AndraxxusIt’s a simplification of course, but it’s only absurd if you want to make it that way by comparing the MiG-29 with a light fighter with two small turbojets from the late 50’s instead of its contemporaries. Not taking the SFC and thrust differences into account, the numbers from the Eagle’s post clearly show that other two engine fighters of the same or similar generation and class had roughly 50% more fuel.
Well, that makes sense as they have ~50% more thrust compared to initial F-16A (106 kN vs F-18A’s 158kN vs Rafele’s 151 kN). However twin engines does automatically not translate to twice fuel consumption.
AndraxxusAlso oversimplification of “feeding one engine or two” is absurd.
An F-16 with single GE-129 on full AB will easily consume more than twice the fuel of BOTH J-85 engines on F-5E. You can’t say F-5Es fuel consumption would be higher just because it has two engines.
-MiG-29’s two engines are rated at 81,3 kN and F-16’s GE-129 is rated at 127,8 kN. Assuming same SFC (in reality RD-33 are slightly more efficient in AB than GE-129), MiG-29’s full AB fuel consumption would be 27% higher.
-MiG-29’s wing area is 38m2, compared to F-16’s 27,87m2. Assuming they have same drag coefficients (and they would be ballpark similar in reality) and same SFC (GE-129 is slightly more efficient in dry thrust than RD-33), MiG-29’s cruise fuel consumption would be 36% higher.
With 3300kg on MiG-29 9.12 only 4% higher than F-16’s 3175 kg fuel capacity, MiG-29 IS short legged. Roughly speaking, MiG-29 would need around 4300kg to match F-16’s range and endurance.
Also other considerations (which maybe pointed out some 12 years ago didn’t bother reathing past 5 pages)
-F-16 can mount 3 EFTs with total capacity of 3195 kg of fuel, totaling at 6370kg. MiG-29’s additional fuel capacity from 3 EFTs is 3086kgs, totaling at 6386 kg.
-An F-16 with 3xEFTs can still carry 2x2000lb bombs OR 6x500lb bombs, along with targeting pods, 4 BVR or WVR missiles. A MiG-29 with 3xEFTs can only carry 2x500kg bombs, and 2xWVR missiles.
Today MiG-35 no doubt has more range than original MiG-29A, but same could be said for F-16;
-A modern F-16 blk50+ or 60 has 4585 kg fuel with CFT, plus 4609kg with 3xEFTs (2x600gals+300gal), totaling at 9194kg. A MiG-35 will have ~5200 kg internal fuel, plus 3492kg (2x1150l + 1x2000l) totaling at 8692kg. Due to CFT and new 600gal tanks, fuel capacity improvement on F-16 is actually way greater than the MiG-29/35…
-So a blk50 F-16 will definately have more range, plus it will be able to carry pretty meaningful payloads with 3xEFT; F-16 can carry 2xAShm or 2xARM like MiG-35, but also it can carry 6x anti-tank missiles, or GPS guided munitions, 4x Laser guided 500lb munitions 2x2000lb munitions or variety of cruise missiles.
Of course, MiG-35 will be able to carry 5 EFTs making total fuel capacity 10559kg, but remaining pylons are good only for 2xBVR and 2xWVR missiles, and nothing else.
AndraxxusWhen a Grippen (or even relatively obsolete blk30 F-16 or F-15C) fires its AIM-120, radar automatically selects appropirate PRF, and there is a time to impact counter on the HUD. When that counter reaches 0, pilot will know target is either hit, or missile missed its target.
When a basic Su-27S fires its R-27RE, pilot is still responsible to watch target vector (shown on the left bottom side of the hud) and switch between MED and HI pulse-repetition frequencies when closure rate changes as target maneuvers. If an approaching target, for example, makes a sharp turn, and if target is far enough, Su-27 will lose its radar lock as it will still be scanning for an approaching target.
And Su-27 pilot has to guestimate how long it will take for missile to travel to its target, and use the chronometer on the instrument panel to guesstimate if missile has reached -and missed- its target, hit it, or still on its way towards it.
Other than that, RLPK has pretty good IFDL and in 4 vs 4, I am pretty confident Flankers’ SA will be just as good as the Grippens’, and even in STT mode, each Flanker tracking a Grippen will share all its data with other Flankers. With good pilot training to manage the RLPK with its user unfriendliness, its not really suprising to see baseline Su-27S still could stand up pretty well againist modern Grippens with AIM-120Bs in BVR; and I would put my money on Su-27S if it comes to WVR combat.
AndraxxusFor comparison, What would the drag index of a singel AIM-120 with its pylon look like?
And also drag index for two wet bags under each wings?
AIM-120A drag index = 1,7 on CFT stations, 1,3 on wing stations without CFT, 2,3 with CFT.
LAU-128A launcher + ADU-552/A adapter drag index = 1,1
Drag index of 610 Gal fuel tanks:
-5,5 on wing stations without CFT.
-6,0 on wing stations with CFT.
-12,2 on centerline station.
-8,2 with bombs on inboard CFT station (F-15E)
-12,3 with bombs on outboard CFT station (F-15E)
Edit: It seems F-15E also mounts AIM-120A directly on CFT as well, I was wrong in my previous post that I’ve told F-15E’s need LAU-128s on CFT stations as well. Also I was wrong that LAU-128 has more drag than missile itself, I assumed it was same as F-16, and typed without looking into it.
AndraxxusSo less draggy as in less fuel and size?
No, main difference is CFT of F-15Cs were designed for A-A, they only had 4 short pylons designed to accept only AIM-7 (and AIM-120) directly. F-15E’s CFTs have 6 addtional pylons, and main pylons are much larger to accomodate A-G payloads. Plus, CFT-5 can’t mount AIM-120s in that fashion. They need LAU-128s mounted on CFTs, and AIM-120s mounted on them. All these contribute to drag, interestingly LAU-128/129 launchers are more draggy than the AIM-120 missiles’ themselves.
AndraxxusHas F-15C tested with those 670 gallons tanks at higher speeds.
610 gals, Yes.
F-15C engines are the older less powerful. They have MTOW and G limitations on airframe.
PW-220 engined F-15’s are faster than PW-229 or PW-100 engined ones, despite having least rated thrust of all 3.
AndraxxusI agree with you about that, but I`m not so sure about this one:
Well “faster” was a little too far fetched claim, should have said nearly as fast. It actually depends very much on altitude;
F-18E can go ~M1.12 @ 10k feet with 2xAIM-9 and 2x AIM-120. With 8 AAMs it is ~M1,05 and F-18E could still go M1.0+ at any altitude. A clean F-14D (stores 1A config) is limited to M1.4 at 10k feet, but turn rate graph shows it can go M1,56 @10k feet with 4xAIM-7s and 4xAIM-9s. F-14D is limited to M1.1 if full fairing for 4xAIM-54s is installed. So it is my assumption that if we are to add 2 more AIM-54s, and 2 AIM-9s, F-14D would not be faster than F-18E with 8 AAMs at all.
At 35k feet, clean F-14D is limited to M1,9 and F-14D with 4xAIM-54s is limited to M1,5. At same altitude, an F-18E with 4 AAMs can almost go M1,6 and with 8 AAMs, F-18E could go M1,35+. F-14 with 6xAIM-54 would have marginal, if any, speed advantage vs F-18E at all. However at higher altitudes like 40-45k feet, F-14D still has same Mach limit, and has same top speed. F-18E reaches its top speed at 36k feet, and its slower at any higher altitude.
While limits I have mentioned are called NATOPS limits, which may not be the actual limit of the aircraft, F-14 was limited to those configurations operationally.
You are completely wrong.
………..
You are missing my point. I don’t deny flying long distances brings an avantage. I deny supercruise is the ONLY means to achieve it.
FACT is, there are only three aircraft that can fly really long distances at high supersonic speeds; 1-SR-71, 2-MiG-31 and 3-Tu-160. NONE of these aircraft can supercruise.
And assumption that F-22 will have a definitive advantage even over F-15C just because it “supercruises” is simply stupid IMHO.
F-15C with CFT has 10845 kg fuel. Add 3×610 gals, total fuel loadout is 16448 kg. Add 8 AAMs, and F-15C will still be able to go M1.5. My money is on the twice fuel load on 30% smaller, and 30% lighter aircraft.
AndraxxusWhats the opinion about the two incidents we saw recently – Mi-24/35 and a Turkish Super Cobra…. both lost their tail but the Turkish helicopter dropped as dead weight where as the Russian one even tried to recover and it ended up in normal posture on the ground, very hard and caught fire.
Is it possible that some more altitude could have given chance to the pilots to have a proper ‘crash’ landing?
There are many differences between AH-1W and Mi-24/35; keywords are weight, size and armor differences between airframes and conditions they were flying.
-Mi-24 has twice weight so even if airframe is rated for roughly equivalent stresses, this would mean Mi-24 has twice structural strength if we are talking about an equal external force (intertia of the missile plus the pressure from missile explosion). Mi-24 is way more heavily armored, so its survivability againist fragmentation or continious-rod warheads are magnitudes better. So here’s our first difference; AH-1W split into two while Mi-24 wasn’t that much affected.
-Mi-24 is much larger, so it has much greater rotational interia than AH-1W. Also Mi-24 has much lower disc loading per blade (~10 kg/m2 vs ~19 kg/m2 @MTOW), these would mean when the counter-torque from the tail is removed, Mi-24’s flight (as seen from videos) would be much more stable. Add that to the fact a) AH-1W split in half which significantly reduced its moment of inertia (so it couldn’t resist turning around as well as it would have been one piece) b) a fully armed AH-1W was probably flying close to its lift limits in the mountainous regions in Turkey’s south east, whereas Mi-24 without any troops or full ATGM loads would be flying much ligher, at heights closer to S/L near Palmyra. This is our second difference; AH-1W rotated violently right after getting hit, but Mi-24 was much more controllable and gave pilots time to react to a degree.
Also there are secondary considerations; Mi-24 is twice as heavy, so concussion from same impact would be half as devastating to the crew.
In any case, I don’t think more altitude would made a difference. Mi-24 had good forward airspeed for autorotation, but pilot didn’t show any proper reaction to cut engine to prevent yawing motion in the first second of the hit. He, then, could have allowed airframe to yaw full 360 degrees, then attempted autorotate as direction of flight would still be forward. Pilot didn’t even try autorotating on both occassions; instead, after turning 180 degrees, he applied pitch in ~16 second mark. Maybe he panicked, maybe his controls malfunctioned, or maybe he just wanted to slow the helicopter to reduce the impact speed IDK, but unfortunately, pitch combined with yaw produces gyroscopic effect; positive pitch + left yaw produces right roll motion as it happened in the video. Pilots were already doomed at that point; no amount of altitude could have saved them.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t trash talk the pilots, and I can’t really expect ANY pilot on the face of the earth to react exactly by the book in miliseconds right after getting hit by a missile. I am just writing the physics behind it.
AndraxxusAndraxxus, what do you think about the first and second record ?
Well, other than the fact that Su-27 still hold the record it doesn’t say many things. Like I’ve said many times, I don’t have fuel consumption data for Su-27, but I do for its smaller sibling, MiG-29. Flying at M1.4, fuel consumption can vary from ~16 kg/sec @ 2000 meters, to <2kg/sec for 18000 meters, so without altitude info its not logical to speculate about fuel consumption.
If record procedure allow it, record may not even be at constant speed or altitude; Su-27 could take off with full fuel, spend some of it to climb to an high altitude at mil thrust, then accelerate quickly by diving at full AB during first 200-300 km of the record attempt, sustain speed for some 500 km while re-gaining altitude (as reduced fuel means optimal cruise altitude constantly increases during the flight) then reduce throttle and complete the remaining 200-300 km while decelerating and losing altitude. In terms of numbers, for example, Su-27 can climb to 16000m@M0,8, then dive to 10000m@M2.0, start record timer somewhere along that dive. Cruise at M2.0, run short on fuel at 14000m@M2.0, switch to min AB (or even MIL thrust) and end up finishing the record flight at 1000m@M1.3. Since end point of the closed circuit can be pre-planned, record aircraft can end up just at the start of the glidepath, and Su-27 could then land with a 200-250 kg of fuel. (speaking of ability, pilot can even land it unpowered at that point).
Or the procedures can be way different, and none of just I’ve written may be true. The real question is, Su-27 and F-15 made their record flights in very early introduction into service, their airframe modifications predate their introduction. SR-71 had much more secrecy, so did MiG-25 back then, but those aircraft had their share of record flight as well. F-22 has 8 prototypes unfit for military service, and aircraft is in service for 11 years. If it is so impressive of an aircraft, why anyone even attempted a record flight?
Technically, had “supercruise” brought half the advantages people bragging about, F-22 should have broken Su-27’s record a dozen times without one single modification to its airframe. Even production aircraft could have done that. Its not necessary to look far to see the obvious, the simplest explaination is it can’t.
-Supercruise on one side, 20% smaller wing area (linearly contribute to drag), 15% more fuel capacity, variable inlets, an aerodynamically optimized airframe without internal bay or stealth considerations on the other side. How on earth supercruise brings a definite advantage is beyond me.
-F-22’s combat radius is 852 km, if 182 km of the flight spend on supercruise. So it can fly 1704 km in total 1340 subsonic and 364 km supersonic. Su-27’s combat radius is 1760km, it can fly 3520km subsonic. Subtract the subsonic parts, and Su-27 will still have more than 60% fuel after travelling 1340 km. Su-27 can fly @~M1.4-1.5 for way more than 12-13 minutes if it has 5000+kg fuel to spend, perhaps 20-25 minutes. You may say F-22 can supercruise at higher speeds, but there is an acceleration/deceleration parts to that, so average of M1.4-1.5 seems logical to me.
There is another aspect of it though, F-22 can still do that with 8 missiles, Su-27 probably can’t. As for F-35, its unfair to compare it with Su-27.
The question is though can it take off from a carrier with a payload of 6 AIM-54 (plus 2 SRAAM) and land with 4 AIM-54 like the Tomcat could?
It can take off with that payload even with ski-jump, as demonstrated Su-33 did take-off with comperable payload. Land? No, Su-33 has pathetic bring-back capacity.
It’s a moot point though because as has already been mentioned, why would the USN adapt the Su-33 for the fleet defence role, when they already have a perfectly fine, american design. Ultimately of course, the fleet defence role was dropped altogether.
Its a moot point of course, its both militarily, economically and politically inconvinient. If the need for a bigger aircraft arise, USN would prefer spending billions to make a navalized F-15 or F-22, they would even revive F-14 before buying Su-33 from Russians.
In either case such requirement is unnecessary. Both size and capability of AIM-54 is grossly exeggerated. AIM-54, is a 4m long, 450 kg missile with 0.91m wingspan. So technically, any aircraft with a pylon that has sufficent clearence to carry an AGM-88 or similarly sized payload, and sufficent structural strength to carry an Mk-83 can also carry an AIM-54. That is a rather long list of aircraft even coming down to puny aircaft like Gripen, and speaking for USN, an F-18C could carry 4 without problems, an F-18E could carry 6. A GBU-10 or AGM-84 is a relatively a more difficult payload than AIM-54, for example.
What was unique to F-14 was, it could not only carry those missiles, but could also fly fast with them. An F-18E with 6 AIM-120s and wingtip AIM-9s, CAN fly faster (or further by carrying wet tanks) than an F-14D with 6 AIM-54s + 2 AIM-9s.
When F-14 and AIM-54 was retired in 2006, AIM-120C7 was 3 years into service. The thing is, AIM-120C7 is probably better than AIM-54 in this task. Sure AIM-54 has greater range, but I don’t think its guidance system (or the aircraft’s own radar) will allow it to be launched at those ranges againist modern lower RCS sea skimming cruise missiles.
For example, Su-35’s radar has 90 km range vs 0.01m2 RCS targets. That is 99% likely to be againist clear sky, so reduce that to 2/3rds in look-down. Had F-14 been modernised, it would have had a similar radar performance. Now, what good carrying an AIM-54 would do in that situation? Since range doesn’t matter, a modern AIM-120 with better intercept algorithms, better PK would serve much better, and AIM-120 could be carried in greater numbers. Had F-14 remained in service, AIM-54 would still be long gone by now, and 2016’s F-14 would be flying with AIM-120Ds too. An F-18E can carry 12 AIM-120s, instead of 6 AIM-54s F-14 carried; so I ask, did USN really lost its fleet defense capability or simply increased it by handing that role over to F-18E?
AndraxxusHoW long was the AIM-54?
On senter hardpoints absolutely. On inner wing stations, Dunno.
AIM-54D = 4m, 450kg its not THAT big, R-27RE is actually way longer than Phoneix. A Su-30/33/35 should be able to carry & opearate with 8 without slightest problem:
1-Flankers are seen carrying Kh-31P/PD on stations 3,4,9,10,11,12 (all at once). Kh-31P is 4,7m and 600kg, and overall shape is similar to AIM-54D (if we are talking about clearances) but way larger and heavier.
2-Station #1 is capable of (and pictured with) FAB-1500 and Kh-59, and Station #2 is capable of FAB-500 and pictured with 2xFAB-250 mounted tandem on multiple ejector rack. Those stations are also capable of operating R-27RE, which is 4,78 meters long. So those stations have neither weight nor clearance issues to prevent it from mounting AIM-54.
Weight wise, flankers are seen carrying KAB-1500 on stations 3,4,11 and 12 together, or one Su-35 is pictured with KAB-1500 on 1,11,12, FAB-500 on 9,10 and 2x FAB-500 on 3,4 each, so that is not a problem either.
Also heaviest A-A payload of Su-33 is 8x350kg R-27RE + 4x 105kg R-73 = 3220 kg. A theoratical payload of 8 AIM-54 would be 3600 kg, a mere 380kg difference.
AndraxxusI would contend that F-22 uses the exact same missiles that have downed many ex-Soviet designs. Russia has at least one drone and an F/A-18C. The former was unarmed and the latter unaware. So there is evidence they could kill, just in practice they haven’t hit much if at all. Western aircraft on the other hand have dominated the engagements.
So by this logic, No western SSBN will be able launch all its SRBMs in WW3, because no one even tried that. Not to worry, by the same logic, only USAF shown capability to succesfully nuke a city, so entire Soviet/Russian arsenal of 1000+ nukes mean nothing.
Had Su-27s shot down some 100+ F-104/105/106s, would you have thought it as a better platform that it currently is?
Fact is; only mentionable kills of F-15 are a few MiG-29s, which is no different than Su-27’s combat record. Neither of which is a suprise, as in high-low mix of their resepctive airforces, F-15 and Su-27 belong to “high” and F-16 and MiG-29 belong to “low”. Put a 1990s F-16 againist a 1990s Su-27S (or F-15C), and there won’t even be a challenge more than a shooting practice for R-27RE AIM-7Ms.
AndraxxusSome equally stupid questions:
-Does anyone missing out by not having a Tu-28 size interceptor?
-Did soviets misses out by not having a recon aircraft like SR-71?
-Does west missing out by not having a bomber like Tu-160?
-Does west missing out by not having a transport aircraft like An-225?
Those were the bestest in some criteria (ie, Tu-28 = largest fighter, SR-71 = fastest combat aircraft, Tu-160 = fastest bomber with greatest payload, An-225 = largest transport with greatest payload), yet the answer was always no. Everyone did just fine.
AndraxxusIn simple answer no. Su-35 still flies with R-77s (or maybe R-77-1s at best), which may well be just a handful of prototypes just hung underwings for the show. Better AIM-120C/D variants are in operation in multiple western countries for more than 15 years.
Had PAK-FA first flew in 1990s (instead of 2010s), and Russians had their “LFI” program flying since 2000 (instead of… like never), we wouldn’t be seeing advanced variants like Su-35 pushed into service in 2010s.
In the end, Su-27Ss were top of the line *weapon system* back in 1990, much better than AIM-7M equipped F-15A/Cs flying back then IMHO. They are still good and potent, but Flankers were never a “unique” or “top of the line” ever since.
Su-27S/SM –> againist F-15Cs with AIM-120C-7s, and F-18Es with AIM-9Xs and AIM-120Ds, or Eurofighter with IRIS-T and AIM-120Ds…
Su-30SM –> againist F-15E with AIM-120Ds, better FLIR pods, and variety of PGMs…
Su-34 –> againist F-15E, this is probably the most comperable of all the variants: range+payload advantage goes to Su-34, overal flexibility (F-15E is even more potent A-A aircraft than F-15C) and munitions advantage goes to F-15E.
Su-35 –> againist F-15SA, comperable at best, inferior due to lack of PGMs and AIM-120D-like BVR missile.
Su-27/30/35 –> againist F-35/F-22? I haven’t the slighest doubt even baseline Su-27 can take on F-22 in a WVR combat, but their overall capabilities are beyond comparison.
AndraxxusWell, Su-35S is also capable of Kh-23/25/29/31/58/59, plus KAB series PGMs, its as immune to ground attacks as PAK-FA (at least in Syria), and mostly air-superiority oriented (perhaps even more than PAK-FA), but it uses good old FAB series bombs in Syria. Despite F-22, B-1B, and all the goodies USAF has, they chose using A-10Cs with good old Mk series bombs and its 40 year old Gattling gun.
So there are situations dumb bombs are still more effective than PGMs -as proven on daily basis- and ability to carry&use them brings no penalty in other areas, why the objection againist it?
AndraxxusIndeed, in fact, the thought of inability to carry dumb bombs really scares me. If a WW3 erupts, I would chose the ability to carry dumb bombs above the ability to carry smart munitions. Since its obvious T-50 will also carry PGMs, I don’t see the point of all the debate over the pictured OFAB bombs.
Sign In
