The Diplomat (Japan): Su-27SK vs SAAB JAS-39C Gripen. Parsing Open Data

The Diplomat (Japan): Su-27SK vs SAAB JAS-39C Gripen. Parsing Open Data

Su-27SK PLA Air Force and JAS-39C Royal Thai Air Force at the exercises "Eagle Strike 2015"


We offer you a translation Articles Rick Joe, Flankers [1] vs. Gripen: what happened during the Eagle Strike 2015 exercise, released April 16, 2020 in The Diplomat, Japan. The article is devoted to the analysis of training air battles between the Su-27SK of the Chinese Air Force against the SAAB J-39C Grippen fighters of the Royal Thai Air Force. Briefly, these exercises and the results of the Su-27SK battles against fighters of Swedish manufacture have already been reported in the domestic press. On "Military Review" - twice: time и two. However, Joe's article abounds with a number of details unknown to the domestic reader.

All text below is an article by Rick Jow.


Over the past few months the military and aviation The media reported on the lecture of the test pilot of the Air Force of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA Air Force) Li Zhonghua, read in December 2019 at the Northwestern Polytechnic University in Shaanxi[2]. The lecture provided an unusually detailed look at the experience gained by the PLA Air Force during the Eagle Strike 2015 exercises held in Thailand with the participation of the Royal Thai Air Force, which competed with the PLA Air Force. The PLA Air Force sent their Su-27SKs to the exercises, while the Royal Thai Air Force sent SAAB JAS93C Gripen (Gripen-C).


The comparative dimensions of the aircraft are visible.

Some comments regarding the disclosed results of past exercises included extrapolating the results to the capabilities of other aircraft of the Su-27 family or Chinese J-11[3] or conclusions were drawn about the capabilities and training of the PLA Air Force pilots.

The proposed article describes the capabilities of the aircraft participating in the exercises and offers a look at the results of these exercises with these capabilities in mind.

Su-27SK and Gripen-C


It is difficult to evaluate the results of the exercises, without access to a detailed comparison of the aircraft involved, as well as the tasks and conditions of the battles. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to establish the features of the tasks and individual exercises performed during these exercises, and while the lecture by Li gives information that various tasks were solved, there is no exact information about these tasks.

Nevertheless, the lecture made a comparatively detailed comparison of the Gripen-S in the confrontation with the Su-27SK, from which it follows.

Comparison of aircraft in battle at medium (outside visual visibility) distances (The first parameters are JAS39C-second parameters Su-27SK. - Approx. translator)[4]:

Missiles for the specified distance: AIM-120 with a range of 80 km - RVV AE with a range of 50 km.

Radar: Detection range of 160 km, tracking 10 targets - 120 km and 10 targets.

Aircraft EPR: 1,5-2 meters for Gripen - 10-12 meters for Su-27SK.

The number of simultaneously fired targets: 4 for Gripen - 1 for Su-27SK.

EW stations: one built-in and up to two container - one container.

Towed false target: “Gripen” has it, Su-27SK hasn’t.


Towed False Target Raytheon


Typhoon fighter tows a false target

Passive false targets: IR traps and dipole reflectors in both aircraft.

The functions of warning systems: “Gripen” - on radar exposure (STR), on the launch of missiles by the enemy, on the approach of a rocket; Su-27SK - STR and warning about the approach of a rocket.

Automated information exchange channels: 2 for Gripen - 1 for Su-27SK.

Night vision system for the pilot: the Gripen has it, the Su-27SK doesn't.

Comparison of aircraft in battle at close range (within visual range). Instead of numerical values, some parameters are characterized by the words "satisfactory", "good", "excellent" [5].
Maximum overload: Gripen + 9 / -2g - Su-27SK + 8 / -2g[6].

Thrust of the engine (s): “good” - “excellent”.

Perfection avionics: “excellent” - “satisfactory”.

The rate of steady reversal: “good” - “excellent”.

Unsteady U-turn speed: “excellent” - “satisfactory”.

Short-range missiles: AIM-9L - "good", P-73 - "excellent"[7]

Helmet system of target designation and indication: “excellent” - “good”.

Principal factors:

Combat radius: 900 km - 1500 km.

The possibility of refueling in the air: “Gripena” has it, not the Su-27SK.

Combat load: 6 tons - 4 tons.

Tasks performed: air combat, strikes against ground targets, air reconnaissance - air combat only[8].

With all this information, you can begin to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of both aircraft.

“Gripen-S” has superiority in combat at large distances outside the visual range due to the detection range of its radar targets (160 km versus 120 for the Su-27SK), the maximum launch range of its missiles (80 km against 50 km) and the ability to simultaneously attack four goals, against one target in the Su-27SK.

In general, avionics Gripena with all its capabilities significantly exceeds that of the Su-27SK. He also has superiority in the speed of an unsteady U-turn. The Su-27SK, in turn, has superior traction, steady-state turning speeds, and superior R-73 missiles, whose potential can be realized by the Slit-3M primitive but effective helmet-mounted target designation system.

Accordingly, the advantages and disadvantages of aircraft can be described as follows:

- in general, Gripen significantly surpasses the Su-27SK in long-range combat, electronic warfare systems, communications, pilot situational awareness, and radio channels for automated information exchange; it has more advanced avionics and cockpit equipment;

- airplanes are superior to each other in "their" battle ranges;

- The Su-27SK has superiority in engine thrust, maneuverability, and has more effective missiles for close combat R-73, the superiority of which is realized when using the helmet-mounted aiming system.

The value of weapons and avionics


Before you review the results of Eagle Strike 2015, it may be useful to study the age and capabilities of the Su-27SK in the Chinese service. The Su-27SK, also assembled in China as the J-11A, was the first fourth-generation fighter in the PLA air force imported from Russia in the early 90s.

However, over the decades of service that have passed since then, the Su-27SK has been upgraded to the very minimum extent, for example, having been able to use the RVV-AE missiles, which they did not have in their original form, a warning system about the approach of enemy missiles and some minor updates to cockpit devices.

All other systems - radar, avionics in general, electronic warfare systems, information exchange systems and weapon, significantly lagging behind other modern fourth-generation fighters, not to mention the 4+ generation.

The “fourth generation” of fighters can be classified as several subgenerations, reflecting the level of capabilities of their avionics, weapons, sensors and communication systems. The list below shows a small number of some examples:

- “early fourth generation” - can be cited as an example F-14A, F-15A, Su-27SK / J-11A;

- “the modern fourth generation” - for example, F-15C, J-11B, J-10A and “Gripen-S” (JAS39C which is in service with the Royal Thai Air Force. - Approx. Translator);

- 4+ generation, for example F-15EX, F-16V, J-16, J-10C and Gripen-E.

J-11A / Su-27SK, therefore, belong to the "early fourth generation" due to the failure of modernization, and this aircraft can easily be defined as the oldest and least efficient 4th generation fighter in the PLA Air Force; it is likely that even a modernized 3rd-generation fighter, such as the J-8DF (equipped with a modern fourth-generation radar and long-range effective PL-12 missiles), can easily defeat the Su-27SK in battle equally for both aircraft conditions.

Results Overview


Anyone could have predicted that, being a modern 4th-generation fighter, the Gripen would have a significantly superior combat score compared to the Su-27SK at long distances, outside the range of visual detection, as well as in any group battles that require better coordination and situational awareness. These results could easily be foreseen, based on the overwhelming superiority of Gripen in enemy detection systems, long-range weapons, small EPR, electronic warfare systems and avionics in general. The level of pilot training would have minimal effect to bridge such a huge technology gap.

One could expect superiority in the melee from the Su-27SK, where it could rely on the superiority of its R-73 missiles and superiority in maneuverability and LTX, and where the enemy could not realize technological superiority as clearly as at long distances. Technological superiority means much less in such battles, which makes training pilots far more important to offset the imbalance in technology.

The results of the Eagle Strike 2015 exercises are fully consistent with the described logic, although the Su-27SK showed such superiority in victories in maneuver combat that no one could have expected[9]. This success can be attributed to both R-73 missiles and pilot training in training battles with aircraft of the J-10 family, from the PLA Air Force.

What are the conclusions?


The results of the “Eagle Strike 2015” - a serious confirmation that the aircraft with the best avionics, radar and other sensors, communications, electronic warfare and weapons can arrange a loud rout in long-range combat and group battles, requiring a high level of interaction in the group and situational awareness .

The superiority of Gripen in such battles is not unexpected, however, these results cannot characterize the Su-27 family as a whole as low-combat. In the end, the Su-27SK is one of the oldest aircraft of all the Su-27 variants in the world, having the smallest capabilities, and many of the subsequent Flanker variants received significantly improved weapons, radar and detection systems, communications, electronic warfare and avionics generally.

The PLA air forces are equipped with Su-30MKK / MK2 multipurpose fighters, the domestic J-11B / BS air conquest fighter. The latest J-16 fighter with AFAR and PL-15 missiles.

However, it would be wrong to say that the PLA Air Force did not learn any lessons from past exercises. An article written in Chinese according to insider information, as well as information from the original December slides, pointed to vulnerabilities such as insufficient situational awareness in group battles and the inability to withstand simulated long-range missiles, the last of which, by the known parameters used in the model, resembles AIM -120 AMRAAM.

Vulnerabilities in situational awareness can also be attributed to inferior [adversary] detection systems (including radar. - Approx. translator), instruments for displaying information in the cockpit and means of communication and information exchange of the Su-27SK plane, although some expectations follow from the Chinese presentation that Chinese pilots will be able to overcome this technical gap[10].

On the whole, the view adopted by the PLA Air Force on the past Eagle Strike 2015 exercises focuses on the qualities of the Chinese personnel participating in the training battles. This need not be considered unexpected, since the PLA Air Force does not often participate in international air exercises, which makes each such meeting a valuable training opportunity.

Also, do not forget that the PLA air forces were in the process of large-scale shifts in their combat training regimes, which began in the 2010s and the peak of discussion of which was just at the time when Eagle Strike 2015 took place.

The emphasis on linking the results of Eagle Strike 2015 and the training of Chinese pilots could be made specifically in order to intensify combat training and improve curricula and methods.

Foreign exercises of the PLA Air Force


Until 2010, the PLA Air Force almost did not conduct exercises with foreign military personnel on a noteworthy scale. In the 2010s, the exercises in which the PLA Air Force participated were the Shahin exercises in Pakistan, the regular exercises Eagle Strike and the participation in some Russian Aviadarts competition. There was also a one-time exercise with the Turkish Air Force Anatolian Eagles.

It is worth mentioning that the PLA Air Force sent the same Su-2010SKs to the Anatolian Eagles 27, which were opposed by the modernized F-4Es, and although the formal results of the exercises were not published, it is rumored that the Su-27SKs performed poorly. It is worth pointing out that the PLA Air Force used the same Su-27SK exercises that were later used in the Eagle Strike 2015 exercises, and since 2010 no more exercises have been conducted with the Turkish Air Force.

It makes sense to consider what rational reasons are behind the use of the Su-27SK in exercises with the Air Force, with which the PLA Air Force has never interacted before. Since the Su-27SK is the weakest fourth-generation fighter in the Chinese arsenal (both in 2010, and in 2015, and today), sending it to the exercises probably reflects the PLA’s reluctance to disclose sensitive information about more modern fighters. As can be seen from the later Eagle Strike exercises, the Chinese sent more efficient and modern J-10A and J-10C fighters, which may reflect an increase in mutual trust in the growing military relationship.

Of course, since the PLA Air Force conducts exercises with a couple of the Air Force in the world, it is difficult to make an unambiguous conclusion that these guesses are correct. But it is worth mentioning that in the Shahin exercises with Pakistan, taking into account the very long military and geopolitical relations, the PLA air force uses various new systems from 4+ generation fighters to AWACS aircraft, and usually without long-term delays from the moment of adoption .

A little bit about the future


The presentation of the Eagle Strike 2015 exercises provided very useful and rare details of the PLA Air Force's participation in the first exercises with the Royal Thai Air Force. And while the details of the presentation provide the basis for discussing the shortcomings of the pilots who participated in the exercises, some English-language interpretations of what happened contain a clear reassessment of the scale of the consequences. In particular, it is difficult to ignore the estimates of long-range battles and group battles, which mainly depend on the technological level of aircraft and to a minimum extent on the training of pilots.

In subsequent Eagle Strike exercises (2017, 2018, and 2019), the PLA air force used J-27A fighters more advanced than the Su-10SK and, finally, in 2019, the J-10C.


Chinese light fighter J-10C

The rumors that accompany these teachings indicate that the Chinese have achieved much better results, in particular with the J-10C. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that the PLA air forces will make public as much detailed analyzes of all subsequent exercises.

Rick Joe, The Diplomat (Japan), April 16, 2020

Translator's afterword


Fighter SAAB JAS 39 "Gripen" in version "C" today can be considered as a kind of "conditionally medium fighter of the West." In this regard, the results of the battles of the Su-27 against such a machine are of great interest to us. Although the Su-27 is now considered an obsolete aircraft and is not mass-produced, dozens of such aircraft still remain in the aerospace forces, and they are also in naval aviation.

More than half of them did not undergo significant modernization of avionics and in the battles with Western aircraft will show themselves in the same way as the Chinese fighters showed. And the latter lost 100% of fights at a great distance. The author of the article rightly pointed out that in such battles the training of pilots is of minimal importance, and the tactical and technical characteristics of the aircraft and its weapons are crucial.

Theoretically, there are several ways to solve the problem of obsolete aircraft. The first is a banal replacement with a new aircraft. This is the most reliable way, and this is what the Ministry of Defense has done in previous years, but still this process cannot be instantaneous. In addition, there are objective economic difficulties that our country is experiencing and which will not disappear so quickly.

The second way is modernization. But according to available information, the Ministry of Defense believes that bringing the Su-27 level to modern requirements is unreasonably expensive.

It is of interest to partially modernize the aircraft without costly replacing the radar and altering the electrical system (the cost of which together led to the refusal to continue upgrading the Su-27), but with updating information transmission systems and cockpit equipment, and giving the aircraft the ability to use weapons based on the radar data of another aircraft. Then a single Su-35 or MiG-31 will be able to make several Su-27s capable of launching missiles at targets that they themselves could not even detect. This mode also “disguises” the fighter, since in principle it does not include its own radar, even using missiles. The Americans successfully use this method in a bunch of F-35A and fourth-generation fighters.

Another possibility is to integrate electronic warfare systems in the Su-27, which allow you to divert the missile going to the aircraft from the ARLGSN off course. Then the enemy’s advantage in launch range will not help, and he will be forced to converge in close combat, which, as the Chinese example shows, he is likely to lose miserably.

There are no technical methods - to achieve such a culture of staff work that when planning military operations it would not be possible to send planes that obviously would not win it, but to use the Su-27 for feasible tasks - hunting for anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy, defeating its attack fighters in conjunction with modern fighter aircraft, etc. This is the most unreliable way, due to the human factor, fraught with sending pilots to slaughter. Although this would be a way out. But not in our conditions.

One way or another, fighters cannot be put off the solution to the problem of the presence of obsolete and incapable of resisting even the middle peasants of the Gripen type in the airborne forces. Examples of neglecting the development of aviation in our stories there is. The price of this was terrible. We hope that this issue will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Translator Notes


[1] “Flanker” (Flanker, attacking from the flank) - the code name for the aircraft of the Su-27 family in the US Air Force, NATO and several other countries.

[2] This educational institution is a forge of personnel for the Chinese Air Force and aircraft industry. Periodically, his students are involved even for the design of real combat aircraft - as, for example, was the case with the Q-5 attack aircraft.

[3] J-11 - a family of aircraft, the first version of which was the Su-27SK Chinese assembly.

[4] All technical specifications are provided by the author of the article, and, in his words, taken from the original Chinese slides. TTX voiced in the article are significantly different from those published in the Russian Federation.

[5] In the text “average”, “capable”, “strong”. When translating these words, they were replaced with assessments familiar to the Russian reader, while the meaning did not change.

[6] The difference in maximum overload is unprincipled, almost no combat pilot can stand 9g. The table advantage between 8g and 9g gives almost nothing.

[7] Here we must take into account the fact that the Sidewinders, even the latest ones, have shown themselves incapable of resisting even the old domestic IR traps. This showed well the downing of the Syrian Su-22 by the American F / A-18.

[8] The Su-27SK can use unguided weapons to strike ground targets.

[9] Data on the number and results of battles during exercises are contradictory and differ widely in different sources. It is known that the Chinese lost the fights at the ultimate distance, all without exception, but with regard to short-range fights, some sources give them 86% of victories. In any case, all experts and observers are confident in the overwhelming superiority of the PLA Air Force Su-27SK in close combat.

[10] Attempts to compensate for problems with equipment due to the human factor are not unique to the PLA Air Force. The US Air Force has a special program for the development of tactical techniques, using which the pilot of the F-16 could conduct a maneuver battle against the superior maneuverability of the Su-27. One such battle between the F-16 and Su-27 was photographed in Nevada by an accidental eyewitness, the photo hit the press. It is difficult to say what effect the Americans managed to achieve. Some tricks born in such battles and hit the press look like extremely dangerous tricks, although they increase the chances of winning.
Author:
Photos used:
Rick Joe's Twitter, AsianDefenceBlog, Gian Luca Onnis, Raytheon, ChinaMilitary
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. zyablik.olga April 20 2020 04: 54 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    The article is certainly interesting, although in some places chaotic.
    As for the Su-27, in the PLA Air Force all available Su-27SKs were decommissioned in 2019, and in the Russian Air Force the share of the Su-27SM / SM3 relative to the Su-30SM / M2 and Su-35S is relatively small. It should also be understood that the bulk of our Su-27SMs are modernized machines built in the late 80s and early 90s, and they did not have long to fly.
    1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 16 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      There are several dozen un-upgraded Su-27s.
      1. zyablik.olga April 20 2020 09: 32 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There are several dozen un-upgraded Su-27s.
        Su-27P basically live their life in the parking lot.
        1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 38 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Yes, that's not a fact. At least in the same naval aviation.
          1. zyablik.olga April 20 2020 10: 01 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Where and how much? These machines are extremely worn out and their avionics have long failed to meet modern requirements. In the Far East, not a single active Su-27P has been around for a long time. no
            1. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 10: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              A minimum of 18 naval S / P / UB units in the KOR, I think they will add 10 more. For the IAE deployed to 689 IAP. There are a dozen or two in Crimea, but in the Air Force.
              1. zyablik.olga April 26 2020 13: 18 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Cyril, how many of them are actually in flight condition, and how often do they fly up in the air? Machines that had a sufficient resource for the glider have long been redone in the Su-27SM.
                1. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 17: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Firstly, I can say one thing: originally planned to upgrade 36 Su-27 in SM3 + 12 newly built in 2010-2011 Su-27SM3. The program stopped at 24 in total! That is, the modernization was donated in favor of the construction of new boards.
                  A total of about 27 multi-role fighters — 30 Su-34SM35, 10 Su-350M12, about 27 Su-3SM, 20 Su-30, 2 Su-100s — were received in 30 years for the new Su-90/35/120/34 family aircraft. An average of 30-40 boards per year.
                  Further in relation to the Su-27S / P. They in the 90s and zero years basically stood on the joke, thanks to which they did not spend much on the common resource. Moreover, CWR is still being produced. I will give an example of one side. Su-27UB, bn 102. Built in 1989. In 2000, the resource flew to the CWR, and put on a joke where it was already 16 years old !!! In 2017, upon completion of the repair, he flew to Chkalovsk. The called figure of at least 40 Su-27S / P should be recognized absolutely realistic. They are, as I wrote in the Navy (KOR), and in the Crimea for sure. In addition, there may be a certain number of serviceable sides of 2-3 in the regiments previously used by senior officers to support the raid. BUT this is already speculation.
                  how much they can serve. In principle, about 10 years. They are not in a hurry to write them off yet. Perhaps the Su-24S / P will, after some time, be driven through minimal modernization for work on the ground. "Hephaestization"
                  Something like this.
  2. Horst78 April 20 2020 05: 15 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    In the end, the Su-27SK is one of the oldest aircraft of all the Su-27 variants in the world, having the most minimal capabilities.
    Well, it’s worth mentioning that the Su-27SK is an export modification i.e. "stripped down." In addition, the practice of “Sukhoi” consisted in the supply of a specific modification (including import systems). For example, there is a situation with the export of the T-90 to India and Algeria. Algeria did not save on equipment and was completely satisfied, while the Hindus complained that it was "hot and the tank was warming up." Then it seems to have taken into account that "their cant."
    1. EvilLion April 20 2020 08: 54 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Why is it stripped down? These machines were already delivered at the turn of the 90-2000s, then it was not until the preservation of the best for themselves.
      1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 03 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        In the early nineties. There were differences from the version for their Air Force, they don’t just put the “K” index, but these differences do not affect the ability of the aircraft to conduct air combat with modern fighters.
      2. Horst78 April 20 2020 09: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Why is it stripped down?

        So I wrote
        Sukhoi’s practice was to supply a specific modification (including import systems)
  3. Thrifty April 20 2020 05: 32 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    I am sure that our MO draws conclusions from such information. Also, I hope that over time we will replace our old Su27s with Su35s so that in real combat the “results” that the Chinese pilots did not get in the summer on un-upgraded unlicensed Su aircraft. ..
    1. svp67 April 20 2020 05: 48 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: Thrifty
      I am sure that our MO draws conclusions from such information.

      It draws conclusions, but he doesn’t get more money from it.
    2. EvilLion April 20 2020 08: 56 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      Su-27SK Chinese is completely licensed. As for J-11, then Design Bureau them. Sukhoi is not responsible for its quality, they put their cross-eyed radar and go, so that rockets fly a kilometer past, and then blather.
    3. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 04 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      The MO is changing fighters for new ones, but this process will go on for at least five more years, and during these five years a lot of things can happen.
    4. Herman 4223 30 June 2020 22: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This Japanese article is drawn to Zaoshi clearly. Even the initial characteristics are not given correctly.
      For example, the radar detection range of 160 km is indicated for influenza E which is not yet in service.
      Gripen S who participated in the exercises has more modest indicators. The radiation power of the Su-27 radar is the same as that of 1Q flu. But in drying, the diameter of the antenna is larger, which means it takes a better return signal.
      Further along the range of the missiles. Why is p27 50 km for the Japanese? When it, depending on options, can up to 80 and even 110km. Again, a problem with electronic warfare, maybe they didn’t put it for the Chinese, but drying has it. The birch is called.
      Well, correctly noted about the conditions of the exercises, nothing is known, and about the results, too, actually.
  4. Vita vko April 20 2020 05: 55 New
    • 9
    • 14
    -5
    It is strange that the author does not see the obvious facts related to the development date of these fighters, in particular, the Su-27 made its first flight in 1977, and the SAAB JAS-39C in 1988, the latter being compared in a modernized version. It would be more correct to compare the JAS-39 and the Mig-35. It is a pity that China did not put up something like An-2 for the exercises, then the author would have been much more "interesting."
    1. tlauicol April 20 2020 08: 39 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      J11 available since 2000s
    2. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 04 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      The author wrote about this directly. You read before commenting.
    3. ole1 April 20 2020 12: 22 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      with Mig 35 you should compare JAS 39 in the latest latest modification E, which significantly exceeds version C. But here, the comparison is likely to be in favor of JAS 39 E / D
      1. DDT
        DDT April 23 2020 21: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ole1
        with Mig 35 you should compare JAS 39 in the latest latest modification E, which significantly exceeds version C. But here, the comparison is likely to be in favor of JAS 39 E / D

        And with which MiG-35s do you need to compare them according to yours? With those 6th, which are in service with the Russian Federation?
        1. ole1 April 24 2020 00: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, Mig 35 - Without AFAR, with a not-so-new OLS, well, there are no more Gripenovs in modification E either.
          1. DDT
            DDT April 24 2020 03: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well do not tell. Gripen are already in service with 5 countries. But the MiG-35 was never brought to mind. He has not yet become a multi-functional fighter. Although buyers would be. The same Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, the Su-30 in my opinion are redundant, at least in terms of territory. If the MiG were taught the plus of aerial combat, to work on the ground, at least at the level of the Su-24 / MiG-27, there would be no price for such an aircraft.
            1. ole1 April 24 2020 09: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I’m talking ONLY about Gripen E, it’s been in series since 2020, and Gripen E is different from Gripen C about the same as Su 27 from Su 35. Different gliders, different engines, different avionics
    4. Wasilii April 20 2020 12: 49 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Even more than that, we are talking about the latest modification of Gripen-NG, which is only moving forward and all the parameters of radio electronics that provide such superiority of Gripen are taken from there. So it’s more correct to say 2017 versus 1977.
      1. tlauicol April 20 2020 13: 44 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Yes, but it’s not NG flu that was involved in the exercises, and the Thais are not so powerful. Nevertheless, the result on the scoreboard
      2. ole1 April 20 2020 18: 08 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Modification NG actually is a modification of E, just the names are different.

        Judging by the fact that the Thai Gripen had a refueling option - according to the English Wikipedia this corresponds to the modification of the Gripen C Batch III, released in 2002-2008. That is, in fact, there are 27 differences between Su 1980 SK (the level of the 15s + minimal modernization for the launch of the RVV-SD) and the Gripenes, while the Gripenes were beaten in close combat

        As for the results of long-range combat, the question is how they counted. There is a feeling that winning was considered just to capture the target for the launch of amraam or RVV-SD. Well, since amraam has a longer range than RVV-SD, the result is obvious.

        Somewhat surprising is the tabular range of the Gripen C radar - as much as 160 km, as I recall on the C modifications there is a low-power slot antenna. The English-language wiki actually gives a range of up to 120 km
        1. Wasilii April 20 2020 20: 17 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          I agree. Take for example the recent conflict between India and Pakistan. A very real "war game". The F-16s with the AMRAAMs showed nothing special, although they shot everywhere. Indian dryers received a warning about rocket fire and dodged all AMRAAMs, but the old MiG-21s and Sino-Pakistani F-17s reportedly showed better results. So, the question of how the victory in aerial battles of sushi and griffins was considered is an open question.
        2. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 10: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Maybe according to Broiler-787 there will be 160 kilometers. Physics will not be deceived.
    5. SovAr238A April 20 2020 23: 30 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Vita VKO
      It is strange that the author does not see the obvious facts related to the development date of these fighters, in particular, the Su-27 made its first flight in 1977, and the SAAB JAS-39C in 1988, the latter being compared in a modernized version. It would be more correct to compare the JAS-39 and the Mig-35. It is a pity that China did not put up something like An-2 for the exercises, then the author would have been much more "interesting."


      You should start to realize that the war begins "suddenly" ...
      And they have to fight by what is at the airfields "here and now."
      And not by years of development.
      What do we really have in modern aviation?
      of 32 ekadriliy only 5 on a relatively modern ...

      And the remaining 27 squadrons will have to fight ...
      1. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 10: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Are you talking about which squadrons by the way? Whose?
        In the Russian Federation, the aircraft capable of fighting a serious air opponent are 100 Su-30cm, 90 Su-35 and at least 100-110 modernized MiG-31s.
        At the catch, as the second line is another 70 MiG-29K / KUB / SMT and 24 Su-27cm3. There is a misunderstanding today on the Kursk SMT. For the summer of last year, it seemed, after the rearmament of 14 IAPs on the Su-30cm.
        Yes, we probably have more fighter squadrons than 32. On Bravery, I posted the count of this year - about 1000 tactical aircraft (Fighters, IS, attack aircraft and tactical reconnaissance aircraft) were released ....
    6. Sniper Amateur April 25 2020 06: 34 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Su-27 made its first flight in 1977

      In reality - 20.04.1981/XNUMX/XNUMX.
  5. Cruorvult April 20 2020 06: 37 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Doubts take me about the EPR, but less, but with the front PGO and 5 times lower. Moreover, the EPR of the glider is compared, in real combat conditions it will have to carry hanging tanks and external weapons.
    1. EvilLion April 20 2020 08: 58 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      So, when the "Gripa" was developed, there was already a fashion for stealth, and they tried to lower the EPR. The same Su-35 also has many times less EPR than the Su-27, because the effect of low start is stupid, at first they didn’t ask this question, and immediately found a bunch of places where you can improve.
      1. 3danimal April 26 2020 12: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Radically impossible, on the same 22nd or 35th joints were specially designed and more advanced assembly methods were applied.
        Similarly with Gripen, Just not so radical.
    2. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 05 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      In numbers, all the questions are not even to the author of the article, but to the Chinese Air Force, they come from there.
    3. patch25 April 21 2020 03: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      1,5-2 meters at the Gripen - 10-12 meters at the Su-27SK.
      specific ≠ iron-concrete room flying straight to you.
      Here, no electronic warfare will save if you do not shoot lightning.
    4. DDT
      DDT April 23 2020 21: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: CruorVult
      Doubts take me about the EPR, but less, but with the front PGO and 5 times lower. Moreover, the EPR of the glider is compared, in real combat conditions it will have to carry hanging tanks and external weapons.

      Well, you do not take into account the diameters of the corners. The length of Gripen is something a little less than 15m, and the drying length is over 20? Plus Delta. Probably the radar sees it all wrong, with our eyes ... laughing laughing
  6. 501Legion April 20 2020 07: 07 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In the photo there is flu and drying together. the first one is just a dwarf compared to the monster Su
  7. ares1988 April 20 2020 07: 41 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Thank you for the article. Is it possible about this: “Here we must take into account the fact that the Sidewinders, even the newest ones, have shown themselves incapable of resisting even the old domestic infrared traps. This showed the downing of the Syrian Su-22 by the American F / A-18” a little more?
    1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 09 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      The episode when the American F-18 shot down the Syrian Su-22, which attacked some kind of Roamerican squad in Kurdistan. Initially, the American used the Sidewinder, with the latest AIM-9X. This missile was specially designed so that it did not go to infrared traps and during testing it successfully ignored them, "clinging" to the engine signature.

      But it turned out that the spectrum of the old Soviet IR traps is somewhat different, but this was not taken into account in the United States. As a result, the rocket went into the IR trap and the pilot had to make a second attack attack and use the AIM-120 at short range.

      Hence the conclusion. The Americans will fix this in time, but older missiles delivered to other countries will probably remain “as they are,” mostly at least.
      1. EvilLion April 20 2020 09: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You can cram a bunch of rubbish into traps, and even by accident, the spectra will also be different. But in general, this is nonsense, because the trap just needs to be spectrally indistinguishable from the flow of gases from the nozzle.
        1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 37 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          The fact is that the super-newest Sidewinder, with the GOS specially created as capable of cutting off traps, all the same went into the trap.
          1. EvilLion April 20 2020 10: 52 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            And no one gives a 100% guarantee there, even SAMs do not fall into a direct flying target with a 100% probability.
      2. Carnifexx April 26 2020 18: 18 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        But this is what. I would not recommend extrapolating isolated cases, let alone invent explanations based on them, and MORE THAN consider these explanations the final verdict.
        Sidewinders of past generations showed themselves excellently against Soviet (and not only) fighters in ALL Vietnam field conflicts. You can recall at least the Iran-Iraq or both incidents in the Gulf of Sidra (Gulf of Sidra incident 1981, 1989 air battle near Tobruk). No problems processing Soviet fighters by Sidewinder.
        1. timokhin-aa April 27 2020 20: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The issue is not fighter jets, but infrared cartridges.
          1. Carnifexx April 28 2020 11: 48 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            OK, IR ammo. You took an example where Soviet infrared cartridges tricked AIM 9, ONE example. Next, we came up with an explanation of how it happened. And on the basis of this explanation, they concluded that the quality of the target capture heads in ALL modern American short-range air-to-air missiles is low. At the same time, there are examples when IR cartridges did not help at all - there are many such examples, this is much more than one ... and doesn’t it bother you? Okay
            1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 20: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And on the basis of this explanation, they concluded that the quality of the target capture heads in ALL modern American short-range air-to-air missiles is low.


              No, I concluded from this that the Sidewinder can go into the infrared trap - and he can.
              1. Carnifexx April 28 2020 20: 43 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Here we must take into account the fact that the Sidewinders, even the newest ones, have shown themselves incapable of resisting even the old domestic infrared traps. This showed well the downing of the Syrian Su-22 by the American F / A-18.
                Time

                This missile was specially designed so that it did not go to infrared traps and during testing it successfully ignored them, "clinging" to the engine signature.
                Two

                But it turned out that the spectrum of the old Soviet IR traps is somewhat different, but this was not taken into account in the United States. As a result, the rocket went into the infrared trap and the pilot had to make a second attack attack and use the AIM-120 at short range
                Three

                Hence the conclusion. The Americans will fix this in time, but older missiles delivered to other countries will probably remain “as they are,” mostly at least.
                Shine Christmas tree!

                You can make out your line of argument, and compare it with my indignation. Let's get started? Personally, I am only in favor. Here I see far-reaching conclusions without sufficient arguments. You either poorly formulated, without scrubbing, without removing the roughness, or you meant that a significant part of the AIM-9 missiles are simply unable to distinguish between an infrared trap and an engine.

                Yes ... I like to talk.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Amateur April 20 2020 07: 49 New
    • 5
    • 7
    -2
    Bravo! Compare the old export version of the Su-27 with the much newer Gripen, but make a wonderful conclusion:
    the Chinese have achieved much better results, in particular, with J-10C.

    "Chinese advertising
    Well ahead of the rest "
  9. Viktor Sergeev April 20 2020 07: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Are you sure that Su27 of China are the same as in Russia?
    1. EvilLion April 20 2020 08: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, of course, the Su-27SK is a somewhat later export modification, most likely better than the Su-27P, of which the Russian Air Force, if any, is minuscule.
      1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        We have several dozen modernized Su-27s.
        1. EvilLion April 20 2020 09: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And this is what years the wiki should look at, where the infa is not being updated quickly, and it is not known what condition they are in, since the Su-27s are not only being modernized, they are already being deducted.
          1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 42 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Jane had about 50 units for 2018.
            Here the trick is that against the top-end, not medium-sized Western cars, the modernized Su-27s, like the Su-30s, also look pale.
            Can an airplane with a UVT even dodge a missile, and some ordinary Su-27SM3?

            And on the way mass deliveries of F-35. Already underway in Japan and Norway, on the way Poland.

            Only Su-35 can fight with us, and then "on the limit." And ideally, you need a combination of the MiG-31 and Su-35 with new missiles.

            So the situation remains so-so.
            1. voyaka uh April 20 2020 10: 06 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Only Su-35 can fight with us, and then "at the limit" ////
              ----
              In close combat.
              1. timokhin-aa April 21 2020 22: 17 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Not necessarily.
                The Su-35 was created as an aircraft capable of winning an air battle, which began with a pair of missiles launched "a few seconds from a warhead explosion" that were launched from nowhere and by nobody - and he can.

                You are a little stiff in your Israel there - the enemy may well not try to grasp the immensity and surpass the West in radar, VZOI, etc.
                The adversary can take the Western idea that it is necessary to defeat by launching SD from a safe distance, as a starting point and create a tactical model and equipment for this situation.

                Roughly speaking. According to our doctrine, the battle begins where it ends according to yours.

                So if something happens, you will find a lot of surprises.
                1. voyaka uh April 21 2020 23: 04 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  To start the battle you need to see the enemy.
                  The Su-35 on the radar is huge.
                  1. 1_2
                    1_2 April 23 2020 23: 43 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Su35 hides in dozens of false targets that the Khibiny generates; in su35, a powerful VFAR sees an epr of 0,3 (f22) at a distance of up to 200 km
                    1. voyaka uh April 24 2020 00: 28 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      0.3 m2, maybe he sees. But a 0.3 M2 EPR is not stealth, alas.
                      This is "darned, aligned smile "under the stealth 4th generation.
                      0.3 is better, of course, than 15 m2 like the F-15 or Su-27, but the attitude towards stealth
                      does not have.
                  2. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 11: 01 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    EPR Su-35 estimated in the region of 2 sq. M., Su-27P actually in the region of 5-6 sq. M.
                    1. voyaka uh April 26 2020 11: 14 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      It is without rockets on external suspensions. And that is underestimated.
                      Two high vertical keels of the Su-27 and Su-35 give a clear view
                      "brand" indication of the brand of the aircraft. And about the F-15 brand, too.
                      Strictly in the frontal plane, the EPR of the Su-35 is less than that of the Su-27.
                      1. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 11: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So all declared EPR are strictly frontal.
                  3. timokhin-aa April 27 2020 20: 36 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well, yours will see. Once again, in our ideology, the battle begins with a series of URVs that were seen nearby, released from nowhere.
                2. 3danimal April 24 2020 20: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  The weakness of this position is that the whole calculation is based on perfectly suitable conditions: we managed to get away from the attack of missiles launched “out of nowhere” fired by the 5th generation (and there are no guarantees - types of aircraft are flashed into radars, and not 1-2 are possible, and 3-4 missiles, which will drastically reduce the already not very high chances);
                  after a series of incredible somersaults (which are possible in a limited speed range), you need to find and attack an adversary who, again (knowing what he is dealing with), will prefer to keep his advantageous distance at which it is difficult to “see”.
            2. EvilLion April 20 2020 10: 55 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Mass - is it 42 pieces in Japan? Or, I don’t remember exactly how little Poland is closer to 1930? Top car - which one? The "typhooncheg" of the turn of the century, that is, about the same age as the Su-30MKI, is it the top? Or will we consider only the modernizations of the last 5 years and models after the year 2000 as top-end?
              1. timokhin-aa April 21 2020 22: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Or will we consider only the modernizations of the last 5 years and models after the year 2000 as top-end?


                Yes. That's why they are top-end.
            3. alexmach April 20 2020 12: 41 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              And ideally, you need a combination of the MiG-31 and Su-35 with new missiles.

              Mig-31 then what side? Pretend to be AWACS or what?
              1. alexmach April 21 2020 12: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Or vice versa an arsenal of long-range missiles? but his rockets are probably out of date, and he doesn’t carry many of them.
                1. timokhin-aa April 21 2020 22: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  To portray AWACS and long-range missiles together.
                  1. 3danimal April 24 2020 19: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    The ability to track and track aerial targets is slightly different compared to Lightning. And unlike the F-35, it cannot simultaneously monitor the “ground” and “air”. There is a significant difference between VFAR and AFAR.
                    1. timokhin-aa April 27 2020 20: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      He needs to monitor only the air
                      1. 3danimal April 28 2020 06: 55 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Having examined the characteristics in more detail, I found that they are not at all impressive.
                        Tracked targets (for MiG-31BM) - 24, against 30 for the Su-35 and 100 for the F-35 (AFAR request ).
                        Viewing range of 400 km ... for a target with an EPR of 20 sq. M. The range of the Su-35 and F-22/35 radars is higher / equal for smaller EPR (1-3 sq. M), 200+ Km.
                        It turns out that the only plus is high speed.
                        Long-range missiles can carry the Su-35.
                      2. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 09: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The MiG-31 is a high-speed "spotlight" that can work from high altitudes and break away from attacks at high speed, and the Su-35 is an attacking unit that should not "shine" itself for the time being.
                      3. 3danimal April 28 2020 12: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        There are many emotions in these terms, and they distort the picture.
                        For MiG-31BM:
                        The longest detection range for a target with an EPR of 20 m² is 400 km, for an EPR of 5 m² — 282 km.
                        For Su-35:
                        with an EPR of 1 m² at opposite angles - 270 km;
                        with EPR of 3 m²: on the opposite courses - 350-400 km.
                        So which of them is a searchlight, especially against modern aircraft with low EPR?
                        How to tear MiG from a pair of AIM-120d?
                      4. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 20: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The longest detection range for a target with an EPR of 20 m² is 400 km, for an EPR of 5 m² — 282 km.


                        So he will highlight the target from above, while remaining clearly visible to the enemy and providing an SUDDEN entry into the battle of the 35s.

                        Just because while the Amer "stealth" will still have the opportunity to restore coverage after sorties, they will be very dangerous for the Su-35

                        How to tear MiG from a pair of AIM-120d?


                        Combat reversal with the introduction of the afterburner after changing course, shooting dipoles and separation at supersonic.
                        In the UR explosives, the engine runs at a third of the distance from the force, then it taxis simply.
                      5. 3danimal April 29 2020 08: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Combat reversal with the introduction of the afterburner after changing course, shooting dipoles and separation at supersonic.
                        In UR VV, the engine runs at a third of the distance from the force

                        Start is made from half the maximum distance. And the rockets have enough energy left to overtake Mig, over-maneuverability (up to 5g!) To help him. We remember its significant EPR, the resistance of modern GOS to interference and get very small chances to get away from such an attack (2 Amraham D).
                        About the use of Mig as a searchlight bomber: both pilots (the number is limited and you can’t quickly “rivet”), and the plane itself is very expensive. I see here a certain pull of reality "by the ears."
                        As a result, unification rules. It is better to buy a Su-35, instead of the MiG-31BM and modifications. Dry and how the strike aircraft will work, both in the long-range (preferably Miga) and in the near (here simply blades) air combat. Logistics and pilot training also benefit.
                        IMHO, the 35th will work fine and instead of the Su-34, you just need to hang an analog LANTRIN or SNIPER
                      6. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 09: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Start is made from half the maximum distance.


                        This is 90 km for your example, and in a straight line, i.e. horizontally it will be necessary to get closer even more. That's the whole layout.
                      7. 3danimal April 29 2020 09: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        What is the problem? The F-18E link is flying (with radar with AFAR) The F-18G is interfering (and the MiG radar is significantly less resistant to them). For F-22/35, everything is much simpler. In passive mode, they radar direction-finding and launch explosives before they are detected. In addition, those departing from the Migi attack will stop searching and highlighting targets (which is unclear why they are needed, given the superiority of the Su-35 radar).
                        I see a simpler picture: several Su-35s fly at high altitude, the second group is slightly lower. In case of defeat, a retired aircraft is easily replaced. Easier planning, organization, therefore - more reliable.
        2. 3danimal April 27 2020 22: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not many goals are able to track. Although at a slightly longer range.
          A very highly specialized aircraft, has few advantages over the Su-35 (and minuses a whole car).
  • Cyril G ... April 20 2020 09: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    More precisely, Kaliningrad and the Crimea, in the ranks of a dozen three, and for sure there are still serviceable ones. However, SM and CM3 is also not Ice. Radar did not change. On the other hand lies in dofig figures.
    1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I warned in the notes to the translation that the performance characteristics were on the conscience of the Chinese. On the other hand, they did not take them from the tablets, but from the measurements, so how it really is there is a question ...
  • tlauicol April 20 2020 08: 44 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    in national interest there was a good article about this
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-chinese-air-force-lost-war-game-fighter-jet-104247
  • EvilLion April 20 2020 08: 50 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    u-27SK PLA Air Force and JAS-39C Royal Thai Air Force at the exercises "Eagle Strike 2015"


    Where is the Su-27SK? Even on such a scale, it is clearly visible that this is either some version of the Su-30 or Su-27UB. What kind of analytics is this, if the author cannot even correctly identify the aircraft?
    1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 13 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      Well, here is the source of the author’s information.


      You can write to him on Twitter, complain, I'm a translator, not an author.
      1. Wasilii April 20 2020 14: 30 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Well, you see that this is nonsense. But still push it. Gripen's payload weight of 6 tons is kerosene and weapons combined. By analogy, the Su-27SK has a similar figure of 17 tons. An incredible mass of "inaccuracies." What does Gripen have to do with it? American engine from F / A-18E / F, radar from Finmekaniki from Eurofighter, what is Swedish in this fighter?
        1. 3danimal April 20 2020 15: 58 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Who cares who the component manufacturer is if it is a friendly country?
          By analogy: is there a lot of Russian in the SSJ-100?
          1. Wasilii April 20 2020 17: 43 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            I do not agree. There is a juxtaposition of Russian and Swedish fighters in terms of technology. One is Russian. Second hodgepodge. But the conclusion is that Swedish is better. There is nothing Swedish there. Even SAAB is a branch of British Aerospace.
            1. 3danimal April 20 2020 20: 00 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Nowadays, the “nationality" of technology means little. It is important which product you end up with.
              In BMW there is not only German developments, etc.
            2. Scaffold April 20 2020 20: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              You are slightly behind the times. British Aerospace has not existed since 1999. Succeeded by BAE Systems.
  • Ros 56 April 20 2020 09: 02 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    You can only sympathize with the Chinese tovalyami and laugh. No need to compare hard with green.
    1. musketon64 April 20 2020 10: 19 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      More likely cunning tovalis. Framed the old plane, which would reveal the characteristics of a relatively modern western. Nor should they demonstrate the capabilities of their latest fighter jets.
  • EvilLion April 20 2020 09: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maximum overload: Gripen + 9 / -2g - Su-27SK + 8 / -2g


    RLE Su-27SK declassified back in 2004 and is available online. I did not see more than 7.5g on the charts there. These are, as it were, really achievable overloads, rather than disposable overloads due to strength limitations, which are approximately the same for all aircraft. As for the "flu," with its thrust, it obviously will not reach large values, however, the pilot is already cut down by 7g along the spine, it is difficult to transfer such an overload.
    1. Bad_gr April 20 2020 11: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      .... at 7g along the spine the pilot is already simply cut down

      At competitions (sports planes), pilots experience overloads of up to 12g.
      Therefore, aircraft (for example, Su-26) are made taking into account such loads. Previous (Yak) were made based on 9g, so there were cases of destruction of the aircraft.
      1. EvilLion April 20 2020 14: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There are different overloads.
      2. Sniper Amateur April 25 2020 01: 16 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        At competitions (sports planes), pilots experience overloads of up to 12g.

        These are pilots in terms of anatomy and physiology and physical fitness. And in chairs that do not give a normal view. Dogfight in the cockpit of the Su-26M layout - you won’t win.
        1. nks
          nks April 25 2020 19: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          <! --dle_media_begin: https: //twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/1203283895321427974--> <blockquote class = "twitter-tweet" data-width = "550"> <p lang = "en" dir = "ltr "> Rafale touched 11g force on the Heads-up-display at Dubai Air Show

          Twitter doesn’t insert normally here
          https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/1203283895321427974
    2. Ros 56 April 20 2020 13: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In addition to the magnitude of the overload, the exposure time of this overload must be taken into account. Or is it a loop or the transfer of an airplane from horizontal flight to vertical.
      1. Bad_gr April 20 2020 13: 51 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Ros 56
        In addition to the magnitude of the overload, the exposure time of this overload must be taken into account.

        Outfit of a pilot, however, is not the last thing in helping a pilot withstand overload. For example, for the French, in addition to the anti-overload suit, which, depending on the overload, compresses the body, even shoes are involved in this matter.
    3. Lozovik April 20 2020 21: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      RLE Su-27SK declassified back in 2004 and is available online. I did not see more than 7.5g on the charts there.

      Need to read this RLE. With a mass of 19 tons, nysp = 9 to H≈8000 meters, nyust = 9, respectively, to H≈2000.

      Quote: EvilLion
      As for the "flu," with its thrust, it obviously will not reach large values, however, the pilot is already cut down by 7g along the spine, it is difficult to transfer such an overload.

      The tolerance limit ny = 9 in time without visual impairment in the PPC and the K-36 chair is 30 seconds.
      1. Carnifexx April 28 2020 11: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Namely, both congestion and congestion time are important. The author of the article forgot about it.
  • EvilLion April 20 2020 09: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The results of the “Eagle Strike 2015” - a serious confirmation that the aircraft with the best avionics, radar and other sensors, communications, electronic warfare and weapons can arrange a loud rout in long-range combat and group battles, requiring a high level of interaction in the group and situational awareness .


    And why did you get the idea that in a real battle everything will not be bombarded with interference, and both sides will not be blind?

    Or will cars with weak radars not receive target designation from more functional cars?

    The Ministry of Defense believes that bringing the Su-27 level to modern requirements is unreasonably expensive.


    In fact, this is the construction of a new car. Upgrade to the Su-27SM, as it were from 2001, at that time, apparently, is quite adequate. And the latest Su-27 from Soviet still orders is now 27 years old. There are new monitors in the cab. I do not know about information exchange systems. In theory, you can shove it, and there is even something to show.
    1. timokhin-aa April 20 2020 09: 44 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      You kind of keep in mind that I'm not an author, but a translator.
      And so it’s possible to think of Caliber strikes at aerodromes and generally decide without air battles.

      . I do not know about information exchange systems. In theory, you can shove it, and there is even something to show.


      There is a database. Just old. Allows targets in a group to be distributed from the keypad.
    2. 3danimal April 20 2020 16: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Look, you offer conditions convenient for you. At which planes will fight in the style of the Second World War.
      And all hope for an “if”. A radar with AFAR is more resistant to interference.
  • sevtrash April 20 2020 10: 30 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    As if nothing new - the plane with the old avionics is losing, and the Su27 has good maneuverability. And on the other hand, a key success factor is once again seen - the advanced avionics and stealth. Nothing new either, the USA has already had about 50 years in the series of such airplanes, from 117 to 35. Which means that everyone else is in a known loss.
  • Comrade Michael April 20 2020 12: 30 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I think we do not have a complete rearmament of the Air Force. There is a re-equipment for local wars and tasks, for continuous self-promotion of mass rearmament (to calm and give pride to the population). At such a pace you can rearm 50-100 years and you’ll still lag behind ... Basically, we have too long a time for development and commissioning, rather modest purchases ... IDBs. Our happiness is that we are not fighting fully with a serious enemy, I think the rate, as in the 90s, is on the enemy’s fear of the Strategic Missile Forces and missiles. I think that international sales of Soviet modernized aircraft will fall. Significant quantities of new aircraft will not be bought from us without their massive adoption in the country of manufacture and demonstrations in battle ... In addition, good sales of equipment require a large political, economic weight of the country and a large number of allies that are less wealthy, but not completely independent, but we don’t have anything of this .... Miracles do not happen.
    1. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 11: 56 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The United States has no allies alone sixes. C.
      If anything remains in our regiments unmodernized - pieces 30-40 Su-27S / P and pieces 12-15 MiG-31
  • Wasilii April 20 2020 12: 45 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    - "Combat load: 6 tons - 4 tons." I read carefully until this point. Introduced Gripen with six tons of combat load. It became funny. Then more questions arose. In short, as always. An article is a dummy.
    1. Alt-right April 20 2020 16: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Wasilii
      - "Combat load: 6 tons - 4 tons." I read carefully until this point. Introduced Gripen with six tons of combat load. It became funny. Then more questions arose. In short, as always. An article is a dummy.

      What is there to represent? Such "overweight" was not invented in order to create a whole "fence" of sidewinders and amraams (well, or from the p-77 and p-73), but in order to take PTBs, bombs, and cruise missiles. Those. for the notorious versatility of use. laughing
  • iouris April 20 2020 13: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    And what is the total number of "flu" and Su-27xx? Although it is already clear that technological (quality) lag can not always be compensated for by quantity. Also, the operator (customer) should make efforts to modernize, and the designer should at the design stage provide for the ease of replacing obsolete equipment and pairing more advanced systems with the complex.
  • PilotS37 April 20 2020 16: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of all three real participants in this action (a Japanese journalist, a Chinese pilot, according to the "slides" of which the article was written, and our translator of this article), the "translator" looks the most qualified specialist in the field of military aviation.
    We wish there were more such "translators"!
  • Usher April 20 2020 17: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Since when has Grippen 6 tons of load?
    And very drawn data on EPR. What are the 2 meters Grippen. What cabbage soup?
  • missuris April 20 2020 18: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    about the same export MiG-29 merged export Su-27
  • Lozovik April 20 2020 21: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Principal factors:

    Combat radius: 900 km - 1500 km.

    Well, how to say, with eight AB-500s, the tactical radius of the Su-27 is about 850 km along the altitude profile.

    “Gripen-S” has superiority in combat at large distances outside the visual range due to the detection range of its radar targets (160 km versus 120 for the Su-27SK), the maximum launch range of its missiles (80 km against 50 km) and the ability to simultaneously attack four goals, against one target in the Su-27SK.

    In DNP, one target can be attacked by two R-27Rs, in SNP of two targets by RVV-AE missiles.
  • Sasha_rulevoy April 21 2020 10: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    50 km range at RVV-AE, not 80, as in all sources?
    1. Lozovik April 22 2020 20: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The maximum launch range is limited by the range of the radio correction line. I won’t say anything about N001 (I haven’t encountered any modified ones), while the N019M has 50 km.
    2. Cyril G ... April 26 2020 11: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The real effective start ranges in all past wars for the RVV SD did not exceed 0.3-0.4 x Launch max. This is exactly the same with the AiM-120 applications. I basically do not believe in Indians' tales. For more than once they showed that the bad dancer and the eggs interfere.
  • DDT
    DDT April 23 2020 21: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why are you all so worried ?! Our unparalleled uncle Vasya, on an old Su-17, flies to the Swedish Johan on an engine with half thrust, and while he will aim with his Abraham, he will finish him to hell with a dog burst from GS-23
    In short, as the grandfathers on the IL-2 Messers fell. All with the upcoming day of Labor and Great Victory. hi
  • Maksim_ok 1 May 2020 01: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thai Gripen also did not have AIM-9X, which decently exceeds P-73 and AIM-120C8 (AIM-120D) with a range of 160-180 km and a radar with AFAR (which the truth is only being tested for Gripen)