Chinese purchase of Su-35

plawolf said:

I would advise a little caution in reading too much into this first excerise involving the Su35.

After all, as I recall, the J11Bs also fared poorly in their first wargames, and it was not until later games, after their pilots became more familiar with the avionics and capacities of the new plane and systems did they start winning golden helmets.

As such, I think it prudent to wait for at least one or two more exercises before drawing firm conclusions about the capabilities of the Su35.

Click to expand...

The pilots using them would likely be ones with experience with the J11B or J16, so they’re well attuned to some of the best flanker variants out there already, they would be able to push the Su35 to the very limits of it’s performance.

I think it’s more of an issue with avionics, airframe material and armament. That said, China doesn’t need to upgrade them either, if they’re supposed to work as OPFOR stand ins.

Biscuits said:

The pilots using them would likely be ones with experience with the J11B or J16, so they’re well attuned to some of the best flanker variants out there already, they would be able to push the Su35 to the very limits of it’s performance.

I think it’s more of an issue with avionics, airframe material and armament. That said, China doesn’t need to upgrade them either, if they’re supposed to work as OPFOR stand ins.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the Su-35s have the Ibris-E PESA radar. Which have much greater performance and functions differently than any existing radar to be found on the J11s until the J-11D with the AESA radar is put into service, whereas the J-16's AESA radar's range is yet to be disclosed.
And there is the matter of the engines, the Saturn Al-41FS have much greater thrust than the Sino Flankers and with TVC. Which is a luxury not to be had until now for Sino Flanker pilots.

But in the end, the J-11 has the advantage of being able to be developed much further compared to the Su-35. The PLAAF is unlikely to devote much resources to a foreign plane to which they have no established research of.

If the Russians really wanted to improve the Su-35s avionics to a level of that of the J-16/11D. They should just take the Zuk AE radar on the Mig-35 and equip it on the Su-35, even if it is a interm measure. The decrease of radar range can be offset by the advantages of the new radar.

Viktor Jav said:

Not necessarily, the Su-35s have the Ibris-E PESA radar. Which have much greater performance and functions differently than any existing radar to be found on the J11s until the J-11D with the AESA radar is put into service, whereas the J-16's AESA radar's range is yet to be disclosed.
And there is the matter of the engines, the Saturn Al-41FS have much greater thrust than the Sino Flankers and with TVC. Which is a luxury not to be had until now for Sino Flanker pilots.

But in the end, the J-11 has the advantage of being able to be developed much further compared to the Su-35. The PLAAF is unlikely to devote much resources to a foreign plane to which they have no established research of.

Click to expand...

The biggest strength of the Su-35 is the AL-41F1S with TVC integration. It is suited for long-ranged missions as well. Not sure whether supercruise plays a role here. It is the most agile fighter in the PLAAF, but when it comes to avionics, it is completely different story. Rumor-wise, there isn't much positive news about it when compared to the J-16 and J-10C (avionics wise).

Viktor Jav said:

They should just take the Zuk AE radar on the Mig-35 and equip it on the Su-35, even if it is a interm measure. The decrease of radar range can be offset by the advantages of the new radar.

Click to expand...

For the sake of magical letters AESA?

Hyperwarp said:

The biggest strength of the Su-35 is the AL-41F1S with TVC integration. It is suited for long-ranged missions as well. Not sure whether supercruise plays a role here. It is the most agile fighter in the PLAAF, but when it comes to avionics, it is completely different story. Rumor-wise, there isn't much positive news about it when compared to the J-16 and J-10C (avionics wise).

Click to expand...

To honest, I am still not completely sold on the radar issue, the Ibris-E has the stated range of 400km, whereas the closest AESA that is comparable to the one found on the J-10C would be the APG-81, which has a stated range of 150km. Without a doubt the AESA has the advantage in tracking and resolution and jam resistant. But when both planes are non-stealth and supported by equal levels of EW teams, the extra range of the IBRIS can surely help track the J-10C (which can be described as a non-stealth F-35). I can't comment on the J-16 because I can't find any comparable AESA radar of the same year and make.

Gloire_bb said:

For the sake of magical letters AESA?

Click to expand...

For the sake of better jam resistance, target tracking and resolution. I thought this was talked to death already ?
The Ibris-E can still suffice if the opponents are 4th gen fighters, but with nations around the world gradually procuring 5th gen fighters or 4th gen with 5th gen derived avionics. The Russians will need to find ways to keep its Su-35 fleet up to date and relevant.

Biscuits said:

The pilots using them would likely be ones with experience with the J11B or J16, so they’re well attuned to some of the best flanker variants out there already, they would be able to push the Su35 to the very limits of it’s performance.

I think it’s more of an issue with avionics, airframe material and armament. That said, China doesn’t need to upgrade them either, if they’re supposed to work as OPFOR stand ins.

Click to expand...

The pilots would be very familiar with the Flanker airframe, so that’s a big factor in how they were able to become combat ready so quickly.

However, avionics wise, the Su35 would be a very different beast compared to the advanced Sino-Flankers they are used to, with probably an entirely different philosophy and approach to air combat driving the different hardware and and software design choices.

The before mentioned Soviet/Russian preference for tight beam scanned would be an example of where different doctrine might have resulted in different design priorities.

If the Chinese pilots were flying and using the Su35 the same as they used Sino-Flankers, then there is a chance they are not getting the best out of those Su35s.

The real challenge for the PLAAF Su35 pilots would be to forget much of what they learnt flying Sino Flankers, and instead fly the Su35 as the Russians designed them to be flown and used.

Only then would we get a true assessment of how well the Su35 stacks up.

True, the different radar would also be a point of struggle for the pilots. Many of the pilots might not even be old enough to have flown with PLAAF’s PESA aircraft.

Look forward to seeing more publicized exercise results. The acquisition provides a veritable goldmine of information. It would be cool to see it would do against J20 for example.

plawolf said:

The pilots would be very familiar with the Flanker airframe, so that’s a big factor in how they were able to become combat ready so quickly.

However, avionics wise, the Su35 would be a very different beast compared to the advanced Sino-Flankers they are used to, with probably an entirely different philosophy and approach to air combat driving the different hardware and and software design choices.

The before mentioned Soviet/Russian preference for tight beam scanned would be an example of where different doctrine might have resulted in different design priorities.

If the Chinese pilots were flying and using the Su35 the same as they used Sino-Flankers, then there is a chance they are not getting the best out of those Su35s.

The real challenge for the PLAAF Su35 pilots would be to forget much of what they learnt flying Sino Flankers, and instead fly the Su35 as the Russians designed them to be flown and used.

Only then would we get a true assessment of how well the Su35 stacks up.

Click to expand...

He's absolutely correct here Gentlemen, and Wolfie, you have authored the SDF "Post of the Day!", an honest and straightforward analysis sir, with absolute integrity and totally without any bias! well done sir, and I agree with every word.....