SchorschI agree that Eurofighter or Rafale from pure technological point of view (materials and production) are somewhat ahead of Su-35 (which is actually claimed to be wholly revised in comparison with Su-27). Su-35 is also aerodynamically unstable plane and has TVC. I can see Eurofighter coming most closely to Su-35 – but it is smaller and hense – less capable (to hold different kinds of avionics, weaponry; range).
Well, while a ‘stealth’ without mutual support has limited capabilities the similar lack of support affects in a much stronger way a ‘non-stealth’. But the point was that AESAs are much more capable (on a new level) than PESAs and the higher price and developing issues are the only obstacles for now. Which maybe thought as the time of PESAs ticking away quickly. An additional statement would be that Irbis most probably will be the pinnacle of fighter PESAs – like the Su-35’s airframe 🙂 .
I will not get into a discussion aircraft versus aircraft, as it is purely theoretical. You mention avionics, but avionics are a volatile business and capabilities can hardly be fixed. They are especially not stated in advertising brochures.
The size of the Su-35 is its biggest disadvantage. 20 ton empty weight is just too much. TVC is a mean of compensating that, but a smaller aircraft like the Eurofighter has much better performance without it. Same with radar cross section, which is after all also a function of the shear size. If it 1m² or 0.8 or 1.6 is rather academical, it gives a modern radar the opportunity to acquire, track and kill the target.
SchorschI don’t want to be understood mistakenly. As an aircraft (pure fuselage) Su-35, you should admit is a pinnacle of the non-stealthy fighters. I will give a base – it has a large nose for accomodation of a large radar, it has a huge fuel capacity, it has 12 points for weaponry/ECM suit, it has the very good (maybe the best) aerodynamics, it can accomodate rear viewing radar, it can easily accomodate TVC engines. We should add also a seriuos RCS reduction from head on. So as an airframe of this type, we may assume that it will never become obsolete – it is simply the best in it’s class.
The Suchoi 27(++) are well designed fighters for their mission, but calling them the pinnacle is rather exaggerated. From technology point of view the later Eurocanards make a much better design, including the benefits of augmented stability included from the start.
The obsolesence of Eurofighter and Rafale is obvious too. But they were/are essentially an science/economical/political projects – Frenchmen want their own plane (own national reasons) and europeans didn’t want to buy american planes and after soviet block collapsed they decided nevertheless to go on with the E2000 project.
Eurofighter was designed versus latest Russian fighters and it looks like it will have stand. That the Eurofighter would most likely not be able to compete with the result of the ATF project (which resulted in the F-22) was somehow clear as the nations of Eurofighter consortium had considerable less experience in this field than the Americans.
The Irbis radar is very capable now. It is true that the state of the art american AESAs are essentially in another category (i mean superior in theory being AESA) but they simply cannot give such a huge view zone, a lateral arrays are needed which is quite expensive now. But things are changing very rapidly and new X-band AESAs which are about to emerge (even Izrael develops it’s own) will be superior and with lowering cost trend. So Irbis will become inferior.
A stealth fighter without mutual support is a quite useless asset. It needs AWACS or some kind of guidance to work as expected.
Su-35/Irbis combination is very capable now (before even production started), but we may assume in next decade it’s radar part to become obsolete. All above my opinion only.
I guess capability must be proven. Sometimes strange that latest Russian hardware is from the start considered unbeatable while comparable developments from Europe are considered obsolete or overpriced. Suchoi now has an image comparable to that of Media Markt. 😀
(at least in the internet, which of course cannot be underestimated in relevance)
Schorschterminal guidance was active; midcourse was semi-active.
The problem I guess is less the loss of the contact, but the target going out of range. When an aircraft recognizes it is fired upon by an AIM-54 (which is quite difficult as the AWG-9 does not switch into another mode like it would happen for an AIM-7 launch), it is best to turn around and speed up. The still air range of the Phoenix is not more that 50 to 60km. All the 100+km figures are for closing speeds of 900km/h of the target.
The AIM-54 is not really appropriate for fighter targets and the USN knew that. The F-14 would have moved into battle with AIM-7 primarily, also because the flight performance is compromised by having 4 Phoenix (=2t) under your belly. Besides that, the stock of AIM-54 was limited on US carriers and high tech missiles don’t like to be taken flown around for fun.
SchorschYes but what bemused is saying is that the B777 was constructed so well that it didnt break in two on landing. Given how heavy the landing was to push gear through the wing I am also pleased/surprised at how well the B777 was able to cope with such a landing!
Fuselages and cabins are all built to the same requirements. Extra strength is extra weight. I would like to see the person who can see crash loads from post crash pictures. The impact was somewhat more than a hard landing, no aircraft breaks apart from this except it crashes into something. Any other FAR25 certified airliner would look pretty much similar after such an event.
SchorschThe whole affair has generated one hell of a lot of discussion across the internet – I don’t think Ive ever seen so much interest in one accident, and part of me is wondering why; London Heathrow? British Airways? The fact that the cause of the accident looks to be so interesting, with possible wide ranging consequences?
How many languages do you speak? Do you check Indonesian sites when a jet in Indonesia crashes? If a Western jet with Western people operated by Western airline crashes on a Western airport it raises attention by many Western people, who using Western languages tend to use Western internet forums. I guess the same thread at .ru sites is quite compact.
SchorschAs a consequence of this incident, what are the chances that Pilots in future will be required to demonstrate on a simulator that they know what to do in a similar scenario ?
There ain’t much a pilot could do about it. OK, you can mess it up, but in general there are no real options. The only thing to avoid a major mishap (like happened) would be to approach with excess energy so one can sustain a complete power loss without undershooting the runway. Problem: excess energy on the runway and higher risk of overshoot. Or build 4 mile runways and let all aircraft land at 1st milestone.
SchorschUnlikely as the aircraft being deployed neither featured HMD nor PIRATE.
Other unofficial sources claim that the Typhoon’s radar was able to detect the F-22 at 80 km, closer circumstances are unknown however. Difficult to say if these info are really true at all, it is not impossible, but I think if the results were really as “shocking” as they say it is no wonder they play it down and dismiss it as “just rumors”.
Even if the F-22 was detected, how likely is that a useful firing solution can be derived from that? Could a BVR-missile be successfully been used?
That an F-22 can be detected is only shock to people who believe in stealth = invisible. No surprise to people that know that stealth = (reduced probability of being detected, tracked and shot down using radar guidance).
SchorschFrom the unsubstantiated video I saw yesterday of the final approach, the aircraft appeared to have (what I would say was) an usual attitude in terms of the nose being pitched rarther high, presumably this would increase drag and would have been an attempt to lose airspeed on the way down, then again would this have been an erroneous judgement given the short fall when it eventually ‘landed’ ?
As I said, the pilots did a good job. The optimum job is a rather academic question. It would be the flightpath with maximum energy at the end. How one can make it much worse could be seen at the Galaxy crash at Dover AFB a year (??) ago.
Case the “moderator’s message” is meant to me: I am not accusing anybody. I am more making academic statements how this situation can be judged from the flight physical perspective.
SchorschIt seems the time between the “Fault” & “Landing” are very short indeed,if the aircraft was so close to touch down,so close that they didnt have time to declare an emergency,then surely they would have sufficient speed & to make the runway.
Did they have enough speed? I doubt so.
The aircraft goes down on glideslope (~3°) with V_approach, which is 1.3 stall speed. The glide ratio is worse in full config, means if no engine power is available the glide angle must be steeper. The crew ate up the airspeed down to V_stall. The problem: the slower the aircraft gets the higher gets the loss of airspeed (drag increase). An IDLE or no engine descent is no problem, but you need to do it at a different config. At take-off or clean config the aircraft comes close to 3° drift down angle.
The investigation will show if the crew did the best thing. They did a good thing, without doubt, but in such situations the optimum way is the minimum energy loss strategy, which is not necessarily straight forward. Pilots often tend to pull up too much instead of conserving airspeed. A natural tendency, of course, away from the green.
SchorschI think a loss of engine power is the most fitting conclusion by now, the APU door shows that “the system” tried to restart the engines using the APU. However, the reason for such a failure must be found. A double engine failure of any kind is a very very unlikely scenario and there is most likely a common cause (one would be fuel starvation, but I doubt that as it would mean that the fuel indication system and the crew both had screwed up).
SchorschWhat a surprise that a 30 ton aircraft isn’t the most nimble one.
No need to jump in and defend the F-22, but it was designed to be a BVR fighter at first with good stand in the dogfight arena.
The Eurofighter is possibly the hottest machine in terms of overall flight performance currently in service. Each aircraft type has its advantages, however, but I think the package of the Eurofighter is best.
SchorschSo are Boeing still hopeful that they can do all the flight and certification testing within a 6 month time frame?
As following aircraft will be late, too, due to resources being focussed on LN001 (and Boeing generally does not have so many resources in Seattle), the flight test program will need 10 to 12 month if everything procedes rather well. First deliveries are to be expected in second quarter ’09. I guess Boeing will not deliver more than 50 aircraft in ’09, in general 100 delivery slots or ~12-14 billion USD are lost.
I would expect consequences for B747-8 program, too.
SchorschBoeing Press Release
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080116a_nr.html
Boeing can be accused of North Korean style information policy.
SchorschMore Nightmares On The Gates
According to news report the aircraft may miss its fourth (after August/September, October, December, March) date of first flight and get a fifth. Continued problems in power-up are given as reason. If first flight is delayed into spring deliveries within 2008 are very unlikely. First flight might slip beyond the original EIS date.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120042551223592017.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
Boeing is ruining its credibility. Unbelievable that managers are unable to understand their problems to a level that let them give a good guess about the progress. While I was convinced that the initial problems and delays were indeed unexpected, I am now increasingly sure that Boeing knew very well in August that a first flight in 2007 was unlikely and that delivery in 2008 was at stake. If I was Boeing shareholder, I would be pissed.
SchorschAny figures that indicate a reduction in the number of lives lost must be good. Perhaps as more carriers are flying younger fleets the risk of accidents due to aged aircraft has reduced (of course accidents may still happen regardless).
The last accidents I have in mind did have no connection to the age of the aircraft.
Sign In
