What do afterburner and supercruise have to do with "world view"? Have you been drinking and posting again?
Only 24 Su-35s are inconsequential in the bigger picture, unless it is part of something else, such as ToT, politics, etc.
Chinese purchase of Su-35
- Thread starter flyzies
- Start date
Only 24 Su-35s are inconsequential in the bigger picture, unless it is part of something else, such as ToT, politics, etc.
b787
Captain
It has to do with the fact here people hate the deal since by years claimed the deal was never going to be sign under the idea the Chinese made Flankers were superior to Russian ones by buying Su-35 now they say it is charity, political accommodation, the fact is it is business, Russia does not sell the Su-35 to be copied, there is no tech transfer, the Su-35 will include the whole jet first because an engine costs between 3-5 millions each, Russia could accept some minor subsystems to be Chinese, but most of the fighter will be made in Russia.
why? money, that is the only reason, Sukhoi sells aircraft and they want money and China wants tech and they have to pay, China will try to copy if they do not get the tech by legal means and Russia will demand money to sell some technologies both sides are greedy, it has been always like that.
Both sides only see their self interest, Russia will try to protect their technology by having more complex technology harder to be copied and harder to be guess, China wants probably the Irbis and 117S to get new ideas for their own fighters
I think you are really pushing it here, and making some broad assumptions about the variety of opinions here on SDF.
The Su-35 deal has not been "hated" because members here thought Chinese Flankers were superior, the Su-35 deal has been met with skepticism because of how many false starts there have been over the years with claims that China has bought Su-35s and then ending up not being true.
I also don't think too many individuals have believed that current Chinese in service Flankers are "superior" to Su-35, but rather that Su-35 offers few additional capabilities which current Chinese fighters already have, that China would be willing to pay that much extra money for. I think most people would readily admit the Su-35 is superior to current J-11Bs, but whether Su-35 is so much more superior to J-11Bs and especially J-16s and the under development J-11D to warrant the Chinese Air Force paying that much extra for it and to potentially have to buy into more Russian subsystems (especially weapons) is a topic of valid discussion.
This isn't jingoism, it's called critical thinking.
In fact, it could also be argued that the Su-35 deal is "hated" because so often media have portrayed the Su-35 deal was supposedly evidence that the current fighters China has in service are somehow insufficient qualitatively insufficient for their needs or that Su-35 would offer some kind of magical game changing leap in capability.
In other words, the Su-35 deal was not "hated" because people here thought Chinese Flankers were "superior" to the Su-35, but rather because other people and foreign defence media have portrayed Su-35 to be some kind of magical unicorn of an aircraft without actually considering the other advances the Chinese Air Force has made over the last decade in all manner of capabilities. People "hate" the Su-35 deal, because the reporting of the Su-35 deal is often done incompetently by individuals who have only poor and little knowledge of the Chinese Air Force overall.
Afterburner and supercruise>>>>> World view>>>>> People hate this and that>>>>> Money, greedy, self-interest........
Are you aware that you frequently drift away as if mumbling to yourself? It is your opinion. Nothing need to be proved or disproved.
b787
Captain
Fighters with no super cruising capability rarely pass the Mach 1 mark, their mach 2.3 is very few times used and for very few minutes.
So a super cruising fighter can fly longer distances at higher speeds, meaning it can just by that difference stay away from the enemy longer.
Same will be an attack, the supersonic cruising fighter attacks at higher speeds the missiles can not reach it as quickly as a Mach 0.9 fighter.
The Su-35 is just marginally slower than the Su-27, the Su-27 is around 200km/h faster but it will not catch up with the Su-35 because the advantage it has.
Simple math if you fly at 1600km/h 30 minutes how many kilometers you can travel? if you fly at 900km 25 minutes and you can sprint only 4 minutes at 1600km what is the distance each fighter travelled?
do you understand the difference? well that is the advantage of Su-35 over other flankers
B787 -- I never said that supercruise doesn't confer significant advantages over fighters which cannot supercruise. In fact, in my last post I said:
So just so say it in plain words -- I agree with you.
But, my statement and sinosoldier's previous statements about the difference between "top speed" and "supercruise" are also true.
I'll give you another hypothetical scenario to demonstrate my point:
Aircraft Y can supercruise for five hours at Mach 1.5 without afterburner, but only has a top speed of Mach 2.0 with afterburner
Aircraft Z cannot supercruise, but it has a top speed of Mach 2.1 with afterburner but can only maintain it for one minute.
Obviously, aircraft Y is far superior to aircraft Z in that comparison. However, Aircraft Z still has a higher top speed, despite the fact that it cannot maintain it for very long and despite the fact its top speed is only marginally higher than Aircraft Y.
In other words, Aircraft Z having a higher top speed than Aircraft Y is not useful in any combat scenario or in any tactical sense, however Aircraft Z still has a higher top speed.
The point I was making was about the principle of the scenario originally described by Sinosoldier, which is a true one.
That is the point I was making -- I was never comparing "which aircraft is better," which is what you seem to be so obsessed with doing with regards to Su-35.
Do you understand only 24 Su35s won't make much of a difference by themselves, unless if other deals were attached?
Do you understand every bit of instantaneous-speed advantage is desired in A2A, so you turn on the afterburner, regardless of supercruise capabilities?
Do you understand supercruise is a longer-distance advantage, such as rushing to the scene or escaping after the job is done?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
All this back and forth ranting has made both of you lost focus on the original argument.
I think generally speaking everyone here knows what supercruise is.
Supercruise as define by aviators is the ability to sustain level flight in the supersonic regime using dry thrust w/o regards to the transonic region.
Every aircraft has different transonic regions. Some are bigger others narrower.
Every fighter has different supercruise speed as well. A raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.4,1.5 easy while most are a tad slower. Rafael and a few others have similar supercruise abilities.
Many many fighters today can actually supercruise flying clean.
The key is how does supercruise gives an operational or tactical advantage? At it's very core supercruise saves fuel and in combat fuel is everything.
I think that is what many here are arguing back and forth. Almost all fghters go into combat zone at max V, that is a FACT. In contested airspace supercruise allows a fighter to close in on the decision cycle of the opfor or the OODA loop.
A high supercruise number allows for longer combat radius and also gives tactical advantage in BVR engagement because it increases the range of the missile shot. Higher cruise speed almost means more energy and in dogfight whoever that manages his energy better is most likely the person who walks away alive.
I think generally speaking everyone here knows what supercruise is.
Supercruise as define by aviators is the ability to sustain level flight in the supersonic regime using dry thrust w/o regards to the transonic region.
Every aircraft has different transonic regions. Some are bigger others narrower.
Every fighter has different supercruise speed as well. A raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.4,1.5 easy while most are a tad slower. Rafael and a few others have similar supercruise abilities.
Many many fighters today can actually supercruise flying clean.
The key is how does supercruise gives an operational or tactical advantage? At it's very core supercruise saves fuel and in combat fuel is everything.
I think that is what many here are arguing back and forth. Almost all fghters go into combat zone at max V, that is a FACT. In contested airspace supercruise allows a fighter to close in on the decision cycle of the opfor or the OODA loop.
A high supercruise number allows for longer combat radius and also gives tactical advantage in BVR engagement because it increases the range of the missile shot. Higher cruise speed almost means more energy and in dogfight whoever that manages his energy better is most likely the person who walks away alive.
Schumacher
Senior Member
'hate' is such an extreme word to use. People are mainly just calling it the way it is, finding the whole idea funny that China needs a Flanker with no AESA, no foreign sales, sticking a TVC on a 70s airframe just so to differentiate it from other 4th gen jets, for lack of any other differentiation. The funniest of all being the Russian endless rumor-mongering reeks of desperation for acknowledgement that they haven't fallen behind China.
And that's all it is at the moment, another rumor from the usual source.
And for a force the size of PLA, any deal involving 24 looks very much like charity or political accommodation, that's just a logical conclusion, nothing to do with 'hating'.
Kwaig, I've made it pretty clear in all my posts on the topic that I recognize and accept the benefits of true reliable supercruise over fighters which are unable to, and the advantages that it confers in various tactical scenarios.
However the original discussion for me, was never about the tactical advantages that a supercruising aircraft could have, it was about the principle that a supercruising fighter or aircraft does not necessarily mean it has a higher top speed than a fighter or aircraft incapable of supercruise -- regardless of the actual tactical advantages of having supercruise or not having it, or having a lower or higher top speed.
At this point I think I've made my position quite clear, and b787 seems to actually agree with what I've said in his last post, despite not clearly acknowledging it and instead focusing on the tactical advantages of supercruise, which was never the premise in which I entered this discussion on.