Why is it every time Sukhoi present some data, its bogus and BS.

Because it often turns out to be some sort of fraud. Simply that.

While LM allways come out thrustworty and solid facts..

I said that where?

The Su-35 is slated with 117-S engines of 14.500kgf thrust. Thats about 4000kgf more than the standard AL-31F engine if you will.

How does more installed thrust help?
What is the thrust-drag ratio at M1?

Tell me why the Su-35 cant do any supercruise on millitary power, with some light A2A configuration?

You seem to be highly impressed about the Suchoi and quite shocked everytime I say something sobering about it.
Stick to your believes, I want nobody to sleep bad at night.

FIRST which “standards are YOU using?

International Standard Atmosphere, sorry that I don’t write a 5000-word essay each time I post something. I don’t get paid for it.

It’s 15° at sea-level for a starter (International Standard), 0ft (over Mt Everest?) means nothing and if it does to you you’re up for some serious misshaps in flight kindda the Thunderbird F-16 pilot who forgot to set up his altimeter properly…

Damn, you’re smart, and you’re not hiding it. I always thought it was radio altitude over moon surface.

US standards are also different to International standards BTW.

All USAF flight manuals say 15° at sea level.

For the Rafale: so be it.
You don’t have SR at M.85 and M1.3, do you?

Agreed.
What do you make of these data?

“During the test flight at the highest thrust regime without the use of afterburner the Su-35 achieved Mach 1.1 speed and was still accelerating
By late June, the no. 1 flying prototype had completed 13 test missions. These were devoted to assessment of the airplane’s stability and controllability, maneuvering characteristics and powerplant performance.
In addition, the operation of onboard systems was closely monitored.

Having received a generally positive assessment of the aircraft, Sukhoi sent it into the supersonic regime. On mission 12, the airplane accelerated to Mach 1.2 at medium altitudes (up to 6,000 meters).
The next flight went as high as 11,000 meters and reached speeds of Mach 1.3.
Importantly, the airplane demonstrated its ability to maintain supersonic speed at military power (the highest thrust regime without the use of afterburner). Sergei Bogdan selected his words carefully, but did state: “At medium altitudes and with military power, the airplane was making a moderate supersonic speed and still accelerating. In one of the flights, I achieved Mach 1.1, and while the aircraft could accelerate further, I had to slow down because I was approaching the end of our supersonic flight zone.”

Source:
Russia & CIS Observer / Archive / №3 (22) August 2008 / DEFENSE / Sukhoi Su-35 Achieves Supercruise Flight /

Vladimir Karnozov

The usual Russian & Suchoi BS.

“Reached M1.1 and accelerated further”
Means it accelerated to M1.15? Impressive.

“Reached M1.3”
Great, but in what configuration?

No aircraft has “supercruise” capability before a line aircraft (especially with standard engine) with line pilot demonstrates it with typical weapons load-out on a standard day (15°@0ft).
Under those conditions, even the Rafale will hardly win this “trophy”.

As I have said for x-times in this thread, “supercruising” with M1.3 is about 45% faster than M.9, but will see a 60-80% drop in SR. So, it may be supersonic speed without reheat, but at which price?
By general rule 50-50 is a good basis:
50% ground speed increase (from M.85ish) for appr. 50% less range per unit of fuel.
I seriously doubt a Suchoi 35XXL-ISDN will make that.
The Rafale can’t do.
The Typhoon maybe makes it, but seems to be narrow.

Where did I say I had better data? I asked where he got his. As the real data isn’t out there I’d be interested in the criteria he used for his WAGs.

You wouldn’t believe me even if I got Goerge W.’s signature below it. And as you rarely contribute anything interesting besides claims and especially counter-claims, I see no point in discussing such stuff. You can – if you are able to – try to argue my conclusions.

What ARE you talking about?

I will try again since BOTH you & Schorsch are so clueless.

The design & manufacturing differences are FAR too great to make a BS claim that since the F-15 can (with 2 external tanks) match the range of the Su-27 on internal fuel & that is an indication that designing/building an aircraft (for ANY mission) with insufficient internal fuel thus REQUIRING external tanks to obtain the required range is better than designing/building an aircraft with sufficient internal fuel to obtain the required range.

The design & manufacturing of the Mig-29 & Su-27 are MUCH closer but the disparity in size (due to being designed & built for different roles/missions) makes even THAT comparision a stretch (though not as much as the F-15 vs Su-27). Although I seriously doubt anyone would prefer Mig-29s to fulfill the roles/missions of Su-27s even IF they could obtain the required range with external tanks.

The closest that you are going to get to two modern combat aircraft of generally the same design & manufacturing is the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D. SO why is it when tasked to build an F/A-18 with greater range/payload (ie capability), the designers chose to make a bigger F/A-18 rather than redesign the F/A-18C to utilize more/bigger external tanks? And why is it when greater range is/was desired/needed for the F-15 & F-16 (and soon the Typhoon & Rafale as well) CFTs are/were used instead of more/bigger external tanks?

And just what capability is lost with the F-15E vs the F-15C OR the F-16E (block 60) vs F-16C (block 50/52) OR the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D? The capability GAINED is obvious! Also note that in all three of those cases while the newer models are heavier, not all of the weight gain is due to carrying more fuel…

If you take out all those aircraft, which are primarily designed for fighter-bomber mission, like the F-18E or the F-15E, then it will easier for you to understand.

An air2air combat aircraft is something different than a fighter-bomber, although an F-15E might retain the theoretical (avionics) a2a capability of its basis aircraft.

For a counter-air mission the payload is relatively low (usually 4 SR-AAM, 4 MR-AAM, gun), and the desired fuel fraction and begin of hostilities is .2 to .25 (up to .3 is OK). Aircraft shall be all clean. Size does matter. So for optimum performance for a2a combat it is best to have the cruise-in fuel stored externally and dropped before hostilities begin. That costs performance in the beginning, but keeps your average weight down.

Get some familiarity with aircraft design (especially weight fractions) and performance and please try for a minute to keep fighter-bombers out (no one wants to add CFT to a Typhoon for better a2a combat performance, and the F-15C didn’t got them for that either, it is solely to utilize an existing airframe and make it a better bomb truck; check Suchoi 24 or Tornado to see that even dedicated fighter-bombers used drop tanks, and did not even try to make it all internal).
Then you’ll easily arrive at the same conclusion.

400 VTOL F-12A with nuclear tipped Genie missiles.

I don’t pay much attention to James Stevenson – his work is full of factual errors aswell as contradictions – his one chart shows the F-22 capable of supercruising at Mach 1.5 at 50kft – his next says it can’t do Mach 1.5 any higher than 45kft – he uses reference wing area as a a metric of measuring performance – yet the F-22s highest lift generating surfaces don’t even fall under its reference wing area – his thrust values are likely to be wrong – and he fails to understand dynamic TWR. He is not privy to any real data – he is an analyst with an agenda – one that over-simplifies things far to much – I wonder if he has any technical qualifications. If pilots are correct and their statements are true the F-22 should be supercruising at Mach 1.5+ at over 50000 ft.

But apart from the details we can agree that the chart is not upside down, and that the general conclusion doesn’t change.

What do you all think, will the Su-35 be able to acheive supercruise with external weapon load?

Any “supercruise” below M1.3ish is quite useless, as I have shown, due to the mismatch between increase in speed versus drop in SR. It is then a purely theoretical exercise.
Some statements I heard like “M1.1” is stupid: the drag peak normally is somewhere between 1.05 and 1.2, so 1.1 is before drag peak!

Are you really surprised. That is the price of a really new built MiG-29K. Seems like Russia has run out of leftover airframes and would have to really built new planes. Just ask Boeing for the price of a new F/A-18C.

That is what I think, too.
The myth that Russian products are half as expensive is exactly that … a myth.
They are surely less expensive than western products, but producing them without a current production run makes them very expensive.
Maybe the price increase comes as Russian government is less willing in supporting MiG or other lucrative contracts (modernizations, spare parts) have expired.

Or they just lied (err, sorry, they had a few “assumptions” in their cost assessment) the first time to get a contract and now that no alternative is available on the short run they increase the price. Standard operating procedure in most defense contracts.

How is the F-15E not a fighter?

You understand the fundamental differences in a fighter mission and a fighter-bomber mission, don’t you?