China Flanker Thread II

[MiG-29]

At this point we really don;t know much about the J-20 other than is is obviously very stealthy (from front anyway).. that we know for a fact. Everything else is just pure speculation. SU-35 we know a little bit more but to simply say it is inferior in ALL aspect to the J-20 would not only be likely incorrect but very arrogant as well. I would say aside from the RCS an SU-35 is probably very comparable to J-20 in other areas of performance.
As to the electronics the SU-35 is very advanced. You cannot simply dismissed it as inferior just because the plane itself is based on a 1970's chassis.

You are right, Su-35 is inferior only in stealth, but not in kinematics, electronics or weaponry, however if i am honest anti-stealth technology in the world is advancing in both Europe and Russia they have passive radars said to be able to detect stealth aircraft, in fact most russian SAMs are said to have anti-stealth capability.

If that is true or not who knows, but if it is true, it will be very big advantages to Rafale or SU-35

 

[Engineer]

No matter how many new technologies they packed inside the Su-35, the aircraft will never be a fifth generation fighter. To compare the Su-35 like an equal to a fifth generation aircraft is delusional and is as ridiculous as claiming the H-6 is advanced as the B-2.

The Su-35 being based on a 1970's design is precisely why the aircraft is limited in kinematics potential. Starting with an old design means performance numbers start out from lower values and constraints the amount of improvement there can be. This is unlike the J-20 which is a clean sheet design, with the aircraft design optimized to start out with higher performance value.

For the exact same reason above, the Su-35 will have a poorer supersonic performance when compared to the J-20. The J-20 starts out with internal weapon bays, and they drastically reduce drag. As an illustration, the F-22 with internal weapon bays has a supercruise speed of Mach 1.8. No supercruising fighter aircraft with external stores can match that kind of performance.

Some people think thrust vectoring is a game changer and can turn any aircraft into king of the sky. That is simply a fantasy, for if that's the case a MiG-21 would be able to maneuver with the F-22 and there wouldn't be needs for new aerodynamic designs. Thrust vectoring is notable for giving an aircraft post-stall maneuverability, providing nose-pointing authority irrespective of airspeed. However,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and is hardly a position a pilot wants to be in since the aircraft will loose its speed and become a sitting duck.

In terms of avionics, the Su-35 is only more advanced when compare to what the Russians are fielding in their aging air force. The reality is that those avionics are behind what China can field. One can see this by just looking at the Head-Up-Display (HUD): China is already fielding holographic HUD, while the Su-35 is still using old fashion HUD. The IRBIS-E on the Su-35 is still just a passive radar, behind those AESA radars that China can field on J-10B and J-16.

 

[kwaigonegin]

No matter how many new technologies they packed inside the Su-35, the aircraft will never be a fifth generation fighter. To compare the Su-35 like an equal to a fifth generation aircraft is delusional and is as ridiculous as claiming the H-6 is advanced as the B-2.

The Su-35 being based on a 1970's design is precisely why the aircraft is limited in kinematics potential. Starting with an old design means performance numbers start out from lower values and constraints the amount of improvement there can be. This is unlike the J-20 which is a clean sheet design, with the aircraft design optimized to start out with higher performance value.

For the exact same reason above, the Su-35 will have a poorer supersonic performance when compared to the J-20. The J-20 starts out with internal weapon bays, and they drastically reduce drag. As an illustration, the F-22 with internal weapon bays has a supercruise speed of Mach 1.8. No supercruising fighter aircraft with external stores can match that kind of performance.

Some people think thrust vectoring is a game changer and can turn any aircraft into king of the sky. That is simply a fantasy, for if that's the case a MiG-21 would be able to maneuver with the F-22 and there wouldn't be needs for new aerodynamic designs. Thrust vectoring is notable for giving an aircraft post-stall maneuverability, providing nose-pointing authority irrespective of airspeed. However,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and is hardly a position a pilot wants to be in since the aircraft will loose its speed and become a sitting duck.

In terms of avionics, the Su-35 is only more advanced when compare to what the Russians are fielding in their aging air force. The reality is that those avionics are behind what China can field. One can see this by just looking at the Head-Up-Display (HUD): China is already fielding holographic HUD, while the Su-35 is still using old fashion HUD. The IRBIS-E on the Su-35 is still just a passive radar, behind those AESA radars that China can field on J-10B and J-16.

Generally speaking of course AESA is preferred over PESA however it doesn't mean that an AESA is automatically superior to a PESA. To make that assumption is assinine. Just like anything else made by man, AESA comes in all forms and flavor. Again I'm not saying you are incorrect in that I don't think anyone is saying that J-20s radar is inferior they are merely saying you cannot just automatically make a specific statement like that until we know for sure what type of radar the J-20 has viv a vis IRBIS-E.

As to older airframe not being able to be 'made' into super maneuverbility all one has to do is look at the X-31 or F-15 ACTIVE.

 

[jobjed]

As to older airframe not being able to be 'made' into super maneuverbility all one has to do is look at the X-31 or F-15 ACTIVE.

Tell me more about how they can super-cruise and also tell me more about their stealthiness.

 

[Engineer]

Generally speaking of course AESA is preferred over PESA however it doesn't mean that an AESA is automatically superior to a PESA. To make that assumption is assinine. Just like anything else made by man, AESA comes in all forms and flavor. Again I'm not saying you are incorrect in that I don't think anyone is saying that J-20s radar is inferior they are merely saying you cannot just automatically make a specific statement like that until we know for sure what type of radar the J-20 has viv a vis IRBIS-E.

AESA is preferred over PESA because the former is superior to the latter. There is a reason why air forces around the world are throwing money into AESA and not PESA.

As to older airframe not being able to be 'made' into super maneuverbility all one has to do is look at the X-31 or F-15 ACTIVE.

Super maneuverability is a synonym to post-stall maneuverability,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Being able to fly side-way or backward is not the same thing as turning, the latter of which is dependent on aerodynamics of the airframe. An old airframe cannot make use of newly understood aerodynamic effects, and that constrains the maneuverability potential of the aircraft. J-20 being a clean sheet design and is not bounded by such limitations, so the aircraft can be optimized with new aerodynamics effects in mind.

 

[plawolf]

At this point we really don;t know much about the J-20 other than is is obviously very stealthy (from front anyway).. that we know for a fact. Everything else is just pure speculation. SU-35 we know a little bit more but to simply say it is inferior in ALL aspect to the J-20 would not only be likely incorrect but very arrogant as well. I would say aside from the RCS an SU-35 is probably very comparable to J-20 in other areas of performance.
As to the electronics the SU-35 is very advanced. You cannot simply dismissed it as inferior just because the plane itself is based on a 1970's chassis.

I think you are being overly generous to the Su35. If it was so superawesomesource, why are the Russians struggling so much to find anyone willing to buy it that they need to keep flogging the dead horse of a Chinese order just to try and generate some buzz and interest in the type?

The Su35 has entered many international competitions for orders, and even excluding cases where politics makes a Russian win improbable, just in terms of actual performance, I have yet to read any claims that the Su35 came out on top of existing 4th gen offerings like the Rafale and Typhoon, in any competition. Even current J10B and J11B may well have reached the standard of Rafales and Typhoons. Even if the Eurocanards have the edge, the difference would not likely to be that big, which puts the J10B and J11B easily on a similar level to the Su35 in terms of avionics and radar.

In terms of aerodynamics, the up-engined Su35 likely hold the upper hand over the J11B, but as others have already pointed out, the baseline design is still principally the same as a 30 year old flanker airframe.

The Russians did find some magic with the flanker airframe, and it was one of, if not the best 3rd gen fighters in terms of overall aerodynamic performance. But that was decades ago, in the meantime, the cutting edge of aerodynamics has moved on, and the currently most agile airframes are presented by the canard deltas, and the J20's design is a progression and refinement of the canard delta concept.

With J10s already dominating Flankers in WVR as well as BVR in PLAAF service, I have very high confidence that the J20 will at a bare minimum do just as well as J10As in WVR against Flankers, and almost certainly much better, especially with a combat load.

The J20's performance will not be affected much by carrying weapons since they will be stowed internally. A Su35 might be able to super cruise and pull fancy stunts clean, but hang a typical war load of missiles, pods and pylons on it and suddenly it ain't flying so sweetly.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I think you are being overly generous to the Su35. If it was so superawesomesource, why are the Russians struggling so much to find anyone willing to buy it that they need to keep flogging the dead horse of a Chinese order just to try and generate some buzz and interest in the type?

The Su35 has entered many international competitions for orders, and even excluding cases where politics makes a Russian win improbable, just in terms of actual performance, I have yet to read any claims that the Su35 came out on top of existing 4th gen offerings like the Rafale and Typhoon, in any competition. Even current J10B and J11B may well have reached the standard of Rafales and Typhoons. Even if the Eurocanards have the edge, the difference would not likely to be that big, which puts the J10B and J11B easily on a similar level to the Su35 in terms of avionics and radar.

In terms of aerodynamics, the up-engined Su35 likely hold the upper hand over the J11B, but as others have already pointed out, the baseline design is still principally the same as a 30 year old flanker airframe.

The Russians did find some magic with the flanker airframe, and it was one of, if not the best 3rd gen fighters in terms of overall aerodynamic performance. But that was decades ago, in the meantime, the cutting edge of aerodynamics has moved on, and the currently most agile airframes are presented by the canard deltas, and the J20's design is a progression and refinement of the canard delta concept.

With J10s already dominating Flankers in WVR as well as BVR in PLAAF service, I have very high confidence that the J20 will at a bare minimum do just as well as J10As in WVR against Flankers, and almost certainly much better, especially with a combat load.

The J20's performance will not be affected much by carrying weapons since they will be stowed internally. A Su35 might be able to super cruise and pull fancy stunts clean, but hang a typical war load of missiles, pods and pylons on it and suddenly it ain't flying so sweetly.

if you look at my earlier post I never said nor imply the SU-35 is superior to J-20 at all ... I even joked about firing of the engineers...... I am just playing devil's advocate HOWEVER I am also a realist and I will not speculate that the J-20 will beat the SU-35 by milestones in ALL aspects of a fighter jet. In certain things I think they may be at par.

There are some here who are implying the J-20 are eons and light years above and beyond the SU-35's capability and I am just trying to balance that mentality. It obviously has better RCS.. no one is arguing that fact but in other areas they may be closer than some here thinks.. that's all I'm saying

As far as foreign orders are concern I think politics and logistics and 10001 other things play just as much role in the decision making than just the specific aircraft performance. You of all people should know that wolfie

 

[kwaigonegin]

Tell me more about how they can super-cruise and also tell me more about their stealthiness.

what about them? I never said anything about them being able to supercruise nor are they stealthy. I was merely replying to the earlier post about 'older' airframes not being able to have enhanced flight envelope through modification of their airframes/engines

 

[kwaigonegin]

AESA is preferred over PESA because the former is superior to the latter. There is a reason why air forces around the world are throwing money into AESA and not PESA.

As I have said before I don;t disagree with you because generally speaking AESA is obviously superior to PESA HOWEVER we cannot say that for a fact when it comes to a one to one comparo until we know the specifics of the two radars we are comparing. Hope that make sense.

It's like saying a Ferrari is much faster than a Toyota which generally speaking is true however if we're comparing two specific cars we need to know the exact make and model of each to form a definitive conclusion.

 

[MiG-29]

As I have said before I don;t disagree with you because generally speaking AESA is obviously superior to PESA HOWEVER we cannot say that for a fact when it comes to a one to one comparo until we know the specifics of the two radars we are comparing. Hope that make sense.

It's like saying a Ferrari is much faster than a Toyota which generally speaking is true however if we're comparing two specific cars we need to know the exact make and model of each to form a definitive conclusion.

You are completly correct, IRBIS is not better in some aspects to most AESAs, in Russia they know that for such a reason T-50 has an AESA.
Su-35 has an Electronic scaning radar with a phased array, basicly IRBIS is a downgraded AESA but most of its basic principles are the same.

However you are not comparing a ferrari versus a toyota, you are comparing two radars of almost the same technological level. in fact what is the usage of a AESA of 150km against a PESA of 400km, in the case of Su-35 is mostly price what has made Sukhoi choose a PESA radar.

Also Su-35 might be upgraded with an AESA radar, but there are many factors in order to chose a AESA or a PESA in fact MiG-29/MIG-35 of the Russian air force are being debated what radar type use, since both have advantages.