How does Chinese flankers fare against our Su-30 MKI ?

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,787
1,548
Bangalore
So basically su35 is a strike fighter??
Su35 is a replacement for Su27 in Russia. And Russians had Su27 as Air Superiority Fighter in primary role.

The Su30 in Russia was meant to be multi role with proper air to ground capability.

Su35 is Multirole, but its primary duty is taking on the best Europe has in Typhoon and Rafales.

F18 Super Hornet of USN can be defined as a modern strike fighter actually.

Flankers are not meant to be best in that role, its just optimised. Better to call them multi role with Air Superiority being their primary duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
Yes and MKK is not for maritime strike.
That's just the way PLAAF and PLAN use the jets.

PLAAF use MKK for land strike role while PLAN bought the MK2 for maritime strike role. But both jets can be used for both against land and sea targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
Then how would we fare against PLAAF if war breaks out??
Due to the superiority of our force multipliers, we will be able to do much better in the offensive role than the PLAAF can. So even with superior avionics, they will struggle. Especially so since their geography isn't in their favour for conducting offensive missions.

But with our current numbers, I think we will end up doing much more air defence than offensive missions we need. And PLAAF will end up doing mostly air defence.
What is the current status of I Derby ER integration on MKI and how many years will it take?
I don't know the status. They said it will take 2 years once it begins.

Didn't we order the latest R77 with duel pulse motors, extended range as emergency purchase from Russians?
I don't have any news regarding that. RuAF is yet to officially clear it for exports. If we bought 20 or so for situations like Balakot, I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
Indian Flankers and Chinese Flankers both are actually results of two seperate development programs of modernisation of original flanker. And the success of Irkut over KNAAPO should perfectly establish which product is better.

Lets put it more simply. KNAAPO was involved in Su35 program. So Su30MKK and Su30MK2 products are actually twin seater derivatives of Su35 platform.

While Irkut was involved with Su27 modernisation for Soviet Air Defence forces. And Su30MKI and Su30SM are derivatives of twin seater Su27.

KNAAPO with Su30 program focused on Air Superiority role while Irkut with Su30 focused on improving the aircrafts attack and multi role capabilities.

And while it might not be too much visible. These differences persist in capabilities.

Russians themselves preferred Su30SM from Irkut line compared to Su30MK2 from KNAAPO line. The difference in production numbers is nearly 7 times. That should explain you the difference in capabilities.

Although with shrinking budget, Russians are now doing more unified work taking best of Irkut and KNAAPO both for further upgradation of Flankers.
Irkut and KNAAPO are just manufacturers. Both Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK are products of Sukhoi, even Su-35BM. Sukhoi is like ADA, Irkut/KNAAPO are like HAL.

Also, Su-30MKK is made for strike, whereas MKI was multirole. Su-35 followed a different tree, the air superiority tree ie Su-27 > Su-27M > Su-35. And then, Su-27M > Su-35BM (the one in production, no relation with Su-35).

Whereas MKI followed the Su-30 strike tree. They put the canards on MKI because the Bars radar was heavy. Su-30MKK could also have gotten canards had the PLAAF chosen Bars radar, which the Russians had offered, but they declined it because already delivered jets couldn't be modified with canards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

Arsalan123

Active member
Jun 3, 2019
1,293
120
Sindh, Pakistan
how good is Chinese AESA on J 11,16 ? Could you provide any source.
They have developed 2 Aesa radars.one is not public and there are no details.other is KLJ-7A. i think j-11b doesn't use this radar. anyway this jet can fire pl-15. JF-17(Pakistani version) might be equipped with KLJ-7A and can probably fire pl-15 as well. you can see most paf jets flying deep.this is no surprise.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Aurora

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
They have developed 2 Aesa radars.one is not public and there are no details.other is KLJ-7A. i think j-11b doesn't use this radar. anyway this jet can fire pl-15. JF-17(Pakistani version) might be equipped with KLJ-7A and can probably fire pl-15 as well. you can see most paf jets flying deep.this is no surprise.
Pakistan only gets export grade stuff from China. The Chinese use different systems.

They probably do not trust Pakistan's counterintelligence apparatus to safeguard their tech.
 

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,787
1,548
Bangalore
Irkut and KNAAPO are just manufacturers. Both Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK are products of Sukhoi, even Su-35BM. Sukhoi is like ADA, Irkut/KNAAPO are like HAL.

Also, Su-30MKK is made for strike, whereas MKI was multirole. Su-35 followed a different tree, the air superiority tree ie Su-27 > Su-27M > Su-35. And then, Su-27M > Su-35BM (the one in production, no relation with Su-35).

Whereas MKI followed the Su-30 strike tree. They put the canards on MKI because the Bars radar was heavy. Su-30MKK could also have gotten canards had the PLAAF chosen Bars radar, which the Russians had offered, but they declined it because already delivered jets couldn't be modified with canards.
They are both just manufacturers. But they had both their own expertise.

Regarding Su35. I meant that since KNAAPO was involved in production of Su35 prototypes and their testing from the initial stages, therefore a lot of learnings from that project did went into their Su30 variants.

While Irkut manufactured the trainers for Su27 and then the MKI project happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
They are both just manufacturers. But they had both their own expertise.

Regarding Su35. I meant that since KNAAPO was involved in production of Su35 prototypes and their testing from the initial stages, therefore a lot of learnings from that project did went into their Su30 variants.

While Irkut manufactured the trainers for Su27 and then the MKI project happened.
The designer is Sukhoi. All the work on all the Flankers was done only by Sukhoi. The manufacturers only manufactured designs made by Sukhoi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,787
1,548
Bangalore
The designer is Sukhoi. All the work on all the Flankers was done only by Sukhoi. The manufacturers only manufactured designs made by Sukhoi.
Obviously the parent company is Sukhoi. But Sukhoi and Irkut and Sukhoi and KNAAPO did different works and both of their Su30s had different goals and are indeed different.
 

Arsalan123

Active member
Jun 3, 2019
1,293
120
Sindh, Pakistan
Pakistan only gets export grade stuff from China. The Chinese use different systems.

They probably do not trust Pakistan's counterintelligence apparatus to safeguard their tech.
Come on man,there is great friendship.we have tested everything.we even have pl-15. Also probably klj-7A installed on jf-17 block 3.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
Come on man,there is great friendship.we have tested everything.we even have pl-15. Also probably klj-7A installed on jf-17 block 3.
PL-15 is fine, but you will get an export grade missile with a different designation, as long as the Chinese have actually made one for export.

KLJ-7A is not used by the Chinese. It's for the JF-17, an export grade radar for export grade aircraft, neither of which the Chinese operate.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
I really don't know why we are having this debate. PAF fired so many AIM120 on SU-30MKIs and got zero hit. Do you think long range is effective against highly agile aircraft? PAF & PLAAF should fear MICA. That is the deadliest missile for BVR combat.
While I agree that the M2000 is currently our best package for BVR, but it's the whole package and not just the missiles. They use a combination of EW, tactics and missiles to achieve it. The IAF has failed to modernise the MKI during all this time, which has allowed its BVR advantage to slip.

But long range is needed to force the enemy to disengage. It's the cheapest way possible to avoid a confrontation and the best way to avoid a strike package coming in to your territory. The Chinese do not have to kill us, they only need to make use of their longer range to prevent us from conducting offensive missions, while their ground forces do the actual grunt work. In return, we also need long range to push them away in order to bring our strike package in.

We need the ability to allow our strike package to reach at least 60-100Km away from the target so we can release our new standoff weapons that have ranges of 60-100Km. That's not going to happen with a 50-80Km missile. If you believe a missile is most effective at 50% of its range, then that's still 75-100Km for the PL-15, which outranges the MICA's 25-40Km far too much. So, in order for the M2000 to maintain its advantage, it needs the MICA NG with a radar capable of using that range.
 

Manstrategist

Member
Dec 25, 2017
35
37
Navi Mumbai
Why is it always assumed that range is always scalable with nez. It does not automatically mean that a 200 KM BVR will be as effective at 100 KM as a good missile with a range of 100 km and a NEZ of around 30-50 kms. More the range more the time for evasive manoeuvres. It just doesn't make sense to directly compare missiles in such a manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Dec 2, 2017
484
383
The first question should be which flanker?

Su-27SK and Su-27UBK - First direct import from china (1991), Shitty avionics
J-11A – Chinese/Russian assembled Su-27SK from Russian-made kits. 104 were built. They were later upgraded with MAWS. Unconfirmed upgrades include improved cockpit displays, and fire control systems for R-77 or PL-10 missiles.It is also called J-11
J-11B -
Unauthorised copy of Su-27 with Chinese technology.
Su-30MKK - Cousine of our MKI, Twin seat, and with canards.
Su-30MK2 - Specialised for maritime strike.
Su-35S - Latest import from Russia
J-15 – Carrier-based version of J-11B
J-16 - Most advanced strike fighter with AESA and higher thrust engines. Avionics from J-11B with Airframe of Su-30MKK

View attachment 16316


So to answer conservatively, Most flankers excluding Su-27 and J-11 are on per or better than our Su-30MKIs.

Isn't the Su 30Mkk without Canards?
 

Patriots

Member
Oct 7, 2019
16
6
India
Come on man,there is great friendship.we have tested everything.we even have pl-15. Also probably klj-7A installed on jf-17 block 3.
You don't have pl15....
Confirmed from feb27 incident...
If you have 300 km bvraam ....then why a lots of paf jets were near loc to escort the mirage5/3
Your jf17 could have shot down 5/6 aircraft s from 300 km
They have developed 2 Aesa radars.one is not public and there are no details.other is KLJ-7A. i think j-11b doesn't use this radar. anyway this jet can fire pl-15. JF-17(Pakistani version) might be equipped with KLJ-7A and can probably fire pl-15 as well. you can see most paf jets flying deep.this is no surprise.
Bdw aesa doesn't means a Higher range ,aesa is difficult to jam ,su30 mki radar is big
It can see far away than j10..jf17
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,254
India
Why is it always assumed that range is always scalable with nez. It does not automatically mean that a 200 KM BVR will be as effective at 100 KM as a good missile with a range of 100 km and a NEZ of around 30-50 kms. More the range more the time for evasive manoeuvres. It just doesn't make sense to directly compare missiles in such a manner.
Actually it does.

Also, evasive manoeuvres can only be done in the final phase. Until then whatever you do is useless since the correction needed for the missile from a long distance is very tiny.

It's basic physics. If you are looking at a bus going by while you are standing by the roadside, then you will need to turn your neck in order to keep the bus within your viewing angle. But if you are hundreds of meters away and looking at a bus go by, you only need to make minor corrections with your eyes in order to keep the bus within your viewing angle.

The radar is going to provide all the targeting needed until the missile is able to turn on its own seeker and track the missile. And modern 200Km missiles are such that they have a second pulse that will allow them to boost once more during the end game so they are at their fastest at that point. The current MICA is incapable of doing that.

Point being, regardless of a shot being taken from 50Km or 150Km, the end game remains the same. With the 150Km missile entering the end game with more energy due to its superior technology.

The only advantage the enemy really can have is more time to employ ECM. But I don't think there's going to be much of a difference between a 50Km shot versus a 150Km shot, since if the bad guy's ECM works, then it will work within the first few seconds anyway. In fact with system of systems type network coming into play, a 150Km shot will actually have more opportunities for corrections once your radar is able to regain track during the tu tu mein mein game between the enemy's ECM and your ECCM. You can even hand over your missile to another radar during the engagement if your own radar becomes compromised.

This is something really important:
It’s a great aircraft at high level, but we’re not dumb enough to try to fight Typhoons at 50,000 feet or 45,000 feet. We’re going to put them outside their comfort zone. Against devious tactics. Now if you want to rate a Typhoon with AMRAAMs against a Rafale at 50,000 ft, then, yeah, Typhoon is going to have better performances for sure. But as a Rafale pilot, I’m stupid if I take him on like that, so I’m going to move the combat a bit. I’ll fake a combat at 50,000 feet and I’m going to send a guy sneakily low level to surprise the Typhoon, it’s more easy than you think!”

Which is why, if you have an inferior missile, all you have going for you is tactics. In comparison our M2000 pilots have an inferior missile and radar package compared to the Rafale, which is a problem since the Rafale cannot compete at altitude against similar tech level with the Typhoon. Do note that the Typhoon has the Aim-120C7 and not the D. So even the 40Km additional range of the C7 is a pretty big advantage over the MICA, never mind the 100+ Km advantage the PL-15 is going to bring to the table. In simple terms, we can't get into a straightforward shooting match with the Chinese with our current crop of weapons and radars.

The only thing going in our favour right now is superior EW capabilities on our aircraft. As mentioned in the interview, the M2000 may be able to stay undiscovered due to its superior EW and move in at a low level while the MKIs distract the Chinese Flankers. But then the issue will be Chinese SAMs. So, we will be able to successfully play this tactic only when playing defence.

The IAF most definitely needs a bigger stick, which is why we are going for the I-Derby ER upgrade.
 

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
221
128
India
I really don't know why we are having this debate. PAF fired so many AIM120 on SU-30MKIs and got zero hit. Do you think long range is effective against highly agile aircraft? PAF & PLAAF should fear MICA. That is the deadliest missile for BVR combat.
I request you to re read my question sir. I have asked how would our flankers fare against Chinese. It doesn't matter what is the nature of combat. I would be grateful if you throw some light on this subject.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,459
9,611
New Delhi
I request you to re read my question sir. I have asked how would our flankers fare against Chinese. It doesn't matter what is the nature of combat. I would be grateful if you throw some light on this subject.
The debate in my post was regarding the use of BVRAAMs and not about the topic as such. Our Flankers are better than their stuff but not superior to SU-35s. Plus the chinese copies may have better electronic stuff in them but they have poor engines. So its difficult to say which is better. Here the difference in training, tactics and motivation will decide the winner. But we have superiority in terms of EW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
221
128
India
The debate in my post was regarding the use of BVRAAMs and not about the topic as such. Our Flankers are better than their stuff but not superior to SU-35s. Plus the chinese copies may have better electronic stuff in them but they have poor engines. So its difficult to say which is better. Here the difference in training, tactics and motivation will decide the winner. But we have superiority in terms of EW.
Yes sir, I realised it after re reading your post. I am sorry for that.
Could you please elaborate more on EW point as I understand Chinese have much more EW platforms than us.