Nightmare: American expert told about Chinese Su-35

Fighter Su-35, entered service with the PLA air force, is a nightmare and a headache for the American aviation in asia leads National Interest opinion of an American expert.

Su-35-multipurpose fighter, capable of air combat and accurate attack on ground and surface targets. Currently, the PLA Air Force aviation units are armed with Su-35 fighters,

The author cites the statement by the representative of the Ministry of Defense of China, Wu Qian, made in April of this year.

The presence of Su-35 (according to NATO codification: Flanker-E +) - one of the most combat-capable fighters in the world, makes the Chinese Air Force much stronger, the expert writes.

He also points to the danger to the US Air Force and its allies, the new Chinese PL-15 (air-to-air) missile, which the Su-35 can arm itself with.

According to the author, this tandem of a Chinese rocket and a Russian-made aircraft is very dangerous for US air tankers and early warning and guidance systems (AWACS), which are crucial for American operations in the region.

Recall, the contract for the supply of X-NUMX fighter C-24 generation 35 ++ was concluded between Moscow and Beijing in the 4 year. Su-2015 close to the generation 35 aircraft. With the exception of the presence of an active phased array antenna and low-visibility technology, the fighter meets most of the requirements for next-generation vehicles.

Comments

[Apollo]

Is America weak to order a Su-35 squadron for itself? What will Russia answer to this unusual proposal?

[_Ugene_]

only if for a detailed study of the aircraft and the development of methods of confrontation to him, but who will sell them something?

[rocket757]

As normal, you just need to send .... however, I’m sure that they will send it.

[yehat]

remember the story of helicopters in Afghanistan
the US military-industrial complex went slime to stop these supplies, although objectively it was the best choice

[Guru]

Is America weak to order a Su-35 squadron for itself? What will Russia answer to this unusual proposal?

Only Barter is on an Aircraft Carrier.

[Romario_Argo]

the most important thing that you miss is the additional 12 engines, 1 to each Dryer i.e. 6 more Chinese fighters in (+)

[Chicha squad]

Under the agreement, 2 sets (4 engines) for each aircraft are listed.

[Romario_Argo]

any number (!)
to disassemble the AL-41F1S, a special stand "Protection against copying technologies" is needed, which China does not have (!)

[Mih1974]

Oh come on "what one person has collected - the other will always be able to make out" (c)
It seems like the Chinese have ALREADY dismantled one and then "sudden hitler" can not collect back in any way . It’s dirty to swear among themselves, but they can’t roll it out to us - it wasn’t paid by them to dig into our engines under a contract.
So there will not be some "extra" engines on their gliders - because then the purchased 35 will "stand on foot" in due time.

[rocket757]

We are doing well, we are becoming stronger .... although, it is itching for civil aviation that I have it !!! Well, when on this topic will everything become normal ???

[Romario_Argo]

although I have itchy for civil aviation !!! Well, when on this topic will everything become normal ???

Approximate fleet of civilian aircraft in Russia:
1. mid-range Airbas 320, 319, 321 (150 seats) - 250 units.
2. medium-range Boeing 737, 757 (200 seats) - 200 units.
3. long-range Boeing 747, 767, 777 (200 seats) - 130 units.
Already, 580
and what is ours:
4. medium-range SuperJet (100 seats) - 68 units.
5. medium-range IL-96 - 6 units. (in storage)
6. medium-range Tu-204 - 12 units.
7. medium-range MS-21-200 / 300 (150/210 seats) - an option of 175 units. - 0 units
8. medium-range Tu-134 (80 seats) - 100 units.
9. medium-range Tu-154M (150-180 seats) - 15 units. (output)
10. medium-range Tu-334 (100 seats) - (1) -0 units.
below does not count regional
11. An-24 (50 seats) - 70 units. (average age 41 years)
12. Yak-42 (50 seats) - 30 units. (average age 41 years)
- our 195 boards, less than 34% of 580.
for 2019, it is expected to launch serial production of SuperJet - 40 aircraft per year; and from 2020, the mass production of MS-21 - 70 aircraft per year by 2025.
A ban on the use of the Boeing 737, 757 from 2020 will soon come in, this is a niche for 200 aircraft. The growth of our boards by 2020 will be 80 +195, a total of 275, which equals 48%.
The answer to your question, you just need to wait another 2 years (!) And the situation will change radically 2025 year: SuperJet = 348, MS-21 - (12/24/36/48/60/72) = 252. Total: 600that completely squeezes Boeing and Airbas into our market (!)

[demo]

The other day I flew from Moscow to SuperJet.
Brand new. Handsome.
In appearance.
Sat down. There is less legroom than an Airbus.
The seats are narrow. And some are not right.
Okay. I’m not picky.
But when they started the engine. it became clear that there was no sound insulation. The noise in the cabin is strong. And vibration through the body from the engines.
So, our Russian work was not satisfied.
Since I am not a pilot or a pilot, I would also like to hear the opinion of specialists.
On the pros and cons.

[Romario_Argo]

There is less legroom than an Airbus. The seats are narrow. And some are not right.

The answer is very simple. See photo collage SuperJet 100.

the seats are certainly smaller than on the Airbus - the SuperJet 100 is also a short-haul aircraft.

[demo]

And what in the short-haul aircraft should gnomes fly, or disabled people without legs?
With my height in 190, I just can't stretch my legs normally.
Do you have a collage for my observations about noise and vibration? I would like to see.

[rocket757]

YAK 40, that’s where it was cool to fly, all that demo (Van) Yesterday, 21:01 described only to square! The short-haul .... though, the one who flew on the CORN already has nothing to complain about NEVER !!!

[spektr9]

National Interest - thanks, everything is clear and understandable

[Hole puncher]

Quote: spektr9

National Interest - thanks, everything is clear and understandable

Many are still taken seriously ...

[Vita vko]

Except for active phased array and low visibility technology

Probably you need to understand why AFAR and low visibility are needed in principle.
In AFAR, the transmitting module is created on Gunn diodes because have a maximum efficiency of 30% of all known semiconductor devices. While the standard magnetrons of a passing headlamp have an efficiency of more than 80%. From the point of view of the presence of significant restrictions on the free power of a fighter, the difference at times is of key importance.
Further, low-signature technology can possibly have a significant impact on the advantage in a surprise strike if this air battle takes place thousands of kilometers from the coastal infrastructure of air defense systems, as well as air and sea-based systems. But does this happen in practice? The defending side will always have a sufficient number of radar and SRT for timely detection and issuance of control units to their aircraft. The free search mode is of course theoretically possible, but its expediency is minimal, it's like looking for a "needle in a haystack." What's the point, then, in low-visibility technology? In extreme cases, nothing prevents the Su-35 from making the radio-absorbing coating the same as the F-35. In this case, it is not yet known who will have less visibility, because the number of composite materials in the Su-35 is greater.

[voyaka uh]

The difference between AFAF and PAR is much deeper. AFAR can be divided right in flight into several separate radars, each of which works for its own purposes. Since each AFAR cell is independent of the others with its own transmitter and receiver.
Therefore, PARs are currently used only by those who do not produce AFAR (AFAR is much more expensive)

[Romario_Argo]

namely (!) AFAR can scan space in different ranges simultaneously, and the "stealth" effect is applicable only to the cm-range. by the way, short-wave Over-the-horizon radars of the Sunflower type, perfectly sees all "stele" fighters and ships

[Stas157]

He also points out the danger to the US Air Force and its allies. new Chinese rocket PL-15 ("Air-to-air"), which can arm the Su-35

Chinese counterpart R-77 (RVV-AE). The Chinese also bought them.

[afrikanez]

Quote: _Ugene_

only if for a detailed study of the aircraft and the development of methods of confrontation to him, but who will sell them something?

Who destroyed the Union in the 90s, he will be able to sell.

[Alexander Ra]

Is there any longer harm in the long term from the sale of your equipment to others? Su-27, probably, was more useful to China for their technological growth, than as just a commercial transaction. Is Russia's budget gain from sales commensurate with the distant danger of the neighbor’s super potentials from acquired techno-innovations? Trade is important, but we must admit that its common potential (labor and natural resources) for self-reinforcement is suspiciously not loaded and the domestic market has a huge capacity.

[Mih1974]

Let's just say - yes, the Chinese riveted Su-27 clones to themselves, but then the most interesting thing.
In Russia: as modernization from 27 to 35 of all grades and types, and even in general "deviation in the form of the Su-34, which is clearly based on 27, at the moment the line has stopped at 35 and 57 is clearly a completely different aircraft.
In China: Copies of the Su-27 never reached the capabilities of the original without our engines, and only the Chinese know about their electronics. In general, let us push aside their attempts to "improve" our aircraft, because this has always led the Chinese to a "thick rectal", but they also have their own "achievements" Shenyang J-31, this can at least somehow be called a fighter, well, there are obviously large pieces from famous foreign models, the Shenyang J-20 plunged specialists into a stupor. To understand HOW the Chinese have come to this and WHAT this animal is in general are the main issues in discussions.
To summarize, the Chinese are trying to "improve" the contents of the glider, fortunately while not touching it itself, what they have done there without a real fight cannot be found out, but there is a clear tendency of "misunderstanding the very principles of aerodynamics." The fact that the Chinese "spawned themselves" is considered by most experts to be unsuitable or a "forced measure" in an attempt to "pull an owl on the globe" that is, to adjust the glider to suit their imperfect means of attack "(well, a large rocket, not a she is in a small neat Su-27).

[voyaka uh]

"Shenyang J-20 plunged specialists into a stupor" /////

What I read in the English press: 1) weak engines (no cruising supersonic).
2) stealth only in the frontal projection (front).

[Mih1974]

In the Russian)) in the public - such a mutant could not be attributed to any of the classes (tasks). "Front plumage" is an attempt to give it maneuverability, but the hull itself is uniquely designed for efficient flights and heavy workload, that is, it is a "bomber". But for a bomber, fezulage is far from optimal, not even "at first glance" without preliminary calculations (c) There were quotes, well, there was a lot of other things they wrote in general - what it was and for what tasks, no one could say unequivocally. By and large, this design is inferior to any of the existing competitors' aircraft, and very strongly and this was written by people even "putting aside" the question of yes yes of those engines.

[gorenina91]

-Soviet socialist powerful scientific and technical "hereditary potential" for 30 years dried up and gave way to the Chinese potential ... -This is natural ... -The relay race and all priorities are given to China ...
-It's time to admit it and "do not puff out your cheeks" ... -You can of course continue to mumble the word "halva" ... -But this will make it sweeter ... only the Chinese ...