It is totally different class and interms of flight profile, strenthening of wings, internal fuel, shape, FBW, Radar etc. can Flanker lift a 3 3000Litre tanks or two moskits. just its three weopon stations provide 8000kg of external load. it can take missiles side by side on centeral paylon. it is totally different level of flexibility. and its specifications have never been revealed. these are old floating around from 90s.

I don’t really see that much change in the plane’s basic aerodynamics. That’s what really counts. Even though the plane is intended to replace the Su-24, I don’t see any change to make it a low flying interdictor.

Everything else you posted is vague marketing information that has yet to be proven to the client.

so it is not even worth considering.

But it happened alright, it happened. In many wargames, the JH-7s play low flying interdictors and its up for the Sues, J-10s and J-8s to catch them. Hardly a lumbering platform I should say.

whats the point of carrying four when it cannot even sink a corvette. better carry 6 kh-31 alteast it has supersonic energy. 3 Brahmos should be enough for destroyer size ship considering it has 9 times energy of subsonic. it depends on mission. Su-30 can approach the target faster and turn around faster. simply superior platform.

You’re kidding me. Kh-31A only has 91kg of warhead, while a YJ-83 has at least double of that. The range of the Kh-31A is much more limited, up to 70km, and its never been proven or sighed that the Su-30 can carry more than four.

You don’t think the PLAAF and PLANAF has tested all this? The PLAAF has stopped buying Su-30MKKs last 2004. After that, they acquired JH-7As and updated H-6s. The PLANAF never went beyond one regiment of Su-30MK2 with the Kh-31A.

Wake me up when Brahmos is finally in operational service with an air platform.

Plane is cleary two seater but they are not referring to that particular plane.

They were referring to Russian warranty that’s for sure. There has been many issues on the past on this, and even on vessels like the Kilo. 5 out of 20 Klub launches failed. 5 out of 15 RD-93s received failed. 1 out of 5 R-77 launches failed.

thats what i am saying. tommroow they will say 10000km antiship missile.
YJ-8 is the same thing like PL-8 almost on every thing. simple and cheap.

The bang for the buck is good.

the prices of Russian exports are now sky high. without exchange of natural resources i doubt they want to deal on any currency. considering there wage and currency growth.

Sky high prices and without a strong brand name recognition is not good.

why it should be doubted. they have 300 years of continous history from Russian Academy of science.

Which is not very helpful in producing consistent high quality products in mass for export.

Kind a look at East Germany and its intellectual power under 4 decades of communism. the rest are not worth the example.
u dont have proper understanding of history and from where the millions of special people comes from. u only see end product but the not the science behind it. they have unique products even from communist times. like Kamz trucks that won Paris-dakkar rally 5 out 5 times. I want to see any Chinese machine repeat this under its own intellectual power.

who cares about your excuses. For all your vaunted intellectual power, they don’t explain the bottomline, which is by far the GDP is made up of raw mineral and oil export. That’s the economic structure of a 3rd world country.

and why should they make a commercial product now when Service sector is the dominant economy of the world. In West it is almos 80% of GDP. and in service sector u dont know who is providing the intellectual capital. every firm is multi ethinic.

And Russia have a service sector at all? How can you even have one when you don’t even have proper rule of law, which is the basic investor complaint.

RMAF found even KH-31 better than Harpoon. so when customer want to pay from its own pocket money. the choice is obvious.

Give me proof. The Kh-31 does not even have the range and programming flexbility of the Harpoon.

Brahmos goes 5 m in the end.( and its true ability are not even revealed to the public. See the hidden potential)
so show me how much other subsonic goes in low flight.

5m? Only in the very final phase of flight. Supersonic AshMs generally are around 10 to 30m. You don’t have terrain following autopilot that will work at supersonic speeds, and both drag and turbulence are immense at sea level.

Subsonic AshMs go down to 3m, and one or two like the Gabriel goes down to 2m.

It is time to say good bye to some truth of the 60s.
Canopy drag was one of several drag issues, but it is no longer so, when it comes to surplus thrust.

It isn’t just the drag issue, its also because the canopy heats up.

With fixed inlets a MiG-29 will not pass Mach 2 similar to a F-16.
A fixed inlet allows a rise in power related to speed up to the design point of it. In most cases it is around Mach 1,5. After that the airflow becomes restricted and the power drops considerably from that (the inlet becomes clogged !) No regulated airflow = no power from that.

That happens because the fixed inlet is optimized for subsonic acceleration and cruise, not for top speed. A variable inlet does offer a much more flexible range of operation, but at the expense of weight, at least 150kg per inlet.

If you want the inlet to enable Mach 2.5, you can, but it would be at the expense of the low end performance.

If I choose the Mirage III, the MiG-21 or the F-104 did not matter.
When it comes to the Su-24 or MiG-23BN/MiG-27 the difference from fixed inlets can be seen clearly. The same frontal drag, the same installed thrust/engines, but the supersonic speeds are well below Mach 2.

Again, that is because of subsonic optimization. Said planes probably perform better at low speed and low heights than the planes with variable inlets.

Of course one Chinese company, Hongdu, is trying to sell its FTC-2000, and another, Zhuizhou, is trying to sell its L-15. Either any of the two can fit the bill.

J-10s never got a two seater until late in the program. The first testing and trials regiment, and the first operational regiment never got the benefit of training from a two seater, and both were formed without training from such.

There are planes like the J-8s that never had a dedicated two seater at all. J-8 regiments are supplemented with JJ-6 trainers.

Very briefly in clean and max AB with surplus power installed, when a Mirage IIIC from the 50s with 6 tons of thrust can go Mach 2+ thanks to its inlet-system or the F-111 from the 60s with its TFs. Above Mach 1,5 a fixed inlet becomes clogged and the related drop in power from that occurs.

The F-16 has other limiting factors, and one of them is canopy drag. That big bubble canopy has its perks and disadvantages also. Another is that turbofans are not as efficient as turbojets at higher speeds. And still another is that the Mirage III and the F-111 (in swept position) have acutely swept wings for minimal drag. That was a very different era where planes are gunning for speed mostly and maneuverbility second.

You can get to Mach 2 with a fixed inlet, look at the F-16, but you won’t get more than a few hundredths of a Mach past it.

Not really. You can get Mach 3 with a fixed inlet if you design it intentionally. You can get even Mach 4.

But everytime you make the inlet larger to accomodate high mach speeds, its your low end that suffers. Thanks to Mr. Bernoulli.

I havent seen evidence of 7 tons sorties on internal fuel alone? that u keep referring

Su-30 can fly low at Mach 1.2 and Su-34 can go even lower to tree top height at Mach 1.4 (fly by abstacle)and u say it cannot catch obsolete
underpowered JH-7 whose Mach 1 is even in doubt even in clean configuration. just look at Sens Post. nothing can compensate underpowered jet especailly in nonafterburning thrust. AL-31 is very good in non afterburning almost 7600KG and 9,700KG for 117S and AL-31FM in between. they are of totally different capability in economical crusie.

Su-30 and Su-34 cannot sustain Mach 1.2/Mach 1.4 at low altitude flight. What makes you think they can? Drag eats up power, and Su-30/34 wings are designed for maneuverbility not low interdiction speed. Going supersonic at low altitude will burn up your fuel rather quickly. You’re the one short of proof, trying to say you can intercept a low flying interdictor. Furthermore, design of the Flanker, meant more for medium altitude performance, isn’t meant to ride smoothly over low air turbelence. I doubt that an Su-30 can chase down an Su-24 Fencer or MiG-27 for this reason.

these are unproven stories to create false impression.

That is a news report. A published article.

Radar?

Go ahead and try to prove that Phazotron has model called JL-10A.

that Su-27 shown was made in China so it just show poorly on China that even after 15 years it cannot make parts for it. Russia factories are either closing because of high wages or under renovation. so there is less tendency for export except for technical cooperation.

What nonsense. The Su-27 Pace was shown is a two seater. China does not make two seaters. All the two seater Su-27s were imported from Russia, made by Irkut specifically.

China can certainly make the Su-27 airframe but chose not to license certain components such as avionics since they after all obsolete and have already designed domestic counterparts for those, and these are intended for the J-11B.

they a confirm a single test (who knows they may even exaggarating it for

It means they are able to catch a single test. It does not mean the US were able to detect the others. You are talking about the missiles where there is a lot of pictures of it being launched from ships, and one which is already standard in planes, subs and ships of the PLA.

there own purpose). Russia does not need any external confirmation.

In other words, there is no third party to verify your results. How quiant. Meaning its still subject to doubt.

There Science is proven. u have examples of Professors directly hired by Ivyleague like Stanford from 70s Phd batch when China was making bicycles under communism.

Irrelevant. Despite your SCIENCE, its still a poor country with a massive trade imbalance with China for basic finished goods.

Just India alone has conducted 13 Brahmos tests.

Good for them.

Russia factories are either closing because of high wages or under renovation. so there is less tendency for export except for technical cooperation.

Oh you mean they got no money. You don’t have high wages with a depressed economy.

drones does not have software brain that makes Club/brahmos type missiels so expensive. it isnot the speed alone but artificial intelligence that makes there end trajectory so un predictable. it is not a straight line.

Bull. You think that the US cannot design a missile isn’t smarter than Club/Brahmos?

You really have no idea what a Harpoon can do. Harpoons can set themselves up for a multiaxis attack. They can do waypoints towards the target. They can go past the target and attack from another direction. They can be diverted midway in flight to attack another target or if the primary target has already been sunk. They can respond to changes of enemy tracking radar to determine if a lock on is present and will try to make evasive maneuvers.

SAMs near to the target and than SAMs does not where the target will be next moment at Mach 3 speed at such low altitude. It is near impossible to get a hit.

Lol. Standards have successfully intercepted high supersonic Vandal drones. that is for sure.

thats is pure nonsense. cant believe u even stated this on forum. I dont think with 7 tons of external load an underpowered and aerodynamically obsolete jet like JH-7 can even go 300 to 400km. It will take an hour just to reach require altitude for some decent speed. It is hopeless.

Really. What is pure nonsense is your bull. Thunderchiefs and Phantoms were quite capable of sorties in that range you speak of, and they do it fast and low.

At high altitude Su-30 can fly faster, Radar can see further the threats on horizon, club range is limited by MTCR and can fly faster towards the targets so giving more time for Su-30 to do simultaneous BVR fight or disenage rapidly after firing missiles.

At high altitude the Su-30 will not fly faster, because of the sheer weight of the missile. Unlike the JH-7A, the Su-30’s aerodynamics are meant for maneuverability and low speed turning. It is not meant for fast cruising and low flight like the JH-7A. I doubt that an Su-30 can catch even a JH-7A flying low, and an Su-30 won’t catch an F-111, Tornado, or Su-24 at the deck either. You have no idea that the planes are optimized for speed low level flight, and these requires a specially designed set of aerodynamics. An Su-30 would have a difficult time at high speed in low level due to its low wing loading which will subject the aircraft to a lot of shaking and turbulence, and its airframe and wings are indeed considerably draggy, since the airframe and the wing are meant to be maneuverable, whereas the JH-7A is acutely swept, have a higher wing loading, which will give you a smooth ride along the deck.

how u know it is not slow? how far its radar can see at such a low altitude?. what is seeker range of missile.

It is certainly not slow. One article described a whole formation of them dropping from 30,000ft, then suddenly pulling up near sea level. Lol, a perfect text book beam maneuver that will drop the plane off the radar by exploiting doppler notch and enter the target area at low altitude.

The wings are well swept for low drag. The radar is quite big, somewhere in between a MiG-29 and an Su-27, and it is a slotted array with modern electronics.

where is a proof that it is standard. It is just a single test. It does not mean there is operational missile of 255km range. it is not like 13 tests of Brahmos.

And where is proof that it is not? The fact that the missile has proven it once, is more than enough, especially if this was confirmed by US intelligence. Have you have Russian missile tests whose range is confirmed by the US, actual observation by a third party?

when product is obsolete and have short life span for overhaul. u cannt get the flight hrs no matter how much u spent on it. it will spent more time in workshop.

Wrong. Short life span? The planes are new. Where is your proof or claim taht the planes have a short life for overhaul? Its not like the way the PLAAF complains that the Su-27s require frequent servicing—the PLAAF vision commander even mentioned to USMC General Pace that their service warranty is only so so.

Not the kind of science that u understand. an antimissile system does not have the ability to quickly predict and intercept the fast maneuvrs of supersonic missile.

Wrong. It is you who don’t know science and technology. Electronic speeds occur much much faster than even the speeds of a supersonic missile. Seconds is an eternity in time to a modern processor. A closed loop feed back system like a CIWS can be fast enough to take down a supersonic missile. It has been shown before using supersonic Vandal drones.

detection is meaningless when u cannot get a lockon. there is element of artificial intelligence and most antimissile systems can only launch two missiles at same time and if they miss the supersonic missile hits.

What the? You are making yourself a fool talking about science and now quoting this whatchamacallit. You keep forgetting, despite your science, that SAMs are often fired not locked on, but will lock on after launch. All the radar needs is to bring the SAM near the target, and the missile seeker will do its own seperate lockon much closer to the target, either via SARH or ARH means.