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

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,132
5,512
India
All we know that flanker produced by them has radar of "unknown specification", speculation is it is AESA. We don't know what its specs are. We don't know how well it competes against Russian PESA etc. We don't know anything about it. Why is it then so easy to say, "It will certainly be better than Russian PESA" or "It will be significantly better than Russian PESA". Heck we don't even know how many AESA they have produced.

My basic question is where does this extreme confidence comes from that what they have is much much much better than BARS radar on Su30MKI.

We don't allow Indian radars such liberty but somehow if it comes to China. Ohhhhhh It has this !!!!! Ohhhhh it has that!!!!! Where no one has EVER verified this and that. I mean, look at tejas, there has been so much questioning around it, so many evaluations etc. Our airforce practically forced it to change its specifications in very public rejections. We have no such information on Chinese platforms.

Why is absence of deatials is automatically taken as capability in case of China.
Anything AESA is better than anything PESA or MS.

And how do you know that they are doing that? How do you know that their AESA is outperforming Su30 MKI PESA radar?
Even they have airshows. There are qualified people who visit and speak about it. There are analysts all over the world who study Russian and Chinese systems and have good things to say about some systems.

Thats is my basic question. How do you know that their entire package is sufficiently better than what we have.

For instance, in case of Tejas we came to know about how its radome material was messing up with transmission of radar waves. It was then replaced with a radome from UK AFAIK. Do you have such details of Chinese planes?

For all I know that they have produced really good radar but messed up their radome.

Where does this extreme confidence comes from that their entire really really complex systems are doing sufficiently better than say Russian systems or say combination of russian, isariali systems like we have on Su30 MKI.

Chinese systems are a massive Unknown. To assume that unknown is better or significantly better than what we have is just that... an uninformed assumption.
We do actual R&D. And in case we fail, we import.

In case the Chinese screw up their actual R&D, they end up reverse engineering. So whatever they make, there is some expectation that they work sufficiently well enough to be usable.

And? MKI has been doing it since what? 2000-ish? Eurojet had a demonstrator engine with TVC but they went against it. What does it prove?
That the Chinese did it themselves doesn't surprise you? And on their own engine?

No, I'm not referring to their operational capability, I am referring to how their R&D has already caught up with existing technologies even in engine tech.

Introducing and performing equally are two different things.
I don't think you understand the significance of using a new engine on a single-engine aircraft.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
Anything AESA is better than anything PESA or MS.
Oh? Does it means Jaguar's radar is better than Su30MKI radar? I doubt that.
Even they have airshows. There are qualified people who visit and speak about it. There are analysts all over the world who study Russian and Chinese systems and have good things to say about some systems.
And how do they demonstrate radars in airshows? How do we know that analysts are not having conflict of interest? Remember, you have routinely rejected analysis given in western media / analysts for being baised against China. How do you know that analysts you are trusting are not compromised and have real information to begin with?
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
That the Chinese did it themselves doesn't surprise you? And on their own engine?
No. I don't even know if it is their engine or something they have "loaned" from Russia.

No, I'm not referring to their operational capability, I am referring to how their R&D has already caught up with existing technologies even in engine tech.
Do you know engine life in their case? We have these details for western engines and can compare this with russian engines. Do you know its performance in hot climate? Do you know how many issues it has seen like we have seen in case of flanker engines here in India? We ask and have answers for all these questions for American, Russian and European Engines. Chinese? NOTHING! No such details.

Just with one public TVC demonstration -- which we do not even know if it was done by their engine or engine they have "borrowed" -- does not mean if they have mastered engine tech.
I don't think you understand the significance of using a new engine on a single-engine aircraft.
I do know that we place much higher standard to rest of the world when it comes to any tech than you are doing to china. Especially with respect to India.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
In case the Chinese screw up their actual R&D, they end up reverse engineering. So whatever they make, there is some expectation that they work sufficiently well enough to be usable.
"Some expectation" is a totally different beast than saying "J-16 is sufficiently better than Su30 MKI". My basic issue is NOT with what chinese are doing. It is with the fact that we are taking their unknowns as necessarily capabilities.
 

Nikhil

nik141993
Dec 1, 2017
398
218
India
. We don't know how well it competes against Russian PESA etc. We don't know anything about it.
actually we do know. Chinese themselves claim Irbis-E is inferior in parameters like range , ECM immunity, multiple tracking etc.
Given the same power and aperture AESA will always be superior to PESA any day in addition to all the goodies which come with it. Let's give them the benifit of the doubt. they are not importing Russian radars anymore. Even SU 35 they imported was for the engine.
Chinese AESA equipped J 16 Vs SU 35 according to Chinese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,132
5,512
India
Oh? Does it means Jaguar's radar is better than Su30MKI radar? I doubt that.
Yes, it's better. Way, way, way better.

And how do they demonstrate radars in airshows? How do we know that analysts are not having conflict of interest? Remember, you have routinely rejected analysis given in western media / analysts for being baised against China. How do you know that analysts you are trusting are not compromised and have real information to begin with?
At stalls. You can speak to the engineers and other officials during the business day.

Media is not trustworthy, but some analysts are. You will generally find them in Think Tanks.

No. I don't even know if it is their engine or something they have "loaned" from Russia.
It's their own stuff. They have kept the Russians out of their engine program.

Do you know engine life in their case? We have these details for western engines and can compare this with russian engines. Do you know its performance in hot climate? Do you know how many issues it has seen like we have seen in case of flanker engines here in India? We ask and have answers for all these questions for American, Russian and European Engines. Chinese? NOTHING! No such details.
Their WS-10 matches or surpasses the AL-31F engines that they have. That's how it found its way into both the J-11B, J-16 and J-10C. And the J-20 next.

Just with one public TVC demonstration -- which we do not even know if it was done by their engine or engine they have "borrowed" -- does not mean if they have mastered engine tech.

I do know that we place much higher standard to rest of the world when it comes to any tech than you are doing to china. Especially with respect to India.
It's their own engine. The Russians aren't dumb enough to give them their tech. TVC would require a lot of ToT in order to control thrust, nozzle and fuel flow.

"Some expectation" is a totally different beast than saying "J-16 is sufficiently better than Su30 MKI". My basic issue is NOT with what chinese are doing. It is with the fact that we are taking their unknowns as necessarily capabilities.
Even if every other parameter is inferior, just the AESA + PL-15 combo makes it far superior to the MKI.

There's nothing unknown about the Flanker. The Chinese have made pretty decent Flanker copies. The only issue is their engine and electronics, but their engine tech has matured enough to be used on single engine jets, and their electronics capability has more or less caught up with what's considered "good enough to be a threat" in the West.

In 2017, US Air Force General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle cited the Chinese missiles in a call for a new, longer-ranged missile that would allow the Air Force and Navy to "out-stick" the PL-15. That need drove the development by Lockheed Martin of the AIM-260. Scheduled to begin testing in 2021, the AIM 260 is expected to enter service in 2022. While it will be about the same size as the AIM-120, it will have a significantly greater range—at least one matching that of the PL-15.

Yeah, so if the US considers it a threat enough that they were pushed to develop a new missile to beat it, then it's an obvious threat to India as well. It's actually why the IAF explored the possibility of introducing the Meteor on LCA before settling on the Derby-ER. They even wanted the Meteor on the M2000 earlier.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
At stalls. You can speak to the engineers and other officials during the business day.

Media is not trustworthy, but some analysts are. You will generally find them in Think Tanks.
And you trust what those engineers say, right?
It's their own stuff. They have kept the Russians out of their engine program.
How do you know? What proof you have? Remember, same question is also asked with respect to India.
Even if every other parameter is inferior, just the AESA + PL-15 combo makes it far superior to the MKI.
Thats my basic doubt, how do you know that?
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
It's their own engine. The Russians aren't dumb enough to give them their tech. TVC would require a lot of ToT in order to control thrust, nozzle and fuel flow.
They don't need tech. They need the product. A chinese engine having russian core and russian tvc rebranded as chinese engine. Its not that hard and very much possible.
 

Nikhil

nik141993
Dec 1, 2017
398
218
India
@randomradio on what basis jaguar AESA is better than bars on MKI ? I can only think of better LPI characteristics and SAR capability on other parameters like Range, detection and jamming burn through performance it's still inferior to bars on MKI.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
@randomradio on what basis jaguar AESA is better than bars on MKI ? I can only think of better LPI characteristics and SAR capability on other parameters like Range, detection and jamming burn through performance it's still inferior to bars on MKI.
I believe he was being sarcastic with me.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,132
5,512
India
And you trust what those engineers say, right?
Yep.

How do you know? What proof you have? Remember, same question is also asked with respect to India.
'Cause it's common sense. No one gives up their crown jewels.

Thats my basic doubt, how do you know that?
Common sense. Double range is double range.

They don't need tech. They need the product. A chinese engine having russian core and russian tvc rebranded as chinese engine. Its not that hard and very much possible.
No truth to that.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,132
5,512
India
@randomradio on what basis jaguar AESA is better than bars on MKI ? I can only think of better LPI characteristics and SAR capability on other parameters like Range, detection and jamming burn through performance it's still inferior to bars on MKI.
The Jaguar's AESA was modified primarily for strike missions. So it has far more modes for strike than the Bars does, including number of targets detected and tracked.

For example, Bars can only track 2 targets on the ground, whereas the Jaguar can track much more than that simply by being AESA. If MKI can attack 2 targets in a single pass, Jaguar may be able to attack 4 or even 6 targets in a single pass, perhaps 8. This way you kill more while subjecting yourself to less airtime over an enemy target.

It is also multifunctional. While the MKI can only do one thing at a time, the Jaguar will be able to do multiple things at the same time. For example, it can make a SAR map of the target area for a future mission or perform some other function while also attacking targets.

The LPI capability will also prevent early detection of the aircraft, which is very important for strike aircraft in terms of survivability, since radar generally gives the aircraft's position away very quickly.

The increased resolution and accuracy of the radar will provide much more detailed information about the target which will help with identification and targeting.

The air search range is irrelevant to the Jaguar. It's a small radar and is meant primarily for strike after all.

Naturally, all other AESA-related advantages also come into play. Like superior ECCM and superior MTBF, which enhances survivability and availability.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
The Jaguar's AESA was modified primarily for strike missions. So it has far more modes for strike than the Bars does, including number of targets detected and tracked.

For example, Bars can only track 2 targets on the ground, whereas the Jaguar can track much more than that simply by being AESA. If MKI can attack 2 targets in a single pass, Jaguar may be able to attack 4 or even 6 targets in a single pass, perhaps 8. This way you kill more while subjecting yourself to less airtime over an enemy target.

It is also multifunctional. While the MKI can only do one thing at a time, the Jaguar will be able to do multiple things at the same time. For example, it can make a SAR map of the target area for a future mission or perform some other function while also attacking targets.

The LPI capability will also prevent early detection of the aircraft, which is very important for strike aircraft in terms of survivability, since radar generally gives the aircraft's position away very quickly.

The increased resolution and accuracy of the radar will provide much more detailed information about the target which will help with identification and targeting.

The air search range is irrelevant to the Jaguar. It's a small radar and is meant primarily for strike after all.

Naturally, all other AESA-related advantages also come into play. Like superior ECCM and superior MTBF, which enhances survivability and availability.
Good point! Lets compare apple to apple.

Elta 2052 vs Bars in air to air combat. Like for Tejas Mk1A.

Still think AESA ALWAYS outperform PESA radar? BTW bars is not purely PESA.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,557
9,859
New Delhi
Good point! Lets compare apple to apple.

Elta 2052 vs Bars in air to air combat. Like for Tejas Mk1A.

Still think AESA ALWAYS outperform PESA radar? BTW bars is not purely PESA.
ELTA is probably one of the best AESA in the market. The specs you see on their portal is old. It is now much better tuned and comes with probably GaN TRMs.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rakshit

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
ELTA is probably one of the best AESA in the market. The specs you see on their portal is old. It is now much better tuned and comes with probably GaN TRMs.
Not doubting ELTA here sir, just driving home one simple point. When you don't have a fact at hand, like @randomradio does, assuming it to be maximum is as bad as assuming it to be minimum, especially with adversories like China which do not have any kind of public accountability or audit or investigative journalism or third party verification of facts.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,132
5,512
India
Thats the number one mistake. Don't trust what vendor says. Basic of basics. You know, they have good reason to lie and misrepresent facts.
When specs are discussed, it's mainly about prototypes. And they have an audience for it.

You do know, you don't even have specs of that radar, right?
We have it for the JF-17, and it is enough to use most of the PL-15. So it's guaranteed to be much better on a Flanker with a larger radar.

No one is asking crown jewel. No one is asking for the tech, just products of the tech. Like core of gas turbine, TVC nozel. You know, same stuff france was offering for kaveri fixing.
There is no such agreement between Russia and China.

Good point! Lets compare apple to apple.

Elta 2052 vs Bars in air to air combat. Like for Tejas Mk1A.

Still think AESA ALWAYS outperform PESA radar? BTW bars is not purely PESA.
AESA beats PESA by a long shot. The Mk1A's radar will be far superior to any Bars version by a long shot.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
1,088
883
Canada
We have it for the JF-17, and it is enough to use most of the PL-15.
Source? JF-17 block 3 made its first flight in Jan 2020. Thats all. Where did you get the detection range for its radar from? Also, where did you get PL-15's range from?

When specs are discussed, it's mainly about prototypes. And they have an audience for it.
So? How do you know those engineers are not lying through their teeth?

AESA beats PESA by a long shot. The Mk1A's radar will be far superior to any Bars version by a long shot.
Wrong! Mk1A's radar has lesser detection and tracking range compared to bars.

There is no such agreement between Russia and China.
Will they tell you if they have an agreement?