J15 clearest pic

[SBD-3]

Chinese J-15 is lighter than the Su-33, payload increase
Network, open a number of Zhang F -15 take off picture, in which an image is obvious that the front wing off, even though the picture is fuzzy, to forge such a fuzzy picture, it is very difficult.

Can be sure, Su -33 J -15 is a clone of the letter. As we all know, the former Soviet -33 to wheel landing gear design, frame straight, to judge from the picture, F -15 also have such features.

Radome coating different from the F-11B during flight radome color is black, gray F -15. This distinction is necessary because different radar functions as the Navy fighter, the F -15 radar air-to-ship weapons to additional interface.

J -15 is not clear whether the installation of the first aircraft radar, the first aircraft flight control testing machine is mainly used for testing.

From yellow, light green body color judgments, F -15 composite materials used in general and the J-11B, J-11BS same, especially in the vertical tail, wing parts.

Su -33 because it is developed in the late 80′s, completed in 1992, final assembly, so only use a very small amount of composite material. It would appear empty weight of F -15 -33 lighter than the Soviet Union. Aircraft thrust-weight ratio greater results, means that the increase in payload.

In the next five years, a new generation of F-11B, J-11BS, J -15 may become more mature production aircraft could be.

F -15 to complete the final test flight may be around in 2012, the premise is to continue to use the Russian type engine. From 2013 to 2014 or so, may enter mass production stage F -15.

 

[SBD-3]

Hasnaina ji, did you read the first sentence of my post? That makes it very clear, doesnt it?

anyways I am anxiously waiting for a reply....plz refrain from trademark comments like "you need to educate yourself"...."you're out of brains"...."you're are talking BS" and stuff like this.....

something logical plz

 

[chauism]

You my friend are woefully wrong. US and Russia attract talent, US from the world over, while Russia harvests its own domestic pool.
Spying and trying to collect information and trying to come up with technology to utilize the knowledge is vastly different from copying a piece of machinery bolt for bolt. Copying DOES NOT require a level of sophistication, that most chini brothers are trying to claim. I for one do not buy this malarkey. Period.

There numerous things US and Soviet had reverse engineered from Nazi Germany, from things as simple as a gas tank to the foundations of all the later rocket as V2.

During the cold war, Soviet also reverse engineered lots of things such as Tu-4 from B-29, AA-2 "Atoll" from AIM-9 Sidewinder(on the side note, Russia actually got copy of AIM-9 Sidewinder from China after China get its hands on one unexploded one during Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) and etc...

BTW copying from bolt to bolt is not exactly Chinese style of reverse engineering. Also as someone has pointed out even copying from bolt to bolt requires certain among of industrial sophistication. Even if I hand you a blueprint of a simple radio, can you make it on your own to its factory standard?

The futlility of 'reinventing' the wheel is known to all. However, one cannot justify the blatant copying and IPR violations as an excuse for not reinventing the wheel. That is plain stupidity.
What do you mean you know the answer but dont know the problem? That is very lame, indeed. That clearly means that there is no innovation and originality to see the problem in the first place let alone come up with an appropriate solution.

I fixed my sentence from above. If you don't know how to solve certain problem, and if you just know the answer, it is always better for someone to work his way back from the answer to the problem to find the solution than just get the solution from someone else. This way you learn more and gain more experience from how to solve this problem, and better digest the knowledge. Not every time you have to reinvent the wheel. It is not you don't know that the problem or the answer. It is you don't know the process in between.

There is absolutely no need to argue about innovation in China. If you want to open a thread, be my guest. However, the argument that the number of patents argue for Chini innovation capability is horse manure. Why? Like I have already mentioned in one of my earlier posts, redesigning a coffeemaker handle can land you a patent. Most of Chinese patent applications are in that category. They did not and neither can they come up with the idea of a handle for a coffeemaker. There is absolutely nothing ground breaking in what the Chinese can do, except make an absolutely exact replica of anything they can lay their hands on. I do agree that is a commendable quality, however from the innovation point of view, its malarkey.

I am not going to argue about the number of patents, I am arguing the scientific publishing being cited in the international science world.

Also from the Global Innovation Index China is rank 27th with 0.73 points comparing India's 46th ranking with 0.06 points(it is not a typo, it is 0.06). Also on this chart China's innovation perfomance has a score of 1.32 while India has a score of -0.02
Global Innovation Index
Cross-country Comparison (KAM 2009)
http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/jul/17china.htm

There is no difference between J11 and J11B. The only difference is that the latter is assembled with parts manufactured solely in China, unlike some of the components being brought in from Russia for J-11A. However, both still use Russian powerplants, though there are recent attempts by the Chinese to power the aircraft with their 'indigenous' powerplants. These 'indigenous' powerplants are again copies of Russian engines and yet, the Chinese are having trouble to perfect them. If copying requires an advanced technological base, why is that the Chinese cannot perfect a copied engine?

I guess you did not read the link I have provided at all.

Details have emerged of China’s next generation J-11B heavy air superiority fighter aircraft, a further development of Sukhoi’s Su-27SK (Chinese designation J-11) that ended production in 2004 ahead of its planned run.

Shenyang Aviation Corporation (SAC) assembled 95 J-11 fighters from imported Russian components, although the original project had called for 200 aircraft, and it is likely production was stopped in anticipation of the improved J-11B.

Although based on the Su-27SK, the latest incarnation has substantial improvements including a reduced radar cross-section (RCS), strengthened airframe and an improved fire control radar as well as new flight control system, glass cockpit and engine.
The improvements are planned to nake the aircraft to a fourth generation platform; the Yanliang Flight Test Center currently has three J-11B under testing (No 521, No 523 and No 524).

The most significant change for the aircraft is improved stealth; the changes are planned to bring the RCS from the 15 sqm of the Su-27 to under 5 sqm and possible as low as 3 sqm.

The change is not to the dynamic shape of the aircraft but involves the modification of the air intake lip with a radar wave shield and the installation of radar absorbing materials on the intake interior. In addition the RCS will be reduced with Chinese made signature reduction paint.

The strengthening of the airframe, a key aspect since the life expectancy of the aircraft has been criticised by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, has been achieved through wind-tunnel tests of weapons carriage.

Additionally, the empty weight of the aircraft has been reduced by about 700 kg through the use of composite materials.

It is believed a further 10,000 hours has been added to the life of the aircraft compared with the Su-27SK.

The radar installed on the J-11B is believed to be more powerful than the Type 1473 installed on the J-10; it is estimated to be able to track 20 targets and simultaneously lock onto six targets.
J-11B will incorporate a quadruply-redundant digital fly-by-wire flight control system with mechanical back-up. Additionally, the aircraft has a fully glass cockpit but there are two variants - a reflecting head-up display (HUD) with four multi-function displays (MFDs) and a holographic HUD with three MFDs.
It is likely the former cockpit is for ground attack and the latter for air combat. The new cockpits integrate fire control radar, electro-optic countermeasure pods and infra-red search and track.

The improved radar and cockpit have allowed for the integration of newer weapons such as the CATIC PL-12 active radar-guided air-to-air missile.

The J-11 AL-31F engine will be replaced with the WS10A turbofan, providing longer lifespan and reduced fuel consumption.

It would do you some good if you read reports more carefully. Russian Navy chose MiG-29 because they offered superior advantages over Su-33 for carrier based operations. Financial feasibility does not come into account here, because, if they were so cash strapped, why replace their existing aircraft with new planes? Where did they get money for that?

Adding better and newer avionics and radar on mig-29 does not make mig-29 a better platform than su-33. Of course the improved mig-29K is going to be better than the decades old Su-33. However same can be done with Su-33, and because it is a big and more powerful airplane, it should have more room for improvement, so the problem here is the cost and the future operating cost itself.

For an airframe the size of Su-33, yes. Its all about how you can fit that airframe into the hanger of the carrier and how strong can you make the landing gear to take the repeated beatings of landing on carrier decks. Folding/unfolding wings is a complicated piece of technology and that is why China copied Su-33. Else they would have just make those modifications in the wings of J-11B, isnt it? Tell me any other reason as to why?

China got its hand on the prototype of Su-33 in 2001. Even after they had the sample with them, it take China almost a decade to figuare out how to fold wings? Dream on...
China studied Su-33 for its designing philisophy for carrier based aircraft. If you think J-15 is just a copy of Su-33 from bolt to bolt, it is laughable at best. Right now, the only thing can be said about J-15 is it looks like su-33 on the outside(Who doesn't in Su-27's family, Su-37 looks like Su-33 as well). I am waiting for its information on its system integration. Once we have that, then let's talk.

 

[ptldM3]

Russia Navy choose mig-29k over su-33 is not because su-33 is inferior to mig29k. The airframe of Su-33 is much superior comparing to mig-29's. If you know the state of russian navy, then you can clearly see it is more of problem of financial feasibilty. Just check the number of navy vessels had sold for scraps to China alone, you will get the idea.

.

Wrong, first off what is the 'financial' nature of the Russian navy? Do you know the nature of the Russian navy? Clearly with your vague assumptions you do not. The Russian navy has been purchasing billion dollar ships and they plan to purchase more. The same hold true for other branches of the Russian armed forces, the air force, for instance, is inducting new platforms of aircraft, infact they plan to purchase over 1000 new aircraft in the coming decades, so there is no finacial problems, spending increases each year, there was once a finacial problem but this is not 1992.

In another post you said that the SU-33 can just be upgraded with new avionics to match the Mig-29K and Mig-29K was only chosen because of cost.

You also say that the SU-33 is the superior airframe.

Firstly, you are underestimating how much of an upgrade the SU-33 would have to go through to match the Mig-29K, it's not just replacing radars, and a few other systems because as we all know there is alot more to an aircraft then a radar. The Mig-29K has superior avionics with complex data fusion, it also has new engines, more composites, and a host of other feature.

The only thing the SU-33 is better at then the Mig-29K is range and a bigger RCS which is a bad thing.

It makes no sense to upgrade an aging fleet of SU-33's when a superior platform is available.

It also would not make sense to purchase brand new aircraft if the Navy was so cash strapped would it?

To top it off the Mig-29K will be cheaper to operate because of its edvanced avionics this includes engines that have a 4000 hour life.

 

[chauism]

Firstly, you are underestimating how much of an upgrade the SU-33 would have to go through to match the Mig-29K

Exactly the point my friend, the cost. Maybe I should correct what I said, it is not that Russia military don't have money, it is just choose the best cost effective options for its navy.

"Currently, there are 19 Su-33 deck-based fighters in Russian naval aviation (the only fighter serially produced for Russian Armed Forces in 1992-1996), but their service life will be expired by 2015; therefore, the issue of their replacement is actual nowadays, said the source in the Ministry of Defense.

Production of new Su-33 is possible but unprofitable if production volume is small; and production of Mig-29K, considering 16 aircrafts ordered by India and potential 28 fighters to be delivered to this country, is much more economic value-added, says Makinenko. According to him, this cheapens the series and saves money for development. "
Russian Navy will probably buy 24 MiG-29K fighters designed for India

The Mig-29K has superior avionics with complex data fusion, it also has new engines, more composites, and a host of other feature.

The only thing the SU-33 is better at then the Mig-29K is range and a bigger RCS which is a bad thing.

As the above article said Russian navy is replacing Su-33 with new aircraft, because the airframe is reaching its service life limits in 2015. So the same modification as you mentioned in your post can be done on a new Su-33, but with significant higher cost.

Also you forgot to mention Su-33's higher weapon load, and its higher speed. If China can reduced Su-27's RCS from 15m^2 to 5m^2, I am sure Russia can do the same with redesigned air intake and composite material for its airframe. Being bigger also has other advantage as its nosedome can house a more powerful and bigger radar. In their original designs, Su-27 series was Russian's answer to US's F-15, where Mig-29 series was to F-16.

 

[ao333]

Wrong, first off what is the 'financial' nature of the Russian navy? Do you know the nature of the Russian navy? Clearly with your vague assumptions you do not. The Russian navy has been purchasing billion dollar ships and they plan to purchase more. The same hold true for other branches of the Russian armed forces, the air force, for instance, is inducting new platforms of aircraft, infact they plan to purchase over 1000 new aircraft in the coming decades, so there is no finacial problems, spending increases each year, there was once a finacial problem but this is not 1992.

In another post you said that the SU-33 can just be upgraded with new avionics to match the Mig-29K and Mig-29K was only chosen because of cost.

You also say that the SU-33 is the superior airframe.

Firstly, you are underestimating how much of an upgrade the SU-33 would have to go through to match the Mig-29K, it's not just replacing radars, and a few other systems because as we all know there is alot more to an aircraft then a radar. The Mig-29K has superior avionics with complex data fusion, it also has new engines, more composites, and a host of other feature.

The only thing the SU-33 is better at then the Mig-29K is range and a bigger RCS which is a bad thing.

It makes no sense to upgrade an aging fleet of SU-33's when a superior platform is available.

It also would not make sense to purchase brand new aircraft if the Navy was so cash strapped would it?

To top it off the Mig-29K will be cheaper to operate because of its edvanced avionics this includes engines that have a 4000 hour life.

WTF? Why are you comparing MiG-29k with Su-33? The Su-33 was designed to be superior, while the MiG-29 was saught to be a cheaper alternative. Moreover, the 2 planes have completely different strategic values. One was designed for high-carrier-capacity long range air-superiority and the other was for medium-capacity short range interception.

India chose MiG-29k because it will build smaller carriers and don't have the strategic needs for offensive operations, while I hear that China still has serious sovereignty issues.

 

[CardSharp]

Exactly the point my friend, the cost. Maybe I should correct what I said, it is not that Russia military don't have money, it is just choose the best cost effective options for its navy.

I understand this is a sensitive issue since the Russian armed services collapsed when the oligarchs were allowed to monopolize the oil industry and move their revenues out of country.

 

[dbc]

Exactly the point my friend, the cost. Maybe I should correct what I said, it is not that Russia military don't have money, it is just choose the best cost effective options for its navy.

"Currently, there are 19 Su-33 deck-based fighters in Russian naval aviation (the only fighter serially produced for Russian Armed Forces in 1992-1996), but their service life will be expired by 2015; therefore, the issue of their replacement is actual nowadays, said the source in the Ministry of Defense.

Production of new Su-33 is possible but unprofitable if production volume is small; and production of Mig-29K, considering 16 aircrafts ordered by India and potential 28 fighters to be delivered to this country, is much more economic value-added, says Makinenko. According to him, this cheapens the series and saves money for development. "
Russian Navy will probably buy 24 MiG-29K fighters designed for India


As the above article said Russian navy is replacing Su-33 with new aircraft, because the airframe is reaching its service life limits in 2015. So the same modification as you mentioned in your post can be done on a new Su-33, but with significant higher cost.

Also you forgot to mention Su-33's higher weapon load, and its higher speed. If China can reduced Su-27's RCS from 15m^2 to 5m^2, I am sure Russia can do the same with redesigned air intake and composite material for its airframe. Being bigger also has other advantage as its nosedome can house a more powerful and bigger radar. In their original designs, Su-27 series was Russian's answer to US's F-15, where Mig-29 series was to F-16.

A high ranking officer of the Egyptian Airforce once said "..in the air I want to be very small". This was during a dinner conversation about the F-14 and Sukhoi. The space occupied by the F-14 on larger American carriers is one of the factors that weighed against the remarkable F-14 when USN decided to replace it with the F-18.

It makes sense to build smaller planes considering the limited space available on aircraft carriers. Assuming the Chinese military aviation industry has reached the level of sophistication to compete with the Russians. Why do you think China persists with the large J-11 design it is almost as big as the 737 - is it the best choice for its aircraft carrier?

Chinese military research is shrouded in secrets, it is hard to gauge the aviation industries true capabilities but it is possible to guess based on decisions such as the one being discussed - my guess is China is still many years behind Russia.

 

[Awesome]

Why is everyone making a big deal about it? The Chini janta are known to copy stuff with a scant regard to IPR. When even the admin of this beloved site supports IPR violations, citing national interests, its in everyone's best interest to let it rest. Nothing more can be achieved by trying to tell them how serious an IPR violation is and how detrimental it is to ones own technological development. But then these people apparently know better.

Anyhow, the present J-15 is a copy of an early Su-33 prototype (from what I gathered from various sources), obtained from Ukraine (which apparently didnt know how to put the airframe to good use). Su-33 evolved from that prototype and when it reached maturity, the aircraft served with the Russian navy and now the Russians are planning to replace their aging Su-33 fleet with the MiG-29K. IN chose MiG-29K over Su-33 for a reason. China is NOW making copies of the Su-33 prototype. Says it all.

All this "indigenous" tech being incorporated in J-15 is hogwash. It is as advanced as their "indigenous" J-11B. So much for advanced technology available in China, they couldn't even make the aircraft wings fold/unfold for stashing into the aircraft carrier hanger. They HAD to resort to buying a prototype of Su-33 and copying that piece of technology. Why else would the Chini janta buy a prototype from Ukraine? Because they could NOT come up with "indigenous" design for making the aircraft wings fold/unfold. And neither do they have the technological knowhow to strengthen that airframe for numerous carrier landings.

So much for technological advancement in China.

Tell me would the copied bombs hurt any less?

 

[chauism]

A high ranking officer of the Egyptian Airforce once said "..in the air I want to be very small". This was during a dinner conversation about the F-14 and Sukhoi. The space occupied by the F-14 on larger American carriers is one of the factors that weighed against the remarkable F-14 when USN decided to replace it with the F-18.

It make sense to build smaller planes considering the limited space available on aircraft carriers. Assuming the Chinese military aviation industry has reached the level of sophistication to compete with the Russians. Why do you think China persists with the large J-11 design it is almost as big as the 737 - is it the best choice for its aircraft carrier?

Chinese military research is shrouded in secrets, it is hard to gauge the aviation industries true capabilities but it is possible to guess based on decisions such as the one being discussed - my guess is China is still many years behind Russia.

No one denies that fact.

As for China Su-33 is also a more logical choice over mig 29 than Russian for its first carries based fighters. China already had many experience using and producing Su-27, but the same can not be said about mig 29. With mig 29 maybe you can have more numbers, but what about its combat effectiveness. If the condition are the same for both fighters, I can safely say that 3 su-27s can take on 5 mig-29s. Don't forget, during second Ethiopian-Eritrean war, Su-27 shot down 5 mig-29 and damaged another which crashed during landing with no loss of its own.

F-18E/F replacing aging F-14 is not without controversy especially among those whose lives are depended on it.
F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet

 

[ptldM3]

Exactly the point my friend, the cost. Maybe I should correct what I said, it is not that Russia military don't have money, it is just choose the best cost effective options for its navy.



As the above article said Russian navy is replacing Su-33 with new aircraft, because the airframe is reaching its service life limits in 2015. So the same modification as you mentioned in your post can be done on a new Su-33, but with significant higher cost.

Also you forgot to mention Su-33's higher weapon load, and its higher speed. If China can reduced Su-27's RCS from 15m^2 to 5m^2, I am sure Russia can do the same with redesigned air intake and composite material for its airframe. Being bigger also has other advantage as its nosedome can house a more powerful and bigger radar. In their original designs, Su-27 series was Russian's answer to US's F-15, where Mig-29 series was to F-16.

Th SU-33 and Mig-29 are almost even in terms of speed, infact the SU-33 edges it by only ~60mph, given different weapons loads, fuel capacity, and altitude the Mig-29K and SU-33 are even. In any case maximum speed matters little because aircraft rarely reach their maximum speed due to extreme fuel consumption.

The SU-33 also does have a larger weapons load and more hardpoints but it will never use them all, at most it will use 8 hardpoints, in any case having a few less A2A or A2G weapons would not make or break the Mig-29K.

Now to the fun stuff, the SU-33 does have the capacity for a larger radar, and the larger the radar the big the antenna size, this usually results in range. However, range is limited by the weapons, This means that even though the SU-33 will see an aggressor aircraft first (granted the aggressors RCS permits) it doesn't necessarily mean it will get first shot. For instance, the maximum range of the R-77 is 100km, but this is under ideal circumstances when two aircraft are merging, the problem is once a pilot fires from that range his odds of getting a kill is close to nada because the aggressor will maneuver his aircraft so that the R-77 will exhaust its fuel, this means that to get a high probability kill the pilot must fire his weapons at about half their maximum range, give or take. And don't forget aircarft with small RCS take alot of the advantages away from long range radars, meaning they will have the ability to get closer before being detected.

Don't forget, during second Ethiopian-Eritrean war, Su-27 shot down 5 mig-29 and damaged another which crashed during landing with no loss of its own.

And this is what happens when pilots fire their weapons from a maximum range, the SU-27 pilots fired from closer ranges, thus they got the kills, infact the SU-27's used short range weapons.

So now that i explained the generals of how a radars range corrilates to engagements i will also explain functions of a radar other then range.

-Image resolution both air and ground
-data-link
-scaning area
-targets tracked and engaged
-clutter recognition


Those are just some of the functions to consider in a radar atleast in a PESA.

One of the interesting things about the Mig-29K is that it has the option of the Zhuk-AE (AESA) which went into full production earlier this year, considering the Zhuk was primarily made for the Mig-29/35 i think this played a role in choosing the Mig-29K, obviously once the Mig-29K is equiped with the AESA its combat effectivness will be drastically improved do to the rapid frequency changes that no PESA can provide, this gives the Zhuk a number of edvantages, one being high jamming resistance.

You were also right when talking about RCS reduction, the SU-35BM, for example, has a significant reduction in its RCS, and so does the Mig-29K compared to other Mig-29's. Given the Mig-29's smaller area it will always have an edvantage, so the SU-33 can reduce its RCS but the Mig-29K already has a much smaller RCS, and if the goal is to get the RCS of the Mig-29K as small as possible the Mig-29K will alway have the advantage.

In the end the SU-33's air frame it just too old and it would be very expensive to upgrade all of its avionics, not even mentioning RCS reduction to get it with in the class of the Mig-29K. The Mig-29K is also less labor intensive, esspecially given its 4000 hr engine life.

And lastely the Mig-29K comes in a twin seater version, which gives it greater multi-role capabilities, something the SU-33 will never have unless it gets a redesign.

WTF? Why are you comparing MiG-29k with Su-33?

I'm not the one that started comparing, read the previous posts.

The Su-33 was designed to be superior, while the MiG-29 was saught to be a cheaper alternative. Moreover, the 2 planes have completely different strategic values. One was designed for high-carrier-capacity long range air-superiority and the other was for medium-capacity short range interception.

Read what i wrote above, the SU-33 does have longer range and payload which would make it superior in long range strike missions. However, that does not translate to a superior aircraft in terms of aircraft vs aircraft.

India chose MiG-29k because it will build smaller carriers and don't have the strategic needs for offensive operations, while I hear that China still has serious sovereignty issues.

The SU-33 is actually extremely compact, take a look:



And with refueling capability and external fuel tanks its range becomes less of a factor.

 

[chauism]

Th SU-33 and Mig-29 are almost even in terms of speed, infact the SU-33 edges it by only ~60mph, given different weapons loads, fuel capacity, and altitude the Mig-29K and SU-33 are even.

So now that i explained the generals of how a radars range corrilates to engagements i will also explain functions of a radar other then range.

-Image resolution both air and ground
-data-link
-scaning area
-targets tracked and engaged

Those are just some of the functions to consider in a radar atleast in a PESA.

One of the interesting things about the Mig-29K is that it has the option of the Zhuk-AE (AESA) which went into full production earlier this year, considering the Zhuk was primarily made for the Mig-29/35 i think this played a role in choosing the Mig-29K, obviously once the Mig-29K is equiped with the AESA its combat effectivness will be drastically improved do to the rapid frequency changes that no PESA can provide, this gives the Zhuk a number of edvantages, one being high jamming resistance.

You were also right when talking about RCS reduction, the SU-35BM, for example, has a significant reduction in its RCS, and so does the Mig-29K compared to other Mig-29's. Given the Mig-29's smaller area it will always have an edvantage, so the SU-33 can reduce its RCS but the Mig-29K already has a much smaller RCS, and if the goal is to get the RCS of the Mig-29K as small as possible the Mig-29K will alway have the advantage.

In the end the SU-33's air frame it just too old and it would be very expensive to upgrade all of its avionics, not even mentioning RCS reduction to get it with in the class of the Mig-29K. The Mig-29K is also less labor intensive, esspecially given its 4000 hr engine life.

And lastely the Mig-29K comes in a twin seater version, which gives it greater multi-role capabilities, something the SU-33 will never have unless it gets a redesign.



I'm not the one that started comparing, read the previous posts.




Read what i wrote above, the SU-33 does have longer range and payload which would make it superior in long range strike missions. However, that does not translate to a superior aircraft in terms of aircraft vs aircraft.



The SU-33 is actually extremely compact, take a look:



And with refueling capability and external fuel tanks its range becomes less of a factor.

Why do you have to keep pitting original Su-33 against Mig-29K? There are also planned Su-33K which is supposed to have the same niches as Su-35BM, but never become reality because it is not profitable. That will be a better comparison. Don't tell me that Mig-29K is superior than Su-35BM.

Again, as I said in the above post after same digging on my own, it is not just upgrading the existing Su-33 fleet with newer equipment, but to start from scratch as they did with mig-29K after India has ordered it. Also, can you tell me why Soviet Navy chose Su-33 over the original Mig-29k(not the new revived one) 20 years ago?

The reason this time Russian Navy 's choice of Mig-29K has been stated clearly on the article I have provided above.

According to a companion publication to the Ministry of Defense, the Navy has a fleet of 19 carrier-based fighters Su-33, a resource which will expire by 2015. Production of new Su-33s is possible but not cost-effective for small volumes. At the same time, the MiG-29K in this respect are more convenient, because the Indian Navy has already ordered the aircraft. Konstantin Makienko noted it cheapens the series and saves on development.

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=7697
Three words, cost, cost, cost.

Now to the fun stuff, the SU-33 does have the capacity for a larger radar, and the larger the radar the big the antenna size, this usually results in range. However, range is limited by the weapons, This means that even though the SU-33 will see an aggressor aircraft first (granted the aggressors RCS permits) it doesn't necessarily mean it will get first shot. For instance, the maximum range of the R-77 is 100km, but this is under ideal circumstances when two aircraft are merging, the problem is once a pilot fires from that range his odds of getting a kill is close to nada because the aggressor will maneuver his aircraft so that the R-77 will exhaust its fuel, this means that to get a high probability kill the pilot must fire his weapons at about half their maximum range, give or take. And don't forget aircarft with small RCS take alot of the advantages away from long range radars, meaning they will have the ability to get closer before being detected.

Not if KS-172 has come out. As for a carrier based aircraft, it also has very important role of performing air to surface mission. In the absence of AWACS, the range on onboard radar is very significant as most of its ASMs do have a long range.

And this is what happens when pilots fire their weapons from a maximum range, the SU-27 pilots fired from closer ranges, thus they got the kills, infact the SU-27's used short range weapons.

The pilot was that lucky for several times in 3 different days?

 

[ptldM3]

Why do you have to keep pitting original Su-33 against Mig-29K? There are also planned Su-33K which is supposed to have the same niches as Su-35BM, but never become reality because it is not profitable. That will be a better comparison. Don't tell me that Mig-29K is superior than Su-35BM.

I'm not pitting anything i'm not even the one that brung up the Mig-29K, for some reason you have the notion of 'what if' and that is not how things work, there is no what if's with the SU-33, its being phased out. The Mig-29K as of now is superior to the SU-33. And if the SU-33 was upgraded to the SU-35BM standard the difference wouldn't be too great, like i explained earlier the SU-33 would still have greater range, payload, and radar range, but given limitations in A2A ranges, RCS differences, and EW suits the aircraft would be fairly even in a BVR angagement.

If you still think that larger aircraft with the longest radar range will be hands down better look at the Typhoon, it's not very big and it's radar only has a range of about 160km, if i'm not mistaken.

Again, as I said in the above post after same digging on my own, it is not just upgrading the existing Su-33 fleet with newer equipment, but to start from scratch as they did with mig-29K after India has ordered it. Also, can you tell me why Soviet Navy chose Su-33 over the original Mig-29k(not the new revived one) 20 years ago?

The reason this time Russian Navy 's choice of Mig-29K has been stated clearly on the article I have provided above.


Three words, cost, cost, cost.

The SU-33 plant is shut down, meaning it would cost alot of money to get it up and running, this is where the Mig-29K comes in. India wanted the Mig-29K and they got it, but something strange happened, Russia decided to phase out the SU-33's in favore of the Mig-29K, surely paying over 46 million dollars for 24 aircraft is not cheap. Russia could upgrade the SU-33's for alot less then 46 million a peice. Lastely, given the newer technologies in the Mig-29K it will be cheaper to maintain. When Makinenko mentioned the Mig-29K being cheaper he was talking about cost per aircraft coming down because of orders from both India and Russia, in other words it would make no sense to restart the SU-33 production line for a very limited number of aircraft. And the Soviet Union chose the SU-33 because it fit into their requirments and doctrine, not to mention that early Mig-29's had a very poor range, which by now has improved enough to the point where Russia feels confident in operating the Mig-29.

Either way this is NOT about the J-15 vs Mig-29K.

 

[dingyibvs]

Yea, but knowing this forum, you just HAD to know that it was gonna come down to J-15 vs. Mig-29K

 

[chauism]

I'm not pitting anything i'm not even the one that brung up the Mig-29K, for some reason you have the notion of 'what if' and that is not how things work, there is no what if's with the SU-33, its being phased out. The Mig-29K as of now is superior to the SU-33. And if the SU-33 was upgraded to the SU-35BM standard the difference wouldn't be too great, like i explained earlier the SU-33 would still have greater range, payload, and radar range, but given limitations in A2A ranges, RCS differences, and EW suits the aircraft would be fairly even in a BVR angagements.

Maybe Russian Airforce should also replacing its fleet with Mig-35M instead of Su-35BM, since it exhibits the latest advancements with lower cost. It also can reduce the unit price of Mig-29K and Mig-35 further, since those two share a lot of its components. BTW, has Mig-35 found any customer including Russian Airforce yet?

If you still think that larger aircraft with the longest radar range will be hands down better look at the Typhoon, it's not very big and it's radar only has a range of about 160km, if i'm not mistaken.

Don't look at me, I choose Su-35BM in a dog fight in any given days.

The SU-33 plant is shut down, meaning it would cost alot of money to get it up and running, this is where the Mig-29K comes in.

As if the Mig-29K's production line was kept running before India had made any order.

Russia could upgrade the SU-33's for alot less then 46 million a peice.

What is the use of upgrading an aircraft when its airframe is reaching its service life limit?

Either way this is NOT about the J-15 vs Mig-29K.

I never did compare those two, since there is not much information of J-15 besides its looks to compare to.