Chinese purchase of Su-35
- Thread starter flyzies
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
China 's State Television(CCTV) Said: J-11B radar has 1760 T/R modules, has a search range of 450 km against 1 m^2 target and 250 km against a 0.1 m^2 target.
Well with that many modules and assuming I take CCTV's reporting as fact, it is certain possible especially if each element is say 12 W each .. that would be 21kW peak which is plausible on a big antenna area.. however as you know while the number of T/R modules and packing density is a good indicator of performance it is by no means everything. It also means that J11D has an efficient cooling system for the AESA otherwise performance would suffer.
To me it also means that China has achieved very close parity with the likes of Raytheon, LM, Thales etc in AESA technologies if those numbers are true.. even more so if they were underrated for security reasons.
If SinoSoldier is still here, would he care to repost the source images that are no longer viewable here?
Part of the discussion there is that I suspect the AESA might be GaN, because the performance ranges are so high. Another factor is, as Gambit discusses, those detection ranges could be for low certainty of intercept, like 50% or below. In either case, China's AESA is either cutting edge or nearly cutting edge, which is a good argument for eschewing Irbis-E. On the other hand, as I've stated before, the Russian systems as is allows China to use stuff like Novator or Sizzler without substantial reconfiguration, and Irbis-E's lower performance is acceptable if used in a strike role or with AESA escorts.
Part of the discussion there is that I suspect the AESA might be GaN, because the performance ranges are so high. Another factor is, as Gambit discusses, those detection ranges could be for low certainty of intercept, like 50% or below. In either case, China's AESA is either cutting edge or nearly cutting edge, which is a good argument for eschewing Irbis-E. On the other hand, as I've stated before, the Russian systems as is allows China to use stuff like Novator or Sizzler without substantial reconfiguration, and Irbis-E's lower performance is acceptable if used in a strike role or with AESA escorts.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
Typically I understand AESA operate around 16-17 peak power per module using GaAs but with GaN that can go up to 10 X. The figures being quoted would suggest the latter but as Kwai indicated, thermal management is also a limiting factor and in particular when moving to GaN. I don't know the science of thermal management in this instance and whether > 200kW you are into warp drive and cloaking territory but on what is being said the Chinese would be ahead of everyone else including the US. In particular if the range being mentioned are LPI waveform based.
b787
Captain
i agree, i think that Kret has a very solid and realistic view, we will see
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The J11s are air superiority fighters first and foremost.
The J16 is supposed to be SAC's multi-role oriented bird, which is said to be based largely on the Su30 as opposed to the baseline Su27/J11, with increased load and fuel provisions.
It would be far more accurate and interesting to compare the Su35 to the J16.
If the reported performance characteristics of the J11D (and presumably the J16 and future J15) radar is correct, you can understand why China insisted on having that over the Russian offerings.
I would also highly dispute that Russia is ahead of China in terms of strike weaponry.
The Chinese have shown an impressive and comprehensive indigenous PGM catalogue in recent years, with equivalents to nearly all currently deployed top of the line western and Russian PGMs. From your basic LGBs, to Satnav and glide wing range extended standard and SDBs, to guided anti-tank missiles to cruise missiles.
If anything, the PLA has more PGM weapons options than the VVS, and most importantly of all, they are all home made.
That means that not only are the munitions cheaper per unit, but more importantly, they can be ordered at any time, in any quantity.
As such, the PLA does not need to face the dilemma of deciding how big of an inventory to buy at the same time as the planes. Buy too many, and you waste all that money when the weapons time-expire. Buy too few, and your shinny new fighter jets might be left with nothing left to use after a few days or weeks of extensive use in an expected war.
The J16 is supposed to be SAC's multi-role oriented bird, which is said to be based largely on the Su30 as opposed to the baseline Su27/J11, with increased load and fuel provisions.
It would be far more accurate and interesting to compare the Su35 to the J16.
If the reported performance characteristics of the J11D (and presumably the J16 and future J15) radar is correct, you can understand why China insisted on having that over the Russian offerings.
I would also highly dispute that Russia is ahead of China in terms of strike weaponry.
The Chinese have shown an impressive and comprehensive indigenous PGM catalogue in recent years, with equivalents to nearly all currently deployed top of the line western and Russian PGMs. From your basic LGBs, to Satnav and glide wing range extended standard and SDBs, to guided anti-tank missiles to cruise missiles.
If anything, the PLA has more PGM weapons options than the VVS, and most importantly of all, they are all home made.
That means that not only are the munitions cheaper per unit, but more importantly, they can be ordered at any time, in any quantity.
As such, the PLA does not need to face the dilemma of deciding how big of an inventory to buy at the same time as the planes. Buy too many, and you waste all that money when the weapons time-expire. Buy too few, and your shinny new fighter jets might be left with nothing left to use after a few days or weeks of extensive use in an expected war.
With regards to anti-ground strike, sure, I agree. However, strike ranges don't matter that much when it comes to ground-strike, because you'll have a coherent front where aircraft are used more for air support and aircraft can be based closer to the front lines. In naval warfare, however, range is instead paramount, because shore-based aviation can only influence events so far. The additional range helps the PLANAF and PLAAF keep enemy ships further away from Chinese coastlines than they would otherwise.
In this field, though, Russia's anti-ship missiles are more impressive than the Chinese counterparts, since the C-8xx series are subsonic, and the YF-12's flight trajectory resembles that of the outdated Klub, with a cruise-dive trajectory. The Brahmos II, on the other hand, can hit Mach 7 and sea-skim relatively early. Not that that would be available for export as a Russo-Indian coproduction, but a variant based on the same technologies could be provided for China.
In this field, though, Russia's anti-ship missiles are more impressive than the Chinese counterparts, since the C-8xx series are subsonic, and the YF-12's flight trajectory resembles that of the outdated Klub, with a cruise-dive trajectory. The Brahmos II, on the other hand, can hit Mach 7 and sea-skim relatively early. Not that that would be available for export as a Russo-Indian coproduction, but a variant based on the same technologies could be provided for China.
Last edited:
Skywatcher
Captain
Since China is already testing scramjets, they probably could build their own Brahmos II equivalent on a recent timeframe (and not worry about ITAR restrictions).
Those numbers are shockingly low, tbh. The Russians also reported than the WS-10 had a thrust of 110 kN, when other sources report it between 125kN and 135kN. Other Russian sources themselves claim that the WS-15 is a 160 kN engine.
That said, I'd be skeptical as to whether or not Russia would supply advanced engines for the J-20, considering that the PAK-FA project is having problems and it would put the J-20 in the air before the PAK-FA. On the other hand, 117S has the critical thrust vectoring technology, which is not necessary for initial J-20s, but can be used later to develop more maneuverable J-20s, as well as a potential tailfinless variant. Getting the 117S in the bag now would greatly speed up development, considering that the WS-15 won't reach maturity before 2018 at the earliest and that initial work will target reliability and power, instead of a heavy TVC nozzle.
That said, I'd be skeptical as to whether or not Russia would supply advanced engines for the J-20, considering that the PAK-FA project is having problems and it would put the J-20 in the air before the PAK-FA. On the other hand, 117S has the critical thrust vectoring technology, which is not necessary for initial J-20s, but can be used later to develop more maneuverable J-20s, as well as a potential tailfinless variant. Getting the 117S in the bag now would greatly speed up development, considering that the WS-15 won't reach maturity before 2018 at the earliest and that initial work will target reliability and power, instead of a heavy TVC nozzle.