Andraxxuslift wing Cv = 1.1 ( 10% more than the Su-27 ), Y = 3.58 m (speed of 29 m / s)
*
………………
*
Takeoff is considered complete when Y = m vzl . , Ie the lift of the wing will be 32,000 kg , it will happen at a speed 86.6 m / s (312 km / h)
Su-27 ClMax = 1,85 at 24 deg AOA.
Assuming Su-33 lift performance equals Su-27;
Lift = 32000 kg * 9,81 = 1/2*1,2*1,85*62*V2
gives 67,53 m/s or 243 km/h airspeed; when Su-27 at 32000 kg TOW will be able to maintain level flight at 24 deg AOA.
Even if we consider improvements in Su-33 as a safety margin; I believe even Su-27 itself will have no problems taking off from 105m position with 32000 kgs.
I can try to prove my theory with my own version of calculations if its not too off topic?
AndraxxusNumbers on graph a bit off for F-15 A/C, clean 35,000 lbs will turn at 8.5* per second at 30,000 feet, f-16 blocks vary greatly- block 50/52 being heaviest in U.S. service. Earlier blocks were similar to F-15 at 8.5* per second according to flight manual and wiki-leaks info released on F-16A. The F-16CJ flight manual shows similar values to your chart .82 mach, 22,000 lbs results in 7.5* per second, right on . (of course this depends on definition of “clean”, F-15 drops to around 8* per second at 36,000 pounds w/plyons)
Uhhh I think you read my graph wrong. Because in the graph F-15 do turn 8.5 deg/s at around M0.9?? As for F-16; I took numbers from blk50 manual; it never touches the 8deg/s line. I can post the page if you like. By the way; I am reading numbers and putting them on excel with M0.4 intervals. There are slight differences due to that.
Edit: Oh I understand the problem regarding F-15; You are taking numbers from Figure A9-31 which is for clean, 50% fuelled F-15 A/C 35000lbs PW-100 engined; tested on 1 october 1985; Those numbers in my graph are from Figure B9-28 which is for clean, 50% fuelled F-15C at 37000lbs, PW-220 engined; tested on 15 june 1989. As there are no F-15A’s remain in service; I thought it was irrelevant.
Numbers are for Su-27S, MiG-29G, F-15C PW-220 engined; F-16 blk50 PW-229 engined, which are the currently in service aircraft.
AndraxxusI didn’t say U-2 is a failure. I said it failed the moment the soviets built a SAM capable of hitting it; because it has nothing else to offer other than its ceiling. I believe there is a difference in what we are saying?
AndraxxusIt wouldn’t be any different; The duel would still end up between Amraam and MiG-25, specifically in the ability of MiG-25 to evade/outrun the missile.
If we are to go to the edges of the debate; theoratically speaking;
1- STEALTH/LOW OBSERVABILITY: An aircraft truly invisible to Radar or IRST at any range would require no kinematic performance. It would be very difficult to kill because no one will be able to shoot at it.
2- MANEUVERABILITY: A ultra-maneuvrable aircraft couldn’t be hit because no missile can physically maneuver to get close enough for warhead detonation.
3- SPEED/CLIMB/ACCELERATION: An ultra-fast aircraft with immensely superior acceleration climb etc kinematics couldn’t be hit because no missile/aircraft can hope to catch it.
4- CEILING: An ultra-high flying aircraft wouldn’t need stealth or anything. Flying above the ceiling of any missiles will grant it immuinity.
5- SENSORS/BVR MISSILES: An aircraft only excels at sensor output and missile performance would not need kinematics or stealth; it could see everything, and shoot everything before anything can get close to be a threat to it.
Historically any aircraft go to these edges shockingly failed in practice somewhere during its lifetime. U-2 solely used #4 only to be shot down by SAMs. F-4E solely used #5 only to be shot down 2nd generation MiG-21s.
MiG-25 used #3 #4; it was very succesful in some scenarios, but not in others. MiG-29 focused #2 and #5; it was also impressive in some excercises; but perfomed poorly againist some adversaries.
Su-27 and F-15 does not go to extremes but combines a mixture between #2,#3,#4 and #5 with different priorities. So far they have been extremely succesful in real life conflicts, and even in exercises only adversaries capable of beating them are each other.
As for answer of the original question “what metrics of agility matter” the answer is ALL would have use one way or another.
For a ground alert interceptor mission; low altitude climb and acceleration performance is a must.
For a fighter sweep mission over enemy territory; cruise performance; transonic and supersonic acceleration,supersonic maneuverability, climb, ceiling, top speed are all important (all at high altitude).
For a CAP or escort mission; low altitude maneuverability and cruise performance gets important.
AndraxxusAn excellent post @Andraxxus,
“That is talking about only sea level. With increasing altitude bigger winged aircraft like F-15 and Su-27 suffer less performance drop compared to smaller winged aircraft. I wont go into numbers there (as it would get too boring to read).”
Please do elaborate, i find it very interesting
Sorry for a late answer;
Its basically due to the fact air gets thinner at the altitude. In order to stay in level -let alone make a turn- an aircraft a) higher lift coefficient -OR- b) needs to go faster.
a) Higher lift coeefficient, always require higher AOA. As to WHY wing loading affects high altitude performance;
Lift = 1/2 * density * Wing Area * Lift Coefficient * airspeed ^2 and Lift = aircraft weight * amount of G aircraft pulls;
Wing loading = Aircraft Weight / Wing area; or we can say: aircraft weight = wing loading * wing area;
For a level flight condition; if we are to put this into lift formula it becomes;
Wing loading * aircraft G load = 1/2 * air density * Lift coefficent * airspeed^2
In other words; Wing loading is directly proportional to Lift coefficient aircraft requires to pull a G load. Lower wing loading means less Cl, or in other words less AOA is required. This generally leads to less drag coeffient so aircraft flies -or turns- more efficiently.
At sea level aircraft fly proportionally too fast to make this relevant, as Cl increase is linear, but Cd increase is more exponential: I couldn’t find 64A204 but lets take 64A215 airfoil, its similar to the F-16’s airfoil, but thicker and does not have LE flaps:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225576[/ATTACH]
(Though this graph made by to CFD modelling there are inaccuracies; there should be minimal CD increase between 0-5 deg AOA following the parabolic behaviour of the graph)
Lets take this airfoil as the F-16’s airfoil;
For an F-16 blk50 (27,87m2 wing area) flying with 50% fuel + 4 missiles (12690 kg) at sea level (air density = 1,2)
Level flight at M0,5 reqiures 0,23 CL. this (coindicentally) happens at 0 AOA, and with minimal drag coefficient. As drag is also multipled with wing area, having smaller wings is beneficial and will create less drag. This will help in level flight accelerations.
Turning at 9G at M0,85 requires: 0,72 CL. This happens at 5 deg AOA; still at very low Cd. Low Cd multipled with low wing Area results in low drag, which explains the impressive sustained turn performance of the F-16. If F-16 had bigger wings, it would only increase its drag, and lower its sustained turn performance.
However when same aircraft reaches 30k feet (air density = 0,35)
Level flight at M0,5 requires 0,98 Cl at 10 deg angle of attack; this corresponds to 0,02 Cd; Now the Wing Area becomes important: IF F-16 aircraft had 33% larger wings; it would have required ~0,75 cl and had 0,01 Cd: This 33% increase in wing area and 50% decrease in Cd would actually resulted in 33% LESS draggy aircraft (despite being physically larger), directly improving acceleration.
Turning at 4Gs at 30k feet would require 1,27 Cl at 15 deg AOA resulting in 0,06 Cd (note that this is not entirely accurate for the Real Life F-16 has LE flaps which would decrease the Cd). If F-16 had twice the wing area; it would have had only 0,01 Cd; and be 300% less draggy;
Wing Loading also tells about how much available lift aircraft can produce; At M0,85 Clmax= 1,5; F-16 can pull 5Gs at best, resulting in 10,3 deg/s instantenious turn rate at 30k feet. Greater the wing area, greater the instantenious turn rates.
This all comes to optimization and engineering choices: Current small wings of F-16, are optimal at Sea level, but inferior at 30k feet. Slightly enlarging wings would improve both maneuvering and acceleration performance at high altitude, at the cost of low altitude performance. Enlarging wings too much would horribly worsen the low altitude turn, acceleration and climb performance; worsen high altitude acceleration, but improve high altitude turn performance. And I am talking purely about aerodynamics; an increase in deadweight would also decreased payload and further increased the drag etc etc.
With ever increasing payloads; smaller winged and lighter aircraft have more drastic increases in wing loading;
When we fuel an F-16 and Su-27 at 50% fuel load; they will have 383 and 338 kg/m2 wing loading respectively. However if we are to add 3 tons of fuel/payload; they will become; 490 and 387 kg/m2 respecively. Remembering the formula above; this means, F-16 will require 28% greater lift coefficient to achieve same turn rate; Su-27 will only require 14%; Considering Cd increases exponentially, that means there will be huge performance drop for F-16 while both accelerating and turning; but -aerodynamically speaking- Su-27 wont be affected at all while accelerating; and only a slight performance drop while turning. That is if we are speaking about high altitude.
In simpler terms smaller the aircraft gets, greater the Cl requirement will become with equal payload. Wings stay same; so there will be greater AOA requirement; and lower L/D as in this graph.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225577[/ATTACH]
As to add to the discussion; let me try to explain how wing loading, T/W, and other factors can be used to *roughly* estimate and compere maneuverability: look at F-15; F-15 uses NACA 64A203 airfoil, very similar to the F-16’s 64A204.
At 50% fuel clean, F-16 has wing loading of 383 kg/m2, whereas F-15 has 285 kg/m2. Wing’s Low AOA behaviour is the same, but F-16 has Clmax of ~1.6 at M0,5 maneuvering conditions F-15 has 1,1; due to lack of LE flaps it stalls earlier.
Remembering this formula: Wing loading * aircraft G load = 1/2 * air density * Lift coefficent * airspeed^2
45% less Clmax + 26% less wing loading means F-15 will have less available G and less instantenious turn rate by 8% at sea level. Obviously this is no coincidence that FM data shows at M0,5 F-16 can pull 24,2 deg/s and F-15 22 deg/s, 9% difference.
As wing behaviour is similar due to similar airfoils; 26% less wing loading = 26% less necessary Cl at 9G; We can assume (albeit a little inaccurrately) that means 26% decrease in Cd. F-15 has 202% greater wing area (read = drag) of F-16, it has 63% greater static thrust. All relations are linear; so multiplying all relations will tell us; F-15 will have 91% Sustained turn performance of F-16; Real numbers are 20,5 vs 21,5 respectively; 5% drop in performance.
As Su-27 uses different airfoil such estimate about STR is not possible because we simply dont know how Cd changes; We can however estimate Instantenious turn rate:
Compared to F-16; it has 15% better Clmax; and 11% less wing loading. Knowing this; means we can estimate 24,2*1.11*1.15 = 30,8 deg/s ITR at M0,5. But that would result in greater than 9Gs; Truth is Su-27 achieves its highest ITR at M0,48 (30,2 deg/s); That is still an accurate estimate.
Here is the STR graphs of 4th gen fighters compared to F-4E at 30k feet when clean 50% fuelled:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225578[/ATTACH]
Andraxxus[ATTACH=CONFIG]225569[/ATTACH]
It depends on speed, however with config you mentioned its safe to say F-16 can reach 40k+ feet without AB.
Andraxxusagain how do you know it’s a sustained turn? Unless sitting in the cockpit with the pilot can you tell that the airspeed at the start of the maneuver is the same as at the completion of the turn? As for which has a higher sustained turn rate Typhoon or SU-27, to be honest I’ve only seen a suspect E-M diagram of the Su-27, and there’s nothing solid on a Typhoon. One reason I hate these type of threads, lack of empirical data leads to pi**ing contests.
360 degrees / 12.8 seconds = 28.1 deg/s average turn rate. I didnt say sustained turn, i did say sustained for a 360 degree turn. Task = completing a full circle as quickly as possible. Measure of success = elapsed time. Like I’ve said, its not a proof of one is superior to other, but its a quite an indication that gives an idea about each aircraft’s performance.
AndraxxusBTW, I don’t think comparing aircraft turn rates at airshows is a valid method for comparing sustained turn rates. Most aircraft perform clean, there’s no way to tell at fuel state, airspeed restrictions at different airshows, etc. Also, how can you tell it’s a turn rate the aircraft can sustain? There is no way to eyeball if the aircraft is bleeding airspeed for higher rate of turn.
I agree we cannot be 100% certain or get numerical comperison with similar aircraft, but I believe we can get the general idea. Like you said, nearly all air-shows are clean and at low fuel state. Also all aircraft are observed via mk1 eyeballs have room to slow down a little or all perform pretty close to the ground. IMHO such comparison on pretty equal grounds to me.
A Su-27 with extremely low on fuel (obviously) can sustain a 26-28 deg/s turn rate for full 360 turn; as demonstrated on various airshows. Its Flight Manual data says it can sustain 21,75 on 50% fuel. If there is no single video of a, say, Typhoon sustaining even 21-22 deg/s for a 360 turn, am I wrong to conclude “there is a high possibility that Su-27 has better maneuverability at Sea level than Typhoon” ??
Or in other words, many claim Rafale or Typhoon or F-22 have superior maneuverbility to Su-27, without any slightest evidence or observation. Of course, comparing airshows is not a scientific method, but at least its something. I have made my case in many other threads that even an F-16 has no problems matching Typhoon in climb or acceleration; by comparing published manufacturer data and flight manual data, yet eurocanards are still regarded -by most- as something above the older 4th gen types, which IMHO clearly aren’t. (Strictly speaking of maneuverability)
AndraxxusThrust vectoring nozzles by themselves do not create drag. What creates added drag is the higher instantaneous turn rate, which TV allows for.
Wing loading alone is also misleading, since a lot of aircraft create additional lift via the fuselage. It isn’t a 100% accurate figure either, since some aircraft with poor wing loading actually end up being more maneuverable than other aircraft with very good wing loading.
Thrust vectoring does not allow higher instantenious turn rates. Highest instantenious turn rate is the turn rate happens at max available G, which happens at max available lift, or CLmax. Su-27’s lift limit happens at 24 deg AOA. If it pulls harder, it will stall, and lift coefficient “CL” will drop below CLmax. This will directly (and linear proportionally) decrease the pulled Gs. At equal speed this exactly means lower instantenious turn rate. This is a simple calculation I’ve made in another thread. For example put a lower CL into formula and see how the turn rate goes down.
Speaking of CL, Su-27 has Clmax = 1.85 at below 0.5;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216667[/ATTACH]Using second graph, which says 24deg AOA can be achieved at M0.48; (V= 164.8m/s)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216668[/ATTACH]L= 1.85 * 1/2 * 1.2 * 164.8^2 * 62 = 1879085N;
1879085 / 9,81 / 21400 = 8,9;Meaning 8,9Gs can be pulled at that speed. Which leads to 30,19 deg/s instantenious turn rate
Also to think TVC allows for higher AOA is also incorrect. As a crude definition of negative stability, an increase in lift vector (pointing upwards) which is in front of the weight vector (pointing downwards) will create a momentum that will increase the AOA. An increased AOA leads to increase in lift, which will try to incrase AOA even more. If unchecked by elevator intervention, this is a destructive effect. In other words, strictly speaking of aerodynamics, Su-27s airframe design can reach 90++ deg AOA or 30++Gs without any TVC assist: Former is what you see as cobra maneuver, latter is the destructive effect that was the cause of the loss of the 2nd T-10 prototype. What TVC actually allows is controllability; Su-27 loses its yaw and roll authority at 28 deg AOA. At that point, it cannot point anywhere without TVC. With wings stalled, an aircraft has no means of controlling pitch motion; this may even prevent reducing AOA to recover from stall/spin. TVC helps there too.
AndraxxusAccording to you, to evaluate a high maneuverability aircraft, we need to focus on what parameters?
G-limit !
Turn radius !
Climb rate !
Roll rate !
Wing loading !
TWR ?
specs of engines (Max thrust & TWR of engines)as far as I understand, TWR and wing loading are two parameters that need to be focused, TWR ratio is 0.9-1. And always low wing loading. From TWR (0.9-1 ratio) and low wing loading, we will have an aircraft maneuver
What you need to consider is Turn rates both instantenious and sustained to asses the horizontal maneuverability. Sustained climb rates or excess power is directly related to in line acceleration and vertical performance.
Other values are less of importance, without knowing specifics, they dont mean much. For example, Su-27 has higher wingloading than F-15, but it has an unbelievable 1.85 ClMax value while using ONLY automatic LE flaps. That will translate to much higher lift, and due to smaller wing area, also less drag. Same goes for F-16. It has even smaller wings, to minimize drag. Advantage is that F-16 have impressive sustained turn rates and in line accelerations at low altitude, but at high altitude it suffers from wing loading. Also we cant simply judge by TWR, because as long as we dont know how draggy aircraft is. AOA is also meaningless; Su-27 actually limited 24 deg AOA, while this looks inferior to MiG-29, for example, its ClMax is superior compared to 1.50 of MiG-29.
Considering all aircraft is fuelled with 50% fuel, Su-27 has an instantenious turn rate of 30,2deg/s which is superior to F-16 blk30’s 26,2 deg/s, F-16 blk50s 24,8 deg/s, F-15C’s 23,83 deg/s, MiG-29A 9.12’s 27,2 deg/s, Mirage 2000’s 29 deg/s and Grippen’s claimed (but unconfirmed) 30deg/s. Its also superior to anything that can be observed from Rafale’s Eurofighter’s and F-22’s instantenious pulls at airshows. Although they maybe flying on stricter g limits I dont know. (Before anyone say F-22 does some fast tricks, yes but rapidly changing AOA is not changing the flight vector. Time accordingly) To make the matters worse for the “opponents”, Su-27 has much greater range with its 50% fuel. So to match the range of an Grippen with 50% internal fuel, it would only need around 28%. Difference in weight is directly proportional to G’s aircraft pulling, which is directly proportional to the turn rate. In simpler words, under the same conditions a Grippen pulling 30 deg/s, Su-27 will have the capability to pull 32.9 deg/s. This, combined with relatively low wing loading and very high lift coefficient, will allow Su-27 to pull quicker turns that others simply can’t without stalling.
Again with 50% fuel, Su-27 has sustained turn rate of 21,75 deg/s. This is inferior to F-16 blk30s unimaginable 23,0 deg/s, and MiG-29A 9.12s 21,9 deg/s, but superior to F-16 blk50’s 21,5 deg/s, F-15C’s 20,5 Mirage 2k’s puny 18,9 deg/s and Grippens claimed 20 deg/s. Rafale have shown some comperable turn rates around 21-22 deg/s, but Eurofighter and F-22, never did complete a full 360 turn quicker than 20 seconds, translating to approx 18 deg/s. Again, they maybe going easy on the airframe I dont know. Same as above, 50% performance comparison is purely academic. For example to match F-16 blk30s combat radius, a Su-27 will require 38% fuel, and while doing so, it will also have pretty comperable 22,7 deg/s sustained turn rate.
with 50% fuel at sea level, Su-27 has 1G excess power of 305 m/s. This is inferior to F-16’s ~320 m/s and MiG-29s unimaginable 345 m/s and F-15’s ~315 m/s, but superior to Mirage 2000’s 285 m/s. Once again above statment applies, if Su-27 were to match F-16’s range, it would have 320 m/s or when matching MiG-29’s it would have 330 m/s. This means in terms of non-maneuvering climb and in line acceleration performance, Su-27 is comperable to F-16, but inferior to MiG-29 and F-15, and superior to Mirage 2k.
That is talking about only sea level. With increasing altitude bigger winged aircraft like F-15 and Su-27 suffer less performance drop compared to smaller winged aircraft. I wont go into numbers there (as it would get too boring to read).
With ever incrasing mission demands, smaller types will be more effected by increased weight and drag. For example fuelled for extreme ranges (involving fuel tanks) and armed with 6 AAMs, an F-16 will be barely sustaining around 12 deg/s will have 19 deg/s max available turn rate, but Su-27 will still sustain 17,4 deg/s turn rate will have 25,8 deg/s ITR, and it will still be able to go M2.0+; imagine the maneuverability difference in a BVR combat. Sure F-16 can drop tanks, but that would be a mission kill for a long range CAP. Such advantage is always on Su-27’s side when compared to specifically F-16, MiG-29 or Grippen, but also againist Rafale, Eurofighter and to a lesser extent F-15 and F-22 as well.
@Herp McDerp You are repeating exactly words of THE usaf colonel. However the fact that everything he said is BS; that does not change no matter how many times one repeat it.
-F-22 or any aircraft with present days tech cannot sustain 28 deg/s at 30k feet, not to mention carry 6 AAMs. A clean F-16 cannot even sustain 8 deg/s. With much superior wing loading, less drag and better T/W, PW220 engined F-15C can only sustain 8.4. I won’t go into it futher.
-MKI may or may not sustain 22/23 but that is again at sea level. Su-27 can do 8.55 deg/s at 30k, MKI wont be much different than that.
Starting at 4:23, 28 deg/s sustained turn is something Su-27 barely does when extremely low on fuel, and on denser air (read: sea level) Even if F-22 can do this on sea level, waiting for your video response.
Part of the problem he described was that the Su-30MKI’s 3D thrust vectoring was set on a V-axis; it wasn’t true asymmetrical thrust vectoring. This was great for instantaneous turning, but created a lot of drag which slowed the aircraft down.
An utterly idiotic “problem” described by a colonel, with apperanly ZERO background of physics. On any *turn* which is done by using lift from wings, TVC nozzles will be locked at 0deg position to achieve the greatest thrust to overcome the drag, Even with Su-27 (or any variant) pulling its highest instantenious turns, or -non stall- minimal radius turns, this will be true by 100% certainity. As aircraft is relaxed stable, even elevators will have negative AOA relative to airflow (they MAY have positive deflection, but for example at 20 deg AOA, they will have 10 deg positive deflection and have 10deg negative AOA) and contibute to the lift and create little drag. What he is trying to say is post-stall maneuverability where TVC will be fully active. By defition, a stalled airfoil create incresingly more drag and less lift. This not instantenious turning as he claims, because aircraft is not turning, just nose pointing. This is very draggy, becouse millions of newtons of drag crated by the stalled wings, not the nozzles. It wont matter a bit if nozzles are II V X shaped or KLIVT-like omnidirectional. Even without TVC, as seen on Su-27 doing cobra, drag will be the same. Because drag comes from airframe not the nozzles, and applies exactly same to F-22, Su-30 or MiG-29OVT. The funny thing is, this as this is post stall maneuver. Extra drag is wanted. Ability is there, it can be used for a smart sharp turn or for an idiotic way to waste energy. Its up to the pilot.
Actually V nozzles are far more useful in dogfight than the 2d nozzles on F-22. All aircraft achive those numerically superior maneuvers very close to stall and departure limits. A 2d nozzle will stabilize a departure on pitch axis, simply cant to such stabilization: Start watching from 4:26 and look very carefully at 4:28 mark where TVC rapidly intervens to prevent counter-clockvise yaw departure by instantly turning to right.. Theoratically, rudders alone can prevent spin, but TVC does it much more sharply so that aircraft immedietaly start its horizontal maneuver. Such feature is absent on vertically mounted TVC.
AndraxxusOther than the clearly superior instantenious turn performance, Su-27 is mostly comperable with other 4th gen fighters. In overall I would -subjectively- say “Su-27 is the most maneuverable 4th gen (due to numerical comparison), has some decent possibility of being more maneuverable than 4+ gens and 5th gens. (personal mk1 eyeball analysis)”. It has great internal fuel capacity, and its heavy weight means less % drop in performance due to additional payload, i believe it will have edge when fuelled for same range and armed for same mission.
AndraxxusPAK-FA is built with a strong focus on air superiority but with limited multirole potential (considering its size, payload layout under wings (bombs/missiles + external fuel), volume of internal bays).
The rafale is built with a more balanced set of multiroles capabilities with up to 9,5 tons of ordinnance.
Utter nonsense. PAK-FA will be designed to carry four of those missiles internally;
-Kh-35U antiship missiles with ARH seekers.
-Kh-38ML laser guided A/G missile
-Kh-38MP anti radar A/G missile
-Kh-38MS GPS/GLONASS guided A/G missile
-Kh-38MT TV guided A/G missile
-Kh-38MA radar guided A/G missile
-Kh-58UshK anti radar missile
Also Up to 4x 500 kg bombs or up 10x 250kg bombs with Laser/GPS/TV guidance can be carried internally
So even without using its six external pylons, PAK-FA has the multirole capability of Rafale.
AndraxxusPAK-FA, obviously.
1- Mission: PAK-FA will be able to do any and all missions Rafale can. We can’t say the same for Rafale.
2- Technology: PAK-FA program offers many revolutionary technologies in composites, airframe design, stealth, avionics, engines etc etc; even with limited tech transfer Russians may provide. Since indians had experience with MKI, rafale has really nothing to offer to Indians.
3- Performance: As for aircraft based performance comparison, its like comparing blk60 F-16 with F-22; ie nonsense.
4- Integration: PAK-FA will already be required to work with Su-27/30/35 etc. It will be much easier for MKI pilots to team with PAK-FA than Rafale.
AndraxxusHmmm.. one question here.. is the ranging capability of the IRST utterly necessary to make a shot?
Can’t one simply fire an IR-guided missile towards the target detected at 30+ km (LOAL) and let the missile sensor to guide the AAM at closer distance (say 10-12km)?
It is not. As far as Su-27 and R-27T/ET combination concerned, even target lock is not required -and we are talking about missile incapable of LOAL-. On such usage, aircraft is maneuvered to the 15 degrees bearing of the target while being 15 degrees away from the sun and 4 degrees away from the moon and any ground based heat sources (all is required for the confident capture of the IR seeker of missile), and missile is fired blindfully. R-27T/TE will fly straight until it achieves targets lock, says its combat operations manual, and recommends it for usage againist targets with 0 approach angle. So theoratically, Su-27 fed by off board sensors can make passive attacks up to 100++ km ranges under optimal conditions.
If we are talking about more modern IR missiles (with two way datalinks, better seekers and higher proscessing power) PAK-FA is likely to carry, that capability will be much more enhanced.
On the LPI AESA front, since both Russian systems (AESA and LPI) are still in their infancy, I would not put much stock into them being effective vs western systems.
Utterly stupid and laughable. Think just the opposite: APG-77 IIRC first ESA and first AESA radar US put on a fighter. Then by your logic, a) because Zalson is the first ESA, and have developed/matured more, then-new APG-77 was never a match for it because its the first ESA built by US? b) As APG-77 is the first AESA radar, its impossible for US to do it right and get it work?
More likely is, its next to impossible that APG-77 -if not thoroughly upgraded- will have any chance (at all) of being effective againist the radar set that will be introduced on PAK-FA. We are talking about development in both science and electronics, 20 years is a very very long time.
First, the scan rates of an IRST vs a radar, especially an AESA or PESA are not at all comparable.
An IR sensor is NOT something adjustable, and it actually scans at the same resolution as its tracking. If we are talking about scanning a volume at short ranges (where they can be truly comparable), IRST has much higher resolution than a radar, not at all comperable because a radar simply cannot complete a volume scan in tracking mode. In other words, IRST is slower but much more accurate at short ranges. (Which is why gun on Su-27 MiG-29 etc is queued by IRST not by radar, and it does away with very accurate single barrel GSh-301 gun)
Operationally, no they have not happened and their VLO aspects are dubious at best.
Putting something on oparetion is totally irrelevant if we are talking about *knowing* how to design it. For example, as an engineer, I’ve never designed a car jack before, but If needed I can easily design one while watching TV and getting drunk at the same time, its THAT simple for me. But according to your logic I am incapable just because I have not built one? or the true reason is that i have never felt the need? Engineers design things IF and WHEN they are needed. Now Russians want a VLO aircraft, and until it is done, no one can judge if their knowledge base is sufficient or not. Looking at the way things going, Sukhoi/TsAGI guys chose to develop their own solutions, follow their own path. I would say they at least hope to achieve something better then what they are competeting (F-22, F-35). Otherwise they could have just copied the basic layout/solutions.
AndraxxusThe R-27 was more hype that threat and it wouldn’t have been significant to double their load.
Considering a) R-27 variants are still the main armament of all upgraded Su-27s and even Su-35… b) PAK-FA will desingned to be compatible to fire R-27 externally c) Even though there ara newer missiles, R-27 is still in production; the question arises: If R-27 is such a bad missile, WHY?
Sign In
