Its basically about cost vs performance and time taken therein

That is the crux of the issue

It costs money and time to sit and sand down all the excess welding paste even though it does not matter

Now if you look at other items where finish matters, whether they be fighters or electronics items, adequate care is taken, look at airshow displays in india

I would bet that in newer designs of the Navy which are claimed to be stealthier more care would be given to such aspects of production since now they matter

You’re missing the point-I didn’t say the MKK was an equal to the MKI. My point is that it’s not a fault of the MKK that it lacks the range of weapons and sensors that the MKI has. That would be a political issue, not a technological one.

Ok but to add: What matters is the combat performance

We can sit and debate : why the IAFs Mirage 2000s didnt have the RDI as versus the RDM – whether it was cost or politics, but the thng is that a “H” was worse off than a standard FAF “C”

Similarly, in the case of the MK(I) the IAF has access to the mission computer which allows it to play around with new weapons and integrate the same. It has a wider range of PGMs as well. So would the MKM (and perhaps the MKA) for the latter but they have hangups against Israel.

The F 15 may have started off as an A2A plane, now the E version is but the pre-eminent strike aircraft of its type, with JDAMs and other GPS guided ordinance it retains an all weather edge over even todays Sukhois

Basically the strike vs A2A is a myth, even for the MKK vs MKI

The MKI today can deliver a better range of PG ordnance against varied targets than the MKK

Further upgrades as mentioned will retain that edge
Nothing of this sort is mentioned for the other MK variants

For instance: The KS-172 (per some reports), improvements to the radar, and finally, the Brahmos A for instance
Added to the above- a HADF pod, present today

Hence it would be correct to state, that the MKI would probably retain the lead amongst the Flanker variants, with only (if it happens) a new Su-35 being equivalent(or better primarily since it would get AL 41 variants), and in terms of design, the MKI is better at multirole than the MKK

Now this galls the nationalist MKK type, but the point is that in todays world, India for instance can pick and choose the best and ensure that it gets the best deal, and technology, if the Russians say no- there is always SELEX or ELTA
So no monkeying around with monkey models
Even the T90Ss purchased by India are the Vladimirs with the latest welded turret

This is entirely also why I referred to the MKM/I as super flankers. These are operational fighters, the 35/37 are but the same in terms of most subsystems and capabilities but are remaining paper projects

Again, where did I say the MKK was superior or even equal?

So why and what exactly, when you said “Arbitrarily” and noted all that about the pod, were you alluding to? :confused:

So we agree then- in PGM strike, even, the MKI/MKM have a greater edge or are not inferior.

Not that MKK is bad- the last version with the MS radar was truly as capable (bar GPS ordnance) as an earlier F-15 E

On a related note, Kopp’s article you referenced is so full of errors it’s not even funny. Of course, then I remembered who the author was, and it figured 😀

Kopp knows a lot of tech stuff but his bias makes his statements hard to buy
Similarly with Rick Fisher, who unfortunately does not have the technical expertise as well
Both are good for fancy multipage reports, with a severely alarmist tone (usually about China) but fun to read nonetheless!!

In some ways I think that the Su-32 is an anachronism
Low level penetration, is simply too dangerous for manned aircraft in this day and age and to design an entire aircraft around that precept seems barmy
With the proliferation of increasingly capable Manpads to VSHORADS to LR SAMs – the Su-32 will be flying too much into harms way
Not that it is the only aircraft to be in this quandary, the Rafale seems to be in a similar state..

Comments?! Agree/ Disagree!

For all intents and purposes the difference between 5m^2 and 10m^2 is insignificant. You need to reduce it by orders of magnitude to matter.

That is a rational reply. The 4th power rule does limits ones options. But let me note further. A 5 mtr sq vs a 14-15 mtr square would be valid, otherwise we are comparing a loaded RCS reduced plane to a clean one (without RCS reduction).

We obtain approximately a 30% reduction in range.

But do we actually know what the redesigned Su-35’s RCS will be, note larger inlets per Piotr Butowskis article on the -35 BM, plus the fact that the US apparently used “radar blockers” in the inlet of the F/A-18 E/F, perhaps such a method could be used here, and redesigned inlets would make it possible to do so without restricting the air flow.

Incidentally edefense mentions the RCS reductions taking the RCS to the order of 1-3 mtr sq. which coupled with a normal weapons load (of 2 mtrs sq RCS), make it 3-5 mtrsquare, a vast improvement over the original Su-27’s 12 mtr sq, which when coupled with weaponry would zoom to 14-15!.

Of course, the Russians are said to have paid attention to reducing the RCS of the weapons as well, primarily with RAM, and this may come at the cost of a weight penalty and reduced performance.

One good thing to examine would be covers or carrying cases for the weaponry, discardable, and which are more optimized for lowering the RCS

The clean EF is reputed to have a RCS 1/10th of the F-15, again 1 mtrs sq. (source, recent interview given by EF marketing director, ex RAF ADV pilot, to the Norwegian press)

It does work in a scenario without AWACs or GCI. It depends on which pilot would turn on his radar first, and therefore, broadcast his presence throughout the entire hostile area. The other pilot can rely on his RWR to get close enough and the F-22’s RWR, from what I heard, can let you do this. Heck, you don’t really need the F-22’s RWR to do this. Now if the other combatant has LPI or noninterceptable radar, that would count too since he can see you and you can’t see him. Another way of doing this also is using the IRST instead of the radar for a totally passive approach. This is the Flanker’s advantage against planes without an IRST.

Let me rewrite what I wrote:

All that wont work in a scenario without AWACs and where two equivalent fighters slug it out.

Ergo- No F-22s.

I disagree with your statements in the latter paragraph. Not really related to this thread, so lets move on.

Hence, before everyone gets confused about F-22 or no F-22 or F-22 vs Non F-22 or non F-22 vs non F-22, lets drop this and move on.
So, lets. Hope it is clearer this time around.

Does China have access to all of those weapons and systems? No? Then how is it a fault attributable to the MKK that IAF MKIs have different systems and weapons?

Irrespective of whose “fault it is” as you try to put it, addressing some strawman claim of your own imagination- the point is that one has a better range of weapons plus all those which the MKK has access to, which negates your earlier statement of the MKK being designed for strike whereas the MKI or MKM werent- there is no such thing, one could well argue the reverse. The MKI was intended to be multirole, not primarily A2A, semantics and names apart
I would be glad to see which exact PGMs on the MKK are better than those on the MKI or MKM.
Given that neither the MKI or the MKM (and hopefully the MKK) will be dumb bomb carriers for the most part, but precision strike platforms from long range

And how can you arbitrarily state that Litening is “a much better Optronics pod than whatever the MKK has” when you apparently don’t know what the MKK has?

And you can read my mind now reference that “arbitrarily” quip? Please compare the specs of the Sapsan with the Litening or for that matter with the Thales Damocles on the MKM, and draw your own conclusions.

On the one hand you say that these items are unavailable to China. On the other hand, that makes the MKKs Optronics pod equal, if not better
Go on, tell us which one it has and how it is better than that on the MKM or the MKK!

Does not make sense at all. You don’t snipe misisles at long range or you would guarantee losing them. The preferred tactic is to launch BVRAAMs at the last moment rather than at the farthest range, in order to put the target on the sweetest no escape zone and to give him the most minimal warning as possible. In the Gulf War, F-15s rely on “snap” attacks with their Sparrows. Instead of firing them at the longest range, they track the enemy, then at the last possible moment, they would “x-ray” the targets with their radars ala CWI illumination, then launch Sparrows. Given the radiant intensity of the illumination at closer ranges, the Sparrows get very quick locks, and targets have minimum time for evasion.

In order to obtain this advantage, you need to creep up on the enemy as long as possible. Hench the reduction of RCS becomes most necessary. The Stealth advantage has nothing to do with shooting targets at the farthest range, but to creep into the enemy and fire at him at the shortest least warning range.

Without AWACS support, with reliance on equivalent radars, RCS reduction is useless since both combatants would have given away their positions anyway by using radars on each other. RWRs today are good enough to determine even the radar modes the other aircraft is using on you, as well as provide bearing and range of the emitting aircraft. You won’t get extra kilometers advantage anyway, since you both need to come close enough anyway to launch based on your missile’s no escape zone, which is almost under 40km anyway.

As for the triplane design, the Russians are abandoning it in the latest Su-35 version.

All that wont work in a scenario without AWACs and where two equivalent fighters slug it out. I disagree with your statements in the latter paragraph. Not really related to this thread, so lets move on.