Scorpion82Let alone they just said 6 F-22 at a time not in the entire scenaio.
Scorpion82That F-18C is no match of without FBW MIG-29 let alone Su-27
In terms of raw flight performance the MiG-29 and Su-27 enjoy advantages in certain areas, but that wasn’t the question. You claimed there was no twin engined unstable FBW aircraft in the west and that is definitely wrong.
U said 10 years. Late 90s is not 10 years. There is that 400 MIG-31 that has every thing for BVR. Su-27SM is more multirole upgrade. Russian does not need to reveal about 5th generation qualities which are not available for export.
My fault it was a type I mean late 80s. This shows that you have NO idea of western fighters at all.
MIG-29 of 1983 and price of $3m has range of 1500km not MIG-29K of 2008.
3 m$? For a used aircraft maybe. This example should just underline that you are comparing apples with oranges, but you are incapble to understand such simple things.
early 90s F-15/F-16 hardly has more range than Su-27 of those times.
Who spoke about more range for those aircraft? No one so what’s your point?
If Russians produce $100m MIG-29 just like EF price . It will be flying in Space. u will need space suits to operate it.
LOOOOOLLLLLL
Practically unlimited upgrade potential. u cannot compare limited fighter EF with MIG-29. Thats Why MIG-29 got AESA/TVC twin IRST but not EF.
LOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL.
I really don’t know if it is just pur stupidness or ignorance or maybe a combination of both, but you guy are really unique in claiming bullsh!t*infinite
Scorpion82Wasn’t the AL-41F1 going to have 155 kN instead of 175 kN which was for the larger and heavier MiG MFI and Su-47? If not so provide an up to date source which confirms this!
It is clearly special to create such low cost upgrade with increase thrust and engine life and still can be applied to exiting aircraft without modification and that without taking single dollar from national budget.
I speak about operational capabilities and in that area the Su-27SM is NOTHING special in comparison to other operational fighters. National budget or not the development has been paid by the Chinese as the Su-27SMs avionics are widely based on the Su-30MKK. Money is money from where it comes doesn’t matter.
Scorpion82u have serious problem in reading AL-31FM history. u can basically upgrade any flanker with it to 13.5 tons at low cost and twice the service life. Try to put late model F-16C engine into F-16A MLU.
I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with you troll presenting every fart, be it yet so small as upper magic for your beloved russian warplanes. I’m personally very interested in Russian AC as well at least the MiG-29 and Su-27 family, but my interest is not just limited to those aircraft and while others stick with facts and maintain at least a bit objectivness (though not every one) you are clearly a completely biased boy with a great not to say huge fantasy about Russian wonder weapons, which are nothing special in reality.
Scorpion82Why make wrong statement. In 1992 Western Fighter have no IRST and there was hardly FBW unstable twin engine fighter. Very limited fighters with Active BVR missiles. And application of HMS with high offbore sight missiles were practically nonexistent. there were only heavier CRT displays. Even EF displays from late 90s are CRT. Simply u cannot make claim that EF is second best to F-22 in performance where all it has shown untill this point is sluggishness. Even 185km radar range is here say along with its 2600km range on internal fuel.
F/A-18 unstable twin engined FBW fighter with FULL digital FBW unlike the Su-27.
AMRAAM was already supported by all F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 from the late 90s. Which OPERATIONAL Russian design was able to use it? 16 MiG-29S from 1994 wow. The Su-27 had no MFDs at, its radar was by no means impressive and it lacked any sufficient multirole capabilities. The Su-27SM just introduces upgrades similar to what has been available to western fighters since the late 80s, except a few specific things. There is NOTHING special on the Su-27SM at all and it is hardly compareable to any 5th gen design, by NO MEANS.
N-001 has a tracking range of 100 km against a fighter sized target and it is still used on the Su-27SM…. Wow. MiG-29 has a range of just 1500 km despite being even larger than the EF. You compare apples with oranges.Your point is you have no point just being a fan boy who has a huge fantasy and spams it around as given fact.
Scorpion82There is more stuff about SU-27SM when engine was not fully developed to 13.5tons. Sukhoi was working on supersonice speed. No one has seen AL-31FM-1 power Su-27SM at airshow as it was delivered from 2007.
Wow they finally introduced a 800 kg stronger version of an engine which is in service since more than 20 years. The F100 which was originally a 10.8 t thrust engine achieved that figure in the early 90s, meaning more than 15 years earlier and the thrust increase was 2.4 t.
Scorpion82EF is certianly not second best to F-22 in acceleration, turn rate, climb rates etc. There is some thing called Su-27SM. It has 27 tons of thrust. lighter than original Su-27SK. New FBW, LCD etc. In aerodynamics aspects nothing short than 5th generation. unless comparable performance is not made. there is no point making claims.
ROFL, the russians finally upgraded their Su-27 to the standard where western fighters were upgraded 10 years before and yet you claim it’s compareable to a 5th gen fighter.
Prove the Su-27SM is lighter and has new FBW and don’t comes with “the new electronics will save 1000 tons of weight” 🙄
Scorpion82I have some from 2000 or so where DA2 is already painted black on my HD. There some videos which include the footage on the net. A discovery channel documentation with Craig Penrice in interview. Just do a google video, myvideo or youtube search. These of DA2 and DA5 I have seen (some also in reality) were really impressive. I saw IPA3 on one unopened military event performing a short but quite impressive show. The displays flown by the SPAs were much less spectacular than those mentioned before and if someone has only seen those, I can easily understand why they think that the Typhoon is sluggish or what else.
Scorpion82Ur making too many assumptions. why should be 400KM billistic range. when ULRAAM is 4 times heavier than MRAAM? Second u dont know 3D TVC performance so why asssume it is not for BVR escape? Third. SU-27SM range has been increased both in radar and weopons compared to MKI/MK and it directly comes from Ruaf Chief. The statement is right on this forum. So the same procedure assumption will be true for Su-35 Vs Su-27SM2
Fourth. EF hasnt officiall released brochure of 185Km tracking range or openly stating supercruse. Sukhoi test pilot is now backed but by Sukhoi now for amazing supercruise ability from various heights of 5 to 11km. EF people are just not confident about so it is all hear say. fifth. Groud based radars are more powerful but fighter radars can look further due to altitude and MIG-31BM/Su-35 are powrful fighters. Radar power of 3 to 6 times of EF is not out of reach. sixth. There is massive internal fuel capacity. So it can actually utlize its supercruise ability at considerable distance after required altitude is achieved.
Yeah for sure the good old N-001 must of course be better than the 15 years newer N-011M. And if RuAF bliblablub General XYkowski says the world is not curved you’ll believe it as well huh? What comes next? Ah I forgot the Su-35 is a space cruiser with laser weapons and phazors. And it will pull 100 g at hypersonic speeds thanks to its super duper 3-D TVC…
Scorpion82Talk about long range solution for AAM missile a integrate rocket/ramjet solution is far better solution than KS-172 only solid fuel missile because of the low volume/low weight advantage and the end game energy that a ramjet can sustain compared to solid fuel types.
Nah it can’t be better, because its just used on a European product, not on a Russian one, therefore it must be worth.;)
Scorpion82Look at other AC, further developed with newer tech and even new materials they are still heavier than the original airframes.
25.3 t is the normal TOW for the Su-35 with 2 R-73E & 2 R-77 according the Su-35 Knaapo brochure. Assuming a 60 % fuel figure as it is common for the Flanker series. Empty weight is around 17 t (taking gun ammunition, the pilot, fluids etc into account and that’s already very optimistic. To be fair the fuel load in that configuration hasn’t been disclosed, but its highly unlikely that the Su-35 just weights 14.5 t as does the F/A-18E/F.
For engine thrust it states:
Thrust, kilogram-force:
special mode 14,500
combat mode
“full afterburning” 14,000
That’s from the same brochure!
Scorpion82Even the fighter you saw in airshow was Block 5 fighter, the maximal upper G and AoA limitations for it are still 9.0G and 29.5 degrees,
May I ask from where the AoA figure comes from?
@Typhoon1,
your empty weight and fuel load data are far away from being up to date.
Scorpion82highly unlikely, but has Rafale been able to supercruise with standard A2A config?
According a MN pilot he supercruised with 4 MICAs and a centreline tank at 40k ft, at an unspecified speed and time.
Scorpion82You have to account that the Rafales were mainly on strike missions, in such a situation you are not necessarily in the best position for AA. I don’t think there were much looses for the Rafale force caused by “enemy” fighters. But an air defense system is clearly ground to air. If they only said to air defences or 0 looses at all it might be a different story.
Scorpion82AND
AND
The data for the su-30 comes from sukhoi.org, fas.org and bharat-rakshak.com. before dissing whats written as nonsense, please try to understand it. I never said that an MKI will have greater range than a tiffy with similar fuel, the point I made is, an MKI will have greater range than a tiffy with a similar percentage of fuel carried (60%).
You do. Lets just compare.
Typhoons range on max internal fuel (~5 t) is 2600 km. Su-30MKI is said to fly some 3000 km with 60% of fuel (5,2 t+). That means almost the same fuel load but ~500 km range difference. How could that be? The SFC is almost the same (~0.75 kg/kg/h) for both engines, the AL-31FP is yet stronger meaning, it will consume more fuel due the higher thrust. The Su-30MKI weights around 19 t empty and is considerably larger and also draggier than the Typhoon, how does it come that the Su-30MKI still has a longer range? That is simply unrealistic! All earlier sources suggested that the max range of the Su-27 on internal fuel (9.4 t) is about 3680 km to 4000 km according different sources. How does it come that all the new figures relate to the 60% figure? Half the fuel, heavier and even draggier yet just a 25% or so decrease in range? Questionable!
There is also no reason to compare the Typhoon on half internal fuel, unlike the Flanker whose performance is known to be heavily compromised with max internal fuel (due CG issues) the Typhoon is designed to achieve max performance with full internal fuel. Of course is the range of the Flanker longer on internal fuel in general, it was designed as a long range platform.
Another question, explain me this from the Sukhoi brochure for the Su-35:
Range with maximal fuel load, km
– Н=0, М=0.7 1,580
– Нcr, М cr 3,600
Read max range on max internal fuel. How could it be that the Su-30MKI achieves 3000 km with less than half the fuel load, yet weighting more and being more draggy? Clearly contradicting!
Sign In
