Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
BackmanThat pic is suspect. It doesn't look that much smaller on the blueprints
+54
Eugenio Argentina
Arrow
T-47
lancelot
miroslav
mack8
Tsavo Lion
limb
Scorpius
Podlodka77
Belisarius
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
diabetus
sepheronx
andalusia
magnumcromagnon
Krepost
walle83
Arkanghelsk
Shadåw
Bob Bollusc
George1
marcellogo
JohninMK
Isos
Finty
Gomig-21
Daniel_Admassu
hoom
franco
Hole
LMFS
mnztr
calripson
Atmosphere
lyle6
kvs
joker88
Cyberspec
TMA1
Backman
medo
flamming_python
Broski
william.boutros
Cheetah
Russian_Patriot_
owais.usmani
GarryB
ALAMO
AMCXXL
Mir
miketheterrible
PapaDragon
58 posters
Su-35S: News #2
Backman- Posts : 2709
Points : 2723
Join date : 2020-11-11
Backman- Posts : 2709
Points : 2723
Join date : 2020-11-11
Pretty much all Americans shill this idea that Chinese Flankers are the best. Even the Millennium 7 YouTube guy couldn't help himself.
And some unfriendly Chinese shills say the same thing. (not Rupprecht)
Best Flanker. With that cumbersome analog air brake?
And some unfriendly Chinese shills say the same thing. (not Rupprecht)
Best Flanker. With that cumbersome analog air brake?
Last edited by Backman on Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Broski- Posts : 772
Points : 770
Join date : 2021-07-12
It's a simple (yet effective) tactic Pro-NATO trolls use to denigrate Russian weapons systems, everything that's Russian is shit until either China (Sukhoi Flankers) or the Ukraine (T series tanks) get their hands on them, then it suddenly becomes the best thing ever.Pretty much all Americans shill this idea that Chinese Flankers are the best. Even the Millennium 7 YouTube guy couldn't help himself.
And some unfriendly Chinese shill the same thing.
sepheronx, GarryB, Big_Gazza, Gomig-21, LMFS, Hole, Backman and like this post
TMA1- Posts : 1194
Points : 1192
Join date : 2020-11-30
The J-16 is a particular fascination for me. Note the wing tip pods for jamming. Also the amount of antennas on them.
But nah the su-35 and latest Chinese flankers are peers and do different things for different missions. The passive phased array on su-35 I bet is more powerful and dangerous than the j-16 aesa based on what I heard about concerning the rumored max and median power output. Still thr aesa on the J-16 is very good and I bet is near to the byelka.
But nah the su-35 and latest Chinese flankers are peers and do different things for different missions. The passive phased array on su-35 I bet is more powerful and dangerous than the j-16 aesa based on what I heard about concerning the rumored max and median power output. Still thr aesa on the J-16 is very good and I bet is near to the byelka.
sepheronx dislikes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
If Chinese Flankers are better than Russian Flankers why did China buy Su-35s and why are Russia continuing to buy more Su-35s.
Note the Su-35s Russia sells to other countries are not the same as the Flankers the Russian AF gets.
Giving their biased opinion is to be expected but we know they don't actually know... it is just based on their low opinion of Russian stuff.
It is like claims that the US based Hind attack helicopters were the best maintained Hinds in the world, because obviously Americans look after their stuff and Russians neglect their stuff.
Except that US stuff is fragile and stops working if you don't cover it in cotton wool, while Russian gear can be left out in the cold... build a fire underneath it to defrost it and then start her up...
Note the Su-35s Russia sells to other countries are not the same as the Flankers the Russian AF gets.
Giving their biased opinion is to be expected but we know they don't actually know... it is just based on their low opinion of Russian stuff.
It is like claims that the US based Hind attack helicopters were the best maintained Hinds in the world, because obviously Americans look after their stuff and Russians neglect their stuff.
Except that US stuff is fragile and stops working if you don't cover it in cotton wool, while Russian gear can be left out in the cold... build a fire underneath it to defrost it and then start her up...
sepheronx, Big_Gazza, Hole, Broski and Belisarius like this post
sepheronx- Posts : 8848
Points : 9108
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
The J-16 is a particular fascination for me. Note the wing tip pods for jamming. Also the amount of antennas on them.
But nah the su-35 and latest Chinese flankers are peers and do different things for different missions. The passive phased array on su-35 I bet is more powerful and dangerous than the j-16 aesa based on what I heard about concerning the rumored max and median power output. Still thr aesa on the J-16 is very good and I bet is near to the byelka.
N036 is a AESA variant of the N035 Hybrid Radar that is the Irbis-E.
Output is the same in terms of overall power and the N036 is 400km max detection range for 3M^2 targets, which is exactly the N035 detection range. This is entirely to the provided upwards to 20KW of power to the radar.
Just because the supposed Chinese radar is "AESA" there are tons of questions.
What kind of T/R Modules does it use? How many are there? how much power is provided to the radar that these T/R modules can use? What is its cooling structure (the real reason why Russia didn't go gung ho on AESA radar since reliability was less and heat output was high)? What are its T/R modules failure rates (average was 10% in the past. That is with less modules running at same time).
The Chinese flanker may be good. But one, to get an idea, is to look at other jets available in other nations and their Chinese jets and radar systems to get a better idea - JF-17 for example. Detection range is rather not very high at all and radar size is that of a MiG-29's (roughly) to which the PESA of the MiG-29's of later models had about better detection range.
Not knocking on the Chinese jets but there is a general trait that people think that a certain type of tech that is heavily advertised must = better. But the question that is rarely asked is:
- Reliability?
- Necessary?
- Cost vs Benefit?
US has decided to go the route of AESA hard and while I dont necessarily think it is fantastic by any means, they at least mitigated a lot of the failure of the T/R modules with a ton of T/R modules forced into the radar, and with years of a bit of better development in cooling, they have done to AESA what Russia has done with PESA. China just did a bit of both by trying to buy one and copy the other. Then you have to think about all the little other things like the engines and power output to the electronics? What about things like AESA L Band modules for the 360 view? Su-35 has that, does the J-16?
GarryB, Gomig-21, Hole, Broski and Belisarius like this post
TMA1- Posts : 1194
Points : 1192
Join date : 2020-11-30
I agree that a lot of nonsense is said concerning passive and active array radars because the science behind it is complex and often people assume it is more powerful and sophisticated when really a good passive array with great software can do almost everything active array radars do including LPI search and others.
I guess I was wrong about byelka's median and max power output and how it translates to detecting targets. I think the chinese have really advanced over the past decade, but also have some concerns myself. For example often people assume there is a massive gap in active array radar tech between Russia and China. If this was the case though, why was it that up till 2015 China was in talks to work with Russia on the J-20's aesa radar? And again if you look into thr specifications for uncooked aesa radars for smaller fighters the examples of Russian firms match exactly some displayed by Chinese companies.
All this nonsense usually comes from NI tier western defense articles. Some so embarrassing I've seen them quote quora posts ffs.
I guess I was wrong about byelka's median and max power output and how it translates to detecting targets. I think the chinese have really advanced over the past decade, but also have some concerns myself. For example often people assume there is a massive gap in active array radar tech between Russia and China. If this was the case though, why was it that up till 2015 China was in talks to work with Russia on the J-20's aesa radar? And again if you look into thr specifications for uncooked aesa radars for smaller fighters the examples of Russian firms match exactly some displayed by Chinese companies.
All this nonsense usually comes from NI tier western defense articles. Some so embarrassing I've seen them quote quora posts ffs.
GarryB and Belisarius like this post
marcellogo- Posts : 680
Points : 686
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
USA went to AESA because of the infatuation with stealth that ended up with failures like the F-117, B-2 and the same F-22.
Result was that they skipped altogether any further advancement in Pesa and conventional radars in favor of an overly complicated and at the time still not ready technology
In the end it came out that the differences between an advanced Hybrid PESA and a mature AESA radar are minimal and in some cases even favoring the former over the latter.
It was found that losses in performances due the side lobe reflection in Pesa radars are more than compensated by the larger power a separated radio wave generator allow due to better refrigeration and so on.
In the end it was found that AESA compared to hybrid PESA give practical advantages only to full fledged 5 gen planes.
Result was that they skipped altogether any further advancement in Pesa and conventional radars in favor of an overly complicated and at the time still not ready technology
In the end it came out that the differences between an advanced Hybrid PESA and a mature AESA radar are minimal and in some cases even favoring the former over the latter.
It was found that losses in performances due the side lobe reflection in Pesa radars are more than compensated by the larger power a separated radio wave generator allow due to better refrigeration and so on.
In the end it was found that AESA compared to hybrid PESA give practical advantages only to full fledged 5 gen planes.
sepheronx, GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Sounds a bit like air independent power systems for subs where the western "experts" claimed AIP was everything and a sub without it would be sunk and useless, but the western country with the most experience with AIP subs is Japan and they found that AIP systems they were using did not create a strong current that could power the subs systems and allow normal operations while at the same time charging the batteries so instead of going near the surface and running diesel engines for a few hours in snorkel mode charging up the batteries they would operate at very low speed with most non essential systems turned off and charge the batteries for days which isn't so great.
They finally decided after testing their AIP equipped sub that it actually made more sense to get rid of the AIP system and its oxygen and hydrogen tanks and to just carry a lot more lithium ion batteries which improved the amount of time the sub could operate in silent mode.
Equally when the Soviets introduced the T-62 with a smoothbore main gun everyone said it would be terribly inaccurate... ignoring the fact that an APFSDS round uses a sabot and does not engage the rifling so is not spinning when it leaves the barrel and the round is fin stabilised in rifled and smoothbore guns.
Most if the criticism is because of arrogance... we do it the right way so if you do it differently then it must be because you don't have the technology or skills to do it our way.
They finally decided after testing their AIP equipped sub that it actually made more sense to get rid of the AIP system and its oxygen and hydrogen tanks and to just carry a lot more lithium ion batteries which improved the amount of time the sub could operate in silent mode.
Equally when the Soviets introduced the T-62 with a smoothbore main gun everyone said it would be terribly inaccurate... ignoring the fact that an APFSDS round uses a sabot and does not engage the rifling so is not spinning when it leaves the barrel and the round is fin stabilised in rifled and smoothbore guns.
Most if the criticism is because of arrogance... we do it the right way so if you do it differently then it must be because you don't have the technology or skills to do it our way.
Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
mnztr- Posts : 2898
Points : 2936
Join date : 2018-01-21
MiG-29 is like a toy next to Su-35 wrote:
no machine that can deliver 6.5T of ordinance can be described as a toy
GarryB and Belisarius like this post
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
Apparently its true that the Su-35 can only achieve max radar range though narrow beam.
Do you have sources that the chinese or american T/R modules have the same unreliability as russian ones?the real reason why Russia didn't go gung ho on AESA radar since reliability was less and heat output was high)? What are its T/R modules failure rates (average was 10% in the past. That is with less modules running at same time
BTW hybrid PESA only means that the Irbis E can be mechanically steered. In advertisement brochures its stated to be a hybrid PESA/Mechanically steered array, not hybrid PESA/AESA.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Chinese don't let any data filter in the open source.
That guy is taking all this from his ass.
Chinese radar techs are questionable. I remember a former twitter account managed by some syrian AD crew, they said all radars don't do as good as what the advertizement says but it's even worse for chinese radars. At that time they were operating some modern chinese radars alongside russian and european radar if I'm not wrong.
That guy is taking all this from his ass.
Chinese radar techs are questionable. I remember a former twitter account managed by some syrian AD crew, they said all radars don't do as good as what the advertizement says but it's even worse for chinese radars. At that time they were operating some modern chinese radars alongside russian and european radar if I'm not wrong.
sepheronx, GarryB, xeno and Belisarius like this post
Arkanghelsk- Posts : 3917
Points : 3923
Join date : 2021-12-08
How moronic is it that you are asking for Chinese or US sources
But you use Dr Snekotron as your resource for Irbis performance
To this day , su35 is the only aircraft with real air to air experience against soviet su27 and mig29 aircraft, as well as IADS consisting of s300 , BUK, as well as SAM P T, and NASAMS
J20, rafale, f22 are still debating with the ghost of Kiev who has less RCS
But you use Dr Snekotron as your resource for Irbis performance
To this day , su35 is the only aircraft with real air to air experience against soviet su27 and mig29 aircraft, as well as IADS consisting of s300 , BUK, as well as SAM P T, and NASAMS
J20, rafale, f22 are still debating with the ghost of Kiev who has less RCS
GarryB, flamming_python, AMCXXL, Broski and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Turkey said that the radars of the S-400 were actually better than the Russians claimed when the Turks agreed to buy it, which suggests that performance is probably under reported.
Russia is currently testing the way it does things and its tactics and equipment and if the US has its way China will be doing the same over the next few years too.
The performance of any aircraft or weapon system is more than the specs or claims of specs.
China bought export model Su-35s, so if they claim their versions are better does that mean they are better than the planes they never received and know little about?
... ie Russian Su-35s?
The important fact of the matter is that F-35s are not complete aircraft that don't fully work yet and there does not seem to be any rush from the west to send in some F-35s to finish the conflict the way they pretend they will finish WWIII by wiping out the VKS and PVO and everything else.
Russia is currently testing the way it does things and its tactics and equipment and if the US has its way China will be doing the same over the next few years too.
The performance of any aircraft or weapon system is more than the specs or claims of specs.
China bought export model Su-35s, so if they claim their versions are better does that mean they are better than the planes they never received and know little about?
... ie Russian Su-35s?
The important fact of the matter is that F-35s are not complete aircraft that don't fully work yet and there does not seem to be any rush from the west to send in some F-35s to finish the conflict the way they pretend they will finish WWIII by wiping out the VKS and PVO and everything else.
flamming_python, Big_Gazza, Hole and Belisarius like this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
TMA1 wrote:
Damn what a beauty! Too bad Egypt seems to have acquiesced to US pressure. Would've much preferred to see these in house, especially when they were all built already. Sucks!
Last edited by Gomig-21 on Mon May 08, 2023 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
GarryB, zardof, Hole, TMA1, Mir and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is a big game of chess.
Perhaps they realised that the MiG-35 can do the job of an Su-35 over reduced distances and most foreign countries don't seem to have the same respect for the aircraft, but it is cheaper to operate and carries most of the same weapons at the same speeds and altitudes.
Together they are better than just one or the other but if you can only have one for now I would say go for the MiG-35 now and then in a few years when the US doesn't care any more get Su-35s or Su-57s.
Perhaps they realised that the MiG-35 can do the job of an Su-35 over reduced distances and most foreign countries don't seem to have the same respect for the aircraft, but it is cheaper to operate and carries most of the same weapons at the same speeds and altitudes.
Together they are better than just one or the other but if you can only have one for now I would say go for the MiG-35 now and then in a few years when the US doesn't care any more get Su-35s or Su-57s.
Big_Gazza and Gomig-21 like this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Still my favorite shot of this beauty.
GarryB, George1, lancelot, TMA1 and Belisarius like this post
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
I remember when you claimed that it's unlikely the "independent" egypt would follow caatsa.Gomig-21 wrote:TMA1 wrote:
Damn what a beauty! Too bad Egypt seems to have acquiesced to US pressure. Would've much preferred to see these in house, especially when they were all built already. Sucks!
Gomig-21 likes this post
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
And the F-15A has more combat experience than the Su-27. Doesn't mean the latter isnt superior.Arkanghelsk wrote:How moronic is it that you are asking for Chinese or US sources
But you use Dr Snekotron as your resource for Irbis performance
To this day , su35 is the only aircraft with real air to air experience against soviet su27 and mig29 aircraft, as well as IADS consisting of s300 , BUK, as well as SAM P T, and NASAMS
J20, rafale, f22 are still debating with the ghost of Kiev who has less RCS
You guyss proof that chinese AESA radars areent reloable or as powerful as the Irbis are basically unsourced anecdotes or "they just are....OK???".
Also theres no hybrid AESA/PESA, theres either/or. Every single claim of "hybrid" in Russian language Su-35 brochures from rosoboronexport say so in context that its a hybrid between MECHANICALLY STEERED AND PESA. Show me where it says that the Irbis has independent T/R modules?
sepheronx- Posts : 8848
Points : 9108
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Isos wrote:Chinese don't let any data filter in the open source.
That guy is taking all this from his ass.
Chinese radar techs are questionable. I remember a former twitter account managed by some syrian AD crew, they said all radars don't do as good as what the advertizement says but it's even worse for chinese radars. At that time they were operating some modern chinese radars alongside russian and european radar if I'm not wrong.
He had Tom from Tom and Jerry ad his profile pic. Remember him. He was indeed a Syrian AD guy and the radar he was really trashing was the Chinese "Quantum" radar that was brand new state of the art tech and couldn't even old Soviet radars in performance.
TR1 posted a video years ago of the Irbis E against certain air targets, range and RCS. From the radar system itself. So the proclaimed performance was exactly as Russians stated.
GarryB likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
It was another guy I think. IIRC he had SAA flag as a profil pic and they seemed to be a group of user and not just one guy.
To bad he left twitter. It was a reliable account.
Concerning the radar in question he was refering to a chinese radar that SAA was using.
But frankly it was years ago now, I just remember he said chinese radar were doing far worse than expected and said russian and western radars were also worse than what they said in their ads but the chinese were terrible compare to what they advertize.
A lot of hype concerning chinese stuff but people don't get that the main goal of chinese is to sell it and since they lack russian or US expertize they make their stuff fancy. But the inside is generally pretty bad. Not for everything but many export products are just quick made copies.
To bad he left twitter. It was a reliable account.
Concerning the radar in question he was refering to a chinese radar that SAA was using.
But frankly it was years ago now, I just remember he said chinese radar were doing far worse than expected and said russian and western radars were also worse than what they said in their ads but the chinese were terrible compare to what they advertize.
A lot of hype concerning chinese stuff but people don't get that the main goal of chinese is to sell it and since they lack russian or US expertize they make their stuff fancy. But the inside is generally pretty bad. Not for everything but many export products are just quick made copies.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
Thats like saying all modern russian radars are trash because the Zhuk A and Zhuk M are irredeemable aborted pieces of trash.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Well if the zhuk-M loses lock on a target at the same altitude 60km away against a normal target when it is advertized to track targets 100km away you will question the russian radar technology.
If it loses the track but against a target flying very low then it isn't a big deal because radars generally have difficulties against such targets.
The way he discribed that radar makes me think chinese radar tech is questionable even if they have AESA tech.
If it loses the track but against a target flying very low then it isn't a big deal because radars generally have difficulties against such targets.
The way he discribed that radar makes me think chinese radar tech is questionable even if they have AESA tech.
GarryB likes this post
lyle6- Posts : 2592
Points : 2586
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
Much of China's military exports are trash because these are the 2nd runner ups for the competitions to supply the PLA. As such they rarely finish development before they are hawked to international customers just to recoup some of their losses. The foreign customer then gets left holding the bag when these inevitably fail.
sepheronx and GarryB like this post
TMA1- Posts : 1194
Points : 1192
Join date : 2020-11-30
China has worked furiously to advance itself and has given itself much credit due. The science and application of this sensor technology is not easy to copy or reengineer as it is more than the sum of the hardware, especially these days. Nearly as important is the programming of software onto these things and adaptable hardware. With old but trusty radar equipment, new solid state hardware and jew software you can do amazing things with older kit. Look what they can do with old s-125 neva SAM systems
China will improve as thry have to improve. I would not doubt that they are ahead of Russia in some things, with the amount of funding they have poured into their defense programs. Still though you cannot just quickly reengineer something. You are missing the generations of work that built up to the product and thr massive work on the same recent product itself.
China will improve as thry have to improve. I would not doubt that they are ahead of Russia in some things, with the amount of funding they have poured into their defense programs. Still though you cannot just quickly reengineer something. You are missing the generations of work that built up to the product and thr massive work on the same recent product itself.