Chinese purchase of Su-35

Hyperwarp

Hyperwarp

Captain
Wasn't there a post by a big shrimp on why the Su-35 was bought? If I recall correctly, they were

* TVC FBW integration: (Russia has more than 20 years of flying experience since the Su-37). Even though Salut will happily offer expertise and products on TVC, all the present flying in-service TVC enabled fighters such Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA, Su-30SM, Su-35 use Saturn powered engines. Only other exception is the F-22.

* Elimination of Canards and massive air-brakes: The evolution from Su-30MKI to Su-35. This would especially help the future locally built J-16 and J-11 variants. Elimination of the air-brakes will save fair bit weight and space.

* New aggressive training regimes: Remember there are NO FLYING TVC ENABLED fighters in the PRC. All such training has been limited to simulators or training in Russia. That is no replacement for the real thing.

PLAAF only wanted a handful of Su-35, but Russia said Full deal or NO DEAL. There is also the benefit of the 117S's limited supercruise capability but right now we don't know the supercruise capability of the Su-35 while actually carrying AAMs. It may not be able do so at all when carrying 6+ AAMs. So I don't think supercruise was a priority but an added benefit.

And last but not least IMHO regarding future Su-35 purchases will depend on the J-11D and J-11B upgrade programs. If the PLAAF is not satisfied with SAC's progress they may need to buy more Su-35. I mean if you wanted to place a bet on 2x J-11B (in it current form) against just 1x F/A-18E/F especially in BVR who would you pick?
 
P

PanAsian

Major
latenlazy said:
It kind of is though. If we recognize that stable and reliable force build up is a key responsibility of the PLAAF, and if inducting Su-35s as a significant portion of the air force greatly complicates this basic imperative, then you need to be able to explain *why* they would be compelled to take on such complications.

Is it because the Su-35 is that much more superior technologically? That doesn't seem to make sense on at least two fronts. The first is simply that the PLAAF already has the J-20, J-10C, and, presumably, J-11D. China is already fielding a 5th generation design, and at least when it comes to avionics and electronics for 4th generation designs it doesn't seem like China has too much of a gap with Russia, if it isn't already ahead. The second is the systems integration angle. If the Su-35 isn't integrated into the broader C4ISR system China has built it is in fact an inferior solution, from the systems capability standpoint, compared to an indigenously produced fighter. Even if the PLAAF could figure out some solution to rectify this, that extra effort seems impractical when they could just spend that time and money procuring more of their own.

Is it because they want a closer relationship with Russia? If so does it make sense to compromise your independence and the efficacy of your force planning and military development to make Su-35s your mainstay? Couldn't they achieve the same by buying some other weapons system that may require less extensive commitments and compromises?

Is it because China has simply decided it can't meet long term procurement needs with its own production capacity, so it decided to buy Russia? If so, why did they presumably try to negotiate down the number of planes they were buying? Why couldn't they simply invest in expanding their own production capacity, which they've shown a commitment towards for decades now?

In a vacuum our different explanations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, *but* in a world where the above facts, postulates, and conditions exist you either have to fit your explanation to work with them or make a strong case for why they are invalid or untrue. If you can't, then your reasoning becomes selective, and your arguments are rendered as logically flawed or false.

What Vesicles is referring to when he talks about pointless back and forths is the refusal to directly address the basic contentions and logical statements behind the arguments that are made. Rather than take some rationale for an argument at its face and examine the ways it could be wrong, more often than not people seem to sidestep counterpoints entirely and either reiterate their own points without so much as acknowledging the countervailing ones.
Click to expand...

Agreed that there are major assumptions about basic things here that are really unknown such as just how superior or not one or more aspects of the platform is or not, whether or which systems are integrated or not, not to mention the intentions of the deal. There is enough reasonable doubt to disagree on enough major fundamental assumptions that there are no simple questions. Making a persistent mystery that's fun to kick around.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
b787 said:
If we get into politics it will not end, the only thing i can suggest you is read about the opinion many Russians have about Siberia and the Chinese immigration into it.

No need to go further.


About why they bought Su-35 you have to see two important points.
Stealth is not invisibility to radars, it is only lower reflectivity, if the radar is weak, the detection range is just a few km.

To put it in context, a MiG-23 will detect F-22 probably at 10-20 km from it, but a Su-35 might be in the range of 100-70km of Range.

However the Su-35 has the ability of group scanning, via data link, MiG-31s can sweep areas and overlap their individual radar ranges and via data link they can survey 600km.

So a group of Su-35 can patrol an area and close the gaps of their individual radars plus they have data link so their IRST system can share information via data link.


Add AWACS, radar ground stations, etc etc.

So for China like any other nation 4th generation fighters are not going to be substitute with 5th generation fighters for a long time.


J-11s and Su-35 will be at least flying for another 10-20 years, why? well simple radars are advancing too.

I can assure you a fighter like Rafale or Su-35 will beat F-35 in WVR, thus if you detect a 5th generation; a 4.5 generation can beat it, it is similar to the Vietnam war era when the less maneuverable american fighters were defeated by older MiG-17s and MiG-21s and that can include fighters like F-111.

The reason is stealth imposes so much restriction into the aerodynamics and weight that the fighters need to remain undetected to fight, otherwise they have no advantage at all.
Click to expand...

You don't need to convince me why the deal happened from a technological standpoint, you're preaching to the choir.

From the politics, specifically the deeper defence co-operation angle, per my previous posts this deal was a major gambit by top leadership on both sides even if so far it appears to have fallen short.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
Agreed that there are major assumptions about basic things here that are really unknown such as just how superior or not one or more aspects of the platform is or not, whether or which systems are integrated or not, not to mention the intentions of the deal. There is enough reasonable doubt to disagree on enough major fundamental assumptions that there are no simple questions. Making a persistent mystery that's fun to kick around.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
b787 said:
If we get into politics it will not end, the only thing i can suggest you is read about the opinion many Russians have about Siberia and the Chinese immigration into it.

No need to go further.


About why they bought Su-35 you have to see two important points.
Stealth is not invisibility to radars, it is only lower reflectivity, if the radar is weak, the detection range is just a few km.

To put it in context, a MiG-23 will detect F-22 probably at 10-20 km from it, but a Su-35 might be in the range of 100-70km of Range.

However the Su-35 has the ability of group scanning, via data link, MiG-31s can sweep areas and overlap their individual radar ranges and via data link they can survey 600km.

So a group of Su-35 can patrol an area and close the gaps of their individual radars plus they have data link so their IRST system can share information via data link.


Add AWACS, radar ground stations, etc etc.

So for China like any other nation 4th generation fighters are not going to be substitute with 5th generation fighters for a long time.


J-11s and Su-35 will be at least flying for another 10-20 years, why? well simple radars are advancing too.

I can assure you a fighter like Rafale or Su-35 will beat F-35 in WVR, thus if you detect a 5th generation; a 4.5 generation can beat it, it is similar to the Vietnam war era when the less maneuverable american fighters were defeated by older MiG-17s and MiG-21s and that can include fighters like F-111.

The reason is stealth imposes so much restriction into the aerodynamics and weight that the fighters need to remain undetected to fight, otherwise they have no advantage at all.
Click to expand...

Interesting quite sure a J-7 or J-8 look F-22/35 to about 10 km maximum right now the Su-35 is the best fighter except F-22 ofc only the Typhoon with AESA Captor can compete for range with Irbis, only ordered by Kuwait possible RAF buy but only for tranche 3, APG-81/82 close but a little inferior

The best radars detect F-22 max 20 - 30 kms him detect two to 3 times more far Su-57, J-20 with RCS we have i think they detect them to 50 km about normal birds 200 km !!! during all one day enough often T-38 don't see a F-22 and regurlarly he go in the 6 hour of the F-15/16 without to be detected to some kms !
The F-35 have a" less "powerful radar but also detect Su-57, J-20 in first after remains IRST...but much more limited than a radar despite helpfull vs a stealth.

And stealth have one " natural " advantage with all weapons internaly in general they have an inferior drag help for agility and range in more they are more big with more fuel internaly.

Many parameters for A2A combat ... ;)
 
Last edited:
b787

b787

Captain
PanAsian said:
You don't need to convince me why the deal happened from a technological standpoint, you're preaching to the choir.

From the politics, specifically the deeper defence co-operation angle, per my previous posts this deal was a major gambit by top leadership on both sides even if so far it appears to have fallen short.
Click to expand...
the sale of 24 Su-35s does not make stable an international relation.
In terms of short term policy it was a success for Sukhoi, Indonesia and UAE are planing to buy Su-35, but it can not shape international policy.

History and policy are not shaped upon fleeting moments but upon long term interests.


I will not talk any more about politics
 
b787

b787

Captain
FORBIN said:
Interesting quite sure a J-7 or J-8 look F-22/35 to about 10 km maximum right now the Su-35 is the best fighter except F-22 ofc only the Typhoon with AESA Captor can compete for range with Irbis, only ordered by Kuwait possible RAF buy but only for tranche 3, APG-81/82 close but a little inferior

The best radars detect F-22 max 20 - 30 kms him detect two to 3 times more far Su-57, J-20 with RCS we have i think they detect them to 50 km about normal birds 200 km !!! during all one day enough often T-38 don't see a F-22 and regurlarly he go in the 6 hour of the F-15/16 without to be detected to some kms !
The F-35 have a" less "powerful radar but also detect Su-57, J-20 in first after remains IRST...but much more limited than a radar despite helpfull vs a stealth.

And stealth have one " natural " advantage with all weapons internaly in general they have an inferior drag help for agility and range in more they are more big with more fuel internaly.

Many parameters for A2A combat ... ;)
Click to expand...
Well the drag issue is only applied if the cross sections areas are the same, but stealth requires bigger cross section areas because they have internal weapons bays, the bays increase the volume of the aircraft too thus drag is not lower, you can see that in a compassion of F-35 and F-16.

About stealth i do not believe the statements they are detected at such ranges, because each radar is different and stealth aircraft have to use flight path and route planning, it means they try to use gaps.
While in western propaganda is said F-117 was retired due to old age, the reality is in Yugoslavia the F-117 were escorted by F-15, when you have truly stealthy planes you do not need escort.
Further more the Americans want to use F-18Es with IRST 21, Su-35, Rafale and F-18E just need more refinements in radar, weapons in the way the F-18E is heading.


China bought the Su-35 because it is like F-18E a very deep modernization of a legacy fighter with some odds it might defeat stealth fighters
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
That's because I think you missed or are ignoring mine.
Click to expand...
I got your point. You argued explanations don't have to be mutually exclusive, and I was say in a vacuum they don't have to be, but if we recognize certain details, considerations, or facts to be true or valid, then different explanations can and often do become mutually exclusive. You can either craft the explanation to fit with known circumstances and conditions, or reject the premises of those conditions and circumstances, in which case you'd have to make an argument for why.

I presume by falling back to a bromide about how each side has different assumptions so we can't know for sure which explanations are right you are trying to reject or at least cast question of the specific circumstances or conditions that would suggest your explanation is in fact mutually exclusive to other explanations and the basic facts and details I posited in my earlier response, but you didn't actually present any reasons or mount any arguments for *why* the premises behind the arguments counter to yours might be false or wrong.

Note, this isn't simply a matter of two sides making different assumptions. We do have, at least on some presumptive basis, actual facts and details that we can probably regard as sound and dependable. For example, anecdotes about China trying to negotiate down the number of planes they were buying or Russia refusing to localize the Su-35's avionics or open its systems to allow for integration with China's aren't matters of fictional speculations. If you're going to reject these details in how you formulate an explanation for the purchase you're going to need to explain your rationale.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
b787 said:
Well the drag issue is only applied if the cross sections areas are the same, but stealth requires bigger cross section areas because they have internal weapons bays, the bays increase the volume of the aircraft too thus drag is not lower, you can see that in a compassion of F-35 and F-16.
Click to expand...
Non-stealth aircraft have bigger cross section when carrying weapons. weapons are out in the airstream, the pylons that hold the weapons are in the airstream. There are unfavourable aerodynamics interference between the airframe and weapons as well as among weapons themselves.

Things that stick out into the airstream contribute to extra cross section. Internal weapon bays of stealth aircraft are internal, so there is no such thing as extra cross section.

b787 said:
About stealth i do not believe the statements they are detected at such ranges, because each radar is different and stealth aircraft have to use flight path and route planning, it means they try to use gaps.
While in western propaganda is said F-117 was retired due to old age, the reality is in Yugoslavia the F-117 were escorted by F-15, when you have truly stealthy planes you do not need escort.
Further more the Americans want to use F-18Es with IRST 21, Su-35, Rafale and F-18E just need more refinements in radar, weapons in the way the F-18E is heading.


China bought the Su-35 because it is like F-18E a very deep modernization of a legacy fighter with some odds it might defeat stealth fighters
Click to expand...
F-22 and F-35 don't have to be escorted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top