Superior Range anyone

Just to show how unfounded such claims are, I’ll drop in a few numbers:

The miraculous Su-35 has a ferry rage of 3600km on internal fuel and 4500km with use of external tanks. That is understood to be without any weapons. We’ll see: Ferry range on internal fuel is good, but what is it good for?

The Typhoon has a ferry range of 3800km. Radius is not given.
For the Rafale a radius of 1000nm is given for a “penetration mission”, which would exceed the Suchoi 35’s ferry range.
F-15C is given with 1000nm radius for interdiction mission or a 5000km ferry range with CFTs and all wet hard points stuffed.

No source gives away actual mission radius for the Suchoi 27 or any derivative. In Wikipedia one very smart person translated the ferry range from Sukhoi’s website into a combat mission range, which is total rubbish.

It becomes apparent that the “superior range” is anything but superior, even compared to contemporary fighters.

I think those who criticize the Sea Harrier as a fighter need to remember that …

Just to point out: I don’t criticize it.
Relative to conventional aircraft it falls short in most if not all areas.
But conventional aircraft cannot operate from an HMS Invincible.
So, absolutely, it is yet better than nothing.
Case closed.

I guess after 1982 no British admiral was encouraged to rely his fleet defense versus a conventional air force on the Harriers. The steps taken tell the conclusion: the Harrier got serious upgrades and an AEW helicopter was developed, finally the “flat deck cruiser” gets decommissioned.

Just to drop in a few more “Falkland examples”:
The Vulcan successfully dropped bombs over a long distance. Does anybody take this as prove that it is a highly useful conventional bomber? I hardly think so.
The Westland Scout served as light attack and transport helicopter. Did it prove to be superior to other contemporary designs in this job? Hell no, it was a stop gap after the Brits lost so many helicopters and it was better than nothing, but still a crappy little thing.

I’ve heard Mach 1.52 for EF when clean and 1.2 – 1.3 with 4 AMRRAM + 2 AIM-9 + 1 center drop tank. Are the actual values officially acknowledged? (Something demonstrated during the Singaporean Competition)

If it is official that the Su-35BM has already supercruised at Mach 1.1 when clean, guess that value would carry more weight….

Its still early days for the Su-35BM. We should get the clear picture (along with a kick-@$$ aerial demo) come MAKS 2009)

The Mach 1.3 for the stated configuration was at least told to me (and others) by a pilot, who was no test pilot and hence did fly “regular” aircraft. Germany operates its Eurofighters in northern Germany, where temperatures are rarely much more than standard day, but quite often less. Hot days would of course take their toll.

That a 30 year old design with a few upgrades can give the latest and greatest eurocanards a decent licking might be hard to digest, but stands as a tribute to a fantastic Russian design.

A radar&missile upgraded 1973 F-4F can kick the butt of a 1990s Suchoi 27.

Performance wise, they hardly seem to offer anything better than upgraded flankers and eagles! one surely doubts their competitiveness when compared against a su-35 or F-15SG. And surely they are nowhere close to dealing with 5G a/c such as raptor, pakfas etc.

“Performance-wise” the Eurofighter beats all mentioned aircraft. Considering its size (11.5t OEW, compared to most other being 14-15t++) it has exceptional payload/range, can carry versatile stores and will make an exceptional multi-role aircraft as soon as all weapons are integrated. As such, it is combines the versatility of the F-16C with the agility of the F-16A, the supersonic performance of the F-22. It offers roughly the same strike capability as an Tornado (minus low level).
What kind of radar you stick in the nose of an aircraft and what EW-suite you integrate is a different matter. The Russians sold the MiG-23 with MiG-21’s radar, making one of the most useless aircraft ever conceived (MiG-23MS).

I think at last I can understand why the Koreans or the Singaporeans went for the Eagles. Not only will these be supported by existing infrastructure and tactics but a jump to a 5G type makes far more sense. perhaps for similar reasons, the IAF MRCA will also go to the Russkies. Why waste money on 4.5 G types when a heavily upgraded legacy jet gives you the same results and you can get a 5th gen bird soon enough.

The times when aircraft got better each decade are over. There are no technology leaps any more, at least not in some areas. Turbo-fan equipped aircraft with good subsonic cruise, reasonable (F-15) agility and multi-role capability are possible since early/mid 80ies. If you require exactly such an aircraft, there is no real advantage of newer aircraft.

If you want to do basic air policing, F-16A is all you need.
If you want to strike you neighbor or take out his SAMs, take a Tornado ECR.
If you need a point interceptor, an F-15A or even F-4C would do a respectable job (maybe afford upgraded radars).

Why it needs to have low RCS if it can detect its eurofighter at longer distances and has better missiles than the ones currently operated by the Eurofighter, at BVR it has better radar and will fire all its missiles at once with enough time to runaway

They say they halved the RCS of the Suchoi 27, but they didn’t mention the original RCS. :diablo:
The Eurofighter itself is claimed to have some frontal aspect RCS features.

The problem with firing missiles at long range and then run away is that either you risk you missiles fall into nowhere as soon as your target changes direction or you give it some sort of mid course update. Otherwise you need to get close enough that your (active radar homing) missiles find its target when they leave the launch rail. Then you have used up any advantage by early detection.

That is just wishful thinking new materials at least make the Su-35BM in the same league of a Su-27 in order to slander Sukhoi you need a heavy fighter with less range or less weapons but that is just speculation to fit an theory of a less capable fighter.

Jump ahead and show me one aircraft where weight was saved without a sacrifice in some kind of capability (fuel, avionics). Even the B787 only saves a single digit percentage through “advanced” materials.
Empty weight does not equal operating empty weight, the pilot, gun ammo and fluids alone add half a ton at least.

I still wonder about Su-35’s electronic warfare suit, does anybody has idea what that will be? In BVR combat at first glance Su-35 has quite advantage, Irbis-E is the most powerful radar in its class, and it gives the advage of fully exploting missiles range. KS-172 will be very deadly missile not only for large ISR aircrafts but also fighter aircrafts. Su-35 will detect first any other Eurocanards, but if we assume that Eurocanard has good RWR system they might have extra seconds before Su-35 detect them. In order to fire KS-172 at 300km+ distance may require good situational awareness and also goog IFF and networking, probably before the fire Su-35 must %100 of sure that was the right aircraft, but again Irbis will have NCTR technologies to identify the target, but this technology is still not good at heavy jamming. Defensive aid suits will be main actors in BVR combat, probably manoverabelity of the aircrafts and their kinetic energy will be the other factors. So if the Eurocanards are detected in hi profile then they may tried to escape from KS-172, bu this time detection of KS-172 in long distance is required, or they move lower altidues in order to get terrain masking and to reduce effictiveness of oponents’ radar. In terminal phase Eurocanards will extensively use active jamming, chaffs and towed decoy; but KS-172 is not stupid missile it has lots of ECCM technics, so the situation is really complicated, but ıf the Eurocanards will survive in first shots, they may have chance to engage Meteor or AIM-120 but this time Su-35 also will fire R-77s so again the aircraft that has best defensive aid suits, has more kinetic energy and has also carrying more fuel will be probably winner.

Interesting that everybody takes this “300km+” missile thing for granted. In order to achieve a kill the missile needs to know where the target is in x minutes (x = flight time). That is easy if the target is running straight ahead without noticing the attacker. That is the least probable case. Normally such a missile can be tricked by just turning direction and fly opposite course for a minute.

Second thing: the 450kg heavy Phoenix achieved a 150km distance for a cooperative target (means: at launch the F-14 and target were 150km apart, closing in with a speed of 1000km/h; when the Phoenix hit the distance F-14 to target was 60km, so basically the Phoenix traveled about ~100km). Linear extrapolation would assume a weight of 3x 450kg = 1350kg. OK, let’s assume we save a few kilos by advanced material, electronics and smaller war head. But still, we have to add considerable for extra fuel due to extra fuel (knowledgeable people call this growth factor).

So, who would really get tricked by such a missile, and who would actually buy such a missile, put it in inventory and maintain it when the chance of a kill are so small?

To stay polite and for the benefits of others and the details yeah yeah the average Sukhoi Su-27P weights around 16000kg empty operating weight, why 15000kg will be too much to believe still it is a single engine fighter not a twin seater and with new materials you forget the Su-35BM carries more fuel so it must have had different structure and materials so a reduction in weight is possible and increased fuel capacity is a fact therefore a new internal lighter structure has been made.

The Su-35 weighst the same other single seat fighter Su-27 variants, yeah but carries more fuel use logic then it must haev a weight reduction and that is possible by changing materials

Considering the advertised rougher landing gear, the increased internal fuel, the 9g load factor and the increased life time, the aircraft must in fact be much heavier than before. A think an OEW of 18-20t is realistic. How fictive OEW claims can be becomes obvious when we look at the F-22.

I would like to know why they used canards for a while but now more or less returned to the original Suchoi 27 looking.

For the Su-35
Takeoff weight:
– normal kg 25,300
maximum, kg 34,500

Maximum internal fuel, kg 11,500
Normal internal fuel, kg *****

Sukhoi does not lie and do give all data in need to figure it out. 😀

Let’s assume:
2xR-27R1 + 2xR-73E plus pylons are about 500kg.
then the OEW of the Su-30MK is 19.1t.
With same dimensions we can assume the 400kg more in “normal” take-off weight is due to OEW increase or more fuel carried under “normal” conditions.
If we assume the same fraction of “normal” fuel to maximum fuel, we have 6.3t of fuel and therefore 18.5t OEW.

What always surprises me is the superior range claim.
With a normal load out of 8 missiles (assumed flat 1000kg) and full internal fuel,
the Eurofighter has
OEW: 11.5t, Fuel: 5t, TOW: 17.5t, Fuel Fraction: .29

the Suchoi 30MK has
OEW: 19.1t, Fuel 9.6t, TOW: 29.7t, Fuel Fraction: .32

So much better?

The Suchoi 35 looks more like a strengthened airframe to sustain the role it is supposed to fill. Beefed up engines will eat all the additional fuel, Suchoi reworked the flight controls and got rid of the funny looking but in the end only drag producing canards (Suchoi 30 with canards has top speed of Mach 1.9 clean).
I hardly doubt that with similar missile load the Suchoi 35 will enjoy any significant advantage over the Eurofighter in terms of
– ferry range
– CAP mission endurance
– air combat mission radius
– max Mach number with a2a payload (reheat)
– supercruise performance with a2a payload
– acceleration
– turn performance in general
– field performance
– a2g strike radius with precision weapons

If Brazil for example desperately asks for an AESA radar, well, I think it can get it on the Eurofighter, too. If necessary as retrofit.

As for the argentines, if they had weapons they could rely on and not compromised (non-western ones would have been ideal) they end game might well have been different.

If every bomb and missile that actually hit British ships had exploded, well, the Falklands would have been a disaster for the Royal Navy, with another 4 ships as probable total loss.