wrightwingThis person harldy knows anything about Su-30MKI sustain turn capability as it will be only be known by test pilot as operational pilots dont show it for life of airframe and TVC. Everything from tumansky engine to MIG-21 radar to V engine is wrong. if Koyp-21 essentailly late 80s tech is so dangers so think what can Kopyo-m/F capability.
If operational pilots don’t show it, doesn’t that mean it’s not tactically useful, as it’ll wear the airframe out? An over G state isn’t any more relevant than running your engines past redline and burning them up, for a brief burst of speed.
wrightwingF-18L 😉
But based on the Super Hornet platform though- I hear what you’re saying though.
wrightwingThey are not increasing the quantity of AWACS just improving the 20-25 that are in operation. U should understand that primary sensor are ground based radars. Which direct MIG-31 to right place and with superior speed/range/altitude/turn ability MIG-31 can direct group of fighters and thats what they are doing. AWACS are for help to less capable aircraft. Not aircraft with 5th generation ability.
Ground based radars are fine if you’re speaking only of homeland defense. They still have many limitations with range against low altitude targets, or where terrain creates holes in their coverage. Ground based radars won’t help you much if you have to fight an away game though.
wrightwingThe current crop of 4th and 5th generation fighters are generally shoe-horned designs for a particular market or customer and built around a single type of engine. Hypothetically speaking, if the same aircraft manufactured were to offer a full line of models, what would some of these choices look like? Let’s not worry about the competition and how such hypotheticals would be a bunch of redundant copies. Rather, use your imagination to just speak what you would see happening if they did such nonsense.
Take the Gripen NG for example. What if the next generation of Gripen was offered in its current incantation AND also in a dual-engined model? What would Saab offer in its twin-engined model? What roles would the new version do that could not be done by the older version. You don’t have to stick to the smaller theme of the Gripen NG when thinking about a twin-engined model.
The same could be applied to other companies, like how Sukhoi has built many models of the Flanker all in twin-engined models. What if they decided to do a single engined fighter, what would it look like? Maybe you think they should go three engines…
How about Rafale and Dassault making a single-engined version? Would it have tvc?
The possibilities go on and on. It would be interesting to hear what people could foresee in these hypothetical versions and maybe if you could draw up a concept version of photoshop something that would add to the discussion.
I’m not sure what the market might be for something like this(or the cost to get to this spec), but it might be of interest in some markets-
A land based Super Hornet design(losing the extra weight that the navalized version has). A slightly modified wing for lower drag. Uprated engines(25,000-27,000lb class) Blk 3 avionics. LO weapons pods. Possible increase in internal fuel capacity due to space freed up from navalized version.
With the improved T/W, less weight, and lower drag, significant performance increases should be seen(speed, range, acceleration, turn/climb performance).
The Blk 3 avionics will make it very competitive against other potential options. The LO weapons pods will increase survivability/element of surprise, by keeping RCS as low as possible.
wrightwingMIG-31 operates at twice the heights of AWACS and it twin engine are producing as much thrust as 4 engine AWACS. Even 80s its radar can see as far as AWACS of that era. IRBIS is range is no less than AWACS of present era. And u dont need operators for analysing radar returns. it is the job computers/artificial intelligencer to identitify/priorities/anyalyse threats and take corrective actions. When they advertize BARS first time a decade ago. why they said it can create protrait of target and count the blades in engines of airline.
The volume of airspace(and the length of station time) that an AWACS can see is far superior to the MIG 31 or any fighter. There’s no way that a single pilot, and his on board systems, can manage battlespace like a crew of dedicated operators. Russia would just do away with its AWACS aircraft if individual fighters had the situational awareness necessary for that task.
wrightwingSmaller radar making capability does not necessary means introducing Saab/Hawkeye class platform for airforce. when radars becomes powerful enough fighter radar will take place of smaller awacs.
A single pilot can never replace a crew of radar operators in terms of the workload management. A fighter will never have a radar that is as capable as that on board an AWACS plane, even in workload wasn’t an issue.
wrightwingAnalysis: Reducing F-35 purchase could save UK up to USD5.8bn
As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) struggles to cope with the budgetary pressures of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive equipment modernisation process, major cuts in one or more programmes appear to Jane’s to be inevitable.
The global financial crisis and the UK’s subsequent response in October (including the multi-billion pound buttressing of the banking system and a commitment to increase public spending to offset recession) has since added to the strain felt by the Treasury. Lingering hopes that extra funding would be made available to supplement the defence budget in the short to medium term appear to have been dashed.
Despite already scaling back programmes such as the UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Type 45 destroyer (which has dropped from an initial requirement of 12 ships to six at present) and the UK Royal Air Force’s (RAF’s) Nimrod MRA.4 maritime patrol aircraft (the originally envisaged 21-aircraft order has since dropped to 12), further cuts are expected to be announced in order to address the deficit in the defence budget.
Speculation over which projects are most at risk is continuing. Jane’s Defence Forecasts believes that one programme that could see drastic cuts is the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programme through which the RAF and RN intend to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fighter.
According to the MoD, the UK’s current planning assumption is to purchase up to 150 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.
Jane’s believes this total is likely to be reduced down to around 85-100 aircraft when the production contract is finalised, creating savings of at least USD4.5 billion (GBP2.7 billion) to USD5.8 billion in acquisition costs alone.
The potential for cutting the programme stems from the fact that JCA is the only high-profile, high-cost project that the MoD could scale back significantly without detrimentally affecting the capabilities of the UK’s armed forces in future.
A reduction in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels while at the same time increasing the capability and flexibility of the force.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/business/jdi/jdi081031_1_n.shtml
Will the reduced purchase be at the same price, or will the unit cost go up?
wrightwingAFAIK, basically everything is left to the FBW computers. There are no separate controls for the nozzles in the cockpit of either the Su-37, the Su-30MKI or the Su-35. At most, there might be a switch somewhere that allows the pilot to choose whether he wants to give the FCS use of the TVC or not.
+1
The TVC system, along with the other flight surfaces are tied into the FCS. This prevents the pilot from doing something that could destroy the aircraft(i.e. putting limits on the range of motion based upon speed/weight/g loading/etc..).
wrightwingWhat’s worse for the western fan boys on here is that he’s more or less right fairly frequently. Short of 1000KM range MiG-31 radar non-sense. 😉
Or 600-800km range AAMs, that can shoot down everything from AWACS/Tankers/Ballistic missiles/Fighters/AAMs/SAMs/UFOs, etc….:rolleyes:
wrightwingNot a stealthy SU but a new stealthy airframe that takes over the virtues of SU-35. It will have at least equal avionics, surely better post-stall manoeuvrability abd fill §D thrust-vectoring. Add the superior ranged Russioan AAMs and you get a F-22 killer. :diablo:
How long do you think it’d take starting from a clean slate to get an aircraft into service(much less sooner than the PAK FA)? You can reduce RCS of a current design, but you can’t make a conventional airframe a stealth aircraft after the fact.
Why would it be guaranteed to have at least equal avionics?
Better post stall performance? How do you improve upon no AoA limits? Unless this airframe is very stealthy, the Raptor will kill it before WVR performance would matter anyway.
Which AAMs would you be referring to? The anti AWACs missiles? What sort of range do you suppose they’d be able to engage a Raptor?
wrightwingThat would explain why so many were shot down. :diablo:
Exactly. The important take away is how many times the F-117 was successful(i.e. flying through dense radar/SAM coverage without being detected/tracked/engaged). It’s hardly comforting knowledge that you can shoot down an enemy aircraft once out of every several thousand tries.
wrightwingHave u read the Sukhoi Head statement that No University in the World (Not just a book) will give u knowledge what is inside Sukhoi. The same is true from NIPP Tikm PESA. What they can do with PESA no one else in world can do especially in fighter PESA.
They may be able to take PESA systems to very high maturity levels. The point is that there are physical limitations that are inherent to PESA that can’t be overcome, without going AESA. That’s not to say that you can’t have a very capable system using PESA.
wrightwingTest results are questionable, when not done by a very critical user. Programs without a serious competition are selffullfilling most of the time. A wishfull user waiting for his new toy and an optimistic producer waiting for his profit from that.
I would agree with this sentiment. I would say that after the initial problems that were discovered in testing, I highly doubt that the USAF isn’t paying very close attention to the methodology being used.
wrightwingI would say that a stealthy SI-35 should be superior to F-22. Pak-FA will be even more advanced.
What metric are you using to make this assertion? Are the Flanker’s avionics superior? Does the pilot have better situational awareness? It would be impossible to reduce a Flanker’s RCS to below that of a Raptor. The Raptor will always have the aerodynamic advantage of flying clean, and with more thrust.
wrightwingYour use of links and evidence is staggering. :rolleyes:
Well you might want to hold Star and yourself to this same standard, if you’re going to be critical of others.:cool:
Sign In
