Yahoo25note the 1200KM radius and 3500KM range with larger antenna and Stealthness its prominent features. this should be the most trusted source as it is for export they cannot manipulate this things that much.
http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/…830_155337.html
Quote:
China’s Xiaolong fighter 04 scheduled to take off next AprilFollowing the success in the first flight of Xiaolong 03 this past April, news came from Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group that Xiaolong 04 has passed the first round of examination and appraisal by the judging panel consisting of 32 experts from China Aviation Industry Corporation I. It is estimated that the plane will be put into production in October and have its first flight next April.
According to Tianfu Morning Post, Xiaolong 04¡¯s structure is basically the same as that of 03. Xiaolong 03 made partial improvements in internal testing device and air inlet system. The Xiaolong 04 also adopts two-side inlets and the nose of the plane can accommodate large radar antennas. Also it has seven external hard-points capable of carrying multiple air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and have the capability of launching medium-range missiles and attacking multiple beyond-visible-range targets. Its maximum flying range is 3,500 kilometers with an operational radius of over 1,200 kilometers. It has matched the third generation fighters in terms of overall combat efficacy and possesses the capability to contend with advanced contemporary fighters and certain stealthy capability. It can finish both the interception task and mount air-to-ground attack.
People inside the China Aviation Industry Corporation I said that according to the design need of Xiaolong fighters, four planes are set to test. The 01 is tested for the plane¡¯s performance and engine matching test. The 02 is for static test. The two have been finished successively. The 03 is put to maneuvering stability test and assessment of strength test flight. The test flight of Xiaolong 04 scheduled for next year will be focused on the test of the aviation electronics and weapons.
By People’s Daily Online
Yahoo25I never said that it couldnt out perform the Bars in terms of # of targets tracked and engaged, but what is the point of having it allowed to engage 8 targets when really the FC-1 at most can carry at most 5 BVRAAMs but that is unlikely.
The older Su-27P/S in RuAF carried tons of AAMs, I believe it was something like 6-8 R-27s, and if a small Yak-130 can carry 4 KAB-500s then I don’t see why Su-30MKI cannot carry more than 6.
As for FC-1’s range figures, I really doubt those, show me some really trusted and accurate sources which claim those, I doubt it’s range is much bigger than that of Gripen, FCK, LCA or even the bigger J-10.
8 R-27 and 6 R-77 is current limit for Flanker. there is no evidence beyond that. and KAB is not a long range missile rather a bomb. I consider PGM having atleast range of 100KM to better protect the striking aircraft. oNce you are in 40 to 50 KM zone. you are in range of medium range SAMs and short range intercepotors which will make the striking aircraft mission even more impossible.
Yahoo25But is the N011M not a much more capable radar? I am not exactly an export on radars but from my understanding N011M’s ranges are much bigger, the more targets tracked and engaged by RC400 is not such a great big advantage considering an FC-1 would not carry as many AAMs as the radar can engage simoultaneously.
there is no evidence than BARS can track or engage more targets than RC400. that 24 tracked , 8 engage is 1999 figures for RC400. the newer version will much more capable. Similar is the case of Grifo S-7 which has full SAR resolution and sensor fusion with IRST and newer version has 700MM antenna.
Yahoo25its funny that you have more Su-30s for strike and then you have more FC-1s for escort than for strike. If you have 4 Su-30s for strike and 2 for escort, which is a 2:1 ratio, you should have some 12 FC-1s for strike and some 6 for escort to have a 2:1 ratio.
4 Su-30MKIs will carry a total payload of 32000kg(8000kg*4) on 40 hardpoints(10*4, wingtips don’t count) over their long range. The 2 other Su-30s will carry approximately 24 AAMs, out of 4 which have to be SRAAMs(cuz of wingtips). 12 FC-1s will carry 3 fuel tanks and will have 2 other hardpoints for PGMs, since wingtips cannot be used, so 2*12=24 hardpoints, 3800kg*12=45600kg(mind you that this would be reduced as much as by half because the fuel tanks weigh alot), while the 6 escort FC-1s will carry 3 fuel tanks, have 2 wingtips and 2 normal hardpoints, 24 hardpoints where 12 of those will be wingtips to carry SRAAMs and the other 12 will be BVRAAMs.
So 6 Su-30s with 32000kg on 40 hardpoints, while escort will carry 20 BVRAAMs and 4 SRAAMs
12 FC-1s will carry 45600kg(hypothetically excluding all the fuel tanks) on 24 hardpoints while 6 escort FC-1s will carry 12 SRAAMs and 12 BVRAAMs.Su-30s will also be much cheaper to maintain and service, in Strike role they have a huge advantage as well as also having a big advantage in terms of speed since the FC-1s will have to carry a lot of fuel tanks which will enormously decrease the speed.
In the long range strike/AA role, the smaller ligher weight fighters really cannot compete.
However when the FC-1s don’t have to carry the enormous ammount of fuel and have to attack targets at a smaller range then it’s a different story
There is no evidence than Su-30 can carry more than 8 active BVRs(actually 6 R-77 i have known) or more than 6 PGMs of one kind. So your comparsion is only on theory mine is reality. and maximum ferry range of FC-1 is 3500KM with 2000KM on internal fuel. So if you want to compare 3000KM. You don’t need the 3 tanks. and 8 Strike and 10 escort was just to balance the comparision.
Yahoo25Those heavies were built for exactly that – Multi-target engagement at longer ranges, enabled through larger and more powerful sensors and endurance, with the ability to dictate the engagement.
Flogger, the same person you are addressing, earlier compared the agility of the FC-1 to the F-22. I think that you should leave it at that.
INIFINITY, Please control.
Do you have any data for flight profile of Su-30 when it is loaded with 8000KG weopons and full fuel load.. larger does not mean better. Western avionics are smaller and lighter than russian countrpart but performance is not better. compare the weight of 115KG RC400 with 650KG of BARS. Every modern radar has multi-target capability. So where is the advantage?
Yahoo25I think bigger fighters are only good is when you need their long range, endurance and payload, ie you need to strike deeply into the enemy airspace. However smaller fighters would be just only be better if you are defending your airspace and don’t need the big performance.
This point is also not proven. Israel F-16 raid proved other wise. Lets do the group comparision for deep strike
FC-1 maximum ferry range is 3500(assume with 3 external tanks) so two tanks will be enough for 3000KM range which is equal to 3000KM of Flanker Su-30. So there is 3 heavy hard points available for each PGM. two on wings and one central station plus two external fuel tanks.
So 6 Su-30 group versus a group of 18 FC-1.
4 Su-30 for strike and 2 Su-30 for escort.
8 FC-1 for strike and 10 FC-1 for escort.
Each Strike Su-30 carries 6 PGMs and 2 BVR
Each escort Su-30 carries 8 BVR.
so total of 24 PGMs and 24 BVR for Su-30 Group.
8 FC-1 strike group carries 24 PGMS.(3 Each)
10 FC-1 Escrot group carries 30 BVR (3 each)
So which is better and this only for very deep strike and without external air tanker support which will further tilt the balance on FC-1 favor. It is better to have protection of 10 BVR fighters rather than 2.
PS. Su-30 has reached its limit interms of weopon payload and take off weights. 3800 KG empty weight is just begining for FC-1. It can also goes to 5300KG just like Gripen and wing tip BVR just like newer F-16. So there is alot of upgrade potential still left in FC-1
Yahoo25Can the FC-1 do this? does the FC-1 have a rear facing radar? can the Fc-1 fire a missile reawards as the Su-30MKI? look at the picture and you will see the Su-30MKI launching a missile rearwards.
The Su-30MKI can carry more missiles give them better detection range and has a superior agility the FC-1 is no more than a modernized F-20 but the Su-30MKI is the Top fighter in the whole of Asia also the Su-30MKi is a two seater giving an extra pair of eyes, the Su-30 is the Russian super Tomcat
There are alot of top fighters in Asia. Ever heard of M2K9 and F-16BLK60. And firing rearwards does not mean that is 100% confirm kill. and when you will need rear facing missile. when you are in trouble. it is much easier for the aircraft chasing you to hit the bigger fighter in front not the the otherway around. You should prove first the agility and definition of agility? You need a crane just to replace the BARS radar.The new A-Darter(which was presented in AFM interview) can pull 100Gs and can attack in any direction with far better technology than any russian system. For extra pair of eyes you need more fighters not seats
It agains proves my point that Russian system is heavy and poor performance.
ITALIAN AVIONICS REPORT
Alenia Difesa Betting On Radar Market Growth
BRUCE D. NORDWALL
15 September 1997
Aviation Week & Space Technology
83
Vol. 147, No. 11
EnglishGrifo F, in production for retrofit into the Northrop F-5E/F, has 28 modes of operation and is intended to have performance close to that of the APG-68 in the F-16, but is scaled to fit into the small nose cone of an A-4. Grifo M3 is similar to the F version, but with an antenna tailored to fit the nose of the Mirage 3. A lightweight Grifo X+ was developed for the AMX aircraft. The Grifo family is still evolving. Air-to-air improvements are the top priority, but there is interest in air-to-ground mapping and in more processing of radar returns to increase the resolution.
Not limited to radar, Alenia Difesa is working with Pilkington Optronics to develop the passive Pirate Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system for Eurofighter 2000 as a complementary sensor to radar. The Russian Su-27 has an IRST that’s similar in concept but is big and heavy. Pirate will have better detectors and will be smaller and lighter, Esposito said. Alenia has the responsibility for system integration and stabilization. The system has not been installed on a Eurofighter 2000 yet, but the development is about 75% completed
Yahoo25neither do your comparisons with lack of proof chump. Prove that the FC-1 is the same size as the F-16, or more importantly, has the same room for EW as the F-16 :rolleyes:
I think you should look through this forum. every thing is present from pictures to measurements.
Yahoo25Yes but the larger jet can always turn around and run away! I think this was the case with Ethiopian-Eritrean war where the Su-27s would run and Mig-29s would chase them and once they ran out of fuel the Su-27s would go after them.
This is based on assumption that One MIG-29 is facing one Su-27 but in case of FC-1 it will be 3 to 1. first FC-1 will engage the bigger Su-35 and the rest will make the kills through multi-channel datalinks. Only one FC-1 will run out of fuel the rest will be free to chase the big Su-35. Also baseline MIG-29 is shorter leg than FC-1. Even the newer MIG-29M has 2000KM ferry range the same as 2037 KM for FC-1. I am not putting 3500KM range of FC-1 because i dont know how many external fuel tanks are involved.
Yahoo25I don’t know what the FC-1 has but remember, the bigger aicraft has more room to carry more EW countermeasures (whether Israeli like on the MKI or Russian/Chinese on the MKK), and if either one survives, guess which one will run out of his missile first 😉
The bigger airplane also has more fuel and can dictate the engagement from the start and could simply bingo fuel his opponent, making his smaller opponent run back to the base to get more fuel, which makes it more vulnerable, you can see this in Eritrea vs Ethiopia.
Indians claim that there MKI carries the same EW suite like F-16I and FC-1 is not smaller than F-16. It has bigger nose and square back. so your argument of carrying bigger EW equipment carries no weight. And it is argument of 3 FC-1 versus 1 Su-35. So chance of running out of missile is not there.
Yahoo25the americans always sold F-14 or F-15 to only trusted allies but F-5s to anyone specially satellites tell me why?
The FC-1 and JAS-39 can carry BVRAAMs but how many? and the FC-1 does it have Meteor? the Su-30MKI is better and the F-15 shoot down F-5s with easy if you exploits it`s perfomance and a well flown F-15 will always shoot down a well flown F-5
Saudis have both F-15 and F-5 and so does the Iranaians. It is not matter of trusted allies rather pocket book. Most US allies prefer free F-16.
Yahoo25Lets start for agility, The Su-35 is considered more agile than the F-22 or at least not far behind can you say the same for the FC-1? answer no one can say that the FC-1 can be compared to the Su-30MKI in agility, what about speed? no, it can not be compared, the Su-35 is superior. What about avionics? the Su-30MKI is superior with an excellent combination of Israeli, French, Indian and Russian avionics, armament also the warload is bigger so it is superior.
Now if you say the FC-1 can carry SD-10 well the speed is important, the Su-37 since it is faster gives better performance to the Alamo and Adder even if the SD-10 is little bit better in performance.
In conclusion the only thing better in the FC-1 is the SD-10 but due to lower performance it is nothing of a big advantage specailly if the Su-30MKI is armed with 11 AAMs still having a good range and supported by AWACs that in the Chinese or Pakistani case are not as good as the Indian ones.Now compare the FC-1 versus the F-35 and the FC-1 is obsolete in few words uncapable to fight it and the F-22 is even better so the FC-1 has no chances in a high tech enviroment.
The FC-1 is like the AMX, just a designig exercise for Pakistan as the AMX was for Brazil and a Cheaper answer for China as the AMX was for italy that also had Tornados but needed a cheaper complement to the Tornado IDS in the form of the AMX.
Do you have data for Climb rate, turn rates, Acceleration from Mach 0.4 to Mach 1.2, turn around time from airbase, RCS, Maximum speed with AAMS and EW suites for Both Su-35 and FC-1. If you don’t have the figures so dont bother to reply.
PS. Su-30MKI climb rate of 230m/s and top speed of Mach 1.9 is not impressive either and TWR is worse than even F-16 and you are comparing this nonsense to F-22.
Yahoo25Yahoo25: ever heard of the difference between a paper proposal, a prototype, and a production item?
Yes, the Kopyo has been in development for a long time. However, the production only started recently. It entered service only recently. It started being used in everyday service, maintained by IAF technicians, only recently. There will obviously be bugs and inconsistencies to iron out, which can only come to light when the radar is being used day in, day out by the end user. The US APG-63 radar was supposed to have an MBTF of about 80 hours according to its makers, but never achieved that in service.
What is meant by the statement below. It is like saying that RC400 will have very low MTBF because it is new but infact it is derived from RDY similar is the case of S-7 derivation from Grifo-2000. so nothing different or new here the only thing new is that despite a decade it is quality is still low.
The core of the new weapons-control system is the Phazotron Kopyo radar, a derivative of the Zhuk installed in the MiG-29M. Yuriy Gus’kov, radar chief designer, says: “We [Phazotron] were the initiators of this modernisation and persuaded Mikoyan to offer it. The work began back in 1988 and we have made full use of our experience with the Zhuk radar.“
Yahoo25here is about AWACS
Copyright Peter Grining, 2000
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/230…les/PG/PGSA.htm
The US/NATO answer was JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Display System) datalink and fighter displays. This was fitted to AWACS, some USAF F-15C, USN F-14D and RAF Tornado F.3. JTIDS was expensive and tried to present too much information on a 5×5 inch display with a range of 555 km(aircraft centred in middle). RAF Tornado F.3 fitted with JTIDS controlled by RAF AWACS fitted with ESM have defeated USAF F-15s in exercises using JTIDS. The AWACS would use its radar and ESM to detect targets, pass the information over JTIDS. The Tornado F.3 would stay passive (leave radars off) and get into AMRAAM launch parameters without activating radars. The USAF F-15s had little or no warning
Yahoo25I did a mini comparison
Jet Comparison FC-1 vs Su-35(Light vs Heavy), so for every 2 FC-1s you get an Su-35 approximately
-2 FC-1s will generate more missions
-Su-35 should be cheaper to service 1)It will carry more fuel than 2 FC-1s BUT for a much bigger range 2)less maintenance technicians and pilots are required.
-Su-35’s total payload will be bigger by 400kg than of two FC-1s in total(8000kg vs 7600kg of two FC-1s)
-Su-35 will carry the same payload as 2 FC-1s but over a bigger range
-adding tankers/more airfields(scattered) to 2 FC-1s will be a lot more expensive
-giving FC-1s 3 fuel tanks for same range as Su-35 will leave the 2 FC-1s with 2 hardpoints each(4 in total, excluding wingtips, 14-4 wingtips-6 fuel tanks=4), while Su-35 will have in total 12 hardpoints excluding wingtips(If it takes Mig-29SMT 3 fuel tanks to have same range as Su-35 then it should not take FC-1 any less). These fuel tanks will also give FC-1 lower speed.
-Su-35’s bigger radar is a bigger advantage in every mode(Anti-Shipping, A2A, A2G, etc). However adding GCI/AWACS/Ground Surveillance Platforms to 2 FC-1s will take that advantage away but it will add extra costs to GCI/AWACS/Ground Surveillance Platforms, so really it is not profitable because these are very expensive with exception of probably GCI but still Ground Surveillance platforms will cost.
-Su-35’s large radar also will allow it to target targets at much longer ranges, and would be able to guide longer ranged BVRAAMs like R-37 which FC-1 cannot really do without AWACS which would of course add many costs.So really, most of the advantages go to Su-35 in terms of performance and many other factors as well as costs, however FC-1s will only generate more missions.
How you calculated that price of two FC-1 is equal to 1 Su-35? And range of both Su-35 and FC-1 in actual weopons conditions is unknown. FC-1 has combat radius of over 1200KM but it is not sure with what kind of weopons. and Su-35 1500KM radius is not define with what weopons and flight profile. And how much is the range of R-37 that FC-1 cannot lock on. Future BVRs are all lighter in weight powered by Ram jet. Just read about S-Dater and T-Dater not obsolete R-37 which is mostly for not high agile targets and there is no evidence of integration of R-37 with Flankers.
Do you even know that maintaining 10 Su-30 cost India $300M in 3 years and Su-30K does not even have TVC or BARS. And without AWACS any legacy fighter whether large or small will be handicapped against vastly inferior opponent that it will be turkey shot.
Sign In
