Chinese purchase of Su-35

Brumby

Major
I'm not sure about that -- I think there is a case to be made that the narrative has arisen due to the indicators rather than individuals seeking to put indicators into a specific narrative... putting it another way, the narrative may not have emerged if these indicators did not exist.

I am basically going by your comments. For example, this is what you said :

that it has been a long time since China has required ToT of Russian avionics or other similar systems.

There could be a number of reasons for non engagement in ToT's, for examples :
(i) Reluctance by Russia subsequent to the Flanker debacle;
(ii) Alternate avenue like through Cyber theft; and or
(iii) Different development paths and emphasis

At best It could be argued that the Chinese had attained a sufficiency level that is not dependent on Tot. It is an overstretch to say they are ahead because of lack of demand on Tot. Such a position requires burden of proof and not brute reasoning.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am basically going by your comments. For example, this is what you said :



There could be a number of reasons for non engagement in ToT's, for examples :
(i) Reluctance by Russia subsequent to the Flanker debacle;
(ii) Alternate avenue like through Cyber theft; and or
(iii) Different development paths and emphasis

At best It could be argued that the Chinese had attained a sufficiency level that is not dependent on Tot. It is an overstretch to say they are ahead because of lack of demand on Tot. Such a position requires burden of proof and not brute reasoning.

Sorry, it appears that in that specific post I had forgotten to write an additional major premise in the point: instead of only saying "However it is not a point of conjecture that it has been a long time since China has required ToT of Russian avionics or other similar systems."
... I was meaning to also add "However it is not a point of conjecture that it has been a long time since China has required ToT of Russian avionics or other similar systems, nor is it a point of conjecture that China has developed a range of indigenous avionics and sensor products of seemingly high complexity, and China's advancement in the manufacturing electronic components relevant in many sensors and avionics such as semiconductors"

In terms of indigenous systems, I was referring to the vast quantity of indigenous products they have developed which range from AEW&C to EW aircraft, to APARs and other subsystems such as for ships etc. Lack of ToT is only one of the more minor premises for my position, the bigger premise is more about the variety of new assets that have been produced.
As for manufacturing, like Zool said, indicators such as the rise of China's semiconductor producing industry (which is well documented), and also certain institutes which may have pretty detailed information on a variety of relevant products (like I posted in the radar thread a few days back), as well as occasional academic studies on these matters which might pop up now and then (and one can even search them via open sources if one is interested).

Of course, it is also possible that one can say that we cannot prove the development of those new AEW&C and radars and EW planes are "fully indigenous" or that we do not really know "how capable" they really are -- which are all of course valid arguments to make.
One can also make the case that being able to produce MMICs or other electrical components may not mean it has direct bearing on military applications, and also that the few studies we have seen may not actually directly translate into actual true capability.

That is all true, and they are all arguments which I myself have considered as well... however I do think all the above mentioned indicators are enough to suggest that "the narrative" has arisen due to those datapoints rather than vice versa, even if the datapoints themselves are not absolutely indisputable and irrefutable evidence which prove the narrative.
 

b787

Captain
As an example if you do some research on the topic (SMIC is a good place to start) you will find that while China has a very large Fab industry for producing electronic components and microprocessors of foreign design, it is also designing it's own processors and building it's own Fabs at a pace of sophistication that will rival IBM and Intel next decade.

Russia has absolutely nothing on the scale of technological advancement that China does in this area, and Chinese R&D grows significantly year on year. Now this isn't to knock Russia; China has reached this point as a result of it's place in the world economy, through it's sheer size and strong investment in education and research. But one cannot deny the contrast between each countries development here.
.
I want to ask you, seems you are making statements, can you tell me the name of what Russian companies are related to the electronic industries? and what they do?

I think the best way to prove a point is to prove you know the Russian electronic industry from A to Z rather than claiming things.

Can you tell me what companies in Russia are making T/R modules for AESA radars?

Can you tell me what company is making the T/R module for the AAM R-77M AESA radar?

Look at the pictures it might give you some clues
aA6sOgB.jpg

XRhPLPa.jpg
 
Last edited:

b787

Captain
Even if disagree that China is ahead in avionics, I can assure you that it has been a long time since China saw need to get ToT from Russia for avionics. That's a fact. Please refer to the original post i was responding to.

I will say this about Irbis, China did some testing on this back in around 2008 with it according to JDW. They liked it, but it was never to the point where they saw the need to just upgrade their J-11 fleet with it or rush into a purchase of Su-35.

As for whether or not China will get Tot for 117S, I really doubt it. They were very close to get it for AL-31F, but settled with getting probably the most complete MRO facility for it outside of Russia. Knowing that and the number of 117S that they need, it probably doesn't make sense. I think getting some 117S for J-20 and other Chinese flankers will probably happen. It's possible that Russia would not allow China to put 117S on their own fighter jet unless they purchased Su-35. But that's something a person with my knowledge would not know.

In the end as I said, PLAAF saw Su-35 as something that gave good performance boost to their fleet of flankers while J-20 achieves full combat potential. That's why they pulled the trigger.
I agree with you, but here i have to add the avionics thing is very subjective, because avionics are only tested at war, not at airshows, to put you an example the F-15 has AESA radars, the Su-35 a PESA, only in combat you can know which system is better, AESA and PESA radars use the same principles Phased array steering and use the same type of waves (electromagnetic waves) and the only advantage of the AESA is its flexibility, but in every other way are the same type of machine using the same type of principles.

Will stealth work? who knows perhaps it will, but if the current modern radars overcome stealth well agility, and speed will count and in that you will need to think what is better a Su-35 or a F-35, because only at combat we will know which system is better, otherwise we are just following advertisment by Sukhoi, Lockheed or Almaz Antey
 
Last edited:

Inst

Captain
Chinese GaAs AESA has an advertised range vs 0 dBsm of 420 km, Irbis-E has a converted range of 300 km vs 0 dBsm (400 vs 3m^2, or 300 vs 1m^2). Basically, AESA compared to PESA has better energy efficiency; for the same 20 kW energy input of the Irbis-E a corresponding AESA would be able to achieve greater ranges.

And for that matter, stealth works well against X-band radar, there is a reason the Russians themselves are moving towards stealth in the PAK-FA development. There are countermeasures to stealth, but when you consider that modern composite fighters all cost around 100 million anyways, you're better off using a 80 million F-35 than a 100 million Eurofighter.

I mentioned on CDF the main advantage of the Su-35s will be its extended range, it boasts a 3600 km flight range, compared to 3000 km range on Su-30s with the same strike package. That, and its TVC, is the main advantage of the Su-35, although the J-11s will have A2A ranges comparable. The J-11s, however, can only carry a 4000 kg payload, while the Su-35s can carry a 8000 kg payload like the Su-30s.
 

Zool

Junior Member
I want to ask you, seems you are making statements, can you tell me the name of what Russian companies are related to the electronic industries? and what they do?

I think the best way to prove a point is to prove you know the Russian electronic industry from A to Z rather than claiming things.

Can you tell me what companies in Russia are making T/R modules for AESA radars?

Can you tell me what company is making the T/R module for the AAM R-77M AESA radar?

Look at the pictures it might give you some clues

From your reply I can only assume you believe Russia is ahead of China in this area, and you would be full stop wrong. That's not an opinion I have, it's where the industries stand on scale and technology today. That gap will only widen based on the investments China is making in these areas, bringing China into competition with the Western majors and those from South Korea & Taiwan. It's already happening in the handheld space.

I think you need to read my post again, do some research and come back to me on this in a PM if you still feel the need (so we don't take the thread further off-topic). I'll further help you by suggesting you compare China's foundries to Mikron & MCST, Russia's largest companies in the field which you strangely did not mention (know?) in your reply. This is all open source and widely available information.

Bringing it back to Su-35, while a good 4th Generation Fighter, in this case, and to borrow from your usual reply to people, no I "do not understand" China's interest in the aircraft, all things considered.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I believe China has reach parity if not surpassed Russia in terms or packing T/R modules or minimizing T/R modules in AESA arrays. While there are multiple other factors involved, that would be one the biggest one in terms of effectiveness and quality.
I do not believe China has reach parity with the likes of Thales, Raytheon etc.
As with any AESA radar, cooling is also key .. the tighter and smaller it's packed the hotter it gets and like everything electronic heat is the biggest enemy. I do not know about advancement in radar cooling in planes but that goes hand in hand with building better AESA panels.
You cannot talk about AESA or even PESA w/o addressing their cooling. It's a vital component especially on fighter planes. That is almost as challenging as the AESA themselves.
 

Ali Qizilbash

Junior Member
Registered Member
I want to ask you, seems you are making statements, can you tell me the name of what Russian companies are related to the electronic industries? and what they do?

I think the best way to prove a point is to prove you know the Russian electronic industry from A to Z rather than claiming things.

Can you tell me what companies in Russia are making T/R modules for AESA radars?

Can you tell me what company is making the T/R module for the AAM R-77M AESA radar?

Look at the pictures it might give you some clues
aA6sOgB.jpg

Dear b787,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


You would find this reading useful. Its more in financial terms but gives broad idea of where Chinese are and where they are heading. All figures verified by PwC, not just word of mouth or google or Wikipedia.

This is basically China Vs rest of the world. Russia and China are no competitors in Electronics and related equipment. China is simply way ahead of Russia, albeit Russians may hold some niches for the time being.
 

Brumby

Major
The view of China being ahead of Russia in avionics, in general terms, is based on it's current domestic Tech Industry, related R&D and yearly Patent Papers, combined with what we see being fielded in the form of military systems present and near future.

As an example if you do some research on the topic (SMIC is a good place to start) you will find that while China has a very large Fab industry for producing electronic components and microprocessors of foreign design, it is also designing it's own processors and building it's own Fabs at a pace of sophistication that will rival IBM and Intel next decade.

Russia has absolutely nothing on the scale of technological advancement that China does in this area, and Chinese R&D grows significantly year on year. Now this isn't to knock Russia; China has reached this point as a result of it's place in the world economy, through it's sheer size and strong investment in education and research. But one cannot deny the contrast between each countries development here.
I have highlighted your opening statement in bold and my read of your comments essentially is found within that statement. Whilst I do not disagree that China in general terms may have progress ahead in avionics due to R&D, industry investment and overall export portfolio, such a reasoning then requires a leap in conclusion that the avionics within the SU-35 is also reflective of that same state in comparison. More problematic however is the overall premise that the whole weighting of the SU-35 as an interest to China is predicated upon avionics. If the conversation is about the general state of avionics development then I do not have a problem with the reasoning but not as a specific conclusion on the SU-35 by inference.

It should be noted that while the Irbis E is PESA, the SU-35 has already an inbuilt digital path for AESA.

On Su-35 purchase I really do not have an insight as to why China would want the aircraft (and it is a very good 4th Gen Fighter) based on where they are with their own domestic programs. All of the plausible reasons have already been discussed and for myself, I would lean towards the combination of: Good price and deal that will allow future purchase of additional 117S class engines to also outfit China's indigenous Flankers, while dedicating WS-15 production strictly for the J-20 program until the initial manufacturing line is fully operational and new lines are built to support China's wider fleet of aircraft.

But then where would that scenario leave WS-10? Perhaps the updated variant would be used to outfit J-10C and equip a block upgrade for the the A/B's? Who knows.

Your guess is as good as mine although I am leaning towards the 117S (via the SU-35) being a stop gap until the WS-15 becomes available for the J-20.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I agree with you, but here i have to add the avionics thing is very subjective, because avionics are only tested at war, not at airshows, to put you an example the F-15 has AESA radars, the Su-35 a PESA, only in combat you can know which system is better, AESA and PESA radars use the same principles Phased array steering and use the same type of waves (electromagnetic waves) and the only advantage of the AESA is its flexibility, but in every other way are the same type of machine using the same type of principles.

Will stealth work? who knows perhaps it will, but if the current modern radars overcome stealth well agility, and speed will count and in that you will need to think what is better a Su-35 or a F-35, because only at combat we will know which system is better, otherwise we are just following advertisment by Sukhoi, Lockheed or Almaz Antey
That's why we have war games and exercises. Militaries aren't stupid.
 
Top