Chinese purchase of Su-35

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
This is the best I have !

View attachment 37283
Indeed this photo is the highest resolution so far. From my experience of photoshopping, I can say that the stabilizer area is blurred (PSed) on purpose.
  1. The PLAF Insignia is different from standard. In a right insignia, the arms are longer, the upside of one arm should be as long as the width of the star, the underside should be longer. One can also compare with other PLA flankers, the front arm should reach the edge.
  2. The numbers are too blurry considering the overall resolution. The small antenna on the dorsal is thinner but clearer.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
There's no question international laws and norms allow any and all countries to spy outside 12 miles territorial waters, and as long as it's in US interests to do so, it should continue unabated. Least we forget, China has the same right to spy off US coasts anytime it wants- as its spy ship did during RimPac 2016.

The flip side of the issue is just because US has the right to spy off China's shores, does it make sense to do more than it needs for intelligence collection purposes. My view is US high command should determine what it wants to do, and how much resource it needs to get it done, with some buffers. Anything beyond that doesn't serve long-term US interests, because the benefits might not be worth the costs.
And there's no question that the responsibility of China's government to its people is to do all in their power to stop/hinder all hostile activity against the PRC anytime, anywhere, from anyone. If from a military plane, intercept it. If from a satellite, blind it with lasers. If from spies, kill them. If from a foreign computer half the world away, hack it. Anyone who thinks that China will be bound by laws to watch idly as harm comes to it has the PRC confused with some other country that cannot rise and challenge the presiding world superpower.

The US certainly doesn't let laws stop it from anything. Snowden made sure we know.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Let's get back on topi please...the Chinese SU-35.

is THIS still the latest and best PLAAF pic of an SU-35 to date?

chinese-su-35-20170131-1-xxl-jpg.37283
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the PLAAF is going to employ the Su-35s for OPFOR aggressor training, they might as well leave it in aggressor paint scheme emulating Vietnamese Flankers.

Vietnam doesn't have su-35s. It seems unlikely the most capable, fully operational, fighter in the Chinese arsenal will be relegated to OPFOR duties. I suspect Chinese su-35 will remain in front line service at least until a substantially larger number of J-20s have been in squadron service for long enough for the Chinese air force to have experimented with actual aircrews how best to leverage the unique capabilities of such an unusual ( compared to previous Chinese fighters) fighter.

The j-20's array of capabilities is so different from other jets, and each is likely such a national asset, that I suspect tje j-20 would not really be considered fully operational until the chinese has had chances to conduct many large scale exercises to explore how best to leverage its unique capabilities alone and in groups with more conventional assets, and develop tested doctrines on how to employ them.

Su-35, on the other hand, is just a point on a liner extension of capvilities and potentials the Chinese are already familiar with based on the large body of experience they've acquired from operating su-27 and variants for over 20 years. So su-35 can be quickly adopted into existing doctrines.
 
Last edited:

jobjed

Captain
Vietnam doesn't have su-35s. It seems unlikely the most capable, fully operational, fighter in the Chinese arsenal will be relegated to OPFOR duties. I suspect Chinese su-35 will remain in front line service at least until a substantially larger number of J-20s have been in squadron service for long enough for the Chinese air force to have experimented with actual aircrews how best to leverage the unique capabilities of such an unusual ( compared to previous Chinese fighters) fighter.

The j-20's array of capabilities is so different from other jets, and each is likely such a national asset, that I suspect tje j-20 would not really be considered fully operational until the chinese has had chances to conduct many large scale exercises to explore how best to leverage its unique capabilities alone and in groups with more conventional assets, and develop tested doctrines on how to employ them.

Su-35, on the other hand, is just a point on a liner extension of capvilities and potentials the Chinese are already familiar with based on the large body of experience they've acquired from operating su-27 and variants for over 20 years. So su-35 can be quickly adopted into existing doctrines.

Some PLAAF Su-30MKKs were painted in aggressor camo even though they're front-line assets. There's no distinction between a front-line aircraft and OPFOR aggressor aircraft, they simply have to switch out the pilots between roles. I don't know why they didn't paint the Su-35s in PLAAF low-viz but it's not a big issue.
 
Top