Tu 160Thanks for the info, do you have some pictures of these incidents? Also on Nov 15 the other F22 that belly landed,that must of caused significant damage to its fuesalage more than 1.8 mil that other F22 had in Dec that scraped its horizontal stabilizers.
Also does anyone have info that states all US military aircraft losses and incidents on a yearly,montly basis?
I checked out the DSI issue that talked about it:
15 nov: 1 F22 crashed on take off with the pilot ejecting safely
15 nov: on a separate incident, a pilot applied too little power on take off and the aircraft left the ground before belly landing on the airstrop8 dec: A F22 lost both horizontal stabilizers while landing in Pearl Harbour. Cost of the repairs $1,8 million.
Nic
Tu 160Su 35 is in a different class its a heavy fighter with heavy fighter capabilities while the Rafale and Typhoon are medium fighters with medium fighter capabilities about the same as a Mig 29M2. Heavy fighter capabilities are>then medium fighter capabilities. Su 35 is a much more powerful fighter and a larger fighter than the Rafale or Typhoon which are about the size and weight of Mig 29. Su 35 for instance has 2 31,900lbf engines vs only 2 17,000 lbf for the Rafale which is less than baseline old Mig 29 engines and and 20,000lbf for Typhoon which is same as Mig29M2 or Mig 29K
Su 35 OLS 35 IRST is superior and more powerful to the Rafale and Typhoon OLS which are about the same in capability to old Soviet IRST on original Su 27.
Su 35 Irbis E radar while Pesa as is on the earlier Typhoon, Irbis E is much larger and much much more powerful and capable then the small Rafael and Typhoon radar,Rafale and Typhoon don;t have even close to the engine power necessary to operate such a powerful radar as Irbis E on Su 35 or the Su 50 new AESA radar.
Su 35 laser optical system is far superior to anything fielded on the Rafale or Tyhoon.
Su 35 fuel capacity,range and payload is also much greater on Su 35 than the Rafale and Typhoon.
Su 35 with thrust vectoring and 8,700 lbf more thrust than baseline Su 27 is much much more manuverable than the baseline Su 27 or the Rafael or the Typhoon.
Yes you are right in that Rafale and Typhoon have very limited combat experince in Afganistan and Lybia which are cra*holes as adversaries without proper militaries but that says nothing about their capability vs Su 35, their earlier service entry is because they are earlier older systems and their electronics,computures,avionics are also older and less advanced than on the Su 35. So unfornutally for the Rafale and Typhoon they and they’re capabilities are not in the same league as Su 35.
Absolutely true
More “advanced”?! In what way? And more capable? In what way?
Be carefull on claims, while the SU-35 is a fantastic aircraft, the two eurocanards are entirely competitive, are flying in active sqn´s, have combat missions under their belt and last time i´ve checked the SU-35 had not entered sqn service, so claiming any kind of superiority might be a bit off the mark…
Tu 16018 years is a very long development time for the Rafale and it might take even longer for F35 to enter service especially the B and C models. Pakfa first flew almost 10 years after F35 prototype but is mostly like going to enter service before the F35.
Did the issue of the F35C tail hook not working because its too short and having inadequate placement on the fuselage resolved yet by modifing its shape?
Tu 160Su 35,Su 34 and Su 30 are not stealth but very far from obsolete.
Su 35 is more advanced and capable than the Typhoon and Rafale, F22 is stealth design but because of its many problems in still not combat dependable with more than half being not combat ready and F22 air to ground capability is negligible.
Su 34 is the most advanced interdiction tactical strike fighter bomber in the world currently.
Su 30 is a good mix of capabilities of Su 34 and Su 35.
Tu 160So whats in the tail section of T50-4 some sort of jammer or warning arrey ,so its definatelly not a radar? classified?;)
So what is the big surprise that you said whould happen soon,the 4 or 5 T50 being sent for VVS field trials in March?
no
Tu 160Flateric is the big surprise you talked about a few months back the T50-4 tail section with has radiation sign like on front radars,is there some sort of an array or maybe small radar in the tail?
News did say T50-4 whould have a full spectrum of new electronic equipment.
117 R@D project was codenamed ‘Demon’, BTW
Tu 160Su 34 should have no problem with survivability and Su 34 long range air to air capability is no worse than a Su 30 and short range air to air is comparable to an Su 30 as well but Su 34 has much more powerful jamming capability.
Su 34 is capable of M1.8+ and fighters like F35 or F18 won’t be able to even intercept it effectivelly.
Of course, they were developed/ordered MANY years later than the Su-34, so what do you expect? And when no common production configuration has been settled on, it is a bit hard to say the Su-34 passed trials other than on paper only.
It’s a cool looking thing to be sure, and probably the world’s best aircraft for what it was designed to do, but it is also an expensive extravagance for a post-Soviet VVS and will face survivability issues early into its delayed service life. It took so long to mature that it was overtaken by events and no longer really fits the environment.
Tu 160I know Su 35 is heavier than an Su 27 but the comparison was being made between a standard Su 27 and T50. Su 35 Irbis radar is also a good deal heavier than a N00 1 Su 27 radar. Standard Su 27 are not going to be removed from VVS service anytime soon but modernized.
Look.. the Su-35S has an empty weight in the range of 18.000 kg.
Forget about the legacy Vanila Flanker. They are soon removed from VVS service.The Weight increase comes on all jet due to more avionics and sensor systems and due to strenghting of airframe, the Su-35S has much longer life hour remember.
Tu 160I never said T50 was heavier than F22,I said heavier than Su 27,Mig 29 and F15. F22 is a good deal smaller than Pakfa though but fatter and heavier.
wikipedia states that T50 has empty weight of 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)
Su 27 empty weight is stated at 16,380 kg (36,100 lb)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50
Paralays data still shows Pakfa empty weight is 1755kg heavier than a Su 27 and the scetch shows that Pakfa is pretty much the same size as an Su 27,a little shorter but wider.
If it is a fact, that Pak-Fa is heavier and larger than the Flanker, then you care to post any source of this?
I’m not claiming anything, regarding weight. But to say the Pak-Fa is even heavier than the F-22 is a shot in the dark..
Tu 160So are 4 T50 now fully active and flying and conducting testing at Zhukovsky?
Tu 160Did you even look up T50 size specs once? T50 is not smaller than an Su 27,its slightly shorter than an Su 27 but T50 has a significantly larger wing area than the Su 27,T50 has a wider fuselage than the Su 27 and T50 is larger by surface area. Pakfa is also heavier, it empty weight is 40,785lb vs Su 27 empty weight of 36,100lb,T50 max takeoff weight is also larger. T50 also has larger internal fuel capacity,also like you said T50 has larger engines also.
T50 is a heavy fighter and is a huge beast much bigger and heavier than an F15 or a Mig 29 which is a medium fighter,Mig 29 has empty weight of 24,250 lb.
That photo is very deseptive as its comparing to the Su 30 from the front with its tall canopy and vert stabilizers, try to compare the size of the T50 to Su 27 from the top or bottom,T50 has a larger surface area than the Su 27.
T-50 is in between the sizes of MiG-29 and Su-27. It enjoys much larger engines than an Su-27, internalized weapons, integrated ECCM, is visually tougher to spot, integrates electro optical sensors all around it, and is stealth. Not bad for a smaller package.
Tu 160This analyssis for 2004 when T50 didn’t even exist and the design and specification were not even close to being finalized does not prove that Pakfa is incapable of exceeping Mach 2.15
It was also said in 2009 or so that Pakfa was the size slightly bigger than Mig 29 when in reality Pakfa ended up being a fighter in the heavy class and sightly bigger and heavier than an Su 27, which is a good thing.
2004.
From 2.15 to mach 2.
Tu 160This article is a load of rubbish not only is it comparing to the Mig 29A which is not fair but the Mig 29M SEVERELLY DOWNGRADED EXPORT VERSION OF Mig 29A the MONKEY EXPORT VERSION.
The export version of the Mig 29A has a completelly different severelly downgraded radar,fire control system,downgraded engines,downgraded ECM and IFF and navigation systems and the real Soviet VVS version especially the C is far superior.
The Soviet VVS started to use the Mig 29C in about 1987 which was vastly improved “The MiG-29S is similar in external appearance to older MiG-29B airframes, except for the dorsal hump behind the cockpit canopy. Differences start with the improvements in the flight control system. Four new computers provide better stability augmentation and controllability with an increase of 2° in angle of attack (AoA). Its improved mechanical-hydraulic flight control system allows for greater control surface deflections. The MiG-29S’s dorsal hump, earning it the nickname “Fatback” in service, was originally believed to be for additional fuel, but in fact, most of its volume is used for the new L-203BE Gardenyia-1 ECM system. The MiG-29S can carry 1,150 liter (304 US gallon, 2,000 lb) drop tanks under each wing and a centerline tank. Inboard underwing hardpoints are upgraded to allow for a tandem pylon arrangement for a larger payload of 4,000 kg (8,820 lb). Overall maximum gross weight has been raised to 20,000 kg (44,000 lb). The GSh-30-1 cannon had its expended round ejector port modified to allow for firing while the centerline tank is still attached. Improvements also allow for new longer-range air-to-air missiles like the R-27E (AA-10 “Alamo”) and R-77 (AA-12 “Adder”). Initially, the avionics of the MiG-29S only added a new IRST sighting system combined with a better imbedded training system that allowed for IR and radar target simulation. However, the final MiG-29S improvement kit also provides for the Phazotron N019M radar and more built-in test equipment (BITE) (especially for the radar) to reduce dependence on ground support equipment; MiG MAPO calls this model the MiG-29SD. Revised weapon system algorithms in the MiG-29S’s software, combined with an increase in processing capacity, allows for the tracking of up to 10 targets and the simultaneous engagement of two with the R-77 missile.”
you may also interested in this
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=168581
Tu 160Yes I knew that also thats why for instance early Su 24 with variable intakes could go Mach 2+ but later versions with fixed intakes could not. And B1B with its fixed intakes can barelly exceed Mach 1 but Tu 160 with variable intakes can go Mach 2.3+
Pakfa has variable intake design that is designed to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and designed for quite high speed in general. With the Pakfa intake deign should it be able to attain Mach 2.5 or at least the maximum speed eaqul to an Su 27?
Also need to know about Su 35 supercruise capabilities?
Top speed has little to do with engine thrust or T/W. It’s the variable intake design that has the largest influence.
Tu 160its a movie prop not real,it does not even have landing gear
Sign In
