Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E

[Shirman]

Re: Why Su-35 would not pose any serious security threat to India's Ra

@p2prada @Austin what does it need to convert our super su-30 mki into e/a-18 Growler type a/c I mean aesa radar, defensive suite, jammer both offensive and defensive, escort jammer pods, sensor fusion anything else I mean looking at over current programs we should be able to achieve it

 

[huaxia rox]

Chinese deal to buy Russian jets, subs murky; Moscow fears Beijing's tech theft

China and Russia have inked a deal for Beijing to buy 24 advanced Sukhov Su-35 multirole jet fighters and four Lada-class diesel-electric-powered submarines, two of which will be built in China, in the largest arms sale between the two countries in 10 years.

Or have they?

Chinese state TV reported Monday that the on-again, off-again deal was finalized during the weekend visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow.
But Russian media denied that Tuesday, saying no agreement had been reached, Defense News reported.

"The Kremlin is officially denying even discussing arms trade during Xi's visit," Vasiliy Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told Defense News.

Another defense industry source in Russia told the publication that there were "strong reservations" in Moscow about going forward with the deal, which the two countries agreed to explore in a memorandum of understanding signed in December.

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

 

[sayareakd]

so no deal as of now.

 

[huaxia rox]

now western media also interested with the fake news......i guess very soon some high ranking military guys from either beijing or moscow will turn up and tell the truth......

 

[huaxia rox]

so no deal as of now.

it depends on the definition of 'deal'.......

for example i like your car and want to buy it and i sign a contract with you telling you i am interested with your car and hope to know more about it and you also agree to show more info and ensure i can buy your car and you want to slove some problems we may come across in the future if i really come to you for the car.............is it a 'deal' about your car???

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Su-35 would not pose any serious security threat to India's Ra

@p2prada @Austin what does it need to convert our super su-30 mki into e/a-18 Growler type a/c I mean aesa radar, defensive suite, jammer both offensive and defensive, escort jammer pods, sensor fusion anything else I mean looking at over current programs we should be able to achieve it

Yeah, we can.

Google SAP-14, SAP-518 pod jammers.

There will be technological hurdles apart from costs and capability.

 

[nrj]

Pretty much every thing that we have bought today was either on the drawing board at the time or brand new with no track record. Rafale is the first aircraft we are buying that has a track record. Before that, pretty much all aircraft were new aircraft.

Kilos were untested platform when negotiations were taking place. OTOH, Scorpenes were not purchased by the captive market in France.

It is inaccurate & overstatement to say India always bought unproven platforms. There is difference between brand new & paper projects like s1000.

Sent via Tapatalk from a galaxy far far away

 

[nrj]

Okay, but this is the navy's decision. I merely believe all the subs are of similar level without any major advantages or disadvantages.

Disadvantage (riddance) is clear if russian subs are going to end up in PLAN.

So this basically comes down to costs, industrial production and ToT. Regardless, we are years away from seeing anything happening on the subs front.

India chose Scorpene over Amur in past.

As for costs, production worthiness, ToT; sunk cost & expertise in MDL for scorpene puts russian paper subs on further disadvantage.

 

[p2prada]

It is inaccurate & overstatement to say India always bought unproven platforms.

Huh? No. We were always the first to buy something, regardless of how successful it was in the captive market. That's because except for Rafale (which has been in service for more than a decade) we always bought the latest available.

You can say, had we been close to the US, we would have joined their F-35 program, like how we did for the in development PAKFA. The same with most other projects. Completely unproven systems were bought and were proven over time.

Even today we will be among the first countries to buy the Meteor, completely unproven.

All first rate militaries work with unproven systems. Only weaker and poorer countries wait for a proven system.

 

[nrj]

Huh? No. We were always the first to buy something, regardless of how successful it was in the captive market. That's because except for Rafale (which has been in service for more than a decade) we always bought the latest available.

You can say, had we been close to the US, we would have joined their F-35 program, like how we did for the in development PAKFA. The same with most other projects. Completely unproven systems were bought and were proven over time.

Even today we will be among the first countries to buy the Meteor, completely unproven.

All first rate militaries work with unproven systems. Only weaker and poorer countries wait for a proven system.

I gave you examples already. It is contradiction to statement that we always buy unproven.

First rate militaries do not buy, they develop themselves.

 

[p2prada]

As for costs, production worthiness, ToT; sunk cost & expertise in MDL for scorpene puts russian paper subs on further disadvantage.

Anything is fine. All subs are good but vary on some parameters here and there.

In the end even though there seem to be 5 competitors, it is in effect 3. The German Type 214, the Russian Amur and the French Scorpene.

The Spanish S-80 is a military designation of the Scorpene and is slightly bigger and heavier while S1000 is the Italian designation for Amur 950. The S1000 is actually inferior to the Russian Amur 1650.

So, S-80 is the heaviest, followed by Scorpene, then comes the Type 214 which is tied with Amur 1650, then comes the S1000 and the Amur 950. And there are more variants in each type.

So it finally boils down to requirements and costs because the competitors have different weight classes, from 2400 tonnes on S-80 to 1000 tonnes on Amur.

Japanese subs are above 4000 tonnes and may very well be another option.

 

[nrj]

Anything is fine. All subs are good but vary on some parameters here and there.

In the end even though there seem to be 5 competitors, it is in effect 3. The German Type 214, the Russian Amur and the French Scorpene.

The Spanish S-80 is a military designation of the Scorpene and is slightly bigger and heavier while S1000 is the Italian designation for Amur 950. The S1000 is actually inferior to the Russian Amur 1650.

So, S-80 is the heaviest, followed by Scorpene, then comes the Type 214 which is tied with Amur 1650, then comes the S1000 and the Amur 950. And there are more variants in each type.

So it finally boils down to requirements and costs because the competitors have different weight classes, from 2400 tonnes on S-80 to 1000 tonnes on Amur.

Japanese subs are above 4000 tonnes and may very well be another option.

Point was, Amurs are to be rejected if they are ending up in PLAN.

 

[p2prada]

First rate militaries do not buy, they develop themselves.

When the system is being developed and is inducted, it is an unproven system. It doesn't matter where the system came from, developed at home or imported a newly developed system, it still remains unproven.

MKI was developed, it was unproven when we bought it. Hence Korea rejected the KNAAPO competitor to the MKI in 2002.

Jaguar, Mirage-2000, Mig-29, Ouragan, Hawker Hunter, Gnat, etc were all unproven systems. Most cases we were the first export operator.

Kilo class and Scorpene were unproven systems when we placed orders.

If we are to buy proven systems, then we need to place orders for systems like F-15, F-16, Leo-2s, AB class destroyers etc today. These are proven systems, regardless of the fact that they are nearing obsolescence today. But why would we do that, rather we would place orders for Zumwalt, Armata, F-22, F-35 etc which are entirely unproven. It is logic, most of the times proven systems equates to nearing obsolescence while unproven systems are new and have greater, albeit untested potential. Hence why we need to prove these systems within our own militaries.

Rafale falls in between, it is a 4th gen aircraft with 5th gen avionics. Hence it is kind of relevant for at least 2 more decades in the case of IAF.

Tomorrow, when we place orders for LCA Mk2, FGFA, AMCA, FMBT, FICV etc, all of these are unproven systems. Hence what first rate militaries do.

 

[p2prada]

Point was, Amurs are to be rejected if they are ending up in PLAN.

But at the same time the Chinese Amurs are no threat to us.

We operate Kilo class subs too and the Chinese bought it 10 years after we did.

A submarine is not like an aircraft. Things can change drastically over a decade, making it a whole new sub, even the propulsion system.

 

[nrj]

Kilo class and Scorpene were unproven systems when we placed orders.

Scorpene sub existed when India placed order in 2005.

If we are to buy proven systems, then we need to place orders for systems like F-15, F-16, Leo-2s, AB class destroyers etc today. These are proven systems, regardless of the fact that they are nearing obsolescence today. But why would we do that, rather we would place orders for Zumwalt, Armata, F-22, F-35 etc which are entirely unproven. It is logic, most of the times proven systems equates to nearing obsolescence while unproven systems are new and have greater, albeit untested potential. Hence why we need to prove these systems within our own militaries.

Rafale falls in between, it is a 4th gen aircraft with 5th gen avionics. Hence it is kind of relevant for at least 2 more decades in the case of IAF.

If we were to go for unproven hardware, India might have also chosen Gripen. But developing such platform was disadvantage. EFT T3+ could have also been good development of non-existent 4-5th gen capability. But India chose Rafale.

Tomorrow, when we place orders for LCA Mk2, FGFA, AMCA, FMBT, FICV etc, all of these are unproven systems. Hence what first rate militaries do.

Lets keep the development & purchase separate.

btw purchases like C17s are example why risk attached with large scale development is not worth the time or money.

 

[nrj]

But at the same time the Chinese Amurs are no threat to us.

We operate Kilo class subs too and the Chinese bought it 10 years after we did.

A submarine is not like an aircraft. Things can change drastically over a decade, making it a whole new sub, even the propulsion system.

We did not have much options during Kilo purchase. That is not case today.

You don't want your enemy familiar with equipment you may use against him.

Maybe Russians have got it already that India will go for Scorpene extension & don't want to lose client at hand especially when Russian defence is hungry for funds. They had bad experience in mmrca.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...rategically-embracing-china-2.html#post702774

 

[p2prada]

Scorpene sub existed when India placed order in 2005.

One floating hull doesn't count for much. It is still unproven technology.

If we were to go for unproven hardware, India might have also chosen Gripen.

Regardless, proven or not, Gripen does not match EF or Rafale. The Swiss reports reveal that.

The most proven aircraft out of all was the Super Hornet, and we did not choose it.

But developing such platform was disadvantage. EFT T3+ could have also been good development of non-existent 4-5th gen capability. But India chose Rafale.

IAF chose both EF and Rafale. Goddess Lakshmi chose Rafale, not IAF. So both aircraft had an equal chance of winning ever since they were shortlisted.

btw purchases like C17s are example why risk attached with large scale development is not worth the time or money.

IAF could not float a tender because there was no other competing aircraft.

IL-476 first flew in September last year and is the only competitor to C-17. Same with C-130J, there were no competitors, A-400M is still some ways off. Same with P-8 and also Phalcons.

We did not have much options during Kilo purchase. That is not case today.

You don't want your enemy familiar with equipment you may use against him.

I suppose so. It is of advantage to us if we go for a European option rather than Russian.

Maybe Russians have got it already that India will go for Scorpene extension & don't want to lose client at hand especially when Russian defence is hungry for funds. They had bad experience in mmrca.

This is not the first time the Russians have lost a tender and this won't be the last. The same for other countries.

The Russians beat the Americans and French in Malaysia and Algeria resply. The Americans beat the Russians and French in Korea, they beat the British in Singapore. The French beat the Russians in Libya and India. There are so many other tenders around the world today. Oman, Serbia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Korea etc and this is only for fighters.

Regardless of the Russian loss, the second largest aviation project after the F-35 is still in Russian hands today and India is a firm customer. I am talking about the FGFA. So, what have they really lost in the MRCA?

Don't look at it like how we see corporate deals. Defense relationships are massive and over a large spectrum of projects. The MRCA project would only have been one among the 200 odd projects we have with Russia today.

Our relationship with Russia is more business like than it was before. So, they will try to capture other markets while trying to sell to us. In the end the decision to purchase Amurs will be up to the navy and nobody can say anything until all the technical evaluations are completed.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...rategically-embracing-china-2.html#post702774

I think this is mostly incorrect. The Russians are building up a military presence to counter Chinese military growth. While Russia and China have mutual interests, especially economics, the Russians and Chinese are not exactly the kind of strategic partners you think they are. The Chinese are still very far from being real strategic partners with Russia.

 

[t_co]

@p2prada

Who is a real strategic partner with Russia? By the criteria you listed, not even India qualifies as one.

Also, the Su-35 is the wrong thing for China to be buying from Russia, since the expense of fitting these planes out with interoperable avionics and EW will almost be as much as building 24 additional J-16s.

These are the items China should be looking at buying/licensing from Russia

---High-performance, low-noise, high-endurance SSNs and SSGNs for long anti-CVBG patrols; the goal is to set up wolfpacks of 6-12 SSNs/SSGNs roaming the Arabian Sea and Central Pacific to retaliate against US and Japanese shipping if the USN attempts a naval blockade on China
---Long-range bombers in the Tu-160 or B1-B weight class with stealth shaping and possible supercruise, to allow speedy, undetected first strikes on Guam and Diego Garcia from mainland China airbases without needing in-flight refueling, and give Chinese commanders additional options to kill US/Japanese naval and airbase assets in the first and second island chain
---ASW helicopters and sonar systems, especially passive arrays that can detect the newest European and Japanese SSKs
---Long-range SLBMs and precision MIRVed nuclear warheads (I doubt Russia would ever offer substantial expertise on this, but if such a deal was accomplished, it would send an unmistakeable signal that China and Russia have a de facto alliance.)

 

[p2prada]

Who is a real strategic partner with Russia? By the criteria you listed, not even India qualifies as one.

I never said India is. India does not have a strategic partner of any kind among large powers. Neither does China, nor does Russia.

You can say Israel is a strategic partner for India. We have so many intelligence sharing contracts with them. Right from satellite to HUMINT.

Also, the Su-35 is the wrong thing for China to be buying from Russia, since the expense of fitting these planes out with interoperable avionics and EW will almost be as much as building 24 additional J-16s.

J-16s are strike aircraft, said to be a Su-30MK2 copy. Even if it is not, it is not a Su-35 equivalent.

It all depends on the final number of the Su-35s.

As for why you are ordering Su-35s, it can either be the first of many to come in order to fulfill a 4.5th gen requirement or you plan on reverse engineering components within the aircraft which you yourself are unable to build. Apart from these two, I can't see any other reason. But China is interested in Su-35 for sure, that's guaranteed.

---High-performance, low-noise, high-endurance SSNs and SSGNs for long anti-CVBG patrols; the goal is to set up wolfpacks of 6-12 SSNs/SSGNs roaming the Arabian Sea and Central Pacific to retaliate against US and Japanese shipping if the USN attempts a naval blockade on China
---Long-range bombers in the Tu-160 or B1-B weight class with stealth shaping and possible supercruise, to allow speedy, undetected first strikes on Guam and Diego Garcia from mainland China airbases without needing in-flight refueling, and give Chinese commanders additional options to kill US/Japanese naval and airbase assets in the first and second island chain
---ASW helicopters and sonar systems, especially passive arrays that can detect the newest European and Japanese SSKs
---Long-range SLBMs and precision MIRVed nuclear warheads (I doubt Russia would ever offer substantial expertise on this, but if such a deal was accomplished, it would send an unmistakeable signal that China and Russia have a de facto alliance.)

Quite a long list there. These aren't the only way to become strategic partners. Rather you will need to focus on joint operations and intelligence sharing apart from having a common ground when it comes to foreign relations. India shares none of that with Russia. Actually there is more space for common ground between India and China than India-Russia or China-Russia. Russia is an oil and high technology exporter and does not have the same market issues like we do.

 

[mahesh]

@p2prada

Also, the Su-35 is the wrong thing for China to be buying from Russia, since the expense of fitting these planes out with interoperable avionics and EW will almost be as much as building 24 additional J-16s.

removing the cost factor, having 24 Su-35 in place of 24 J-16s will make a lot of difference, may be it's a tactical or technological factor. a different weapon in the arsenal