Chinese purchase of Su-35

thunderchief said:

I don't think anyone asked for integration of said missiles , but Indians successfully integrated their Astra AAM on Su-30 MKI . MKI has open architecture ,and Su-35 is even more advanced in this regard .

Click to expand...

Its not that nobody ask for intergration of the said missile but rather russian refuse such move. the israel elta radar combo with AIM-120 will be highly desirable for a mig-29.

as for example of your so called intergration. There is no example. Until Astra missile is still in development and let alone operational. I never knew Russia mention Su-35 will be so open with many foreign parts for intergration. Where did you heard from?

Phead128 said:

@Engineer:

I personally think China should invest in the WS-15, no matter how long it will take for it to come into fruition. However, other ppl suggest that the 117S is needed such that the prototype can be flight tested so that J-20 doesn't fall behind schedule with the serial production of peers like PAKFA, FGFA, etc... Does China need to race other countries in putting their 5th generation fighter into serial production? Unless China is preparing for war very soon, an extra 5 years wouldn't hurt if it means more money for indigenous product, would it?

Click to expand...

Such suggestion is non-sense in my opinion. Putting 117S on the J-20 would actually cause delay, as that would be a huge detour from a direct migration from AL-31F to WS-15. Also, J-20 could be put into service with AL-31F if PLAAF really desires. This wouldn't be as big a deal as it once was, since we now know Chinese application of 3D printing technology in J-20 can significantly reduces weight.

thunderchief said:

There are two things to consider :

1. Could J-11B support installation of such radar (size , enough electrical power , compatibility with other systems ... ) Again , from Indian experience , they had to modify Su-30 to accept Bars radar with 8kW peak output . Irbis-E has 20 kW peak output , and new Chinese radar would probably need more power .

2. At what stage of development or production is that radar ? Do we have just a concept , or prototype , or IOC ... When will they be ready to start serial production ?

Click to expand...

China has been fiddling with AESA radars more often than Russia and has had more experience having them in service. If there was a lack of juice then they probably would have modified either the radar or the powerplant on the aircraft and frankly they would be in a better position than the Russians mainly due to their avionics competition process and experience; the radar paper claimed that it is in service.

Engineer said:

We are comparing both types of aircraft on their capabilities, thus involving compatibility with PLAAF logistic chain.

Click to expand...

Actually, we were comparing Chinese flankers versus Su-35 based on their electronics, kinematics, and weapons suite. if I remember correctly, logistics never came into it. It was a direct comparison regarding the different types of munitions Su-35 could carry versus munitions which chinese flankers are known to be capable of carrying.
But yes, obviously chinese flankers fit the PLA's logistics chain much better.

As it stands, J-10 won more exercises than J-11B in competitions. Weight class would only be relevant if it makes a difference, which currently isn't the case thus rendering your argument on weight class moot.

Click to expand...

I'm not up to date as to which aircraft has won more competitions (that we know of), but I'll take your word for it.

Weight class is relevant and it makes a difference because the basis of my argument is not on which one can shoot the other out of the sky (which may be effected by pilot training, rules of engagement, and a host of inumerable other factors), but based on their endurance and range relevant to each other.

CAC can produce J-10. There is no need for CAC to produce Flankers to meet PLAAF's requirement for air superiority fighters.

Click to expand...

See above. Argument for heavy weight air superiority fighters isn't how well they perform against each other in a knife fight or BVR or whatever (the results of which may be affected by a variety of factors as said above), but rather the indisputable greater range and endurance of heavy weight fighters like flankers, which J-10 lacks.

Western observers don't have actual Chinese equipments for gauging reliability. This is not the case for Russian systems, and Russian products have time and again shown not to be as good as advertisements claimed.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. I can easily reply with how western observers don't have actual russian equipment for gauging reliability, or that they don't have recent russian equipment for gauging reliability of newer products.

And phrases like "time and again" is far too generalizing imho. What about all the times they do work? How does the actual failure rates compare to products from other nations? What kind of products are we talking about, electronics, ships, missiles, what? Are they possibly due to a common company, or are we assuming every piece of military equipment from the entire country is faulty like so?

Actually, the best counter argument remains that Su-35 is incompatible to Chinese logistic chain.

Click to expand...

The logistics argument can be somewhat countered on the basis that PLAAF already have a variety of russian weapons from previous purchases and have survived with a much more fragmented logistics complex in the past. Of course a few missiles does not make a logistics chain, and whether the PLAAF are willing to tolerate a regiment of black sheep in their fleet depends on their perceived cost versus benefit.

It isn't a potential limitation, but an actual one. Also, anything can be solvable given enough time, money and luck, but that doesn't make the solution realistic.

Click to expand...

It is a potential limitation depending on how flexible the Russians will be. Going by past experience it may be safe to say the Russians won't compromise on allowing the chiense to install their own datalinks in a secure way, but on the other hand business for Su-35 is slow and they may be willing to compromise.

Bltizo said:

Actually, we were comparing Chinese flankers versus Su-35 based on their electronics, kinematics, and weapons suite. if I remember correctly, logistics never came into it. It was a direct comparison regarding the different types of munitions Su-35 could carry versus munitions which chinese flankers are known to be capable of carrying.
But yes, obviously chinese flankers fit the PLA's logistics chain much better.

Click to expand...

Actually, we are comparing capabilities. Electronics, kinematics, and weapons are part of capabilities; so is compatibility to PLAAF logistic. It does not matter how many types of Russian munition Su-35 could carry, because the Su-35 is not capable of carrying Chinese munitions.

Bltizo said:

I'm not up to date as to which aircraft has won more competitions (that we know of), but I'll take your word for it.

Weight class is relevant and it makes a difference because the basis of my argument is not on which one can shoot the other out of the sky (which may be effected by pilot training, rules of engagement, and a host of inumerable other factors), but based on their endurance and range relevant to each other.

Click to expand...

You have just explained why your argument is irrelevant. When your argument is not about which aircraft can last until the end, then you are not fully accessing the capabilities of the fighters.

Also, please take note of the self contradictory nature of your position. On one hand, you are arguing that China would be willing to sacrifice the benefits of logistical compatibility. On the other, you are arguing that China would not be willing to sacrifice benefits of one aircraft type to have another aircraft type as substitute.

Bltizo said:

See above. Argument for heavy weight air superiority fighters isn't how well they perform against each other in a knife fight or BVR or whatever (the results of which may be affected by a variety of factors as said above), but rather the indisputable greater range and endurance of heavy weight fighters like flankers, which J-10 lacks.

Click to expand...

If range and endurance are all that matter, PLAAF would have gotten airliners. These can go halfway around the world without refueling, J-11 cannot.

Bltizo said:

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. I can easily reply with how western observers don't have actual russian equipment for gauging reliability, or that they don't have recent russian equipment for gauging reliability of newer products.

Click to expand...

This does not change the fact that Western observers are more informative on Russian equipments than Chinese equipments.

Bltizo said:

And phrases like "time and again" is far too generalizing imho. What about all the times they do work? How does the actual failure rates compare to products from other nations? What kind of products are we talking about, electronics, ships, missiles, what? Are they possibly due to a common company, or are we assuming every piece of military equipment from the entire country is faulty like so?

Click to expand...

While having actual numbers would be ideal, we do not need them. We only need to gauge the user responses.

Bltizo said:

The logistics argument can be somewhat countered on the basis that PLAAF already have a variety of russian weapons from previous purchases and have survived with a much more fragmented logistics complex in the past. Of course a few missiles does not make a logistics chain, and whether the PLAAF are willing to tolerate a regiment of black sheep in their fleet depends on their perceived cost versus benefit.

It is a potential limitation depending on how flexible the Russians will be. Going by past experience it may be safe to say the Russians won't compromise on allowing the chiense to install their own datalinks in a secure way, but on the other hand business for Su-35 is slow and they may be willing to compromise.

Click to expand...

As you have stated, China's logistic was more fragmented in the past. This means the trend is for things to get consolidated with Russian equipments being slowly phased out from China's inventory. Purchase of additional Russian equipments would go against that trend. In short, you have not countered any part of my argument on logistic. What you have said only reinforce my argument further.

wow, i'm surprised that this thread has been so active since my previous posts. and, of course, there are a variety of alternative opinions and observstions concerning the speculation. as i've already stated, i'm of the opinion that the su-35 is an ideal candidate for a joint chinese-russian production program similar to the model used for the indian-russian hal-fgfa (not pak-fa) program.

despite the, very real, technical incompatabilities that may exist, as in separate logistical chains, the bases of any cooperation would derive from the, also, very real, technical compatabilities that do exist, as in similar levels in quality of airframe construction and familiarity with flanker airframe production. if india and russia can overcome incompatabilities to cooperate on a more advanced program, given that india's aerospace and avionics industries are considerably less developed than those of china, then china and russia, surely, should be able to do so.

i can see numerous benefits that could evolve from such cooperation. the main one being that a substantial production could significantly increase the tactical capabilities of both the chinese and russian air forces during the interim in which the pak-fa and j-20 programs are coming to full maturity. additionally, once those programs have reached full maturity, the su-35 would provide a more capable "conventional" component in the conventional/stealth mix, a mix that i'd expect that most advanced air forces will maintain. personally, i think that usaf will come to regret its intended all stealth approach, fiscally, if not tactically.

the real questions, in my mind, are whether there exist the strategic vision and the political will to make such a program a reality. in the next generation, if it comes, i believe that the europeans will finally learn the lesson of economies of scale in relation to multi-role combat aircraft production. despite the many incompatabilities that existed, and may still exist, the integration proces that began with the sepecat jaguar will, most probably, come full circle. consequently, i doubt that we will see independent french and swedish programs going forward. it is probably wishful thinking, but i think it would be quite rational for the chinese and russians to learn this lesson as well.

well, that was a long two cents!

Engineer said:

Actually, we are comparing capabilities. Electronics, kinematics, and weapons are part of capabilities; so is compatibility to PLAAF logistic. It does not matter how many types of Russian munition Su-35 could carry, because the Su-35 is not capable of carrying Chinese munitions.

Click to expand...

The original argument stemmed from a rather gratuitous pissing contest of "which fighter is better" between Su-35 and chinese flankers. Not "which fighter is better in the context of PLAAF". If you want, we can reframe the comparison to "which fighter is better for country X if country X was assessing both on their own merits (in this case expansiveness of weapon suites)".

Su-35 can't carry Chinese munitions yes. Agreed.

You have just explained why your argument is irrelevant. When your argument is not about which aircraft can last until the end, then you are not fully accessing the capabilities of the fighters.

Click to expand...

If J-11B is conclusively or irrefutably inferior to a fighter of a different type (such as J-20, eventually) in many combat scenarios (including variables such as AEW support, different engagement profiles, different pilot training proficiency, realistic doctrine, weapon loadouts etc), and the PLAAF decided to purchase J-11B over J-20 because (let's just say) the former has a greater range, then yes I will agree with you, they are not fully accessing the capabilities of the fighters.

But between J-10 and J-11B, accounting for all the factors above, can you honestly say that you believe J-10 is irrefutably superior to J-11B?
Furthermore, if both are found to be similarly effective in many domains of air to air combat, or even if J-11B is slightly inferior, that does not change the fact that J-11B provides a definitive advantage in range and endurance under most loadouts. If the PLAAF considers that they lack enough fighters that have said range and endurance (which has been the basis of my argument the whole time), then choosing J-11B over J-10 is not an illogical choice.

Also, please take note of the self contradictory nature of your position. On one hand, you are arguing that China would be willing to sacrifice the benefits of logistical compatibility. On the other, you are arguing that China would not be willing to sacrifice benefits of one aircraft type to have another aircraft type as a substitute.

Click to expand...

That has been my point the whole time. That is the most realistic circumstance I can imagine where the PLAAF will be willing to purchase Su-35s, is if their need for heavy weight, long range air superiority fighters outweighs the negative effect of a more fragmented logistics base.

If J-10A can effectively substitute J-11B then by all means China would not need to sacrifice the benefits of a consolidated logistics chain. But J-10A lacks the range of J-11B, and PLAAF may not be able to tolerate the sacrifice of a regiment or more of long range fighters.

This does not change the fact that Western observers are more informative on Russian equipments than Chinese equipments.

Click to expand...

Possibly due to the fact that russian equipment have been proliferated far more than chinese equipment and thus allowed western observers to observe them at a greater frequency?

While having actual numbers would be ideal, we do not need them. We only need to gauge the user responses.

Click to expand...

But whose other equipment are we comparing them to? Western? Chinese? If fail rates or negative user responses have a similar percentage for similar types of equipment, or differ, then a statement regarding the unreliable nature of russian equipment could be somewhat justified.

As you have stated, China's logistic was more fragmented in the past. This means the trend is for things to get consolidated with Russian equipments being slowly phased out from China's inventory. Purchase of additional Russian equipments would go against that trend. In short, you have not countered any part of my argument on logistic. What you have said only reinforce my argument further.

Click to expand...

I'm saying they can cope with fragmented logistics chain if they deem it necessary. Sure they would like to consolidate it and make their air force completely self reliant with as few types as practically possible, but they would also like to maintain a quantitative requirement for each type. Whether they're willing to compromise on one is beyond our knowledge, I think.

I suppose the key phrase in my argument is "if they deem it necessary", or whether costs outweigh benefits.



I think it's been a nice discussion, and clearly our opinions differ, but if you are going to respond with that below, I think we should just agree to disagree.

If range and endurance are all that matter, PLAAF would have gotten airliners. These can go halfway around the world without refueling, J-11 cannot.

Click to expand...

Lion said:

Its not that nobody ask for intergration of the said missile but rather russian refuse such move. the israel elta radar combo with AIM-120 will be highly desirable for a mig-29.

as for example of your so called intergration. There is no example. Until Astra missile is still in development and let alone operational. I never knew Russia mention Su-35 will be so open with many foreign parts for intergration. Where did you heard from?

Click to expand...

Actually , is a bit other way around . Americans would not supply AIM-120 to just anybody , especially to countries which purchase Mig-29s . I don't know a single country that requested AIM-120 integration on Mig-29 . As for Israeli radars , I don't think they offer any solution for Mig-29 . They had upgrade programs for Mig-21 ( LanceR for Romania , with EL/M-2032 ) .

As for Astra , it is not fully operational , but it was tested (fired) from Su-30 MKI and it is being integrated on Mig-29 (UPG version )and Tejas . Su-35 is being marketed as an open-architecture plane , there is no doubt that Sukhoi learned a lot from MKI development , so they could offer potential buyer a lot of options if they request so . BTW , there are rumors that Chinese Su-30 MKK and MK2 already use some Chinese weapons like anti-ship missiles .

Bltizo said:

The original argument stemmed from a rather gratuitous pissing contest of "which fighter is better" between Su-35 and chinese flankers. Not "which fighter is better in the context of PLAAF". If you want, we can reframe the comparison to "which fighter is better for country X if country X was assessing both on their own merits (in this case expansiveness of weapon suites)".

Su-35 can't carry Chinese munitions yes. Agreed.

Click to expand...

The arguments in this thread have always been conducted with the context of which fighter is better for PLAAF. To illustrate, you wouldn't have argue for why PLAAF should go for Su-35 otherwise.

Bltizo said:

If J-11B is conclusively or irrefutably inferior to a fighter of a different type (such as J-20, eventually) in many combat scenarios (including variables such as AEW support, different engagement profiles, different pilot training proficiency, realistic doctrine, weapon loadouts etc), and the PLAAF decided to purchase J-11B over J-20 because (let's just say) the former has a greater range, then yes I will agree with you, they are not fully accessing the capabilities of the fighters.

But between J-10 and J-11B, accounting for all the factors above, can you honestly say that you believe J-10 is irrefutably superior to J-11B?
Furthermore, if both are found to be similarly effective in many domains of air to air combat, or even if J-11B is slightly inferior, that does not change the fact that J-11B provides a definitive advantage in range and endurance under most loadouts. If the PLAAF considers that they lack enough fighters that have said range and endurance (which has been the basis of my argument the whole time), then choosing J-11B over J-10 is not an illogical choice.

That has been my point the whole time. That is the most realistic circumstance I can imagine where the PLAAF will be willing to purchase Su-35s, is if their need for heavy weight, long range air superiority fighters outweighs the negative effect of a more fragmented logistics base.

If J-10A can effectively substitute J-11B then by all means China would not need to sacrifice the benefits of a consolidated logistics chain. But J-10A lacks the range of J-11B, and PLAAF may not be able to tolerate the sacrifice of a regiment or more of long range fighters.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is your point the whole time hence your argument is self-contradictory. Your argument essentially boils down to "PLAAF will not tolerate sacrifices but will tolerate sacrifices."

Going by your first assumption that PLAAF would not tolerate sacrifices, it means PLAAF would not be willing to go for Su-35. Going by your second assumption that PLAAF would tolerate sacrifices, it means PLAAF would be willing to use J-10 to substitute J-11B.

Bltizo said:

Possibly due to the fact that russian equipment have been proliferated far more than chinese equipment and thus allowed western observers to observe them at a greater frequency?



But whose other equipment are we comparing them to? Western? Chinese? If fail rates or negative user responses have a similar percentage for similar types of equipment, or differ, then a statement regarding the unreliable nature of russian equipment could be somewhat justified.

Click to expand...

Does not matter. The basic fact remains Russian equipments do not always live up what was advertised, with Su-30MKI containing several examples.

Bltizo said:

I'm saying they can cope with fragmented logistics chain if they deem it necessary. Sure they would like to consolidate it and make their air force completely self reliant with as few types as practically possible, but they would also like to maintain a quantitative requirement for each type. Whether they're willing to compromise on one is beyond our knowledge, I think.

I suppose the key phrase in my argument is "if they deem it necessary", or whether costs outweigh benefits.



I think it's been a nice discussion, and clearly our opinions differ, but if you are going to respond with that below, I think we should just agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Clearly, your position is that it is necessary to sacrifice logistic compatibility, but your arguments are full of holes. For an example, see my comment regarding the self-contradictory nature of your position.

Engineer said:

The arguments in this thread have always been conducted with the context of which fighter is better for PLAAF. To illustrate, you wouldn't have argue for why PLAAF should go for Su-35 otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sigh if we're going to discuss context, I think we should go back to how this entire "weapon suite" debacle started. It went back to sinosoldier where we were comparing Su-35 and J-11B/15/16 and franco saying Su-35 was better than anything in the PLAAF inventory (or something of that sort, I cbb digging up the exact reply).

In the discussion with sinosoldier following, there was very little mention regarding logistics and PLAAF context in relation to Su-35 vs J-11B/15/16 and I interpreted it as a mono on mono style comparison of specs against each other.


I've already conceded J-11B/15/16 makes more sense for the PLAAF's logistics, and their current weapons suites are more compatible/superior for the PLAAF logistics chain to handle.
But if you're still going to ignore the original statement regarding how Su-35 offers/is compatible with a greater number/variety/type of munitions than what J-11B/15/16 are currently known to be compatible with (independent of logistics contexts)... well okay whatever.

Yes, that is your point the whole time hence your argument is self-contradictory. Your argument essentially boils down to "PLAAF will not tolerate sacrifices but will tolerate sacrifices."

Going by your first assumption that PLAAF would not tolerate sacrifices, it means PLAAF would not be willing to go for Su-35. Going by your second assumption that PLAAF would tolerate sacrifices, it means PLAAF would be willing to use J-10 to substitute J-11B.

Click to expand...

That is a dumbing down of my position. I'm pretty sure there's some fancy term for what type of fallacy that is, but it escapes me.

My argument, if you want it phrased in terms of "sacrifices" is that the PLAAF may be willing to sacrifice one factor or factors (for instance, logistics, or using shorter ranged J-10s in place of J-11Bs) but may not be willing to sacrifice a different factor (lacking long range heavy weight air superiority fighters).
Whatever choice they end up making depends on the severity of each sacrifice's relationship to another and how it fits with the PLAAF's requirements over a certain timeline.

One thing is always compromised/sacrificed for another, and that depends on the specs or requirements a party aims for. So my statement is not self contradictory.

Does not matter. The basic fact remains Russian equipments do not always live up what was advertised, with Su-30MKI containing several examples.

Click to expand...

That is such a blatant generalization, and can be applied to any country or any brand or group. And it does not control for various factors such as the buyer nation/party's specific conditions such as climate, maintenance proficiency etc.

Clearly, your position is that it is necessary to sacrifice logistic compatibility, but your arguments are full of holes. For an example, see my comment regarding the self-contradictory nature of your position.

Click to expand...

My position isn't that it is "necessary" to sacrifice logistics compatibility, but rather it may be one of the factors the PLAAF are willing to sacrifice, in exchange for retaining a necessary number of long range air superiority fighters (which they may not be willing to sacrifice).
Whether they are willing to sacrifice one for another, as I said before, depends on the PLAAF's own requirements and the degree of the sacrifice.

So my argument isn't full of holes, because it's not "oh they're willing to make sacrifices but they're not willing at the same time" its "they may be willing to make sacrifices in these areas but not these areas, because of X, Y and Z requirements". If the PLAAF do an assessment and prioritize logistical consolidation as a greater necessity than maintaining their long range air superiority fighter numbers, then a Su-35 purchase wont' go ahead.