IRIAF | News and Discussions

[TheImmortal]

You have a habit of claiming baseless things (yes there is a list) and when someone proves your claim as wrong you run away from the thread without replying or even addressing the points made by others, which I am sure you will do after this post as well. I replied to your funny RCS post but I could not post it because me and few other people in Iranian sections were incapable of posting at that time due to bot attack (fixed now by mod WAZ).

Anyways, here goes:

Your posted paper presented a simulated RCS by software which by no means can be equated to real world RCS value. Nowhere in the article, the Brazilian authors mention that their values are equivalent to real experimental RCS values.

This is how real RCS is measured by actual pro-labs who spend tens and hundreds of millions on the establishment of such facilities, which according to your logic is a waste of time, all they can do is download the freeware software these Brazilian students had and Tadaaaa! they can have the RCS. You should contact the fools in Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sukhoi, and BAE who have been wasting their decades and millions on these labs. All they needed was the .... free software.

View attachment 867690View attachment 867691View attachment 867692

........................

How science of simulation and experimental results work? I will explain here. I know you would not read it beyond this point so .... I am addressing other members. The simulated and experimental values are relative to each other by a factor (let's call it Z) which can be a coefficient or addition/subtraction factor to the simulated values, like this:

Z x RCS (Simulated) = RCS (Experimental)

OR

Z +/- RCS (Simulated) = RCS (Experimental)

The same simulation that is putting a needle-like tiny airframe of F-5 at 15-16 m2 may also put a Flanker airframe at 45+ m2 for all we can predict here, so we may know that the Z = ~3 for this software. Did the Brazilian paper measure the RCS of another airframe that we have actual RCS values of to know this relative factor Z ? no they did not because they are not even remotely claiming that the RCS they measured is a real one. They simulated the RCS in their software at 15-16 m2 and then they put the RAM on and measured the RCS again in the same simulation to prove that simulated RCS values dropped. They are claiming the "drop" in RCS vs RAM coat plot. If the software is super accurate, the ratio of simulated RCS without RAM / RCS+RAM could be close to the actual experiment ratio RCS without RAM / RCS+RAM but BY NO MEANS THE SIMULATED RCS alone CAN BE EQUAL TO ACTUAL RCS. Otherwise everyone in the entire combat aviation field is a fool, they should all just download softwares and design 6th generation stealth planes from their bedrooms.

Relative factors between simulations and experimental values work like this in the entire plethora of scientific fields where both simulated and experimental measurements are possible. We first measure values in a simulated environment over a range, then we find them experimentally to get this relative factor "Z" so next time we can get a good idea from the simulation of what the actual values would be. No one gets the simulation done only and starts claiming oh that is it, I won't take it to the lab. Which is why in modern world we have a theoretical physicist, biologist, chemist and an experimental physicist, biologist, chemist. They work in tandem on projects, and can't replace each other.



Era has nothing to do with it. F-16, F/A-18, Mig-21, and Mirage-2000 all are from the 1960s and 70s yet their RCS values are below 5 m2. F-15 and Flanker family is from the 1970s yet they have enormous RCS values. FA/18 itself has a USN claimed RCS of 3m2 (1999) and the airframe is a modified version of F-5E/F, but larger and edgy, Do you really want us to believe that F/A-18 is 3 M2 but the tiny needle like F-5 is 16 m2 somehow?

View attachment 867694View attachment 867695

F-5 was and is quite hard to track in aerial combat which is why its base design (N-156) was chosen to be driven into F/A-18 which became the premier USN fighter for decades and still is. Even the modern US aviators call an upgraded F-5N a small low observable platform that you can not just defeat easily in the sky. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42507/first-navy-f-5-aggressor-begins-upgrade-that-will-make-the-entire-fleet-far-more-potent

We have a logical base as well. In the Iran-Iraq war, the thickest possible majority of F-5E was downed by SAM fire which tracks the aircraft from the aspect of lower body. Even an F-22 will have a hard time hiding its lower body RCS. Barely ~8 confirmed air-to-air kills of F-5E were recorded during combat with MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML and all by WVR engagement. None killed at distance during BVR attack which Iraqis used to launch like maniacs with R-40 BVR missile from MIG-25PD. They once even got an F-14A of Hashem Ale-Agha but none ever got an F-5E despite being fired upon multiple times by an R-40. It tells us how difficult it is to track such a small airframe and kill it with ARH/SARH missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Sattari was no fool to start a dometic F-20 equivalent program. HESA today is not either, that they will let go of this project. The day we procure larger turbofans or produce a larger version of Jahesh-700, and HESA works on the frontal part of the plane to reduce the RCS to the levels of EF-2000 or rafale (<1.0m2) we will have a tiny monster in the sky. We already have a superb avionics and controls package for it along with a from-scratch production facility for Kowsar.

All this talk and zero reputable evidence provided that F-5 has a 1-3 M2 radar cross section. Just conjecture on your part. You excel at talking a lot while providing no evidence. As if your opinion is fact alone.

But yes my research paper from an reputable aeronautical and technology journal from Brazil (a major F-5 operator) is not a valid source of information.

RCS on F-5 from the lateral and rear is quite large and in an pseudo air defense role enemy radars would be be bombarded from various sources of radar waves (AWACS, F-35, F-16, F-18, F-22 etc) from different directions. So let’s also take that into account and not just frontal RCS in a vacuum.

Once you demonstrate a valid source showing 1-3m2 (frontal) I will happily admit I’m wrong. I love being wrong. But until then your claims are borderline propaganda. The obsession you have for F-5 derivative projects is admirable from a patriotic standpoint, but causes biases in your mind to think rationally.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Just gonna put this out there cause it's making me cringe - idk where this idea came from that Su-35 does not have datalink. Flanker series have had datalink since the first version in the 80s. Of course the Su-35 has datalink.

 

[drmeson]

Just gonna put this out there cause it's making me cringe - idk where this idea came from that Su-35 does not have datalink. Flanker series have had datalink since the first version in the 80s. Of course the Su-35 has datalink.

Not the encryption we use on F-14AM or Kowsar.

Would the Russians allow Iranian engineers to mess with their top of the line fighter's electronics? Russian habits of not letting 4th generation planes be touched by clients suggest they won't. Otherwise, what is stopping IRIAF to get the same datalink they use on F-14AM, Kowsar or IRGC uses on their SU-22 to be put on MIG-29 9.12 fleet?

 

[drmeson]

All this talk and zero reputable evidence provided that F-5 has a 1-3 M2 radar cross section. Just conjecture on your part. You excel at talking a lot while providing no evidence. As if your opinion is fact alone.

"All this talk" was a technical discussion that you purposefully neglected to address because it proved you WRONG. Like, I predicted in my previous post, you will always run away from the technical discussion and resort to trash talk. No matter what technical points, equations, routines and practices of R&D world, anyone posts, they do not matter to you because you probably have no technical intellect.

For serious posters who do appreciate technical details, here are the points I made:

- Software Simulated RCS =/= Real RCS, we dont know what coefficient/relative factor simulated RCS will need, to be equated to RCS. No simulation in the entire world of science can ever be equated to real world values. There is always a coefficient. No simulation in the entire world of science can ever be equated to real world values without relative factor Z which needs to be x or + or - from the simulated RCS to make it equal to actual lab tested value. We dont know that because paper was not about that.

- Even the authors in your "trophy" paper you posted, are nowhere claiming that their simulated RCS = Real RCS. They are not doing it because they are technical people, unlike you promoting their article for false things they did not even claim. I wonder how would they feel being misqouted for the hardwork they put in the paper. Scientist hate being misqouted.

- RCS is measured by multimillion USD facilities not on freeware softwares by actual professional scientists, who according to your stupid logic are just fools wasting their years of lives, millions of USD on lab work. They can just download freeware and design the next generation of F-22 from their bedrooms.

- US aviators themselves are claiming that their F-5N is hard to track/observe even from an F-18E of F-35. Would they say it about an airframe which you hilariously are claiming to be having an RCS of 16 m2?

- F-5 has never been shot by a BVR missile. We have known history of MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML shooting R-40, R-23 BVR missiles and bringing down F-4E, F-14A but never an F-5. That happened because they failed to track such a small airframe at distance, "hard to observe" like the US aviators are saying. Even the larger N-156/F-5 airframe derivative F/A-18 with 3 m2 was hard to track by a MIG-25PD who had to wait till 30 KM to get a lock on F/A-18. What does it tell us about the even smaller F-5 which during the entire 8 years war never was shot down by any BVR missile.

- My basis for 1-3 m2 RCS is F/A-18 which is just an enlarged F-5/N-156 airframe but is much more edgier with larger airintakes, still USN STATED its 3m2 FRONTAL RCS. Does this imply that a much smaller, less edgy with tiny air-intakes F-5/N-156 could be 16 m2 like you were claiming?

.............3 m2 by USN ................vs.............. 16 m2 claim by you...........

But yes my research paper from an reputable aeronautical and technology journal from Brazil (a major F-5 operator) is not a valid source of information.

Your "paper" is a simulated RCS from a freeware software WHICH IS NOT REAL RCS. Nowhere it is written in the entire paper you posted as some gold mine of knowledge here that their RCS (Simulation) = RCS (Real world). Poor students did a low impact factor paper on use of software and you think entire world of aviation is stupid that they invest millions on establishing RCS data labs. Like I said you should write an email to CEOs of Sukhoi, Lockheed, Boeing, BAE etc and inform them of your discovery that they are all fools to use giant RCS labs. You have cracked the code with a freeware.

RCS on F-5 from the lateral and rear is quite large

Provide me with evidence that the real RCS (not the software simulated) of an F-5 airframe is "quite large". Your previous posted link is a bogus software simulation that even the authors themselves are not claiming to be equivalent to real-world RCS. So provide us with the "evidence" please that F-5 has a large RCS.

My claim exists that the largest, edgiest most member of N-156 family of airframes F/A-18 has a USN reported frontal RCS of 3m2. The smaller F-5, YF-17, F-20, Kowsar, Saegheh-I/II, FCK-1 logically will have either similar or smaller RCS.

Prove me wrong? and again, please dont quote the simulated RCS.

Once you demonstrate a valid source showing 1-3m2 (frontal) I will happily admit I’m wrong. I love being wrong. But until then your claims are borderline propaganda. The obsession you have for F-5 derivative projects is admirable from a patriotic standpoint, but causes biases in your mind to think rationally.

I dont care what makes you happy. Like I said before, you have a habit of:

1) Claiming baseless things without evidence.
2) When countered with technical counter-points you just run away from the discussion and resort to tangential trash talking.

I told you, there is a list of claims from you where you have been proven wrong, I am publishing it here for future reference.

- Your claim There have been two dozen plus Saegheh built. Reality Serial numbers proved there have just been 6.

- Your claim Kowsar is a 1960s fighter plane. Reality Its radar, avionics, communications, FBW system, datalink is as modern as a Mirage-2005, F-16 Block 30. Easily more advanced than anything in IRIAF.

- Your claim Mirage-F1 were purchased from France Reality They are Saddams gifts. How come an Iranian does not know this is beyond me?

- Your claim There are only "6 prop airframes" of Kowsar in HESA from the same 2018 unveiling that they show each time some official visit the facility Reality With serial numbers, it was proven that there are 4 aircraft that are operational and there are 18-24 further airframes in primer/being worked upon inside HESA.

- Your claim SU-35S has an RCS of 1-3 m2 Reality There is a "ZERO" difference between the frontal section of SU-27 and SU-35 so how come SU-27 having a company patented 10-15 m2 RCS suddenly became 1-3 m2 in SU-35? Is there any evidence for that? let alone evidence is this even logical to assume that same airframe reduced some 12 m2 of RCS just because of avioncis upgrade ? wtf

- Your claim SU-35 has the longest BVR package Reality The officially released Russian video shows IRBIS-E radar tracking a fighter sized target at ~100 KM and the attacking option at best is R-77-1 with a range of 105 KM.

- Your claim Software simulated RCS are real RCS Reality No they are not, Entire world of scientists will laugh on you for claiming that simulation value = real value without any coefficient/relative factor between them.

- Your claim 1960s era designed airframes can't have low RCS Reality Era has nothing to do with RCS. MIG-21, F-5, F-16 are all from 1960s-1970s generation yet their RCS values are below 5m2.

 

[Sineva]

Pilots safe. SU-22 crash land in Shiraz.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1554905878205267971

 

[TheImmortal]

- My basis for 1-3 m2 RCS is F/A-18 which is just an enlarged F-5/N-156 airframe but is much more edgier with larger airintakes, still USN STATED its 3m2 FRONTAL RCS. Does this imply that a much smaller, less edgy with tiny air-intakes F-5/N-156 could be 16 m2 like you were claiming?

.............3 m2 by USN ................vs.............. 16 m2 claim by you...........

Which F-18 are you referring to? They have different RCSs depending on which version or Block.

You truly believe size is everything when it comes to RCS? With such logic the RQ-170 has a smaller RCS than B-2 since they are both flying wing designs but one is smaller. Yet in flying wing design the smaller the design the HIGHER probability of the the RCS increasing due to less surface area for radar to be scattered or absorbed vs reflected.

Size does play a role not to say there is NO ROLE, but shape and design plays a much bigger role if not majority. Hence why the Zumwalt destroyer has the RCS of a small fishing boat despite being the size of a mammoth destroyer.

Another point using your own F-18 example

Guess which version has the lower RCS? Shocker the F-18E. Guess which version of F-18E has the lowest RCS of any F-18? Block III also know as the stealthy F-18 being marketed around the world currently to friendly western countries looking to avoid the expensive F-35 while staying in the US military aerospace ecosystem .

But according to you smaller = lower RCS is more important factor. Not actually the surface/shape/design of the aircraft and how it respondes to radar waves in your expensive radar rooms.

But it’s good to know that your 1-2M2 claim comes from you “extrapolating” in your opinion the RCS of a F-18 to the F-5/Kowsar. Now I couldn’t find the USN source for your 3m2 claim, sources I found said ~1m2 claim for the standard F-18.

- Your claim SU-35S has an RCS of 1-3 m2 Reality There is a "ZERO" difference between the frontal section of SU-27 and SU-35 so how come SU-27 having a company patented 10-15 m2 RCS suddenly became 1-3 m2 in SU-35? Is there any evidence for that? let alone evidence is this even logical to assume that same airframe reduced some 12 m2 of RCS just because of avioncis upgrade ? wtf

And yet many (if not majority) of online sources say RCS of SU-35 is 1-3M2. If you don’t believe me, simply search for yourself.

- Your claim SU-35 has the longest BVR package Reality The officially released Russian video shows IRBIS-E radar tracking a fighter sized target at ~100 KM and the attacking option at best is R-77-1 with a range of 105 KM.

SU-35 carries the hypersonic R-37 BVR with max range of ~ 400KM also carries R-77M with ~200KM and R-27 130-170KM

But who cares about that right? I forgot super duper top secret data links are only for the F-14AM or Kowsar. SU-35 is too old and outdated to possibly be able to communicate with other sources of radar. Which even @AmirPatriot who rarely posts here anymore had a urge to rebuke.

As for what outside sources think about SU-35

Another talking point that is being missed about SU-35 being “outdated”

No one here talks about the OLS-35 IRST as a means to be competitive against low RCS fighters let alone 4th Gen fighters such as F-18/F-16. Easy to just sit around and say the IRBIS is not an AESA so the plane is trash rather than taking its other avionics into account the other electronics that work together with the passive radar to combat enemy aircraft.

Your "paper" is a simulated RCS from a freeware software WHICH IS NOT REAL RCS. Nowhere it is written in the entire paper you posted as some gold mine of knowledge here that their RCS (Simulation) = RCS (Real world).

The paper looks at what ramifications of adding to RAM to an F-5 body aircraft would do in regards to reduction of RCS. The results are quite clear and the paper makes a definitive conclusion that may have flown over your head, so read again.

Yes, a simulation has a margin of error that cannot be matched perfectly with a radar room worth millions or tens of millions of dollars. But with such logic, simulations in academia/medical field/science field/etc should never be conducted because they cannot hope to compete with ultra expensive real world data gathering. Which again is propostreous conclusion. Many discoveries were first discovered via simulations that quite accurately predicted the final result within the margin of error. Simulations exist to get very close to real life data gathering in the absence of using such expensive methods.

Fighter jets Initial and prototype designs are built via simulations and refined via radar rooms. Obviously when it comes to building the final version of a military product, it makes sense to devote resources to pinpoint the margin of error to as low as possible via the radar rooms mentioned.

But disparaging simulations as simply inaccurate or “garbage” makes zero sense. Nuclear weapons are no longer physically tested because simulations can accurately predict if the design works and provide accurate projection of the yield.

Your previous posted link is a bogus software simulation

So now the software is “bogus” according to you. Good to know.

Quite hilarious you talk about Iranians being arrogant and ignorant and love to argue. Yet conveniently miss your own behavior in all this.

Like I said your biases toward the F-5 project just completely blind you to considering alternatives. Doesn’t look like Iran has the same enthusiasm as you with regards to the project.

 

[TheImmortal]

fun fact india no longer order any SU-30MKI while they are produced in India ,

What a misleading statement. How many do you want them to build?

Fun fact: they built 270 of them.

What a garbage plane

Russians do not like their aircraft to be touched so Iran can kiss the idea of using local systems on SU-35 goodbye.

Lol more lies.

Research SU-30MKK/MK2 the plane was literally built to Chinese specifications including its entire avionics was built to Chinese specifications and implanted an open architecture system. The plane was ground breaking in its release as it implemented the latest in Russian tech in several avionic area.

Russian sources have claimed that the electronic warfare systems of Su-30MKK utilizes the latest technologies available in Russia and the radar warning receivers are so effective that the information provided by RWR alone would be enough to provide targeting information for Kh-31P anti-radiation missile without using other detection systems on board, though information can also be provided by L-150 ELINT system, which can be used in conjunction with Kh-31P. ​

So a Future Iranian Su-35 could be built to whatever Iran needs and be open architecture thus allowing semi or full synergy with ground based radar and other fighter aircraft.

It won't have the datalink that IRIAF uses for Kowsar, F-14AM and UCAVs (confirmed by IAI head, Gen. Afshin Khajeh Fard). It would have an isolated battle environment cut off from the entire IRIAF fleet.

Su-30MKK is the first of Flanker family to be equipped with TKS-2 C3 system, which is capable of simultaneously commanding and controlling up to 15 aircraft with such system, and the air-to-air missileslaunched by these aircraft. According to the developer of the system, Russkaya Avionika JSC, the encrypted two-way communication Command, control, and communications system can be either commanded or controlled by ground stations, or act as the command/control center for other aircraft.​

​

The new system is also the first among Russian system that is capable of forming a local area network like similar system on American Grumman F-14 Tomcat.​

Range: The encrypted VHF/UHF communication radio of Su-30MKK has a maximum range in excess of 400 km, while the encrypted HF communication radio of Su-30MKK has a maximum range in excess of 1,500 km, and all can be used for both air-to-air or air-to-ground two-way communications

There is not a single example where Russian 4th generation combat planes have ever received any local upgrade by their clients.

Domestic Chinese electronic warfare systems including BM/KG300G and KZ900 can also be carried after modification of onboard system, but such modification was neither part of the original deal nor the upgrade deal with Russians, instead, this was implemented indigenously by Chinese themselves during the incremental upgrades.

The fly by wire (FBW) control with quadruple redundancy designed by Russkaya Avionika is the same system used for the Su-30MKI. Russian sources have confirmed the claims of domestic Chinese sources that an indigenous Chinese system developed is near its completion and it will be used to replace the original Russian system.

The original ASP-PVD-21 series helmet mounted sight (HMS) with only limited field of view (FoV) was replaced by more advanced Sura-K HMS system, but Chinese have been replacing the Russian HMS with more advanced domestic system. Publicized photos and video clips from the official Chinese governmental sources such as CCTV-7 in 2007 and PLA pictorial magazine have confirmed the western claims of Chinese is replacing the original Russian helmet mounted sights (HMS) with more capable domestic ones.


Shall I continue? Btw these upgrades were done over 15 years ago.

Will you retract what you said? Doubtful

Now imagine an Iranian SU-35-S-IR variant built specifically for Iranian specifications this includes replacing it with an “AESA” to satisfy some of you buzzword guys. Later on Iran can upgrade whatever it wants on the plane if it develops a better alternative. So these claims that Russia doesn’t allow it, is bogus as I have repeated many times. China did it and still was allowed to buy the SU-35 without ramifications afterwards.

 

[Hack-Hook]

What a misleading statement. How many do you want them to build?

Fun fact: they built 270 of them.

What a garbage plane

but cancelled last eleven order and went and bought rafale

Now imagine an Iranian SU-35-S-IR variant built specifically for Iranian specifications this includes replacing it with an “AESA” to satisfy some of you buzzword guys. Later on Iran can upgrade whatever it wants on the plane if it develops a better alternative. So these claims that Russia doesn’t allow it, is bogus as I have repeated many times. China did it and still was allowed to buy the SU-35 without ramifications afterwards.

dream on it , will never happen. and j-16 eat that su-whatever mkk , why because russian electronics are outdated

 

[Hack-Hook]

But who cares about that right? I forgot super duper top secret data links are only for the F-14AM or Kowsar. SU-35 is too old and outdated to possibly be able to communicate with other sources of radar. Which even @AmirPatriot who rarely posts here anymore had a urge to rebuke.

As for what outside sources think about SU-35

are you aware those are applicable if the incoming fighter turn of all e-Warfare system ? fat chance that happen and detecting is useless tracking is more important.
by the way how much you are willing to bet Su-35 cant detect an f-15c/d od F15-SA with AN/APG-63(V)3 from 50km away let alone 600km away that's hilarious

Another talking point that is being missed about SU-35 being “outdated”

No one here talks about the OLS-35 IRST as a means to be competitive against low RCS fighters let alone 4th Gen fighters such as F-18/F-16. Easy to just sit around and say the IRBIS is not an AESA so the plane is trash rather than taking its other avionics into account the other electronics that work together with the passive radar to combat enemy aircraft.

even Russia rated that for a range of 35-40km enemy way before that has tracked Su-35

 

[TheImmortal]

but cancelled last eleven order and went and bought rafale

Completely irrelevant. Why does 11 planes matter when they had 270? You are twisting story in an absurd way. As if those 11 planes would have made any difference to the overall defense of India.

India has to revamp its Air Force of all the other older planes in its fleet outside of the SU-30. Hence they put out a contract and listened to proposals.

It was likely they were going to go with a Western ecosystem aircraft because they are now firmly in Western orbit via “The Quad” against China. In fact it would have been more of a suprise if they DIDN'T select a western fighter jet.

 

[TheImmortal]

by the way how much you are willing to bet Su-35 cant detect an f-15c/d od F15-SA with AN/APG-63(V)3 from 50km away let alone 600km away that's hilarious

More irrelevance - back in 2000’s China was already experimenting with putting an AESA into the SU-30 either with Russia or on its own.

So your gripe about the radar of SU-35 is not enough to not buy the plane. (If available)

dream on it , will never happen. and j-16 eat that su-whatever mkk , why because russian electronics are outdated

You claim there is no datalink on SU-35 and I showed you MKK variant of SU-30 had Datalink and local area since 2000’s.

Then you go into your typical China rant.
Are you incapable of understanding the J-16 or any Chinese aircraft is not an option right now? Why do you keep going to China to back your argument? Makes zero sense. You keep acting like China is offering us J-10C or J-16 and we are saying no go with SU-35.

China is not an option.

The fact you dismiss the SU-30MKK variant so nonchalantly when you and the other guy been crying Russia doesn’t allow modification of its aircraft when I literally showed they have for years.

If Iran orders SU-35 it’s likely going to be a variant tailored to Iranian needs. If IRGC and the top brass approves dropping billions on an airforce deal they will make sure it’s worth it or they won’t bother and say we will use the money to build more missiles. It’s really that simple.

 

[thesaint]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1555226346435104772

 

[thesaint]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1555229044861554697

 

[Hack-Hook]

Completely irrelevant. Why does 11 planes matter when they had 270? You are twisting story in an absurd way. As if those 11 planes would have made any difference to the overall defense of India.

India has to revamp its Air Force of all the other older planes in its fleet outside of the SU-30. Hence they put out a contract and listened to proposals.

It was likely they were going to go with a Western ecosystem aircraft because they are now firmly in Western orbit via “The Quad” against China. In fact it would have been more of a suprise if they DIDN'T select a western fighter jet.

because show India no longer think the airplane relevant and seeks future of its air-force some where else
you have become like sukhoi sale person .and only want to sale the outdated platform . if it was a good plane they would have built more sukhoi instead of ordering rafale .
answer it does anybody actually order flanker anymore

 

[Hack-Hook]

More irrelevance - back in 2000’s China was already experimenting with putting an AESA into the SU-30 either with Russia or on its own.

So your gripe about the radar of SU-35 is not enough to not buy the plane. (If available)

its , as the china didn't put radar on its sukhoi but on its drivate built in china AKA the Latest J11 and J16 and those two plane are superior to any flanker you show me

You claim there is no datalink on SU-35 and I showed you MKK variant of SU-30 had Datalink and local area since 2000’s.

i claimed its rudimentary compare to other competitors and still remain the problem of IBRIS-E

Are you incapable of understanding the J-16 or any Chinese aircraft is not an option right now? Why do you keep going to China to back your argument? Makes zero sense. You keep acting like China is offering us J-10C or J-16 and we are saying no go with SU-35.

do I promote them from china . as i recall i always promoted light/Medium fighter not something as big as flanker or F-15
also i always promoted Iranian aircraft not one bought from abroad , i put J-16 there to show you how lacking SU-35 is in electronic department .

The fact you dismiss the SU-30MKK variant so nonchalantly when you and the other guy been crying Russia doesn’t allow modification of its aircraft when I literally showed they have for years.

SU30-MKK at beast will be like Su-35 in reality between su-30 and su-35 in short inferior to Su-27 knock offs like J-11 and J-16
with su-30mkk Russian at last managed to achieve what Americans did 30 year sooner in F-14 (a rudimentary networked mission control) its useless in modern warfare you knew why . because it incorporate the best available to Russia according to Russian themselves and guess what , probably Brazil have better than Russia when it come to electronic

If Iran orders SU-35 it’s likely going to be a variant tailored to Iranian needs. If IRGC and the top brass approves dropping billions on an airforce deal they will make sure it’s worth it or they won’t bother and say we will use the money to build more missiles. It’s really that simple.

and be assured airforce don't want any flanker, all point to they want something built in iran