Tu 160Poor Iraq they got ripped off again,so how much did they pay for each monkey export F16 version? Kind of like Iraq bought the monkey export version of the Mig29 from Soviet Union which is far inferior to the standard Soviet Russian Airforce model of the time Mig29C
They just splunked far more than that on 36 downgraded F16s… so I think the answer is yes,… the only question is will Russia sell them?
and once again a good old fashioned Saddam Hussein like Strong Man Military Dictator that will rule the country with an iron fist lol just kidding :dev2:
Iran will eventually buy modern armaments… no question about it. Iraq will just need to have a powerful enough military to deter them from making any “thoughts”. For that, once again a powerful air defence system, good interceptors with early warning assets and some long range anti ship missiles are essential.
Tu 160You do know that the old vanilla Su27 and Su35S have completely different levels of maneuverability at both subsonic and supersonic speeds,Su35S is much much more maneuverable than a standard Su27 both supersonic and subsonic. Su35S has 3D thrust vectoring and combined with wide engine spacing and Su35S has an extra 8,600lb of thrust of its modernized uprated engines compared to standard Su27 will make it much more maneuverable at subsonic and supersonic speeds vs a standard Su27 or F15. Su35S advanced latest gen 3D thrust vectoring combined with wide engine spacing will give greater maneuverability vs F22 at supersonic speeds as F22 only has the more primitive 2D thrust vectoring and narrow engine spacing. Su35S 3D thrust vectoring and much higher engine thrust will also undoubtably give better maneuverability at supersonic and subsonic speeds vs Eurofighter,Rafale or other eurocanards which have no thrust vectoring at all. By comparison of engine thrust rating Su35S 2 engines give 63,800lb of thrust vs Typhoon 2 engines give only 40,460lb of thrust and Rafale 2 engines produce just 34,000lb of thrust which is only slightly more than 1 Su35S engine and also just to mention PAKFA 2 izd 129 engines will give it 80,000lb+ of thrust.
Aerodynamics
Unstable design features
The important issue of how much relaxed static longitudinal stability is optimal for various configurations was consistently,
by internal as well as from external sources, answered with a neutral static margin for the wing-tail configuration and
something like minus10 percent for the delta canard, and such a value was chosen,
in regard to the reference point (25 percent Mean Aerodynamic Cord, MAC).Adopting negative stability means that the center of gravity (cg) can be placed well back behind the aerodynamic center,
which in turn for a canard layout opens up a greater degree of freedom in arranging the installation of internal systems and
engine in such a way that an optimal cross sectional area distribution and thus low supersonic wave drag at
the selected Mach number value, can be achievedThe wing can be located more forward on the fuselage and a long and slender tail cone,
quite unlike the abrupt ending found on the Viggen, and without the horizontal tail adding unwanted volume to the area distribution,
can be designed. This will contribute to a low aft body drag,
and will also offer an extremely good position for large efficient air brakes,
exhibiting marginal trim transients when deployedTo give a numerical value for this “installation effect” emanating from negative stability is impossible,
but it is considered to be higher than the more straightforward and better known effects of higher trimmed lift coefficients,
less induced (lift dependent) drag and reduced trim drag at supersonic speeds.
The last mentioned effect is due to the more moderate positive stability in the supersonic region,
as compared to the normal excessive “nose heaviness” of a subsonic stable aircraft.http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
ed, i think @scorpion said EF is around 6-7%, but better to wait his response for accuracy,
and i’m also fairly certain i’ve read that while Su-27 is more agile at subsonic speeds, F-15 is more agile than Su-27 at supersonic speeds,
so reference point may be different on those Su-27, or perhaps the shape of Su-27 causes extra down-wash at supersonic
Tu 160Can Iraq even afford to buy Su35S,don’t forget Su35S cost 70+million$ each vs Mig29M2 of about 35million$ each,Su35S are also more expensive to operate,I doubt Iraq has enough money to buy such expensive advanced heavy fighter plane,they are better off buying Mig29M2.
Mig35 is not even in production yet lol and first orders will be reserved for Russian VVS.
Tu 160:confused:Why does Sukhoi need to alter Su35S center of gravity? All Su27 and Flankers were from their very inception aerodynamically unstable and always used an electronic flyby wire control system which makes them more maneuverable at all speeds by contrast the old vanilla Mig 29 and F15 are aerodynamically stable and did not use a electronic flyby wire control system. Su35S has the latest gen of flybywire and thrust vectoring and is extremely maneuverable at subsonic and supersonic speeds so why alter Su35S center of gravity when everything works great on the Su35S now?
Yes, it would make sense that Sukhoi did alter center of gravity with Su-35, do you have a link of it ?
and agree the term supermaneuverability is better used to describe the new phenomena of maneuverability at supersonic speeds,
as to not include double deckers
Tu 160Interesting,first time I heard that Su30SM2 are to be formed into separate squadrons,I thought Su30SM2 whould be part of Su35S squadrons at 2 Su30SM2 per Su35S squadron,I actually like the idea of Su30SM2 forming into separate combat squadrons and Su30M2 being given to Su35S squadrons as advanced trainers but are you sure? Also there is a problem Su30M2 has no thrust vectoring unlike Su30SM2 so how could Su30M2 be used as adequate advanced trainers for Su35S unless of course KNAAZ adds thrust vectoring to Su30M2 which they should have done by now anyway as KNAAZ build Su35S have thrust vectoring so it would make sence for them to make all Flankers with thrust vectoring including the Su27SM3 they are building now.
How many Su30SM2 are to be manufactured by Irkut by the end of this year and planned production plan for next year?
Also never heard of Russian Navy plans to buy Su30SM2? But I think its a great idea as I think Russian Naval aviation needs more fighters to escort their large fleet of Tu22M and Su24 and yes of course obviously if Russian Navy buys Su30SM2 it whould not be used of a carrier as its not configured for that unlike Mig29K but Su30SM2 used in coastal Russian Navy Aviation bases where Russian Navy Tu22M and Su24 are stationed. It whould also be a great idea for Russian Navy to buy Su34 as its long range and very powerful ECM capability whould make it very useful to Russian Navy and one should not forget that Su34 has decent air to air BVR capability so Su34 can be used to escort Russian Navy Tu22M and Su24M. It whould also be a great idea for Russian Navy to buy some convetional non naval Pakfa for use in coastal bases,Pakfa whould great boost the capability of the Russian Naval Aviation. Russian Naval aviation is not just carrier planes like some people think,and make stupid assements that Mig29K is going to replace Su33 in service which it will not but supplement the Su33 in Russian Navy service.
Also how many Mig29K will Russian Navy receive by this years end?
The KNAAZ build Su-30M2 will be directly linked to the Su-35S fleet. They act as Trainers among other roles for Su-35S.
The Irkut build Su-30SM may be a little more Advanced, they will function as a seperate unit, to help VVS and RuN bolster their ranks.. which is sorly needed.
New build Su-27SM3 and Su-30m2 are by any standard dirt cheap to procure for Domestic Russia. Hense they get a lot of good Bang for the Bucks.
Su-30SM are a good step up from any Legasy and Su-27SM Flanker units.
And before anyone starts complaining about the multiple Flanker variants within Russia, it does not matter one bit. The common Supply Chain for spare parts and systems are pretty much the same. It will ultimatly help keeping cost Down compaired to having 3 or 4 different jets in the fleet.
Tu 160obligatory how could you forget to add Su35S to that list:eagerness:,sertainly also not all of the planes mentioned would be equal in terms of subsonic and supersonic maneuverability,Pakfa and Su35S whould be much more maneuverable both subsonic and supersonic than the F22 and the eurocanards none of which have thrust vectoring,their level of maneuverability whould be comparible to a Su27 but not a Su35S or Pakfa
My terminology: Agile high-speed fighter = agile at supersonic speed,
a reality only after electric FCS became available so that a/c with negative stability became flyable,
creating a new breed of fighters that are agile at supersonic speeds,
an exclusive club consisting of F-22, the Euro-canards, and T-50
Yes,I know I am familiar with the way modern fighters maneuver and various flight dynamics from flight sims like lock on,yes if you try to do very high aoa manuvers at high speed you can literally rip your wings or vertical stabs of,I am aware of that but there are different kinds of super maneuverability. Significantly higher maneuverability than what 4gen fighters are capable of at supersonic speeds which is what Pakfa and Su35S can achieve also can be called super maneuverability not just very high aoa manuvers at low subsonic speeds.
You just can’t do those spescial super manuveres at 700knots, not at 500kn and not at 300kn.. unless you wanna depart from Your wings that is 😀
Ditching incoming missile is a tricky thing, but it can be done With all the self defence systems every modern jet have and the good Old turnin & Burnin.
Timing is very important. Personly, i’d go for the Corner speed, instead of the lower energy IAS Supermanuverebility regime.. But what the hell do i know 🙂
Tu 160You mention Russian VVS and Navy aircraft so not just Russian VVS but also Rusian Naval Aviation? So all vanilla Su27 and Mig29 are to be retired by 2020,surely at least some might remain in service in 2020? Only 30 Tu22M by 2020,that can’t be right,Russian VVS had 93 in service and Russian Navy had 58 in service in Dec 2010 so from 151 Tu22M in service to just 30 that’s to drastic a reduction in number and capability, certainly more can be maintained in service until 2025 when PAKDA can start replenishing the bomber force. Also you forgot Su33,they will not be replaced by Mig29K but will supplement them,Su33 are buing refurbished and modernized at KNAAPO now so they won’t be retired and time soon and should serve Russian Naval aviation for 15+ more years not necceserally on a carrier but maybe shifted to coastal bases and have such tasks as escorting Russian Navy Tu22M for instance.
Also currently there are 31 Su34 and 12 or so Su35 but there should be about 18-20 production Su35S by end of this year when latest batch is delivered soon.
Also Russian attack helicopter aviation has already beed massively revived and modernized with more than a 100 attack gunships build since 2008 for Russian VVS Ka52 36 production models delivered and more than 40 by end of this year 120+ planned for VVS and about 60+ planned for Russian Navy
Mi28 about 60+ production models build and in VVS service, will be more than 70 by end of this year and about 150+ planned
Mi35 about 20+ production models build for Russian VVS and about 60+ planned
Also many new Mi17 build for Russian VVS
Also a relaivelly large number 100+ modernized Mi24 should remain in service by 2020
Tu 160Lol:applause:I don’t know what is more funny and ridiculous your statement or the idea of a VTOL version of a PAKFA operating from a Mistral class 16,500 ton amphibious assault ship. Super maneuverability is actually extremely important and more important than ever before,keep in mind that super maneuverability most important use is not for dogfighting as PAKFA will tactically try to avoid dogfights and only ingage in them as a last resort as they are inherently dangerous and often messy especially considering that usually more than 2 aircraft get involved. The MOST important use of super maneuverability is to outmaneuver enemy BVR and WVR missiles and extremely important for survivability. For instance F35 very poor maneuverability not only puts F35 at a severe disadvantage in a dogfight but even more important F35 bad maneuverability is completely inadequate for outmaneuvering modern or even legacy air to air or surface to air missles and no ecm or other countermeasures and not enough to counter modern current gen missles,you need adequate maneuverability as well.
Hardly, as a matter of fact Super Maneuverability is becoming less of a factor everyday. Especially, with the advent of HOBS Weapons. Honestly, even before that is wasn’t the primary requirement.
No it has not,Pakfa speed was never reduced from mach 2.5 to 2.0 no such statement was released or even hinted at on the contrary the most recent public statements about Pakfa and likewise hints from insiders on the Pakfa program have stated that Pakfa is capable of Mach 2.6+ in level flight and is faster than the Su27 and Mig29 which can go Mach 2.4 With the Pakfa’s new izd 129 40,000lb of thurst class engines in development it might even be able to supercruise at mach 2.0
they aren’t, even the t-50 has dropped requirements from mach 2.5 to mach2, didn’t I also read that the f-22 is speed limited to under mach 2?
Tu 160I hope you are joking as No way in hell will Russia sell a highly secret classified tech as PAKFA to a banana republic like Algeria or other third world countries like Brazil ect, why should Russia sell PAKFA to these countries so US will undoubtabely send their experts to analyze every aspect of this highly classified technology fighter that these countries would be more than happy to give US a detailed look at,no way in hell. Also I would like to know where whould Algeria or Brazil find the money or even close to pay about 150 million per plane especially given Algeria’s great track record of not paying for Mig29 SMT? Russia is not desperate for money like it was in the 90’s and therefore won’t sell sensitive classified tech to anyone,just look at all the secrecy accociated with the new Russian Armata tank program,no pictures of it are even being releses never mind even trying to buy it. Also Russian VVS will buy 200-250+ Pakfa as it is planned as the mainstay and core of the Russian VVS so Russia does not need export sales to keep costs down and all the Pakfa production capacity is needed for Russian VVS so that’s another reason Russia cannot export Pakfa. Also keep in mind that the FGFA export version is not the same thing as PAKFA it might have similar airframe but the radars,ecm and other classified tech is removed and will be replaced with something else. Russia might sell China some Su35S but never PAKFA,why so they will undoubtably copy it ahhaha no.
so when will Algeria receive some to shoot down Rafales?
I have a strong feeling that T-50 is going to be the BRIC eequivalent of F-35A. I can see Brazil, Russia, India and China all using it. The last one may be a long shot I know, but J-20 is only a prototype and may be repositioned at any time for an A2G role rather than a T-50 competitor. Russia is going to need the orders to make it as affordable as they originally planned.
:stupid:Lol that is the funniest thing I head this month,a vertical takeoff version of a large 2 engine Su 27 sized fighter that weighs around 40,000lb,I whould like to see your design proposal for it,it will need at least 2 large lift engines completely compromising the design and even more absurd you want it to be used of a Mistral class :very_drunk::applause:,a relatively small 16,500+ ton assault landing ship and helicopter carrier. Russian Navy might buy a navalized version of the PAKFA sometime next decade when it most likely be developed for use on a conventional carrier. A VTOL might work with a single engine F35 that is almost exacly the same size and aerodynamic configuration as a Yak141 but not Pakfa
Ideally Sukhoi should have focused on a Vertical Take Off version of the PAK FA which could have been used from the Mistral LPH . But for reasons known best to Sukhoi they chose to ignore it .
Tu 160KNAAZ should not waste production capacity on Su30M2,much better for them to build more Su35S,KNAAPO Su30M2 don’t have thrust vectoring and are inferior to the more advanced Irkut Su30SM2 so why is VVS buying more Su30M2 from KNAAPO, isn’t the 10 + a year of Su30SM2 enougth? How many Su30SM2 is Irkut planning to build this year for VVS in total 12?
I’m pretty sure KNAAZ have scraped together enough spare parts for a few Su-27SM3. They might have to produce some New parts, but you get my point. I would be very surprised if it amount to a Whole Sq..
Last Batch was 10 units. It all came from a surplus Su-27SKM deal With China that probably never happend.About Su-35S Production output, I think they have moved to larger Batches by now and will deliver six units. Keep in mind KNAAZ are producing Su-30M2 and Su-27SM3 and overhauling Su-33 at the moment.. lots of work to do.
Tu 160I don’t understand why is KNAAPO wasteing production capability building Su27SM3 when they could use that same production capability to build Su35S, Su27SM3 is not bad but Su35S is just so much better? Also how many Su35S did KNAAPO build this year so far and are they on schedule to build 10 this year as they planned? What is the latest build Su35S bort number anyone have pictures? All I have seen is bort 07 which got all that publicity recently.
Thanks JSR. So are they getting an extra squadron (or more?) of SM3s or not ? They are mentioned in the first part of the article, but not the second (unless they are already built and on verge of delivery?).
Tu 160Wow, I didn’t know the sustained turn rate of the F35A and B was this bad, by comparison what is the sustained turn rate and acceleration from mach 0.8 to 1.2 of a mid 60’s F4 and a Mig21bis? Also what is the estimated top speed of the F35C,based on the F35C wing design and abysmally poor acceleration from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2, when F35C top speed should be somewhere between mach 1.4 and mach 1.2?
APA has so far consistently predict better than L.M, source: F35study2008 bowman0558.pdf
-compare objectives vs reality[ATTACH=CONFIG]221681[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221682[/ATTACH]
reality:
Turn performance for the US Air Force’s F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g’s to 4.6 sustained g’s.
The F-35B had its sustained g’s cut from five to 4.5 g’s, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
from 5.1 to five sustained g’s.
Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by
eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively.
F-35A acc.=61 sec vs LM objective <40 sec
F-35A combat radius=590 nm vs L.M objective 690 nm
F-35A sustained G= 4.6g vs L.M objective +6g
Tu 160Didn’t some recent news sources say that T50 having completed some phase of testing earlier this year showed that T50 performance in terms of speed,crusing speed,climbrate and manuverability showed higher than expected results and also stated that T50 is capable of mach 2.6 speeds? T50 is clearly configured for high speed flight and should have no problem to achieve such speeds or higher as long as overheating does not cause issues at very high speeds. Also wasn’t T50 055 supposed to fly in August or much earlier than that,why is it just sitting for like 6 months doing nothing after being complted in March???
Tu 160So what is T 50-5 doing right now just chilling,it was finished sometime in January or February? Wasn’t it supposed to fly in April or May and will it fly this month? I know it is supposed to join the flight test program in August or sometime around that but shouldn’t first flight be a few mounths sooner?
Tu 160Anyone have pictures of the latest made Su 34 that were delivered in May?
Sign In
