Chinese new generation fighters, a serious challenged to USAF.

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
May 30, 2004



New Chinese Jets Superior, Eagle Loses to Flanker
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
China is about to receive 24 advanced Sukhoi Su-30MK2 Flanker fighters from Russia. The new fighter jets are reported to be the naval versions of the Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter.
The new Chinese fighters are reportedly equipped with enhanced anti-ship strike capabilities including the Kh-31 Krypton supersonic anti-ship missile.

China has already purchased 78 Su-27SK/UBK fighters and 76 Su-30MKK fighters from Russia, and is building 200 more Flanker jets under license from Sukhoi. The PLA Naval Air Corps will deploy the latest batch of Su-30MK2 fighters.

The disturbing news from Beijing adds to recent bad news for the U.S. Air Force. According to an unreleased U.S.A.F. report, the F-15 Eagle - the most advanced U.S. fighter in service - is inferior to the latest versions of the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker.

The report covers a series of air-combat training engagements earlier this year between Indian air force Su-30MKs and F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. The U.S. F-15s were equipped with the U.S. latest long-range, high-definition radar systems.

During the air combat exercises the Su-30MKs and F-15 pilots were seeing each other at the same time with their radars, but the Indian pilots were getting off the simulated first shot with their AA-10 Alamo missiles and often winning the long-range engagements.

Flanker Beats Eagle

According to a Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and noted expert on the Chinese military, the Chinese Flanker fighters can beat the U.S. top jet fighters including the F-15 Eagle.

"Since 1992 the Pentagon has known that in a close-in dogfight the Su-27 would smear the F-15. That year Russian Sukhois came to Langley AFB and showed us their stuff. What we appear to be learning from the recent exercise with India is that Russian radar, weapons and more importantly, tactics, have all reached a level in which the F-15 is on the verge of being outclassed in the long-range engagement as well," stated Fisher.

According to a recent report by Fisher for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the Chinese Flanker fighters are a real threat to Taiwan and the U.S. Fisher's report raised early alarm bells about the Chinese purchase of large number of the more advanced Flanker - the Su-30 multi-role strike fighter.

"With the purchase of the Sukhoi Su-30MKK (Mnogafunctunali Kommercial Kitayski-Multifunctional Commercial for China) the PLAAF demonstrated that it had made a clear doctrinal commitment to acquiring multi-role attack fighters capable of "joint" warfighting. The Su-30MKK is the first PLAAF attack fighter capable of delivering precision-guided munitions in all weather conditions, and to use modern air-to-air weapons like the self-guiding Vympel R-77 (AA-12 ADDER) AAM," noted Fisher's report.

"This upgrade program has the potential to rapidly increase the number of multi-role fighters in the PLAAF, conceivably adding up to 78 Su-27SK/UBKs and 200+ J-11s to the 100+ Su-30MKK/MKK2 multi role fighters. The prospect of the later was formidable enough. But the near-term prospect of nearly 400 Sukhoi fighters with ability to launch active-guided R-77s and anti-ship missiles like the Kh-31A on a single mission creates great pressure for a U.S. defensive response. Such a force poses a serious challenge to Taiwan's ability to maintain control over its own airspace as well as complicating U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy plans to come to Taiwan's defense if needed," states Fisher's report.

New Chinese Missile Superior to U.S.

Worse still is the fact that China is now developing an air-to-air missile considered to be superior to the U.S. AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. The self-guided AMRAAM is the main long-range armament for all U.S. fighter jets.

The new Chinese Project 129 or PL-12 missile is a Sino-Russian collaboration drawn from the Russian AA-12 Adder and equipped with an indigenous Chinese high-power rocket motor. Unlike the Russian AA-12, the PL-12 will have better performance than early models of the U.S. AMRAAM missile. The PL-12 reportedly has a maximum head-on engagement range of 50 miles and a maximum speed of four times the speed of sound.

The PL-12 is now in the final stages of development, with test firings against target drones scheduled for this year. Pakistan is seen as the first export customer for the PL-12. The PL-12 has alarmed U.S. defense sources who now consider it as the primary radar-guided air-to-air missile threat against American and allied aircraft.

The new PL-12 missile, once married to the advanced Su-30 Flanker jets in the PLAAF, can dominate the skies over Taiwan and eventually Asia. The U.S. F-15 Eagle, first flown in the mid-1970s, is rapidly becoming vulnerable to these fifth generation weapons.

F-22 Politics

The U.S. Air Force answer to the new threat is the F-22 Raptor. The new stealth jet fighter is capable of dealing with both the Su-30 and the PL-12 missile because of its superior speed, agility, and its ability to hide from conventional radars such as those on the Su-30. The U.S.A.F. wants to buy up to 400 of the advanced stealth fighters over the next decade.

"China's Sukhois are somewhat different from those sold to India in that they lack the latter's new BARS phased array radar and thrust vectored engines. But that's only slight cause for comfort, as China is in the midst of upgrading its Sukhoi fleet to enable carriage of the R-77 BVR AAM and attack munitions. Most co-produced Su-27SK/J-11 fighters are so upgraded. This means that very soon the U.S. air forces in Asia could be facing 200-300 multi-role BVR AAM capable Sukhois in the PLA Air Force," stated Rick Fisher.

"This trend was apparent several years ago and the tragedy is that the Pentagon did not start sounding the alarm back then. As a consequence an important chance to bolster political support for the F/A-22 has been lost. Today there is still an unjustified reluctance to publicly link China's growing Sukhoi fleet to a now urgent need to produce the F/A- 22," noted Fisher.

The F-22 Raptor has become a political issue with the current Democrat candidate opposing the stealth fighter. Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry voted against funding the F-22 at least five times, in 1995 and 1996.

Additionally, in 1995 Kerry supported a deep cut in the F-22 Raptor by signing onto S. 151 "to reduce Federal spending by restructuring the Air Force's F-22 program to achieve initial operating capability in 2010 and a total inventory of no more than 42 aircraft in 2015."

In June 1998, John Kerry voted for the Bumpers amendment to the U.S. defense funding for 1999 to drastically cut the F-22 program. In 1998 Senator Bumpers (D. Ark.) repeatedly voiced his opposition to the F-22 and offered legislation to cut the aircraft permanently.

"We are buying all these fighters in spite of the fact that the intelligence community and everybody who knows anything about an airplane knows that there isn't a plane in the world - in France, in Russia, in China - that is even remotely comparable to our F-15 and our F-18 and there won't be, the CIA says, for 15 to 20 years. So what is the rush to judgment?" stated Bumpers in 1998.

The vote by Bumpers and Kerry failed, and the funding continued for the F-22. The words of Senator Bumpers convinced others like Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy to consider the threat to our pilots and our national defense would not develop for 20 years.

Six years later the threat is already flying.

Deterrence or War

"The vicious circle of development delays, cost overruns, politically inspired number reductions and then reduced requirements are symptomatic of a crisis of leadership that will make war on the Taiwan Strait more possible, as America has lost a chance to put needed deterrent forces in place," stated Richard Fisher.

"The U.S. needed the F/A-22 in the Pacific theater five years ago, so that by today it would be reasonably integrated into our total forces. America will need far more than the 277 F/A-22s our leaders our currently willing to buy, and they are long overdue in the force. They are indeed expensive, but their cost is puny compared to the price America will pay if it either has to fight a war on the Taiwan Strait, or should it even lose that war," concluded Fisher.
 

neel24neo

New Member
another guy from the f-22 lobbying group...i dont think they do really care if china goes to war with taiwan.american carrier battle groups will be involved in such a situation.is f-22 intended to be carrier-borne?my idea is that carrier borne capability rests with the JSF.their sole aim,it seems,is to see the f-22 in full strength(400).first there was the DACT excercises with IAF and now this...they could even be on lockheed-martin payroll,i wonder...
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
The F-22 can be base in taiwan airbases, some maybe as stand in and more can come later, wen the need arise.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
Okay so Russian planes flown by the Indians bettered the USAF, therefore the PLAAF becomes a threat to the USAF. The logic is undeniable/ :roll
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I don't doubt that the Su-30 is much more capable than F-15, but the AMRAAM v R-77 is much more open to debate. Which version of AMRAAM are you talking about?

The new AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM which is to be deployed in 2005, has almost double the range of the current AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM, in direct response to the challenge posed by the R-77. The US are hardly going to standby and let themselves be outclassed...
 

turin

New Member
This report has the "Vote for Bush! Kerry is your end!" slogan written all over it. :mrgreen
I mean, cmon: Despite its header this thing deals more with congressional procurement history of the F-22 or what Kerry has to be blamed for, than the details of the thread by "chinese new generation fighters" (When I read that header first, I thought its giving some facts about the J-10).
 

neel24neo

New Member
This report has the "Vote for Bush! Kerry is your end!" slogan written all over it.
I mean, cmon: Despite its header this thing deals more with congressional procurement history of the F-22 or what Kerry has to be blamed for, than the details of the thread by "chinese new generation fighters" (When I read that header first, I thought its giving some facts about the J-10).
exactly turin.you said it.the statement has more to do with presidential elections than chinese advancements in aircraft technology.
 

berry580

New Member
This is conspiracy. This report is simply here to justify F-22 program and hope more F-22's would be bought.

You believe in simluations?!! In a simulation, an AWAC would in theory be invincible as it can track any fighter in the air before they can track the AWAC. Meaning it has the first look first shot advantage.
 

neel24neo

New Member
USAF and navy with their AEW capability wouldnt need f-22 to counter su-30.does china posses any AEW capability???
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Most major militaries believe in simulation nowadays Berry, as this allows you to plan and evaluate scenarios without the expense of creating them in real life. Simulation and modelling is an essential part of military strategy and planning these days.

The SU-30 is an excellent aircraft that outclasses current generation Western Fighter aircraft in most areas. It is a huge threat to current Western forces. Why else do you think Russia, China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia are investing so heavily in this particular series of aircraft?

I also don't doubt that there is a strong push to advance the F-22 case though, and this may be tied up with that. There can be little doubt though that a distinct part of this case is because of the capabilities of the SU-27/30 aircraft.
 

neel24neo

New Member
there is no doubt that su-30 is a very capable aircraft,but the question is whether china has the ability to counter US forces when they use their support elements like AEW also.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Very true. Military capability is derived by employing your assets in the most efficient and effective method, individual platform effectiveness is not as important as the total forces capabilities and no-one will be able to match the US's ISTAR capabilities in the forseeable future. However the capabilities being developed by Countries such as India and China will definitely be of concern to US force planners. India in particular is rapidly developing it's AWACS, air to air refuelling and air defence/strike capabilities.
 

berry580

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
Most major militaries believe in simulation nowadays Berry, as this allows you to plan and evaluate scenarios without the expense of creating them in real life. Simulation and modelling is an essential part of military strategy and planning these days.
As far as I'm concerned, their simulation doesn't include any AWAC support, something that'll turn the tie easily.
If this simulation's conclusion's purpose isn't to con politicans to buy more F-22's, then I can't see what else it is.
India in particular is rapidly developing it's AWACS, air to air refuelling and air defence/strike capabilities.
LOL.
I've rarely heard of a successful Indian program. Just look at their LCA and Arjun's for example. So until they're in the final phrase. I don't think the Americans needs to be too scared.
 

neel24neo

New Member
mr.berry india already has air to air refuelling capability and when the phalcons arrive,will have AEW too.try to understand the posts.aussie digger wasnt talking of india building its own refuelling capability.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The concern I talked about was a long term problem for force planners, not an immediate tactical problem for a commander. They are 2 completely separate things. Hence the US will not be "scared" of SU-27/30's, but they will definitely take their capabilities into consideration. Likewise with AWACS and other capabilities.

Force planners (particularly for a Country like the US) have to take into consideration capabilities that every other potential enemy possesses or will possess in the forseeable future. This doesn't mean the US will go to war with India, (or anyone else for that matter) but a force planner's job is to try and ensure their military is capable of dealing with any other force. This is the basis of strategic planning.

A tactical problem is an immediate and usually urgent situation. Ie: Country X has a particular capability that is greater than my own capability. I need to negate this disadvantage in order to achieve my objective. What can I do to negate this?

In addition, a force commander would never (I hope) show the kind of complacency you are showing here. Pictures have recently been displayed in these very talkbacks demonstrating flying examples of both Chinese and Indian AWACS aircraft. You can bet that intell agencies will know even more about their status than us with only publicy available sources of info. Who's to say neither country doesn't have an operating capability if worse came to worse, ie: a war suddenly developed? Not me, that's for sure...
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
berry580 said:
LOL.
I've rarely heard of a successful Indian program. Just look at their LCA and Arjun's for example. So until they're in the final phrase. I don't think the Americans needs to be too scared.
berry, don't underestimate India. They can obtain weapon system more easily than China. Take Phalcon for example, Israel had to cancell the deal with China due to U.S pressure, India on the other hand, received the system without too much trouble. In the end, China had to develop its own system which is inferior to Phalcon.
Some of the failures on the LCA and Arjun is the lack of experience in their R & D industry. Although I wouldn't call Arjun or LCA failures, because they had served their main purpose which is to give India R & D industry a chance to grow and improve. Eventhough the number of 4th generation jets in Indian AF is smaller than China, the percentage rate is certainly higher.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You believe in simluations?!! In a simulation, an AWAC would in theory be invincible as it can track any fighter in the air before they can track the AWAC. Meaning it has the first look first shot advantage.
1) depends on the AWACs platform being used.

2) It also depends on whether its AWACs like an E3 or an AEWC like an Eyrie which is GCI focussed. If it's AEWC then it better have some decent ADS in place.

3) AWACs has between 1/5th and 1/10th of the range of a OTH system (depending on which system we look at). It has shorter range than a SWR system. An AWACS does not denote automatic theatre dominance as it ignores what integrated responses are offered up by the OPFOR.

4) The simulation is valid if it the AWACs is set to run at a "free" level. Most wargames are actually set so that the AWACs is loose and thus the red force is challenged in a real time environment. If the sim is set so that platforms cannot do a lazarus, then it is also very real - especially when you add in a loose running AWACs.

5) Unless it's a Nimrod then the AWACs only have a look capability - they don't have a look and shoot, their job is to play traffic cop and send in the "bull terrriers" to do the interdiction. It's why they are singularly vulnerable as they are a benign platform.

If you've ever participated in a proper military sim - and I don't mean a kids game, then you'll know that you can dial in the ROE's. Military Sims like TACOPS are not toys with whizbang graphics - they often run on mainframes or minis or usually on UNIX boxes. The machine that we had was a $500,000 Silicon Graphics system - the same kind of machine used to crunch the wireframe code for Jurassic Park etc...
 

berry580

New Member
neel24neo said:
mr.berry india already has air to air refuelling capability and when the phalcons arrive,will have AEW too.try to understand the posts.aussie digger wasnt talking of india building its own refuelling capability.
Wow, India already has air to air refuelling capability, "thats a surprise." *looking around*

So did I say aussie digger was talking of india building its own AA refuelling?
A tactical problem is an immediate and usually urgent situation. Ie: Country X has a particular capability that is greater than my own capability. I need to negate this disadvantage in order to achieve my objective. What can I do to negate this?
The Americans had NEVER been in a technologically disadvantage, so would you say is bullshxt. They're simply too arrogant and wants to be in front of everyone so that others won't be able to threaten them because of America's past.
berry, don't underestimate India. They can obtain weapon system more easily than China. Take Phalcon for example, Israel had to cancell the deal with China due to U.S pressure, India on the other hand, received the system without too much trouble. In the end, China had to develop its own system which is inferior to Phalcon.
So who's better? One who can buy, or one who can make?
If any country thinks they can impress me because they can buy whatever, then they can think again.
Some of the failures on the LCA and Arjun is the lack of experience in their R & D industry. Although I wouldn't call Arjun or LCA failures, because they had served their main purpose which is to give India R & D industry a chance to grow and improve.
In that case, the Indians will never fail, and I peronally would welcome that.
Eventhough the number of 4th generation jets in Indian AF is smaller than China, the percentage rate is certainly higher.
Like I mentioned before, its not what you can buy, its what you can make which counts.

Basically what you're saying is something like-

China collected 100 stamps, 10 of them are new ones.
India collected 50 stamps, 8 of them are new ones.

Your conclusion then is- "Eventhough the number of new stamps in India is smaller than China, the percentage rate is certainly higher."

Good technique. LOL :D:
 

berry580

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
You believe in simluations?!! In a simulation, an AWAC would in theory be invincible as it can track any fighter in the air before they can track the AWAC. Meaning it has the first look first shot advantage.
1) depends on the AWACs platform being used.

2) It also depends on whether its AWACs like an E3 or an AEWC like an Eyrie which is GCI focussed. If it's AEWC then it better have some decent ADS in place.

3) AWACs has between 1/5th and 1/10th of the range of a OTH system (depending on which system we look at). It has shorter range than a SWR system. An AWACS does not denote automatic theatre dominance as it ignores what integrated responses are offered up by the OPFOR.

4) The simulation is valid if it the AWACs is set to run at a "free" level. Most wargames are actually set so that the AWACs is loose and thus the red force is challenged in a real time environment. If the sim is set so that platforms cannot do a lazarus, then it is also very real - especially when you add in a loose running AWACs.

5) Unless it's a Nimrod then the AWACs only have a look capability - they don't have a look and shoot, their job is to play traffic cop and send in the "bull terrriers" to do the interdiction. It's why they are singularly vulnerable as they are a benign platform.

If you've ever participated in a proper military sim - and I don't mean a kids game, then you'll know that you can dial in the ROE's. Military Sims like TACOPS are not toys with whizbang graphics - they often run on mainframes or minis or usually on UNIX boxes. The machine that we had was a $500,000 Silicon Graphics system - the same kind of machine used to crunch the wireframe code for Jurassic Park etc...
Water it down please, I don't understand your jargons.
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
berry580 said:
neel24neo said:
mr.berry india already has air to air refuelling capability and when the phalcons arrive,will have AEW too.try to understand the posts.aussie digger wasnt talking of india building its own refuelling capability.
Wow, India already has air to air refuelling capability, "thats a surprise." *looking around*

So did I say aussie digger was talking of india building its own AA refuelling?
A tactical problem is an immediate and usually urgent situation. Ie: Country X has a particular capability that is greater than my own capability. I need to negate this disadvantage in order to achieve my objective. What can I do to negate this?
The Americans had NEVER been in a technologically disadvantage, so would you say is bullshxt. They're simply too arrogant and wants to be in front of everyone so that others won't be able to threaten them because of America's past.
berry, don't underestimate India. They can obtain weapon system more easily than China. Take Phalcon for example, Israel had to cancell the deal with China due to U.S pressure, India on the other hand, received the system without too much trouble. In the end, China had to develop its own system which is inferior to Phalcon.
So who's better? One who can buy, or one who can make?
If any country thinks they can impress me because they can buy whatever, then they can think again.
Some of the failures on the LCA and Arjun is the lack of experience in their R & D industry. Although I wouldn't call Arjun or LCA failures, because they had served their main purpose which is to give India R & D industry a chance to grow and improve.
In that case, the Indians will never fail, and I peronally would welcome that.
Eventhough the number of 4th generation jets in Indian AF is smaller than China, the percentage rate is certainly higher.
Like I mentioned before, its not what you can buy, its what you can make which counts.

Basically what you're saying is something like-

China collected 100 stamps, 10 of them are new ones.
India collected 50 stamps, 8 of them are new ones.

Your conclusion then is- "Eventhough the number of new stamps in India is smaller than China, the percentage rate is certainly higher."

Good technique. LOL :D:
It's true that most advanced system India pocess is from foreign suppliers, nobody deny that. But do you think Indians would be stupid enough not to do a little research on these systems? Isn't that how China started?

And you argue that Chinese developed AWACS system which is still under testing is better than the already operational Indian Phalcon? Undeniable logic there. By the time the Chinese system becomes operational India might already be able to build their own Phalcon.

So tell me which one is faster? Doing research on your own or buying the system then do research on it?
 
Top