i.e.RuNavy needed a new Naval jet, it deemed more logical to proccure the New Mig-29K with the IN then re-open an Su-33 prod line. Much more cost effective to go with IN here.
But as far as performance wise, it is braindeath to debate which would perform better.. If a new Su-33 would be build, u can bet it would be with a SM3 standard, and quite possible with AL-31FM2 engines from Salut, and yes it would cost much more as well..
Mig-29K is a good choice, for RuN and IN.
operationally at this point in time it wouldn’t make any difference wether one platform is more range/payload capable than the other. as I said countless times, the real limitation is command and control.
i.e.^ Valid points, but engine thrusts are pretty different, some 88 kN max for Mig-29K and some 125 kN for Su-33/J-15… scaled kind of proportionally with the respective weights of the two aircraft. So for similar take off conditions (take off position, head wind, ship speed etc) I think the two aircraft should have similar “percentages” of payloads compared with optimal land based take off conditions (?)
you are right but rests on the assumption that lift curve characterisitics of the two airplanes ar simular. which not true! Su-27K has a lower Vmc than Mig-29.
what does that tell one? CL*Qbar*Swing = W. Su-27 engine has a wider moment arm than Mig-29’s. but still, on top of lateral control surface needed it was still able to remain in air.
i.e.have u looked what you wrote.
2*280 fuel tanks is not going to give 500NM radius when you have 12000lb weight hanging.
4 2000lb+ air to air missile only Flanker or F-15 can carry in Normal long runway. and these fightrers have alot better TWR.
congradulations,
you attempt at completely missing the point is successful.
all things being the same. in real war time operations, in a real mission profile. F-14D carries twice as much load as F-18E/F with a greater radius of action.
i.e.This is the difference in Real war time Operations.
“Assuming the use of S-3 tankers, an F-14D strike, refueling somewhere between Quetta and Sukkur, Pakistan, wouldn’t have any trouble attacking targets in northern most Afghanistan. If however, an F/A-18 E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying normal strike load (4 2,000lb LGBs, 2 Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350 statute mile radius carrying about half the bomb load.”
Flight Journal Magazine, February 2002 Issue.
Bob Kress and Paul Gilchrist, Rear Admiral USN ret. “F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet.”
Had an old copy of this magazine on my hand right now, tucked away on my book shelf…
There were alot of grunting in the navair community with the perceived loss of long range strike capability. A-6/ A-7 were the batteries of the fleet. SH is a good airplane but its wings were never meant to be good cruisers. F-14 on the other hand had a scaled A-6 wing on a pivot, and it has the internal tankerage.
Now Navy is sacrificing Gs and top speed on 35C to get some of them back. Also focus on this air-sea thing in pacific, has put alot of range requirements on the new navy ucav programs.
i.e.So what the problem with a hotter F110-GE-xxx?
To me it seems best price-preformance after the probably more expensive and more exportrestricted F119.
nothing, prob good choice if a single engine solution is chosen,
you would have AL-31 derivatives and F100derivatives as a back up. but again half of your engine choices are in hands of Dod and other in hands of Mr Putin. don’t know which one would give you more headache down the road.
you just have to evaluate the choices,
also some airforces don’t like their single engine fighters go over oceans for long time. some don’t care.
i.e.Good point, but the F135 doesnt need to be developed. The only problem would be convincing the DOD that a direct competitor to the JSF “Dave” A is a “good thing”… 😮
Now where´s that design with two F414´s?
The biggest risk airplane project faces in this day and age is schedule.
schedule blow means sky rocketing costs.
how can you make sure your schedule will be met.
build redundency in your key items, incase your primary choice doesn;t work impact to rest of your critical items would not retard the schedule.
an engine in F135 class has no peers, unless you want to go for a Russian solutio, not likely given the political impact. or revive F136, which still hands the critical veto power to US DoD.
EJ200/ F414 (may be M88+ and RD-33+ ) are close enough in cardinal parameter that you can level requirements onto rest of airplane (structures, hydraulics, performance) that would accept either case, further more you can sacrifice a little optimization for flexibility in system design and go for a common engine bay. ( see F15C/D, F-16 block 50/52)
thus ensure maximum flexibility and minimum impact to schedule if either item retards schedule.
same ideal presumablly could be leveled against your primary structure (composite/metal parallel design, if one doesn’t work bring in the other alternative, accept a performance degradation.), and avionics (make your suppliers of radar systems fit into a pre-defined LRU space) and have an open battle software archetecture so that it would accept a Israeli Jammer directing an Russian anti-radiation missile all linked together by american mil-std bus… etc etc.
kinda like JF-17 try to do, but on a bigger scale and with built in stealth.
i.e.i.e., you are a cool guy, most of what you are saying show you are knowledgeable but you should have known better when you see a pointless discussion 🙂
Thanks, point taken, was bored.
i.e.Just get a PW F135 and be done with it.
Cheers
1 engine source means risk to the schedule.
size it for 2xmid thrust EJ200/M88+/F414.
i.e.Well, why there is no others did post-stall at that era?
everyone can do post stall.
F-100 can do post stall, unwillingly.
i.e.One swallow does not summer make. Engines can be produced to check out a number of things including LSP for making sure production batches are consistent.
And before spouting off about language and ignorance, stupidity etc, check your own command of the language, the one that you misuse. Its humanity’s not humanitie’s. Basically, what you did was demonstrate how those words applied to your own self.
Check your jingoistic attitude at the door. There are many languages and cultures out there which are equally if not more worthwhile.
Oh, a whole flock of birds in front of you on a glossy airplane porna and you can’t even count. How many airplanes with WS-10 needs to be in one picture before you declare them to be finally in operation?
also,
pretty funny I got my english corrected by an Indian ( I presume).
you may speak 2 languages pretty well, and love to use alot of words.
but apparently value of those words summed up to pretty much very little.
learn the value of Essence and Form. you just may may learn something.
also kiddos learn to count first. that;s some basic stuff.
and why am I getting accused of being jingoistic? I patiently present facts and those facts are contrary to some of you guys entrenched beliefs. and what happened? snarky comments gets thrown around.
Is this the best you guys can do?
i.e.Dont think much $$$ was required for development when the plane was designed by the Israeli’s.
And if I ask you for some proofs of your statement. would you point to glossy airplane porn again like some know-nothing amature? 🙂
btw, I said “ten-series”. It was whole series of items. not just one aircraft.
last time I heard Israeli’s didn’t get their input on TH or the SD10.
so try again.
i.e.You had an issue with my post regarding innovation and how it is more than outside form…supposedly because of my attitude in the J-15/whatever thread, and how that is hypocritical. I replied that the J-15 was a **** poor example of innovation. Who is the one attacking now?
This thread had nothing to do with the J-15 btw, well done.
weren’t you the ones that said in other thread because airframe/external moldline is the same so it;s a rip-off, no matter what the details are you have to put that “rip-off” sticker on so to make it look like some cheap knock-off pirated iphone coming from dongguang way inferior than the original?
so why the nuanced utterances all of the sudden and all this talk about “Design and innovation usually goes deeper than external appearances”.
obviously in this thread you understand making an airplane is not only glossy airplane porn.
forgive me to find that pretty hypocritical and amusing.
oh, don’t try this again, I don;t intend to bring J-15 in here. it’s only for illustrating purposes, so don’t muddle the issue here. 🙂
i.e.Hence the “would be part”.
Sweet Krishna.
Make things up, then attack it. Make it look as if someelse first said it.
good combo. eh?
gigs is up.
i.e.Oh sweet jesus. I never used the term carbon copy actually, check again.
What I called it, was a rip-off. Which it is. Calling the J-15 an example of Chinese “innovation” would be pathetic.
Oh sweet buddha., Who said ” J-15 an example of Chinese “innovation” “?
you? not me, certainly I didn’t say that. so quit make up things to attack.
i.e.Design and innovation usually goes deeper than external appearances. 😉
and this is from a man who yells “carbon copy rip-off” at the first sighting of J-15.
Sign In
