No, not the best, stop writing nonsense
If the Federation stayed on the Western path after the turn of the century. Russian aerospace forces would be straight up cutting edge imo. Like insanely cutting edge. That country is so capable of printing money and so many untapped resources.
3 Likes
Chinese flankers are based on the old Su-27SK,UBK and Su-30MKK, they have an old structurally power circuit, an old control system, no TVC
1 Like
Russian shills working full steam
10 Likes
Agreed the Russians are still the world leader on high output engines and and aerodynamically perfect designs. The Flanker is regarded as the worlds most aerodynamically perfect design ever.
This is stated by US pentagon analyst as well. If the Federation gets stable and generates money like it could have, Amazing 6th generation fighters incoming.
2 Likes
Oh that Su-35 that China stops buying further after 24
5 Likes
Says the Japanese player in the Chinese Flanker thread. LMFAO
Don’t you guys hate eachother with a passion?
Yes, the aerodynamics of the Flanker are the best, even in places better than those of the MiG-29M
1 Like
Doesn’t matter, what matters is the sensors, weapons, and information capabilities of the aircraft. The gulf between even the most modern Russian Flankers and the Sinoflanker is huge in these regards. GaN AESA radars, dual pulse BVR missile(certainly packing better Chinese datalink and guidance capabilities), large-scale availability of smart munitions, and the platform being part of a much more modern integrated system means that the Sinoflanker is enormously superior. Arguably it’s the best non-VLO aircraft in service today.
4 Likes
For the engine aspect, China is starting to catch up to Russia too. WS-15 has started onboard testing and is said to enter mass production soon. AL-51 is still nowhere to be seen except a few tests years ago.
4 Likes
You are right bro, however the Chinese would not be anywhere near where they are today had it been for the Soviets/Federation and dealings with the French, Israelis & the Brits for licensed technologies.
The Chinese Flanker is greatly feared. But let’s not forget our roots.
The Federation gets back on its feet. Especially if they go pro west after this current government. They will immediately catch up.
I’m not a Japanese player though, stopped bothering with the tree a long time ago, I just recognise the inadequacies of soviet tincans
2 Likes
Ahahh laughed, AESA has an advantage over PESA only in reliability.The rest is decided by the power of the transmitter, the area of the midsection and the sensitivity of the receiver.The Su-35S has all the same functions that you described and the R-37M
2 Likes
why are ya’ll continuing your mig29 rivalry in the j11 thread ;w;
1 Like
Anyway, things I’ve noticed about the J11 on the dev;
Visual model very much so incomplete, along with texture. Half the time the game will render it in the normal Su27S camo and then at some point in the match grey over with the simplified PLAAF markings. It also cannot equip user skins.
Doesn’t burn fuel at a fast rate at all, very easily be on blower the whole time
Can cobra extremely easily, making it somewhat useful for R73/HMD shots
Overall enjoyable fly, even if i would have personally preferred a J10A, i’ll still take a J11
I’m still on copium hoping the J-10A might make a surprise appearance at the end (PLS GAIJIN). Or that we will get upgraded to a J-11A so it’s not just a copy-paste plane…
4 Likes
AESA radar has considerably less noise from RF systems because amplifier is closer to transmission. So line feed and phase shifter are eliminated, and lower power reduces noise in duplexer and receiver protection. I’ve seen figures around 3-10 dB advantage here(Ibris is likely to give closer to that 3 dB figure). AESA also with modern systems has comparable RF output power if not more. J-10B AESA is known to be 1152 modules @ 10W = 11.5 kW. Less than Su-35’s 20kW, but in a smaller package. J-16 is likely in region of 1600-2000 modules given aperture size, and those modules will be individually more powerful than older J-10B modules. AESA also has advantages in terms of beamforming(ability to form multiple beams) and frequency agility(not tied to single/double amplifier).
Su-35S is seriously limited by Russia’s lack of weapons. And there’s nothing comparable to PL-15 as MRAAM with extended range, CEC capability, AESA seeker. R-37 is maybe the one good thing, but PL-17 is certainly better, given larger size, dual pulse motor, and aforementioned Chinese general superiority in electronics manufacture.
6 Likes
Aerodynamically perfect designs mattered before FBW. Now it’s worth more to be inherently unstable and let computers do the lifting.
1 Like
Why would AESA suddenly have more output power?No one has more than Irbis.Yes, AESA’s multitasking is better, but it loses some of its power.The efficiency of AESA is lower than that of PESA, so not everything is so clear.I just laughed about the weapons, the PL-15 is the R-77-1 level, and no one has come close to the R-37M yet.Yes, its parameters will be worse if the carrier is a Flanker, and not a MiG-31
Because GaN technology allowed for much more powerful and efficient amplifers. What, do you think that 5G UW just descended from the sky one day? GaN technology allowed for a considerable leap in terms of output power for RF applications.
I just explained why AESA has lower noise. Everything between the transmitting and receiving amplifiers adds noise. Phase shifter? Noise. Feed from transmitter amp to modules? Noise. Higher power individual components? Noise. Feed back from antenna to receiving amplifier? Noise.(Ibris kills this last one, but all the others still there).
If PESA were better, you’d see it retained, but every nation with the money is replacing them with AESA. Even Russia is trying.
PL-15 is leagues above R-77-1. A designer officially claimed 200km range. It has CEC which no russian source would claime because they’d be laughed out of the room. Dual pulse allows for much more efficient speed profile. PL-17 is all that but in the large missile form factor.
4 Likes