Chinese purchase of Su-35

I

Inst

Captain
I'm sorry, but I'm going to wait for mods to clean this up.

First, Chinese AESA is capable of 400 km detection vs 1 m^2 RCS, while the Irbis-E is only capable of 300 km detection. This is independent of AESA vs PESA.

Second, AESA is more efficient NOT just when they focus a single frequency, but because they don't need wiring to conduct power from the exciter. Each AESA module has its own exciter! It's a compact, if more complex design, which reduces overall complexity as well as transfer losses.
 
b787

b787

Captain
Inst said:
I'm sorry, but I'm going to wait for mods to clean this up.

First, Chinese AESA is capable of 400 km detection vs 1 m^2 RCS, while the Irbis-E is only capable of 300 km detection. This is independent of AESA vs PESA.

Second, AESA is more efficient NOT just when they focus a single frequency, but because they don't need wiring to conduct power from the exciter. Each AESA module has its own exciter! It's a compact, if more complex design, which reduces overall complexity as well as transfer losses.
Click to expand...

>>> Moderator comment: Condescending comment removed <<<

... wattage by being divided into two different subsystems (frequency arrays) will reduce the range, to make it easier.

The flow of water once divided has not the same amount of water, our wattage available once divided will give to each frequency lower power.


IRBIS is operational at a lower cost per radar, once a you divide into different frequencies the same amount of power is divided too, so the range is reduced because a divided power is smaller than the original, why because it is only a fraction of the original power.
You can not eat a whole cake if they give a piece and divide the cake into six persons, six persons need six cakes then for each to eat a whole cake get it boy?

Su-35 in that sense can be used against aircraft with AESAs, yes an AESA can have more range but it`s wasted by multitasking if it focuses on different frequencies, since AESA are used with different frequencies they become power thirsty, your J-11D will need more powerful engines than 117S to outrange Irbis and use multitasking, so your boasting requires a J-11D with 117S engines and no J-11D has engines more powerful than 117S
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
b787 said:
>>> Moderator comment: Condescending comment removed <<<

... wattage by being divided into two different subsystems (frequency arrays) will reduce the range, to make it easier.

The flow of water once divided has not the same amount of water, our wattage available once divided will give to each frequency lower power.


IRBIS is operational at a lower cost per radar, once a you divide into different frequencies the same amount of power is divided too, so the range is reduced because a divided power is smaller than the original, why because it is only a fraction of the original power.
You can not eat a whole cake if they give a piece and divide the cake into six persons, six persons need six cakes then for each to eat a whole cake get it boy?

Su-35 in that sense can be used against aircraft with AESAs, yes an AESA can have more range but it`s wasted by multitasking if it focuses on different frequencies, since AESA are used with different frequencies they become power thirsty, your J-11D will need more powerful engines than 117S to outrange Irbis and use multitasking, so your boasting requires a J-11D with 117S engines and no J-11D has engines more powerful than 117S
Click to expand...

No offence B, but you're talking nonsense!

Designers knows EXACTlY the type of radar that will go into the plane long before many things else and obviously power consumption would've been taken to account relative to the type of engines they intend on putting in the plane and the electrical output that is routed to the subsystems.

For you to imply if so and so radar only uses these certain engines therefore giving the radar much longer detection range is being intellectually disingenuous.

The engineers know the exact power consumption of the radar and would not fit a lesser engines to purposely make it less capable.. Also the power consumption of the radar is minuscule compared to the needed thrust an engine needs.

The only possible exception are AEA aircraft like the Prowlers and now Growlers but even then they carried over some of the legacy stuff like ALQ-99 Jamming Pods and they have self-contained generators cal RAT located on the front.

The older f111 EA uses on board power generation and yes if all 10 transmitters lit up it would affect engine performance however you cannot compare AEA aircraft to a regular fighter with a single on board radar be it aEsa or pesa based.

You're basically saying if only my car has a corvette LS7 engine in it, I can make my radio so much louder!
 
D

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
re # 2238 .....re #2247..
confirmed all four birds on Chinese soil 25 December 2016, as promised !!

China receives first four Su-35s from Russia, says report
Gabriel Dominguez, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
28 December 2016
China's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has taken delivery of the first four of 24 Russian-made Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker-E' multirole fighter aircraft, according to the Russian Aviation website.
The four aircraft arrived on 25 December at a PLAAF flight training centre in Cangzhou, in China's northeastern Hebei Province, said the website. Russia's TASS news agency had previously reported that the first four Su-35s were to "fly over to China" by the same time.
Vyacheslav Shport, the governor of Khabarovsk Krai, had announced in September that the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO), which produces the aircraft, would deliver all 24 Su-35s between 2016 and 2018.
The aircraft deal, announced in November 2015 by Russian defence conglomerate Rostec, made China the first foreign contractor of the Su-35, which is claimed to be an upgraded and highly manoeuvrable '4++ generation' fighter with characteristics and performance close to those of upcoming 'fifth-generation' combat aircraft.
It is described by IHS Jane's All the World's Aircraft: Development & Production as having a maximum level speed of Mach 2.25 at 11,000 m (36,089 ft), a rate of climb of 16,800 m/min at sea level, a combat payload of 8,000 kg, and a maximum range with internal fuel of 1,529 km (sea level).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
b787

b787

Captain
kwaigonegin said:
No offence B, but you're talking nonsense!

Designers knows EXACTlY the type of radar that will go into the plane long before many things else and obviously power consumption would've been taken to account relative to the type of engines they intend on putting in the plane and the electrical output that is routed to the subsystems.
Click to expand...
Simple questions consider each aircraft on the same time period

Which has more powerful radar and more powerful engine?

F-15>F-16>MiG-21

E-3>F-15>F-16>Mirage III

There is a relation between engine power and radar range.

MiG-31>MiG-25>MiG-23>MiG-21

You can see the relation regardless you say radar is not related, each aircraft with more powerful radar had more powerful engines

F-14>F-16 Do you expect the MiG-21 to have a more powerful radar than MiG-31 or F-15?

Or A Mirage III have a more powerful radar than a F-22 or E-3, bigger aircraft have more powerful engines and more powerful radars
Nice picture but i do not know if its real

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top