans-visual ranges.
Makes me think, now I know why the Raptor's supersonic maneuverability is such a big deal.

If its stealth was somehow compromised, its still almost untouchable at those ranges if it can do a bat turn and stay supersonic

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 19:39
by wrightwing
There's a reason why the R-27 is still carried more frequently than R-77s. Reliability. It hasn't been until somewhat recently, that R-77s were seen, often.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 19:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:Thanks Sprst.
I know you're a big fan of DCS as am I (haven't actually played it but I watch all the analysis from DCS players)
How accurate is their aircraft and weapons modeling in your opinion?
over there, the R-77 is quite respectable at trans-visual ranges.
Makes me think, now I know why the Raptor's supersonic maneuverability is such a big deal.

If its stealth was somehow compromised, its still almost untouchable at those ranges if it can do a bat turn and stay supersonic

So for DCS the aircraft are a mixed bag. Assume AI only aircraft are garbage. Flaming Cliffs holdovers are not much better (A-10A, F-15C, Su-27, Su-33, Su-25, MiG-29A) an F-15C is unable to cruise at 30,000ft at speeds above 0.8M when fully AA loaded with a single centerline tank, the -1 says optimum cruise should be over 40,000ft at at >0.9M for that configuration, I looked). Dedicated aircraft that are NOT flaming cliffs holdovers are better (WWII line, Korea and Vietnam era line). The A-10C, F/A-18C Lot 20 (still in beta), and F-14A/B (still pre-beta) seem to be the most accurate as not only are flight characteristics modeled but system and subsystem behavior is modeled. They had Hornet and Tomcat flight crew verify things as minor as "how long does it take to run BIT", "What is the flap extension rate", and "you mean that part actually rotates when you flip that switch?" When flight crew are singing the praises of the systems and flight modeling, then I trust it.

Missiles... Russian missiles in DCS are wonder weapons. They always track and are only spoofed by decoys at the last second. U.S. missiles, not so much. 50% chance they go dumb on launch. Also, I was informed of a fundamental difference in how US and RU define missile ranges. US apparently defines the range as the range at which the missile can still maneuver while RU defines it as the range at which 1G flight can occur. They model all missiles in DCS using publicly stated ranges (that come from two different methods of measuring) but apply the RU method. Meaning if the US says the AIM-120C-5 has a range of 65km (for "x"G) then DCS models the AIM-120C-5 as having a range of 65km (for 1G). They neuter the range of US missiles in this manner.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 20:25
by knowan
The R-77 motor is entirely boost, unlike AIM-7 and AIM-120 with boost-sustain motors.

That results in much inferior kinematics beyond short range.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 21:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
knowan wrote:The R-77 motor is entirely boost, unlike AIM-7 and AIM-120 with boost-sustain motors.

That results in much inferior kinematics beyond short range.

Source for that? Even the R-27 has boost sustain with the ER/ET at the very least

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 21:12
by swiss
wrightwing wrote:The Su-35 can detect a 3m^2 target at 170km, in look down mode. In look up mode it's closer to 190-200km. If it's detecting something at 275km, it's either bigger than 3m^2, or a cued search.



Yep. We had this discussion several times here. This are official Figures from UAC:

https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/li ... n-features

The most important difference between the Su-35 and ”4+” generation fighters is its fifth-generation avionics. The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km. The Irbis-E is able to track up to 30 targets at a time and guide missiles at 8 of them, without an interruption in airspace surveillance. The radar control system also provides for the selective acquisition of moving ground targets and cueing for low-level missions.


And normally the Russians give there Radarsystems a probability of detection of 50% (vs 85-90% for western Radars.) So that would mean the Range drop another 15-20% compare to Western Radarsystems.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:R-77 isn't seen as much of a threat because it is, at best, equivalent to the AMRAAM A in electronics and range. It is agile, so in a near WVR fight it is a potent weapon, but I would bet on US ECM systems to wreak havoc with the seeker.

The R-77-1 might be up to AIM-120B standards.


According to the manufacturer up to 80 km.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-ae.html

And it seems the R-77-1 ( RVV-SD) is still not in service now. There is only the RVV-AE listed for the armament of the Su-35

https://www.webcitation.org/6J6cwo1bR?u ... et_eng.pdf

http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

So even the Amraam C7 should be clearly superior to R-77.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 02:02
by weasel1962
The R77 (RVV-AE) had serviceability issues that was reported by the Indian government auditors since 2009 with the Indian air force. The CAG then criticised the Indian navy when they bought 40 RVV-AE with the Mig-29K for buying without checking with and learning from the IAF, facing the same issue. Integration issues was also encountered later when the Indians tried to integrate the missile with the Mig-21Bison, again highlighted by the CAG. The shelf life was a short 8 years and I think the Indians did not even bother to do an extension for the missiles they had. Its illuminating that the Indians did not even consider the missile for the light combat aircraft (which now integrates the Israeli Derby). Having said that, the Indians, being the 1st export customer, were probably the guinea pigs. Unclear what's the performance of the next batches but no actual combat performance to gauge. The only kills by suks were probably in the Eritrea border war which was pre-R77 (kills were with R-27/R-73).

US may encounter the R-77 with chinese su-30/35 but I think probably have more concern with the PL-15/21s mated to their knock-offs. It is also useful to note the chinese modified their Su-30s to fire their domestic AAMs, likely they could do the same for the Su-35.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 08:45
by knowan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
knowan wrote:The R-77 motor is entirely boost, unlike AIM-7 and AIM-120 with boost-sustain motors.

That results in much inferior kinematics beyond short range.

Source for that? Even the R-27 has boost sustain with the ER/ET at the very least


Nothing solid, but I can't find a mention anywhere of the R-77 or R-77-1 having a boost-sustain motor, and K-77M is mentioned as being improved by having a 'two-pulse motor' (which likely means boost-sustain, as that is how boost-sustain is usually called in Russian sources), so R-77 and R-77-1 are likely boost only.

K-77M also has conventional fins, which indicates the lattice fins of earlier R-77 versions were sub-optimal for kinematics.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 13:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Fair enough. Thanks.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 15:26
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:According to the manufacturer up to 80 km.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-ae.html


Interesting thing about RVV-AE that in ground-launched form it has max range of 12 km and max altitude of 9 km according to that data.

Accoring to MBDA, VL MICA has up to 20 km range and up to 30,000 ft altitude. So despite being almost half the size of RVV-AE, it has significantly longer range and about similar altitude coverage. I take it that VL MICA has much better optimization for ground launches as the range is so different. That the altitude coverage is also similar, I think is because RVV-AE is draggy and possibly not very efficient design by modern standards. For example the electronics possibly take up a lot of space and thuse reducing the motor size. It was designed about the same time as AIM-120A was after all and Soviet/Russian electronics capabilities were not very good. So despite being much bigger, it can achieve only similar or lower flight performance to MICA missile. RVV-SD seems to have somewhat longer range, but it's also heavier than RVV-AE. So it might not be much more capable of modern missile after all.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 15:45
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
swiss wrote:According to the manufacturer up to 80 km.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-ae.html


Interesting thing about RVV-AE that in ground-launched form it has max range of 12 km and max altitude of 9 km according to that data.

Accoring to MBDA, VL MICA has up to 20 km range and up to 30,000 ft altitude. So despite being almost half the size of RVV-AE, it has significantly longer range and about similar altitude coverage. I take it that VL MICA has much better optimization for ground launches as the range is so different. That the altitude coverage is also similar, I think is because RVV-AE is draggy and possibly not very efficient design by modern standards. For example the electronics possibly take up a lot of space and thuse reducing the motor size. It was designed about the same time as AIM-120A was after all and Soviet/Russian electronics capabilities were not very good. So despite being much bigger, it can achieve only similar or lower flight performance to MICA missile. RVV-SD seems to have somewhat longer range, but it's also heavier than RVV-AE. So it might not be much more capable of modern missile after all.


Interesting points, thanks. The main reason why, for exemple, the AMRAAM C7/D or the Mica NG have more range then there predecessor by the same size, is they have clearly smaller electronic components. So there is more space for fuel.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 16:23
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:The R77 (RVV-AE) had serviceability issues that was reported by the Indian government auditors since 2009 with the Indian air force. The CAG then criticised the Indian navy when they bought 40 RVV-AE with the Mig-29K for buying without checking with and learning from the IAF, facing the same issue. Integration issues was also encountered later when the Indians tried to integrate the missile with the Mig-21Bison, again highlighted by the CAG. The shelf life was a short 8 years and I think the Indians did not even bother to do an extension for the missiles they had. Its illuminating that the Indians did not even consider the missile for the light combat aircraft (which now integrates the Israeli Derby). Having said that, the Indians, being the 1st export customer, were probably the guinea pigs. Unclear what's the performance of the next batches but no actual combat performance to gauge. The only kills by suks were probably in the Eritrea border war which was pre-R77 (kills were with R-27/R-73).

US may encounter the R-77 with chinese su-30/35 but I think probably have more concern with the PL-15/21s mated to their knock-offs. It is also useful to note the chinese modified their Su-30s to fire their domestic AAMs, likely they could do the same for the Su-35.


Thought it was well established that the SU-27's killed Mig-29's with R-73's after R-27's missed (and more than a few of them). Bear in mind those Mig-29's probably didn't have the latest RWR's, ECM etc either.

For all their brochure weapons, they still seem to have trouble with basic BVR capability. This may have changed, but I bet it's one reason why Russian doctrine is so heavily rooted in the dogfight. They just haven't fought a war where BVR kills were the norm, unlike the US in DS, Kosovo etc..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 00:28
by knowan
hornetfinn wrote:Interesting thing about RVV-AE that in ground-launched form it has max range of 12 km and max altitude of 9 km according to that data.


Supposedly the basic rule of thumb for maximum air to air to maximum surface to air range is 1/3rd, which would put the RVV-AE at just 36 km A2A, less than AIM-7M.
Are the Russians exaggerating A2A range but not SAM range? Given the known kinematic weaknesses of the missile, it seems possible.

Related note: surface launched AIM-120 has been claiming over 15 km range since the 90s.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 13:29
by hornetfinn
knowan wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
knowan wrote:The R-77 motor is entirely boost, unlike AIM-7 and AIM-120 with boost-sustain motors.

That results in much inferior kinematics beyond short range.

Source for that? Even the R-27 has boost sustain with the ER/ET at the very least


Nothing solid, but I can't find a mention anywhere of the R-77 or R-77-1 having a boost-sustain motor, and K-77M is mentioned as being improved by having a 'two-pulse motor' (which likely means boost-sustain, as that is how boost-sustain is usually called in Russian sources), so R-77 and R-77-1 are likely boost only.

K-77M also has conventional fins, which indicates the lattice fins of earlier R-77 versions were sub-optimal for kinematics.


Do you mean this?
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-ae.html

It is powered with a one-mode solid-fuel rocket engine.


http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... 27er1.html
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... 27et1.html

Interestingly R-27R1/T1 are also using single-mode rocket engine and ER1/ET1 are using dual-mode rockets.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 14:35
by mixelflick
Interesting notes re: combat - SU-27 vs. Mig-29

"Besides taking out four Eritrean MiG-29s (plus one written off due to damage recieved from a AAM) Ethiopian Su-27s also carried out many strike missions against the Eritrean ground forces.

Interesting to note that all MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights. All kills were by means of the R-73. R-27s fired by both MiGs and Su-s on various occassions failed to find their mark.

One uneventful incident occured when two Su-27s were intercepted over Eritrean airspace by four MiGs. The lead Su-27 was targeted by the MiGs which fired three R-27s head-on. The Lead evaded the missiles and then proceeded to engage all four MiGs by firing four R-27s in quick succession. The missiles missed and the MiGs left in a hurry.

So in that engagement, a total of 7 R-27's were fired and... none found their mark.

LESSONS LEARNED?

R-27's miss - a lot. R-73's fare much better, albeit we don't know how many were fired to get 5 kills. End of the day the SU-27 looked pretty dominant, although I'm sure pilot skill was the determining factor. So what to make of the R-27? Turkey, or did they suffer from poor maintenance/pilot employment? As it stands, the R-27 sounds like it has the reliability of early Sparrow missiles over Vietnam. Even worse, considering there have been zero reported kills.

If I'm the Russians, I can see now why they prioritize the dogfight so much - they have no BVR kills that I can see. We see cool videos of Mig-31's shooting R-33's and downing targets many kilometers away, but is that legit? And we have brochure weapons with 400km ranges, hypersonic weapons etc..

Deep down, I think they know their BVR stuff is junk, or at least highly suspect. We bet big on stealth, sensors and BVR. They bet big on no stealth, marginal sensors and WVR maneuverability. Methinks the Israeli's and her F-35's will show the world how the US was right, swiftly dispatching with Iranian F-14's who will likely have no idea what hit them. Sort of like how their F-14's dominated in the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980's...

And I have a feeling if there is a dogfight, the 9x is going to have the last word - regardless of platform.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 15:58
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:R-27's miss - a lot.


Thats an under statement,
In that war, there was an estimated 24 launches of the R-27 resulting in just 1 successful hit. Thats a Pk of 4%

However this is largely blamed on poor training and maintenance, as R-27s had more success in other places with 1 Yemani R-27T alegedly hitting a Saudi F-15

mixelflick wrote:We bet big on stealth, sensors and BVR. They bet big on no stealth, marginal sensors and WVR maneuverability.


American Fighters are better for BVR and Russian fighters are better for WVR is exactly what Sukhoi fans spew all the time. Balance only happens in video games. In the real world, you strive for superiority in all aspects and not leave any advantage for your opponent.

case and point, there is no better WVR aircraft than an F-22, not by a wide margin.
I even consider the F-35 better than the Su-30 in a knife fight.
The F-16 is better than the Mig-29 in the phone booth so is the F/A-18.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 16:54
by garrya
zero-one wrote:American Fighters are better for BVR and Russian fighters are better for WVR is exactly what Sukhoi fans spew all the time. Balance only happens in video games. In the real world, you strive for superiority in all aspects and not leave any advantage for your opponent

Mig-31 is very good BVR, better than F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18
zero-one wrote:case and point, there is no better WVR aircraft than an F-22, not by a wide margin

Su-57 probably better

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 17:10
by hythelday
garrya wrote:
zero-one wrote:American Fighters are better for BVR and Russian fighters are better for WVR is exactly what Sukhoi fans spew all the time. Balance only happens in video games. In the real world, you strive for superiority in all aspects and not leave any advantage for your opponent

Mig-31 is very good BVR, better than F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18
zero-one wrote:case and point, there is no better WVR aircraft than an F-22, not by a wide margin

Su-57 probably better


I'm ready for entertainment!
Image

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 17:44
by SpudmanWP
:doh: :lmao:

Image

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 18:16
by disconnectedradical
In early 90s the MiG-31 BVR on paper was probably better than the teen fighters. It had PESA while all US fighters had mechanically scanned radars, it even had data link. With upgraded AIM-120 and AESA the F-15 probably turned it around but MiG-31 is no slouch.

With izd.30 engines Su-57 WVR can probably match or exceed F-22's, though it's really down to the pilot. There's a lot of other problems with Su-57 though.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 20:44
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Mig-31 is very good BVR, better than F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18

Lets see... radar,
All those versions of the teen series in service have AESA...

garrya wrote:Su-57 probably better


Doubt it, not with those engines. Did they resolve the cracks issue

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 20:59
by knowan
Until the MiG-31 received the Zaslon-M in the 2010s with the MiG-31BM, the MiG-31's radar actually wasn't that great; head-on detection range was just 200 km vs 19 m^2 RCS.

Only figures I've found for the F-14 is the AWG-9 having 207mm km detection range against 1 m^2 RCS, which works out to over twice the range of the Zaslon (and still better than Zaslon-M).

I didn't dig enough to find detection range data for F-15, F-16 and F-18 radar, but I expect the original Zaslon had better range than F-16 and F-18, but probably inferior to F-15.



hornetfinn wrote:Do you mean this?
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-ae.html

It is powered with a one-mode solid-fuel rocket engine.


http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... 27er1.html
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... 27et1.html

Interestingly R-27R1/T1 are also using single-mode rocket engine and ER1/ET1 are using dual-mode rockets.


Yep, that means a boost-only motor.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 21:16
by swiss
The Mig-31 Radar has a Range of 200 Km vs a 19m2 Target. With a probability of detection of 50%.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170712112 ... uv-zaslon/

No R-77 available, and with an RCS probably bigger then a F-15. I think this say everything.

@knowan: you where faster than me. :wink:

IIRC the APG-63 had a Range of 165 km against an Air Target.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 22:17
by knowan
swiss wrote:IIRC the APG-63 had a Range of 165 km against an Air Target.


Assuming that is against a fighter sized target of 5 m^2, that's 230 km vs 19 m^2, so about about 15% better than Zaslon.

Other figures for the F-14's AWG-9 is 140 nm vs bomber sized target and 115 nm vs 5 m^2 target.
If the bomber sized target is 100 m^2, that's only 171 km vs 19 m^2, but 115 nm vs 5 m^2 works out to 297 km vs 19 m^2.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 01:47
by garrya
zero-one wrote:All those versions of the teen series in service have AESA...

and?

zero-one wrote:Doubt it, not with those engines. Did they resolve the cracks issue

What crack issue? and i don't think you should disregard the potential of an aircraft due to some of their current isue that can be solved , remember what the critic said about F-35 and where it is now?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 01:51
by garrya
knowan wrote:Until the MiG-31 received the Zaslon-M in the 2010s with the MiG-31BM, the MiG-31's radar actually wasn't that great; head-on detection range was just 200 km vs 19 m^2 RCS.

Only figures I've found for the F-14 is the AWG-9 having 207mm km detection range against 1 m^2 RCS, which works out to over twice the range of the Zaslon (and still better than Zaslon-M).

I didn't dig enough to find detection range data for F-15, F-16 and F-18 radar, but I expect the original Zaslon had better range than F-16 and F-18, but probably inferior to F-15

But why stop with the basic Zaslon while current Mig-31 already has Zaslon-M and many had been upgraded to Zaslon-AM?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 02:30
by collimatrix
knowan wrote:Until the MiG-31 received the Zaslon-M in the 2010s with the MiG-31BM, the MiG-31's radar actually wasn't that great; head-on detection range was just 200 km vs 19 m^2 RCS.

Only figures I've found for the F-14 is the AWG-9 having 207mm km detection range against 1 m^2 RCS, which works out to over twice the range of the Zaslon (and still better than Zaslon-M).

I didn't dig enough to find detection range data for F-15, F-16 and F-18 radar, but I expect the original Zaslon had better range than F-16 and F-18, but probably inferior to F-15.


There's more to radar performance than just detection range. Zaslon had an extremely advanced antenna design for the time; better than anything else in a fighter (although describing the Foxhound as a "fighter" might be a bit of a stretch) at the time. It was let down by the computers behind the radar, but it still had some key advantages.

The F-14's radar at the time, if I recall, could juggle more targets than Zaslon could, and at somewhat better range. However, Zaslon spent far, far less time re-adjusting the beam when it jumped from target to target, and it had none of the mechanical offset drift problems of the AWG-9, so when Zaslon was tracking a whole mess of targets the tracks would be more accurate. In principle the PESA could have better ECCM as well, although it may have been let down again by sub-par computer processors.

Interestingly R-27R1/T1 are also using single-mode rocket engine and ER1/ET1 are using dual-mode rockets.
Yep, that means a boost-only motor.


The consensus I had read is that boost and sustain motors for AAMs do not work terribly well, although the technology might be more workable in larger missiles. Apparently the grain likes to flake and do other bad things, and the nozzle can only be optimized for one burn rate.

garrya wrote:Su-57 probably better


SU-57 looks like it has a high instantaneous turn rate, and it comes out of the gate with DIRCM. But I'm not sure that would save it against the Raptor's nutso bonkers sustained turn rate, especially at higher altitudes where I suspect the F119 gives better SEP thanks to its absurdly low BPR. But I'm interested to hear your take.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 06:23
by element1loop
collimatrix wrote:
garrya wrote:Su-57 probably better

SU-57 looks like it has a high instantaneous turn rate, and it comes out of the gate with DIRCM. But I'm not sure that would save it against the Raptor's nutso bonkers sustained turn rate, especially at higher altitudes where I suspect the F119 gives better SEP thanks to its absurdly low BPR. But I'm interested to hear your take.


People don't seem to take on board the fact that there are only T-50s in existence to this day. There are no Su57s in RuAF service. The first Su57 is supposed to be built this year. The PAK-AF was supposed to enter service in the 1990s, but Sukhoi's T50 won the PAK FA competition in 2002 and began production in 2009, and still there's no engine for it!

Can you imagine if this had happened to the F-35?

It's the old lipstick-on-a-pig trick.

( ... and what was that weight-growth from YF-22 --> F-22A again? ...)

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 06:46
by zero-one
Well....thing is. With BVR, absolute max ranges isn't really as important as what we might think.

All BVR shots I've read and heard about happened below 20 NM. If someone has documentations on kills that were further then I'm open for correction.

I think properties like jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection, data linking to missiles, overall situational awareness, even high speed maneuverability is more important in a BVR fight. In those respects the F-15 would be best among all 4th gens and will be far superior to any Mig-31.

Question though, Paul Metz as well as many Raptor pilots have said that the F-22 is able to kill targets without them ever knowing they were being shot at in the first place. How is this possible? Doesn't the F-22 need to use its own radar for a targeting solution? I know it has LPI modes but that will only make it difficult to locate if I'm not mistaken. So how does the Raptor make a kill without the target ever knowing that its being targeted?


In WVR there is too little information on the Su-57 to make a conclusion. As it is now, the TVC system only deflects 15 degrees in the pitch axis. Planes turn by banking then pitching so its safe to assume that if TVC is needed the F-22 will have more pitch control available.

The Raptor is most definitely stealthier in the RF and IR spectrum as well even at WVR ranges. Maybe even visually, I read that the most difficult color to see in the sky are actually varying shades of gray which is why all US aircraft are painted gray. The Su-57s blue camo pattern just screams hey shoot me.

The fact that no one seems interested in the Su-57 not even Russia herself speaks volumes.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 07:25
by weasel1962
The old ACIG forum had a page on AMRAAM kills by distance. Not sure if can still access it.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 08:25
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Well....thing is. With BVR, absolute max ranges isn't really as important as what we might think.

All BVR shots I've read and heard about happened below 20 NM. If someone has documentations on kills that were further then I'm open for correction.

I think properties like jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection, data linking to missiles, overall situational awareness, even high speed maneuverability is more important in a BVR fight. In those respects the F-15 would be best among all 4th gens and will be far superior to any Mig-31.


I totally agree with this. Max range is just one measure how good a missile or radar is. There are multiple other just as important or even more important indicators.

Btw, there are really no LPI radar modes. Radars have LPI features which are used in all radar modes, although not necessarily all features are applicable to all modes. And different radars have differernt LPI features and implementations. Pretty much all military radars designed during the last 40 years or so have some kind of LPI features implemented as they also enhance other performance figures. However only the latest AESA radars can be considered real LPI radars when we talk about radars in fighter jets.

zero-one wrote:Question though, Paul Metz as well as many Raptor pilots have said that the F-22 is able to kill targets without them ever knowing they were being shot at in the first place. How is this possible? Doesn't the F-22 need to use its own radar for a targeting solution? I know it has LPI modes but that will only make it difficult to locate if I'm not mistaken. So how does the Raptor make a kill without the target ever knowing that its being targeted?


LPI means Low Probability of Intercept. This means the radar signals are difficult to detect, which then means that RWR/ESM systems can detect them at shorter ranges. Basically the radar signal is so random and spread over wide bandwith that it doesn't stand out from background noise. If signals are detected, they are also more difficult to identify which means that RWR/ESM system might not be able to tell what kind of radar or other transmitter has sent those signals or what they mean (like are they targeted or not). This is achieved by varying the radar signal seemingly randomly.

F-22 can do those kinds of kills, because the target RWR/ESM system isn't alerted by the radar signals as they can't filter them out from background noise.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 08:51
by garrya
zero-one wrote:I think properties like jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection, data linking to missiles, overall situational awareness, even high speed maneuverability is more important in a BVR fight. In those respects the F-15 would be best among all 4th gens and will be far superior to any Mig-31

How do you know? we don't have any hard numbers.
F-15 can be better than Mig-31 in jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection but high speed maneuverability? likely no.
LPI is useful for stealth aircraft, but when you are inside an aircraft with RCS of a barn like F-15 or Mig-31, it doesn't really matter. What is the point of LPI radar when heading on they can detect you 350-400 km with their radar and you don't have the necessary speed or altitude to catch them from the rear?

zero-one wrote:In WVR there is too little information on the Su-57 to make a conclusion. As it is now, the TVC system only deflects 15 degrees in the pitch axis. Planes turn by banking then pitching so its safe to assume that if TVC is needed the F-22 will have more pitch control available.

Plane needs to pitch so that they can turn
But turning # pitching
logically, Su-57 will have better CLmax than F-22 thanks to LEVCON.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 09:47
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:I think properties like jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection, data linking to missiles, overall situational awareness, even high speed maneuverability is more important in a BVR fight. In those respects the F-15 would be best among all 4th gens and will be far superior to any Mig-31.


Most important is VLO and good RWR and ESM.

zero-one wrote:Question though, Paul Metz as well as many Raptor pilots have said that the F-22 is able to kill targets without them ever knowing they were being shot at in the first place. How is this possible? Doesn't the F-22 need to use its own radar for a targeting solution? I know it has LPI modes but that will only make it difficult to locate if I'm not mistaken. So how does the Raptor make a kill without the target ever knowing that its being targeted?


ALR-94.

zero-one wrote:In WVR there is too little information on the Su-57 to make a conclusion. As it is now, the TVC system only deflects 15 degrees in the pitch axis. Planes turn by banking then pitching so its safe to assume that if TVC is needed the F-22 will have more pitch control available.


You can't just look at deflection angle. Also how far nozzle is from CG, and moment of inertia. Su-57 LEVCON will probably give it better high alpha. It can also yaw better because canted TVC can make yaw moments.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 10:03
by babybat{}.net
zero-one wrote:Maybe even visually, I read that the most difficult color to see in the sky are actually varying shades of gray which is why all US aircraft are painted gray. The Su-57s blue camo pattern just screams hey shoot me.


just a screenshot from the last video..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 10:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
garrya wrote:logically, Su-57 will have better CLmax than F-22 thanks to LEVCON.

with a higher sweep angle and smaller tailplanes? I would not be so confident in that assertion.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 10:22
by garrya
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with a higher sweep angle and smaller tailplanes? I would not be so confident in that assertion.

Obviously, you know a lot more about aerodynamic than me, so your assertion will be more accurate
.Still i don't think there is a lot of difference between sweep angle of Su-57 and F-22.
T-50_YF-23_F-22_F-35_Air_Force_Aircraft_Comparison.jpg

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 10:37
by swiss
knowan wrote:
Assuming that is against a fighter sized target of 5 m^2,


Yes, thats very likely. And range of the Zeslon is with a probability of detection of 50%. So the range drops even more against a western Radar.

I have no doubt the Mig-31 was a very dangerous BVR Fighter in the 80s and 90s. This show also the shutdown of a Hornet in the Gulf war from an Iraki Mig-25. And the latest Mig-31 should be still a capable BVR Fighter today. Against western Fighters with AESA, AMRAAM-D and Meteor, i assume the Mig is in a clearly disadvantage.

hornetfinn wrote:LPI means Low Probability of Intercept. This means the radar signals are difficult to detect, which then means that RWR/ESM systems can detect them at shorter ranges. Basically the radar signal is so random and spread over wide bandwith that it doesn't stand out from background noise. If signals are detected, they are also more difficult to identify which means that RWR/ESM system might not be able to tell what kind of radar or other transmitter has sent those signals or what they mean (like are they targeted or not). This is achieved by varying the radar signal seemingly randomly.

F-22 can do those kinds of kills, because the target RWR/ESM system isn't alerted by the radar signals as they can't filter them out from background noise.


Should Fighters like F-35 or Rafale not be able to detect the IR Signature of an incoming missile, with her DAS and DDM-NG?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 10:46
by knowan
garrya wrote:But why stop with the basic Zaslon while current Mig-31 already has Zaslon-M and many had been upgraded to Zaslon-AM?


Because the F-14 was retired before the MiG-31 received the Zaslon-M.

And if we want to compare Zaslon-M, we'd be comparing PESA against AESA like APG-63v3, APG-77 and APG-81, where the Zaslon-M is very likely outclassed in detection range but also loses in antenna technology.



collimatrix wrote:The consensus I had read is that boost and sustain motors for AAMs do not work terribly well, although the technology might be more workable in larger missiles. Apparently the grain likes to flake and do other bad things, and the nozzle can only be optimized for one burn rate.


It appears to have made a large difference in AIM-7M vs R-27R/T kinematics and overall effectiveness.

Eg, R-27R appears to have had a maximum range of about 25 km, about half that of AIM-7M and AIM-120A/B.



zero-one wrote:The Su-57s blue camo pattern just screams hey shoot me.


It also screams 'we still don't have a working RAM coating!'.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 11:40
by garrya
knowan wrote:Because the F-14 was retired before the MiG-31 received the Zaslon-M.
And if we want to compare Zaslon-M, we'd be comparing PESA against AESA like APG-63v3, APG-77 and APG-81, where the Zaslon-M is very likely outclassed in detection range but also loses in antenna technology

What Zaslon-M lack in technology, it made up for in sheer size.
I meant that PESA is a lot bigger than anything else on fighters including APG-63 and Irbis-E

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 12:07
by swiss
garrya wrote:
knowan wrote:I meant that PESA is a lot bigger than anything else on fighters including APG-63 and Irbis-E


IIRC the dash has a diameter of 1.4m. But even with that size, it was inferior to an APG-63 at least in Range. So i really doubt its in the same League then a APG-63(V)3.

And the Irbis-E was a big step forward for the Russians Fighter Radars. According to the manufacturer it has over the double Range in cued search (100 square degrees) then the latest Bars.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 12:21
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:LPI means Low Probability of Intercept. This means the radar signals are difficult to detect, which then means that RWR/ESM systems can detect them at shorter ranges. Basically the radar signal is so random and spread over wide bandwith that it doesn't stand out from background noise. If signals are detected, they are also more difficult to identify which means that RWR/ESM system might not be able to tell what kind of radar or other transmitter has sent those signals or what they mean (like are they targeted or not). This is achieved by varying the radar signal seemingly randomly.

F-22 can do those kinds of kills, because the target RWR/ESM system isn't alerted by the radar signals as they can't filter them out from background noise.


Should Fighters like F-35 or Rafale not be able to detect the IR Signature of an incoming missile, with her DAS and DDM-NG?


Possibly, but effects of those are likely not currently simulated in exercises even with those aircraft. Probably in the future with LVC simulations.

Of course most fighter jets at the moment don't have those kind of capabilities and would likely not detect the missiles themselves passively. Only F-22, F-35 and latest Rafales seem to have that capability to some degree. Sure, Chinese are clearly going to field their systems in the future also, but likely in fairly small numbers in their latest aircraft (at least at first).

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 13:22
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:Possibly, but effects of those are likely not currently simulated in exercises even with those aircraft. Probably in the future with LVC simulations.

Of course most fighter jets at the moment don't have those kind of capabilities and would likely not detect the missiles themselves passively. Only F-22, F-35 and latest Rafales seem to have that capability to some degree. Sure, Chinese are clearly going to field their systems in the future also, but likely in fairly small numbers in their latest aircraft (at least at first).


Ok. Thanks for clarification. According to MBDA and northropgrumman it was designed exactly for that purpose.

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/ddm-ng/

https://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=fo ... t_id=15319

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx



I Found this about the Zaslon-M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaslon#ci ... _Design-18
https://books.google.ch/books?id=Kt2ZaO ... ge&f=false

400Km vs 20m2 Target would mean nearly 250km vs 3m2 Fighter. That would be closer to a RBE2 AA or APG-80. as to the APG-63(V)3. They also say the Mig-31 shot down a traget at 300 Km distance with a R-37.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 14:20
by mixelflick
disconnectedradical wrote:In early 90s the MiG-31 BVR on paper was probably better than the teen fighters. It had PESA while all US fighters had mechanically scanned radars, it even had data link. With upgraded AIM-120 and AESA the F-15 probably turned it around but MiG-31 is no slouch.

With izd.30 engines Su-57 WVR can probably match or exceed F-22's, though it's really down to the pilot. There's a lot of other problems with Su-57 though.


I'll second the notion the Mig-31 is damn dangerous BVR (and otherwise), even today. I made the point earlier about the Mig-25 downing Spike's F/A-18 in Gulf War 1. Had the Iraqi's been flying Mig-31's vs. 25's, I'm not sure it would have been the relative cakewalk that it was.

I don't think the SU-57 is going to wind up with many (if any) advantages vs. the Raptor WVR (or certainly BVR). I understand video's aren't everything, but c'mon. How much tighter do F-22 turns like this get, especially having so much excess power left it can go into the vertical! The human body can only take so much..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79YDaenv_UU

F-22/SU-57 turn rates notwithstanding, anything this close is going to be the domain of the 9x or R-73. Neither jet is going to out-turn those missiles...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 14:30
by knowan
I respect the MiG-31 more than Fulcrums and Flankers, entirely due to its BVR capabilities.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 15:19
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:
Most important is VLO and good RWR.

Yes, but I was comparing the teen series against the Mig-31

disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:Question though, Paul Metz as well as many Raptor pilots have said that the F-22 is able to kill targets without them ever knowing they were being shot at in the first place. How is this possible? Doesn't the F-22 need to use its own radar for a targeting solution? I know it has LPI modes but that will only make it difficult to locate if I'm not mistaken. So how does the Raptor make a kill without the target ever knowing that its being targeted?


ALR-94.


But can it be used to make a targeting solution? I thought it was only used for detection and maybe tracking but can it also target?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 15:34
by zero-one
garrya wrote:How do you know? we don't have any hard numbers.
F-15 can be better than Mig-31 in jam resistance, LPI radar modes, passive BVR detection but high speed maneuverability? likely no.

No hard numbers but I would put the F-15's AESA and kinematic performance over the Mig-31's in all those categories.

Would you really think the Mig-31 would have an advantage in even one of those?
garrya wrote:LPI is useful for stealth aircraft, but when you are inside an aircraft with RCS of a barn like F-15 or Mig-31, it doesn't really matter. What is the point of LPI radar when heading on they can detect you 350-400 km with their radar and you don't have the necessary speed or altitude to catch them from the rear?

LPI is still useful even for non VLO fighters. This means that you can be more liberal in the use of your radar because RWR amd EW systems will have less of a chance to detect you


The Mig-31 doesn't have that option..the moment it turns on its radar its automatically screaming Shoot me to everyone in the area.

4th gen without LPI is like being in a darkroom with a flashlight.

4th gen with LPI radar capabilities is like being in a dark room with Night vision goggles.

5th gen with LPI radar capabilities is like an invisible man in a dark room with night vision goggles.
garrya wrote:Plane needs to pitch so that they can turn
But turning # pitching
logically, Su-57 will have better CLmax than F-22 thanks to LEVCON.


I'm sorry you'll need complex aerodynamic calculations to convince me with that. The Chinese copied the Flanker the F-35 and the F-22. The Japanese X-2 prototype Korean KFX renditions and even Turkey's TFX renditions have elements of the Raptor. And all of them prioritize maneuverability in their designs.

No one seems to be copying the Su-57 tho

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 16:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
As I recall, after being informed somewhere on these boards, even the APG-63 in '91 was LPI for the conflict. Tomcat fans used to love to point out that the reason the F-14 got no kills in '91 was because as soon as the Iraqi's saw the AWG-9 on the RWR they ran away and straight into F-15s. This was always claimed to be a result of the Iran Iraq war. The F-15s also had a newer and more advanced signal processing that used wider bandwidth and more frequency changes. This rendered the APG-63 LPI against the Iraqi equipment. Radar and RWR is a constant arms race for detection.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 17:02
by garrya
swiss wrote:I Found this about the Zaslon-M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaslon#ci ... _Design-18
https://books.google.ch/books?id=Kt2ZaO ... ge&f=false

400Km vs 20m2 Target would mean nearly 250km vs 3m2 Fighter. That would be closer to a RBE2 AA or APG-80. as to the APG-63(V)3. They also say the Mig-31 shot down a traget at 300 Km distance with a R-37.

APG-80 range is around 195 km against target with RCS of 10 m2 that for sure not as powerful as Zaslon-M or Zaslon-AM. I don't think RBE-2 is any better since it is even smaller than APG-80.
Nevertheless, do you really believe that you can shot down Mig-31 from +250 km with any version of AIM-120? Mig-31 can cruise at much higher altitude than any 4 gen and even 5 gen aircraft.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 17:42
by garrya
zero-one wrote:No hard numbers but I would put the F-15's AESA and kinematic performance over the Mig-31's in all those categories.
Would you really think the Mig-31 would have an advantage in even one of those?

Yes i do.
Radar wise, it is very plausible that Zaslon-AM can have longer detection range than APG-63v3, while Zaslon-AM is PESA, it is significantly bigger than APG-63. Of course , there is chance that APG-63v3 has longer detection range too, but it can go either way
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

zero-one wrote:LPI is still useful even for non VLO fighters. This means that you can be more liberal in the use of your radar because RWR amd EW systems will have less of a chance to detect you
The Mig-31 doesn't have that option..the moment it turns on its radar its automatically screaming Shoot me to everyone in the area.
4th gen without LPI is like being in a darkroom with a flashlight.
4th gen with LPI radar capabilities is like being in a dark room with Night vision goggles.
5th gen with LPI radar capabilities is like an invisible man in a dark room with night vision goggles.

A big 4 gen like F-15 with LPI is like an elephant in a dark room with night vision goggles.
Besides,
1- AESA isn't the only kind of radar with LPI characteristic, PESA radar got some too, though not to the same level
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?


zero-one wrote:I'm sorry you'll need complex aerodynamic calculations to convince me with that. The Chinese copied the Flanker the F-35 and the F-22. The Japanese X-2 prototype Korean KFX renditions and even Turkey's TFX renditions have elements of the Raptor. And all of them prioritize maneuverability in their designs.
No one seems to be copying the Su-57 tho

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


zero-one wrote:But can it be used to make a targeting solution? I thought it was only used for detection and maybe tracking but can it also target?

Here
High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM)

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 19:41
by swiss
garrya wrote:APG-80 range is around 195 km against target with RCS of 10 m2 that for sure not as powerful as Zaslon-M or Zaslon-AM. I don't think RBE-2 is any better since it is even smaller than APG-80.
Nevertheless, do you really believe that you can shot down Mig-31 from +250 km with any version of AIM-120? Mig-31 can cruise at much higher altitude than any 4 gen and even 5 gen aircraft.


I don't know from where you have this numbers. As fahr as i know, the APG-68(V)9 as at least a Range of 105km against a 5m2 Target. And the APG-80 has the twice Range of his predecessor. And the RBE2 AESA has over 50% more range then the RBE2 which is 140 km against a 3m Target.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/0 ... us-squall/

Same goes for the APG-63(V)3. So its very likely it has a Range of over 300 km vs a 3m2 Target.

As I mentioned before, Russia Claims 50% probability of detection for the Zaslon. When you put this to western standards (85-90%), the Range of the Zaslon will drop also. And in a jammed environment even more compere to a modern AESA.

So its very likely any western 4 gen with AESA will detect the Mig first. They have also missiles with more range (against a high maneuverable traget).

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 03:54
by madrat
Russian aircraft have superb capabilities against civilian airlines and drones. (Not much else.)

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 04:44
by garrya
swiss wrote: with any version of AIM-120? Mig-31 can cruise at much higher altitude than any 4 gen and even 5 gen aircraft.


I don't know from where you have this numbers. As fahr as i know, the APG-68(V)9 as at least a Range of 105km against a 5m2 Target. And the APG-80 has the twice Range of his predecessor. And the RBE2 AESA has over 50% more range then the RBE2 which is 140 km against a 3m Target.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/0 ... us-squall/[/quote]
I got it from here
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/0 ... 24.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/0 ... 20.en.html

swiss wrote: They have also missiles with more range (against a high maneuverable traget).

I am 100% sure their missiles aren't longer range than Mig-31's missiles
Not only because of the size difference but also the fact that missiles launch by Mig-31 enjoy altitude and velocity advantage at launch

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 09:30
by swiss
garrya wrote:[
swiss wrote: They have also missiles with more range (against a high maneuverable traget).

I am 100% sure their missiles aren't longer range than Mig-31's missiles
Not only because of the size difference but also the fact that missiles launch by Mig-31 enjoy altitude and velocity advantage at launch


Well the RVV-BD has a Range "up to" 200km at certain target types
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-bd.html

But the missile seems not in service by now.

This is actual missile for the Mig-31E. R-33e. Range 120 km

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... r-33e.html

So clearly less range then an AMRAAM-D or Meteor. And the Zaslon has to point all the time to the Target. The R-33 has only a semi-active Radar.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 12:03
by marsavian
The ALR-94 is a very good geolocator (down to 2° by 2° in azimuth and elevation) which can facilitate a very precise focused APG-77 AESA beam on the target which helps the LPI.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 16:03
by mixelflick
swiss wrote:
garrya wrote:[
swiss wrote: They have also missiles with more range (against a high maneuverable traget).

I am 100% sure their missiles aren't longer range than Mig-31's missiles
Not only because of the size difference but also the fact that missiles launch by Mig-31 enjoy altitude and velocity advantage at launch


Well the RVV-BD has a Range "up to" 200km at certain target types
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... vv-bd.html

But the missile seems not in service by now.

This is actual missile for the Mig-31E. R-33e. Range 120 km

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... r-33e.html

So clearly less range then an AMRAAM-D or Meteor. And the Zaslon has to point all the time to the Target. The R-33 has only a semi-active Radar.


Unless there's been some big upgrade of the R-33, it's pretty long in the tooth by now. Similar to the Phoenix, it is heavy and likely less capable vs. fighter sized targets than bombers, cruise missiles or certainly commercial airliners lol. Speaking of which, the R-33 sure looks familiar, doesn't it? Sure looks like those rumors of Iranian F-14's/Phoenix making their way to Moscow were true (but if I'm not mistaken, they've been disproven). It is clearly out-ranged by the AIM-120D. Unless it attacks its target from the top down, it's doubtful it can bring down an aggressively maneuvering target (F-15 or certainly an F-22) .

Balanced against this would be an R-33 launch at supersonic speeds, as I'll grant the height/speed advantage to the Mig-31. We can't discount that. It's just faster and flies higher than the F-15, no question.

And if the R-33's and Slammers all miss? I wouldn't want to be a Mig-31 close in with an F-15, that's for sure. Best defense would be to run. And she appears to have the fuel and zip to do so...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 20:19
by milosh
@swiss

MiG-31E and R-33E are more less same as first MiG-31 and first variant of R-33. After spy was discover MiG-31 got modified radar and modified missile (R-33S).

Be careful with R-33 range. What Russians are writing are just informational not real numbers. For example R-33 had 120km but that isn't limit of missile but first PESA radar.

R-33 is heavier then AIM-54 and have dual pulse engine so 120km is very unrealistic if we talk about missile only.

For example they score +300km target kill during 1994 testing:
Первый полет опытного истребителя-перехватчика МиГ-31М состоялся 21 декабря 1985 г. (экипаж — летчик-испытатель Б.А. Орлов и штурман-испытатель Л.С. Попов). Построено шесть опытных самолетов. В апреле 1994 г. Президент России направил поздравительную телеграмму создателям самолета МиГ-31М и его системы вооружения в связи с успешным проведением первых в мире испытаний по поражению воздушной цели на дальности свыше 300 км.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 22:57
by knowan
milosh wrote:R-33 is heavier then AIM-54 and have dual pulse engine


That means boost-sustain. The AIM-54 had a sustain-only motor that sacrificed acceleration and top speed for very long burn time.

Combined with the R-33 being only semi-active versus active-radar on the AIM-54, the R-33's kill probability against a maneuvering target would be considerably lower than that of the AIM-54, except at short range where the boost stage of the R-33's motor would give it greater energy.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 23:22
by swiss
milosh wrote:@swiss

MiG-31E and R-33E are more less same as first MiG-31 and first variant of R-33. After spy was discover MiG-31 got modified radar and modified missile (R-33S).

Be careful with R-33 range. What Russians are writing are just informational not real numbers. For example R-33 had 120km but that isn't limit of missile but first PESA radar.

R-33 is heavier then AIM-54 and have dual pulse engine so 120km is very unrealistic if we talk about missile only.

For example they score +300km target kill during 1994 testing:
Первый полет опытного истребителя-перехватчика МиГ-31М состоялся 21 декабря 1985 г. (экипаж — летчик-испытатель Б.А. Орлов и штурман-испытатель Л.С. Попов). Построено шесть опытных самолетов. В апреле 1994 г. Президент России направил поздравительную телеграмму создателям самолета МиГ-31М и его системы вооружения в связи с успешным проведением первых в мире испытаний по поражению воздушной цели на дальности свыше 300 км.


Hello Milosh. The Mig-35BM has the Zaslon (A)M, which has 100% better performance then original Zaslon-A Radar. According to Flug Revue, a serious german flight magazine, the Zaslon-AM has Range of 240km. The article is from 2014.So i don't know if the BM is in service by now

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

It seems, the R-37, which shoot down a Target 300km away never entert service. And the R-33e should be the newest version of the R-33. And it is very unlikely, that the Russian manufacturers will understate the range of their weapons.. :wink:

BTW According to Tass 2 "BM" where delivered to Russian AF a view days ago. And there is only mention they can carry the R-33 and R-77.

http://tass.com/defense/1045485

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 08:11
by milosh
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:R-33 is heavier then AIM-54 and have dual pulse engine


That means boost-sustain. The AIM-54 had a sustain-only motor that sacrificed acceleration and top speed for very long burn time.

Combined with the R-33 being only semi-active versus active-radar on the AIM-54, the R-33's kill probability against a maneuvering target would be considerably lower than that of the AIM-54, except at short range where the boost stage of the R-33's motor would give it greater energy.


My mistake cold war R-33 had sustain-only engine, for R-33E was developed dual pulse engine, more space for sustain phase was achieved by smaller and lighter electronics and smaller warhead.

So it look like they combine long burn time with sustain capability with later R-33 variants.

@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.

Btw that range isn't nothing so special if you look radar size. They could pull lot more (old N007 used 30kW) if they wanted to spend money but they didn't.

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).

But stockpile of R-37 is very small missile became operational in 2018 and it surely isn't cheap so R-33S is lot more common on MiG-31 then R-37.

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

It would be interesting to see advantage R-77 have when launch from MiG-31.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 10:11
by zero-one
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 13:50
by mixelflick
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..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 07:22
by weasel1962
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 12:32
by milosh
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 15:18
by zero-one
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 15:43
by weasel1962
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 16:41
by milosh
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 17:02
by marsavian
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 17:39
by swiss
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 21:38
by milosh
@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

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 23:10
by swiss
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

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 07:52
by zero-one
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 18:15
by milosh
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 19:28
by swiss
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?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 05:41
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 18:24
by milosh
swiss wrote:
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.


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


swiss wrote:
milosh wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 05:57
by garrya
zero-one wrote: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)
f-15 vs Mig-25.PNG

1322.PNG

bomb.PNG

33333.PNG


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

000-R-33-Amos-1-S.jpg

s-l1000.jpg

AIM-120-AMRAAM.jpg


zero-one wrote: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.


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.

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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 15:06
by 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..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 15:20
by swiss
milosh wrote:

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.



milosh wrote:
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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 02:41
by garrya
mixelflick wrote: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
Image
Image

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 17:53
by mixelflick
garrya wrote:
mixelflick wrote: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
Image
Image



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..

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 18:07
by juretrn
Export R-77...
About the level of AIM-120B, nothing special at all

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 18:11
by 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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 21:35
by milosh
mixelflick wrote: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.

juretrn wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 02:08
by knowan
milosh wrote:RVV-AE is more agile because of non conventional control surfaces but range is similar to armaam B.


Substantially worse range than AIM-120B.


garrya wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 14:11
by milosh
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote: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.

knowan wrote:
garrya wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 10:25
by knowan
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 17:06
by 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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 08:49
by milosh
knowan wrote: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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 11:09
by knowan
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote: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:
Image
Image

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.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 11:49
by hornetfinn
disconnectedradical wrote: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.


This has been said here a lot, but it's actually not the case. Modern missiles designed to go fast and high nowadays don't have large control surfaces. Missiles like THAAD, SM-6, SM-3, Arrow and all S-300/300V/400 missiles have proportionally as small or smaller control surfaces than AMRAAM for example. All can engage targets at very high altitudes. Older missiles had very large control surfaces and especially wings (to provide lift) because they didn't have nearly as powerful actuators and guidance systems. Even old low altitude missiles had very large wings and control systems (like Seawolf, Rapier, Crotale) compared to more modern ones. Modern missiles have very fast and powerful actuators and guidance systems and smaller surfaces are enough even for high maneuverability. They are also generally much faster than older missiles and have superior aerodynamics which makes them better at maintaining high speed longer. So they get lift from being faster. Older and slower missiles needed the lift provided by the very large wings.

Besides, there is really small number of modern air-to-air missiles that are designed to go very high. Even RVV-BD has similar official altitude limits as RVV-AE, RVV-SD and R-27. Pretty much all other high-altitude missiles have been designed significantly earlier than AMRAAM. I'd bet AMRAAM has roughly similar high-altitude performance as RVV-AE or RVV-SD.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 19:12
by milosh
knowan wrote: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.


I said it have smaller range I just don't think it is lot smaller then AIM-120B especially in BVR fighter vs fighter envelope.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 20:11
by charlielima223
:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:

Gahd this has gone so off topic. First it was about the PLAAF's opinion of the Su-35... then it became something about Mig-25... now its about missiles. I can understand some amount of segue slightly off topic as to address something relating to but not directly and then coming back to the original topic but this is :-|

I like coming here but this seems to happen a lot.

Now that I got that off my chest back to the Chinese Su-35. I've always had the opinion that because China's industrial and technology base isn't that innovative; I've always had the belief that the Chinese military will reverse engineer certain parts of the Su-35 and will incorporate it into the J-20 and J-31.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 11:31
by disconnectedradical
hornetfinn wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote: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.


This has been said here a lot, but it's actually not the case. Modern missiles designed to go fast and high nowadays don't have large control surfaces. Missiles like THAAD, SM-6, SM-3, Arrow and all S-300/300V/400 missiles have proportionally as small or smaller control surfaces than AMRAAM for example. All can engage targets at very high altitudes.


What? SM-3 and SM-6 has big control surfaces and fins. SM-3 block 3 is for ABM so it use steering motors on the nose instead of fins because it's pretty much going into space. Also THAAD has steering motors on the nose so it doesn't need big fins.

hornetfinn wrote:Older missiles had very large control surfaces and especially wings (to provide lift) because they didn't have nearly as powerful actuators and guidance systems. Even old low altitude missiles had very large wings and control systems (like Seawolf, Rapier, Crotale) compared to more modern ones. Modern missiles have very fast and powerful actuators and guidance systems and smaller surfaces are enough even for high maneuverability. They are also generally much faster than older missiles and have superior aerodynamics which makes them better at maintaining high speed longer. So they get lift from being faster. Older and slower missiles needed the lift provided by the very large wings.

Besides, there is really small number of modern air-to-air missiles that are designed to go very high. Even RVV-BD has similar official altitude limits as RVV-AE, RVV-SD and R-27. Pretty much all other high-altitude missiles have been designed significantly earlier than AMRAAM. I'd bet AMRAAM has roughly similar high-altitude performance as RVV-AE or RVV-SD.


Look at how long and big ESSM and SM-2 fins along the body are. With wings you get better aspect ratio and lower induced drag, using only body for lift create more drag when turning. Also look at PAC-3 missiles, the surfaces are also proportionally bigger than AMRAAM. AMRAAM is not bad but I bet next AAM configuration will be different.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 12:46
by hornetfinn
disconnectedradical wrote:Look at how long and big ESSM and SM-2 fins along the body are. With wings you get better aspect ratio and lower induced drag, using only body for lift create more drag when turning. Also look at PAC-3 missiles, the surfaces are also proportionally bigger than AMRAAM. AMRAAM is not bad but I bet next AAM configuration will be different.


Yes, but in all these modern missiles strakes (very low aspect wings) are not for high-altitude performance but for overall performance. Performance can increase in all altitudes and speeds due to them for the reasons you mention. Sure future MRAAM or LRAAM will have different aerodynamics to AMRAAM as it's 30 year old design. But they will definitely not look anything like R-40, AIM-54 or R-33 either. Those huge wings and fins are not necessary or even wanted any more as missile tech has improved tremendously.

Interestingly Chinese MRAAMs look a lot more like AMRAAM instead of Russian missiles. They seem to not have that high opinion about Russian missiles. I wonder if they have tried to buy Russian latest missiles, other than RVV-AE missiles they got?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 20:32
by charlielima223
So are we going to start talking about the Su-35 anytime soon or is this going to be more about missiles? :-? :shrug:
Missiles is still an interesting topic but can we segue this BACK TO THE Su-35?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 07:37
by hornetfinn
charlielima223 wrote:So are we going to start talking about the Su-35 anytime soon or is this going to be more about missiles? :-? :shrug:
Missiles is still an interesting topic but can we segue this BACK TO THE Su-35?


Actually missiles were quite significant part of the original post by eloise, even though the topic says just Su-35S. I agree that the discussion has gone somewhat off topic even regarding missiles as some of the discussion is not about either Russian or Chinese missiles.

When it comes to missiles, it seems like Chinese think their missiles are better than equivalent Russian missiles. This might well be the case as they have much larger and more advanced electronics and software industry. So they might have better seekers, guidance electronics and software in their missiles as these are the most important parts of missiles. They have also wide array and long experience with all kinds of missiles, so unlike jet engines I doubt Russia has any real advantages in this area compared to China.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 08:00
by weasel1962
China probably has better access to missile tech since 90s. They got the python from the Israelis with licensed production, Aspide from the Italian, Crotale SAMs from the French, probably quite a fair bit of US missile tech from the Pakistanis (no proof) and then the whole host of Russian missiles (where the Ukrainians were more than happy to share the schematics for e.g. for CJ-10). They may even have gotten some from the Taiwanese (all those patriot "tech transfers" - no wonder the US refuse to sell them F-35s)...Add to that, the country's access to commercial computing, semiconductors and electronics which probably has dual use....

No surprise if their missile tech is more advanced than the Russkis. Can only say Thank goodness that many countries still prefer Russki than Chinese...maybe because the chinese aircraft (those that are on sale) still look like Soviet era skodas,

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 10:17
by hornetfinn
Good points weasel1962!

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 11:07
by knowan
Interestingly, the JF-17 uses the PL-5 and PL-12, and Pakistan claims it saw action against Indian MiG-21s recently. Although India is claiming Pakistan was using F-16s armed with AIM-120Cs in that engagement, so it is hard to tell exactly what the truth is.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 01:17
by fidgetspinner
"When it comes to missiles, it seems like Chinese think their missiles are better than equivalent Russian missiles. This might well be the case as they have much larger and more advanced electronics and software industry. So they might have better seekers, guidance electronics and software in their missiles as these are the most important parts of missiles. They have also wide array and long experience with all kinds of missiles, so unlike jet engines I doubt Russia has any real advantages in this area compared to China."

I would not go as far as saying they got better seekers than the Russians do.


PL-12
The PL-12 [Pili = Thunderbolt, or Pen Lung = Air Dragon] SD-10 (PL-12) active radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile program is now in the test phase. This air-to-air missile program, also called Project 129 or R129, was previously thought to be associated with the purchase or possible license-production of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) medium-range radar-guided air-to-air missile.
While Project 129 will use technologies from the Vympel R-77, it will have a Chinese developed airframe and a Chinese propulsion unit. The missile is thought to correspond to the PL-12 designation, which is also associated with the SD-10 designation, possibly for export purposes. Like the basic R-77, Project 129 appears to have a body diameter of 200 mm., with a length of around 3.7 meters (12.1 ft.). Unlike the R-77, which has narrow-span mid-body wings and rectangular lattice control fins at the rear, the Project 129 airframe configuration is more orthodox. It has four triangular mid-body wings and four triangular fins at the rear.

PL-12 is based off the R-77. https://www.iiss.org/-/media/.../the-mi ... ement.ashx pg2 references the active radar range as 40kms for the PL-XX missile. This missiles host radar range is comparable to the 40km range on the R-37 missiles range on page 4 http://www.ausairpower.net/SP/DT-Missil ... May-05.pdf. So if the Chinese think they are better than Russian missiles in terms of missile seeker technology I would just tell them to quit comparing their missiles to soviet designs. K-77M, JNAAMs and LREW missile radar seeker ranges are my next curiosity.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 06:16
by knowan
You're comparing the seeker in a 200mm diameter to one in a 380mm diameter missile. If China can match the performance of a vastly larger seeker with their PL-12, then it is a damning indictment of how poor Russian seekers are.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 10:42
by hornetfinn
fidgetspinner wrote:I would not go as far as saying they got better seekers than the Russians do.


I agree that we can't say for sure that they have any better seekers than Russians do. But that's the area where they well might be ahead nowadays like what the Chinese stated in the original post of this thread. They have more money available and far larger and more advanced electronics industry. They also have a lot of experience in developing their own missiles and seekers along with having many Russian missiles at their disposal. Of course Russia could well have better missile seekers in their latest versions and I don't think China has these missiles.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:30
by mixelflick
So getting back to the SU-35... :)

It's my understanding China isn't buying many. The figure I found was 24. Other than the obvious engine interest, what does this buy of 24 get them?

Thrust vectoring? Think they already have it in their later Flanker derivatives, and J-10C. Fly by wire control system/software? Possibly. Radar? Doubtful, as the SU-35 uses a PESA and they're further along in producing AESA's than Russia is. It's not weapons (as has been discussed here).

Is it possible the RCS reduction measures alleged in the SU-35 are of interest? Here again, I thought they were further along in LO/VLO technology than the Russians. After they get done tearing it apart to learn its secrets, they'll be barely enough for a few squadrons, perhaps only one.

So the engine tech will help them, that's all I can see. And if the SU-57 continues to flounder, it looks like this will be the last fighter type China buys from Russia. It'll be off to the races with the J-20/J-31.

Is it possible they'll just use what they learned to up-rate their fleet of Flankers???

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:42
by milosh
knowan wrote:You're comparing the seeker in a 200mm diameter to one in a 380mm diameter missile. If China can match the performance of a vastly larger seeker with their PL-12, then it is a damning indictment of how poor Russian seekers are.


Nope it is comparison of 200mm aesa seeker for PL-XX for which there aren't any real info expect Chinese fanboys claims. So how they conculded 40km is real?

40km against 5m2 for missile seeker is VERY hard to achieved especially in small volume.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 16:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
milosh wrote:
40km against 5m2 for missile seeker is VERY hard to achieved especially in small volume.

Using the AESACalcTrial I set up a 100 element array (10x10) antenna with 8W modules in a 10x10 degree search and come up with 36.2km "tracking" (90+% detection) on a 5m^2 target.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 17:57
by tphuang
mixelflick wrote: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..


Chinese think very little of Russian weapons. R-27 is obviously a different generation and don't have active seekers, so they are not going forward in the future.

R-73 was great when they first got them, but are now hopelessly outclassed by the newer generation SRAAM with HOB, IIR seeker and LOAL capability.

R-77 is good for a first generation MRAAM with active seeker, but they were slow to deliver it to PLAAF. And now PLAAF has much better options. I think the people in chinese military industrial complex are walking hard at integration homegrown missiles with su-35.

They will keep upgrading PL-10 and PL12/15. Expecting Russians to deliver anything on time is a pipe dream.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:02
by tphuang
mixelflick wrote: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.

Right, su-35 is not a bad aircraft. Aerodynamically speaking, it's better than any flankers in Chinese service. But it also has deficiencies like avionics and missiles that make it less effective than even J-16 and J-10C.

As for engines, they are not going to copy 117S engine for J-20 when they have WS-15 in development. At this point, what they probably want is to be able to have complete overhaul capability of 117S like they do with AL-31FN, so that they can do all the maintenance and overhauling in China. But it really doesn't make a lot of sense for them to copy an engine that will be outclassed by 2025.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 10:54
by milosh
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
milosh wrote:
40km against 5m2 for missile seeker is VERY hard to achieved especially in small volume.

Using the AESACalcTrial I set up a 100 element array (10x10) antenna with 8W modules in a 10x10 degree search and come up with 36.2km "tracking" (90+% detection) on a 5m^2 target.


You can't just calculate antenna performance without take in account cooling and power for it which is very problematic in case of missiles because space is problem.

If I remember correctly, AAM-4B seeker have 40% better range then non aesa seeker. So if old one had 15km range then B have ~20km and if it was 20km then B is 28km, which is not even close to 40km which is range for aesa PL-12 . This is why I said I really doubt 40km claim.

Maybe long range missile China is developing could be 40km because its diameter is noticeable bigger then PL-12:
https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... AQYsuM.jpg

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 14:35
by mixelflick
tphuang wrote:
mixelflick wrote: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.

Right, su-35 is not a bad aircraft. Aerodynamically speaking, it's better than any flankers in Chinese service. But it also has deficiencies like avionics and missiles that make it less effective than even J-16 and J-10C.

As for engines, they are not going to copy 117S engine for J-20 when they have WS-15 in development. At this point, what they probably want is to be able to have complete overhaul capability of 117S like they do with AL-31FN, so that they can do all the maintenance and overhauling in China. But it really doesn't make a lot of sense for them to copy an engine that will be outclassed by 2025.


So if it's outclassed by the J-10C and J-16, and its avionics and weapons are inferior to Chinese models. And the 117S will be obsolete soon... why did they buy it again?

I'm guessing range maybe?

Not sure if drop tanks were part of the package, but an SU-35 with tanks should be the longest ranged PLAAF fighter... perhaps even longer ranged than the J-20. I was just under the impression all along the engine was what they were acquiring it for. Either they did too (and found out otherwise), or they had some basic curiosity as to its "other" capabilities.

Sounds like after tearing it apart, they found most of it wanting?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 19:11
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:So if it's outclassed by the J-10C and J-16, and its avionics and weapons are inferior to Chinese models. And the 117S will be obsolete soon... why did they buy it again?


By that Chinese text, their aesa radars are better BUT they are impressed with N035 radar long range in narrow search mode which their aesa radars don't have, probable they aren't good with software for (P/A)ESA fighter radars becuase they only begin working on them in 2000s while NIIP Tihomirov is writing software for PESA fighter radars from early 1970s.

AL-41 isn't obsolete because WS-15 is bigger engine it is closer to F135 then to AL-31. So WS-15 couldn't be used for Chinese flankers nor for J-10. WS-15 for now is only planned for J-20. I expect they are planing to get AL-41 licence in future.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 07:39
by weasel1962
Maybe people are reading too much into this. Last year I did a count and there are maybe 17 J-7 Air brigades (Scramble still shows 22) that could still be operation not including another 2-3 training units. All these need replacement.

The Su-35, being the most advanced fighter on sale from the Russians, could just be a gap filler whilst the PLAAF ramps up J-16 production. Looked how fast the PLAAF brought the Su-35 into service. Practically flying around Taiwan after delivery. Ease of induction suggests the Su-35 aren't too different from the other suks.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 08:38
by knowan
milosh wrote:AL-41 isn't obsolete because WS-15 is bigger engine it is closer to F135 then to AL-31. So WS-15 couldn't be used for Chinese flankers nor for J-10. WS-15 for now is only planned for J-20. I expect they are planing to get AL-41 licence in future.


F135 actually has a smaller maximum diameter (46" vs 50") than the AL-31/41, although it is about half a meter longer, and probably heavier.

WS-15 is reportedly only 40" in diameter and around the same length as the AL-31/41. Probably around the same or slightly lower weight.
If the WS-15 is reliable and has a good enough mean time between overhauls, then it likely does obsolete the AL-31/41, but that's a big if; it is fairly unlikely China has achieved such reliability yet.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 15:25
by mixelflick
Tphuang, what do you mean when you say, "aerodynamically speaking the SU-35 is better than the other Flankers in Chinese service"?

I realize it's bigger, but the basic platform looks similar (if not identical) to earlier Flankers. Widely spaced engine nacelles, the "tunnel" providing space for lower drag weapons/lift/fuel. Blended wing/body, twin tails, etc.. The basic Flanker airframe looks draggy, and that seems to be true of the SU-35 as well.

Is there something special about that SU-35 that aerodynamically sets it apart? For some reason, I'm just not seeing it...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 17:07
by madrat
Chinese Flankers are most two-seat versions with older Al-31 non-TVC versions. This would be a big minus compared to Su-35S. One of the Su-35S selling points was that TVC reduces needs for control surface deflections, reducing drag.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 19:12
by milosh
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:AL-41 isn't obsolete because WS-15 is bigger engine it is closer to F135 then to AL-31. So WS-15 couldn't be used for Chinese flankers nor for J-10. WS-15 for now is only planned for J-20. I expect they are planing to get AL-41 licence in future.


F135 actually has a smaller maximum diameter (46" vs 50") than the AL-31/41, although it is about half a meter longer, and probably heavier.

WS-15 is reportedly only 40" in diameter and around the same length as the AL-31/41. Probably around the same or slightly lower weight.
If the WS-15 is reliable and has a good enough mean time between overhauls, then it likely does obsolete the AL-31/41, but that's a big if; it is fairly unlikely China has achieved such reliability yet.


Max diameter is tricky to be used for comparison. Inlet diameter is much better for comparison. AL-41 inlet is 93.2cm while F135 is 109cm. So if you look engine volume F135 is noticable bigger (wider and longer) then AL-41.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 20:22
by knowan
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:AL-41 isn't obsolete because WS-15 is bigger engine it is closer to F135 then to AL-31. So WS-15 couldn't be used for Chinese flankers nor for J-10. WS-15 for now is only planned for J-20. I expect they are planing to get AL-41 licence in future.


F135 actually has a smaller maximum diameter (46" vs 50") than the AL-31/41, although it is about half a meter longer, and probably heavier.

WS-15 is reportedly only 40" in diameter and around the same length as the AL-31/41. Probably around the same or slightly lower weight.
If the WS-15 is reliable and has a good enough mean time between overhauls, then it likely does obsolete the AL-31/41, but that's a big if; it is fairly unlikely China has achieved such reliability yet.


Max diameter is tricky to be used for comparison. Inlet diameter is much better for comparison. AL-41 inlet is 93.2cm while F135 is 109cm. So if you look engine volume F135 is noticable bigger (wider and longer) then AL-41.


Sure, but the WS-15 isn't, at least according to dimensions quoted on the internet.

If China does get the WS-15 working reliably and it is similar in size to the AL-31/41, then it very likely will make the AL-41 obsolete.

I'm honestly doubtful they can get it working reliably within the next 10 years though, so I expect China will show a lot of interest in importing AL-41 engines.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 23:38
by milosh
knowan wrote:Sure, but the WS-15 isn't, at least according to dimensions quoted on the internet.

If China does get the WS-15 working reliably and it is similar in size to the AL-31/41, then it very likely will make the AL-41 obsolete.

I'm honestly doubtful they can get it working reliably within the next 10 years though, so I expect China will show a lot of interest in importing AL-41 engines.


There is lot unknown about WS-15 for example you will see 180kN thurst which I don't see how they could pull from AL-31 size engine.

AL-51 which is new engine for PAK-FA, could maybe be 160kN but I doubt that, I expect better dry thrust and lower price (this is confirmed) then AL-41.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 03:38
by fidgetspinner
knowan wrote:You're comparing the seeker in a 200mm diameter to one in a 380mm diameter missile. If China can match the performance of a vastly larger seeker with their PL-12, then it is a damning indictment of how poor Russian seekers are.


Regarding that source there is no way of telling to what RCS they are referencing that 40km autonomous range engagement because the PL-XX was designed specifically for aircrafts like AWACs meaning we do not have any information as to what target RCS they are talking about since there is a chance that its not a 3m2 target.

I am sure that I can bet you that the radar seeker they are developing with that claimed range would be around 2020 or passed that date and the missile seeker that I am speaking of without having to look at sources was probably developed in the 1990s. I hope that you do know at least that the K-77M and K-37M have different seekers than the r-77 and r-37 right?

Other sources to consider.

http://integral-russia.ru/2017/09/16/da ... ebitelyam/

"After all, if the Chinese Air Force already has a decent asymmetric response to the future JNAAM Air Defense Forces of Japan in the form of ultra-long-range "air assassins" PL-12D / 15 / 21D, almost ready for mass production, our project RVV-AE-PD all still is "in a long box," which, apparently, no one is supposed to open."

Damn, calling Chinas latest missiles decent how can they get away with that? So not only do we have Chinese undermining Russian missiles but we have Russians as well undermining Chinas latest missiles in development.

https://aviationweek.com/awin/japan-upg ... m-4-japg-2

“The crucial claim was that the AAM-4B could switch to autonomous guidance at a 40% greater range than either of the other two missiles and would similarly outperform what was expected to be the 2009 standard of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder). In a 2010 paper, the ministry attributed the seeker's greater performance to the higher transmitting power available from the AESA.”

http://tokyoexpress.info/2018/01/22/日英共同開発のmbda「ミーテイア」ミサイル試射は2022/

"Because "AAM-4B" is thicker than "Meetiaa(" (AAM-4B / 20.3 cm versus Meetia / 17.8 cm), the seeker mounted in "Meetia" decreases cross section by 20% and the number of TR units Will be less, but because it is an improved type, the detection performance is said to be equal or better than expected.”

"As mentioned above, the AESA seeker using the Ga-N made TR element doubles the power consumption compared to the PASA radar using the Ga-As element which is currently mounted in "Meetiaa", but the detection ability (distance and size ) Is remarkably improved."

"Russia will equip the Su-57 fighter with air-to-air missile K-77M. The K - 77 series missile started development as a medium range air - to - air missile against the US AIM - 120 AMRAAM by the Vympel design station from 1982. Russian Air Force, China India are also exported and used in large quantities. The latest version of the K - 77M adopts the AESA radar for the seeker, and uses a solid fuel rocket and a ramjet in combination to extend the range to 150 km +."

Now not to be a comedian but I am sure that we both can agree that the Chinese are on the same boat as the Russians are in terms of military affairs with Japan right? So why is Japan(country that is supposedly the best in the semi-conductor industry) more concerned with Russian air to air missiles than they are with Chinese air to air missiles? I got some interesting sources posted here but I truly wish to know more about the LREW missile the US is developing besides having a host AESA radar as well if anyone has information on that here?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 16:08
by mixelflick
Info on LREW is tough to come by, and rightfully so. Has been in development since 2016, but modest amounts (10 million) seem to have been allocated in 2016/17 only. LREW completed systems design, engineering and kill-chain investigations in FY 2017.

Curiously, there were nothing allocated to it in 2018.

No idea what it means. Could be they didn't like what they saw. Could mean they had something off the shelf (although that's real doubtful). The capability is sorely needed, so no idea why funding would have dried up. To my mind, it's a complete mystery...

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:00
by knowan
fidgetspinner wrote:Now not to be a comedian


No need; posters here are well aware you are a joke, considering how many other accounts you've gone through on these forums.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:53
by babybat{}.net
milosh wrote:There is lot unknown about WS-15 for example you will see 180kN thurst which I don't see how they could pull from AL-31 size engine.

WS-15 based on R-79 Hot section from yak-141.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 19:14
by sferrin
babybat{}.net wrote:
milosh wrote:There is lot unknown about WS-15 for example you will see 180kN thurst which I don't see how they could pull from AL-31 size engine.

WS-15 based on R-79 Hot section from yak-141.


Show your supporting evidence.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 21:04
by tphuang
weasel1962 wrote:Maybe people are reading too much into this. Last year I did a count and there are maybe 17 J-7 Air brigades (Scramble still shows 22) that could still be operation not including another 2-3 training units. All these need replacement.

The Su-35, being the most advanced fighter on sale from the Russians, could just be a gap filler whilst the PLAAF ramps up J-16 production. Looked how fast the PLAAF brought the Su-35 into service. Practically flying around Taiwan after delivery. Ease of induction suggests the Su-35 aren't too different from the other suks.

right on point here.

mixelflick wrote:So if it's outclassed by the J-10C and J-16, and its avionics and weapons are inferior to Chinese models. And the 117S will be obsolete soon... why did they buy it again?

I'm guessing range maybe?

Not sure if drop tanks were part of the package, but an SU-35 with tanks should be the longest ranged PLAAF fighter... perhaps even longer ranged than the J-20. I was just under the impression all along the engine was what they were acquiring it for. Either they did too (and found out otherwise), or they had some basic curiosity as to its "other" capabilities.

Sounds like after tearing it apart, they found most of it wanting?

I think they just needed replacement for a lot of frontline unit. Back when they started negotiation with Russians, it was not set in stone that J-16 would turn out successful. They have in the past made Russian purchases which seemed to make no sense later (like when they bought Sov destroyers). it was just a matter of having backup in case of domestic option gets delayed or has problems. When you are flushed with cash like PLA, buying 24 su-35 is not a big deal. There were stuff they definitely like about it, like the engine and Irbis radar.

mixelflick wrote:Tphuang, what do you mean when you say, "aerodynamically speaking the SU-35 is better than the other Flankers in Chinese service"?

I realize it's bigger, but the basic platform looks similar (if not identical) to earlier Flankers. Widely spaced engine nacelles, the "tunnel" providing space for lower drag weapons/lift/fuel. Blended wing/body, twin tails, etc.. The basic Flanker airframe looks draggy, and that seems to be true of the SU-35 as well.

Is there something special about that SU-35 that aerodynamically sets it apart? For some reason, I'm just not seeing it...

Aside from having a more powerful and less smoky engine, I've read from Chinese sources that su-35 does turn better at various speed vs su-27/30. We'd need someone more familiar with flankers to comment here. But one thing I remember reading several years ago was that su-30mkk fixed certain turn limitations that su-27 had at transonic speed. I don't know how accurate that is.

J-16 is based on su-30mkk, so it's heavier (being two seated) than su-35. Also, SAC, which designed/manufactures J-16 using locally available components, just doesn't have the same ability to make the changes to flanker platform as Sukhoi, since it doesn't have all the data that Sukhoi has from years of developing/testing flankers.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 08:46
by milosh
sferrin wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:
milosh wrote:There is lot unknown about WS-15 for example you will see 180kN thurst which I don't see how they could pull from AL-31 size engine.

WS-15 based on R-79 Hot section from yak-141.


Show your supporting evidence.


Couple of texts on net mentioned they bought documentation and engine from Russians. And if engine is +180kN as you can find on Chinese net then it must be big engine (not AL-31 size class), if it is really AL-31 size engine then Chinese achieved breakthrough in engine tech.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 08:54
by weasel1962
Actually, that's what the Russians claimed (about Yak 141), not Chinese claims.
https://tiananmenstremendousachievement ... g/yak-141/

The reality is that china probably got its engine tech from a number of sources especially Ukrainian.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 10:42
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:Actually, that's what the Russians claimed (about Yak 141), not Chinese claims.
https://tiananmenstremendousachievement ... g/yak-141/

The reality is that china probably got its engine tech from a number of sources especially Ukrainian.


We are talking about engine size, that is why we mentioned russian sources about R-79. WS15 is 180kN class engine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131208202 ... Summit.pdf

So if WS15 can replace AL-31 which they use in J-10 and J-11/16 then it would mean its dimensions are almost same as AL-31, but engine thrust class is more of F135 which is noticeable bigger engine so Chinese are leap ahead even Americans in engine tech (very unlikely) or WS15 is BIG probable even bigger engine then F135 if it is 180kN class that is why sources about R-79 need to be consider relevant.

If WS15 isn't 180kN class engine then that we could talk about replacing AL-31 engine family with it.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 13:15
by madrat
So which Chinese engine has CFM6 core technology?

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 21:33
by knowan
milosh wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Actually, that's what the Russians claimed (about Yak 141), not Chinese claims.
https://tiananmenstremendousachievement ... g/yak-141/

The reality is that china probably got its engine tech from a number of sources especially Ukrainian.


We are talking about engine size, that is why we mentioned russian sources about R-79. WS15 is 180kN class engine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131208202 ... Summit.pdf

So if WS15 can replace AL-31 which they use in J-10 and J-11/16 then it would mean its dimensions are almost same as AL-31, but engine thrust class is more of F135 which is noticeable bigger engine so Chinese are leap ahead even Americans in engine tech (very unlikely) or WS15 is BIG probable even bigger engine then F135 if it is 180kN class that is why sources about R-79 need to be consider relevant.

If WS15 isn't 180kN class engine then that we could talk about replacing AL-31 engine family with it.


The Chinese were claiming 9:1 T/W ratio with a 36,000 lbf thrust figure, so that's a 4000 lb dry-weight engine versus AL-41 in the 3,500 lb dry-weight class.

It certainly is a heavier engine, closer to the F135 in weight (which has been estimated anywhere from 3700 to 5000 lbs) than the AL-41, but the volume might still be close enough for it to replace the AL-41.

It is highly likely to require airframe changes though, so any J-11/15/16 with the WS-15 would require new airframes, it wouldn't be possible to retrofit existing planes with the engine.

Re: What the Chinese think about Russian Su-35S

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 06:37
by weasel1962
Not sure where that WS-15 info is gotten from. AFAIK, the original published source of WS-15 thrust was a conference brochure back in 2013.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131208202 ... Summit.pdf