Scorpion82When P1E comes in, it will be available to Tranche 1.
Are you sure? AFAIK the software will be converted to a new format to be used by the new RTOS. I’m not sure if this new RTOS is compatible with the current processors used by T1 examples. Not to say it would surprise me. I suppose at least some parts could be adopted in some form, but I don’t think that new RTOS will be compatible with the current processors.
But installing the new processors is EASY (they were prepared to do it for the Austrian T1 jets without any adjustment to the contract price) and even with the existing hardware, the P1E software and functionality can be hosted.
The reason why there was no adjustment to the contract price was that the Eurofighter GmbH couldn’t hold the promised delivery schedule for Austrian tranche 2 aircraft. They can hardly blame the Austrians for that, so they would have done it own there own expense to deliver the aircraft in the contracted configuration which was block 8.
Scorpion82When the four countries reduced their orders in the mid 90’s, how did they avoid having to make penalty payments to the manufacturers?
There were no orders in the mid 90s. There were just numbers specified by the 4 partners in the late 80s. These were revised as a consequence of the end of the cold war. As there were no firm orders no one had to pay penalties. This was just agreed for the production phase when the customers set orders.
Scorpion82@Pit,
thanks for the information, it cleared some things up. As of lately I really have to update my info on russian weapons.
BTW do you know why there exist different designations such as K-74M and R-74M?
Scorpion82T-10BM program is more than that, I’m afraid. The engine have been in the tests since 2004, the radar since 2006, and different pieces of avionics sisnce similar times, Su-35-1 is just the first aircraft prototype, and as such is not a definitive one, it doesn’t carry the MLWS (probably derived or similar to one used on MiG-35) that was recently advised, you could be sure it also doesn’t corresponds to aircraft quality finish, and I know first hand, nobody tolds me how a serial production Flanker looks, I have seen them, 1 meter (and some 30 cm) apart.
I know, that is common practise for most advanced combat aircraft to test specific technologies/components with other aircraft prior integration into the targeted platform, even before it exists. Nontheless the systems are often not fully developed and the difficulty lies in integrating all this stuff into a single airframe and bring it to work.
So we have to wait, unless somebody is crazy enough to buy a non-finished, 20 flights tested aircrafts. I could talk you about the Venezuelan Air Force plans, I know them, but would that made any difference?…
It would at least interesting to know when such customers like the Venezuelan Air Force intent to introduce the type. I read about the plans, but don’t know any details and AFAIK no contract has been signed so far.
It’s the same situation for the “somebody knows, we’re all sure” Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche-3 “final but not so final” configuration, till I miss the news sometimes, who should be understood because my interest on aircrafts is low. Not to talk on the so much rumoured, announced and never concreted Rafale versions sicne the times of the South Korean tender…would not we have right now a Rafale with AESA accord to some plans?
Lets say until 2012 the development roadmap for Rafale and Typhoon is funded and concrete, some things are likely for the future but they might be subject to change. Tranche 3 itself is just negotiated right now and that includes the capabilties/technologies being included.
Vympel (part of the TMC conglomerate) and NPO Novator (not part of it) says that and are working on such missiles. If TMC says at Farnborough that the rival’s product is paper-work and theirs is the holy grain of upper-star49 knowlodgement, you, as an smart boy as have desmotrated should get the correct assesment “it’s marketing issues between competitors, I don’t have seen yet a finished product, so let’s wait”.
I admit I haven’t read that carefully enough and missed the point that it was actually stated by the competition. My fault.
And yes, under GPV-2015, TMC is receiving funds for just that (the name of the program is Izdeliye 810 missile, based on Izd 610M missile that was per-se an evolved version of the K-37 that hit the tests and made some of the brochure-claim…after much pain on the airborne launch tests). Izd 810 is not planed for Su-35, but for PAK-FA, Su-35 use is spin-off.
Thanks for the info I’m not really up to date when it comes to Russian missile programs. The last sentence sounds a little bit confusing. Do you mean that as the weapon will be integrated into the PAK FA integration might be realised for the Su-35 as some kind of by product?
And is not a 200-Km range weapon (heck, even R-33 launched from MiG-31 from some fire-setup could outrange that numbers as was desmotrated in 1994 tests, not related to the famous K-37 tests), it’s a further-300 Km weapon…will we see it?
I meant the supposed R-77 derivate being marketed as a 200 km missile. That version with the new fins etc.. Izdeliye 800 as it seems.
Last month, TMC received export-permission for displaying and promoting new weapons, off course, in so much Star-49 babelfish and lost of time, most members of this forum don’t know about them, but they’re Kh-59MK2, Kh-59M2, Kh-59UShUEK, Kh-38ME/MLE/MAE/MKE and KAB-1500LG-F. We can discuss all those weapons later if you want.
Maybe better in the way of PMs or a seperate thread, but I’m definitely interested, though I roughly know those weapons, but not the versions.
Would be integrated when the russians decide to send Su-35 definitive prototype to Akhtubinsk for tests and weapons validation at the GLITS, probably after they finish the 4-aircrafts tests and some export-user decide to fund the weapon with a buy…want a prove?, check Damocles and Litening-II integration with Su-30MKI and MKA. They were done after and not before.
Well the Litening II and Damocles integration is somewhat different as these are foreign equipment. The question is will the Russian authorities allow the export of such advanced long range missiles? Ok the Russians sell a lot and most often sell downgraded versions…
You have to prove that with something better than just hot air from the main competitor of TMC, that says “hot air!” without arging. That’s an old PR trick, and you’re smart boy to see thorugh that. We don’t know.
As mentioned above, my fault because of overreading the important part and therefore missing the point.
Before Su-35 and Su-30MKI equiped with RLSU 30MK or Bars, there was no Flanker equiped with radar able to use such a kind of missile. In fact we know little what has Flanker carried or not carried on tests at Akhtubinsk, because such tests seems to be kept secret or obscure, or we don’t see the information here at west-european or US forums…or do you think those places really pack even 40% of the truth known on the CIS of what they do or left to do?
True, but recently the Russians are more open and they celebrate and sell such achievments to the public, though they mostly leave out the details which would be interesting. I suppose there would have been some announcement such as “Flanker fires new ultra long range super duper missile for the first time”. Of course I could be wrong, let’s wait and see. I’m just not very optimistic that we’ll see such a weapon that soon on any Flanker.
180 is a new missile, it’s what replaced the old K-77M program. It left the lattice tails because the ukrainian actuators were not the best they could find (they have now better electrical actuactors for that work) and they don’t want to know about Ukraine ever. The missile uses new pulse-to-pulse rocket (no ramjet, but ramjet is not end of the world) for a much improved range under different kinematic conditions. Seaker head and warhead is different, seaker head is a further development of the current 4th generation “Progress” seaker made by Agat and finished by 2002 (that could mean that Progress 250 mm seaker could be used on Izd 170-1/K-77-1, but that’s just an educated guess), russian acounts talk about active radar, HOJ and passive homing, not so difficult to made with their knowlodgement on all the basic technologies. Warhead is bigger and directional (similar to 9M96? who knows) and INS includes fiber-optics IMU (developed since 2001 at least) and GPS. This missile is slatted for Su-35 and PAK-FA, and IOC should be in the next decade, contrary to Izd 170-1 that was on state tests by 2007.
That’s the supposed 200 km missile I meant before. And thanks again for the details.
True, but do you expect to much from this kind of forums to enter areas where not everybody is fluent, you have to learn to kept your discuss at a low level so everybody could understand you, not so different on politics, if you start discussing on Rmax/1, Rmin/1, Raero, A-Pole, E-Pole, F-pole, FBR, and the such, you could better try with your friends at Luftwaffe because you will grown tired of not be able to comunicate with this audence…you have to mantain the SA of the scenary if you want a correct comunication, so stick to what people understands, and made sense of yourself. You seems to be able of that.
I basically agree, but I think it’s not bad to remind people on the fact that it’s not as easy as they think. You don’t need to be an expert to realise that things aren’t that simple. If you want discuss the details it’s ofcourse a different story.
greets
Scorpion
Scorpion82Summing things up…
To come back to the original topic Su-35 vs ECDs. I have to agree with the earlier conclusion from Trident. I think the Su-35 will be a quite advanced and capable fighter, the best Flanker ever and one of the best combat aircraft in the world. Sukhoi managed it to make an already impressive airframe even more capable and I think it is worth recognizing this achievement. Nonetheless people should start to see things a little bit more realistic and objective. Unfortunately the fanboys just live up to the marketing hype of the industry which is often spreaded by the customers as well. Of course these are the most reliable sources for public people and you can gather the most valueable and accurate data and information from there. But there is a difference between given facts and statements which reflect personal opinions which often have no factual base!
The Su-35 should be an even match for most if not all fighters currently fielded, excluding the F-22. But will the Su-35 be superior to the ECDs? Maybe! But maybe not!
Sticking with the facts, the Su-35 is so far just a single piece prototype in the flight test stage. I know that two further examples are supposed to join the test fleet this year and that Sukhoi plans to start series production as early as 2010, with first deliveries slated for 2011. But where are the customers? There are a number nations which have shown an interest in the type, but that doesn’t mean they are definitely going to order it. In a lot of press releases Russian officials claim that the RuAF will purchase an unknown number of Su-35, though a lot of different numbers are floating around. AFAIK no contract has been signed! Even if the Su-35 enters service in 2011, how probable is it that the aircraft will enter service in the configuration which is proposed by Sukhois marketing brochures? Looking at all the different advanced combat aircraft which were introduced in recent years all of them entered service in a basic configuration and it took a couple of years before their capabilities were fully developed…
And then there are the dubios super long range missiles. Sukhoi states there will be a new 200 km long range missile. It is supposed that this missile will be a development of the R-77, but where is that missile? Does it actually exist and when is it going to enter service and being integrated on the Su-35? As I understand it the KS-172 is nothing else than hot air, the R-37M exists in which form ever, but AFAIK no Flanker ever carried a version of the R-37. Is the integration of that weapon into the Su-35 fixed and if yes when is it going to happen. I wouldn’t wonder if the Su-35 won’t be able to use anything else than the stock R-77/RVV-AE for quite some time. And how likely is it that the Russians will sell those new long range missiles to export customers?
What most people forget about or I would even tend to say don’t know about is that aircombat is complex and depends on a varity of factors. Aircombat can’t be limited to a few factors such as radar or missile range performance. Of course there are factors which are more important than others, but in the end it is the combination of key paramters which defines how effective a fighter is.
The data/information which are released to the public are nothing else than specifications, which might give you an indication, but which aren’t neccessarily representive. Real world data might differ in both ways, being better but also worse. The most interesting details are unknown however because they are classified. With some background knowledge some people might know how things work and how things affect each other, they can make educated guesses but the results won’t be fully representive or accurate because there’re to many black holes!
No one knows what the exact performance is or how reliable the different sensors such as radars, IRST or threat warning devices like RWR/ESM and MAWS are. What about CM resistence… People speak about RCS values but those available to the public are rough estimates mostly representing the frontal RCS of a clean aircraft only, interesting would be the RCS from different aspect angles with various configurations. We know about some flight performance data such as theoretical top speed at sea level, high altitude or service ceiling etc., but the performance in combat configuration and in different regimes of the flight envelope is widely unknown. No one exactly knows how the MMI is going to work and how the avionics integration will affect the overall effectivness. What about NCW capabilities, so far nothing concrete is known about that for the Su-35, what about sensor fusion, it is reported that it is available for the Su-35, but details are unknown. Missile range performance is also just one issue, what about maneuver and seeker performance… You can see there are many unanswered questions and those unknown variables are going to have a significant impact.
To be continued…
Scorpion82Replacement of MIG-21 is LCA class fighter. It is the fast delivery, operational service, Price and increasing role that MKI is taking IAF along with more sophiticated standoff weopons that will matter at the end not some uncertain future projects at undeterminable price that will put futhre burden.
MMRCA is also intended to replace MiG-21 and the meanwhile outphased MiG-23. The MMRCA is supposed it complement the MKI not replace it as said before. No of the contenders is capable to lift of a Brahmos. So your points are moot.
Scorpion82You forget about licensing, documentaiton and factory setup costs and creating supply chain. This thing does not happen overnight. it take nearly a decade to creat logistical foot print from raw material to finish product. it is more than likely that total life cycle cost of EF are several times more than MKI project for IAF.
It will not be able to fire Brahmos. The best and most capable missile in India arsenal for all services and i doubt it can carry more than 3000lbs class weopons. and with upcoming klubir/kh-31PMK/kh-38/Kh-58/KAB-SE. The range and complexity of weopons available for MKI will be in totally different league than EF. i am not going into AAMs. so they will continue to invest in enhancing MKI.
When MKI is supplied now at such rate and with reasonable cost. i doubt IAF has Pilots for another big project and HAL has personal for another undertaking. It is operational conditions that will dictate the matter in the end. Traing/supporting for $100m fighter is not same as $5m MIG-21/MIG-27.
Seems you are unaware of the fact that the MMRCA contender is not intended to replace the MKI, but complement it and to replace the MiG-21 fleet. To sum it up bullsh!t. But what can we expect from you…:rolleyes:
Scorpion82I think you may be mistaken with this remark. On that basis (replacing 300+ Su-24 with 70 Su-34), it may be that the combat power of a single Su-34 is equal to that of some 5 older Su-24.
That article said some of the 300+ aircraft not all of them.
Scorpion82What kind of NCTR system does Captor employ?
Shape identification, probably complemented by normal compressor blade count.
@Jackonicko,
is there no plan to change designations for the block 8 aircraft such as block 8A or B or whatever? And has the RAF insisted to change designation to Typhoon FGR.6 and T.MK5 for block 8 aircraft or will they keep the FGR.4 and T.Mk3 designations?
@Jwcook
t states here its 600mm..
http://www.eurofighter.ch/800/de/eur…ik/captor.html
AMSAR was also 600mm.
Interesting, AFAIK the Gripens PS-05/A already has a 60 cm antenna, would surprise me if the Captor which is housed in a noticeably larger radome wouldn’t feature a larger antenna with a 70 cm diameter. I mean to remember that a Luftwaffe source indicated that diameter.
Another article about Typhoon and Oman from aviationweek:
Oman Nears Eurofighter Typhoon Deal
Douglas Barrie/Farnborough
Serious discussions are underway over the potential purchase of the Eurofighter Typhoon by the Royal Air Force of Oman.
The negotiations are believed to be at an advanced stage, with the aircraft being considered as a replacement for Oman’s Jaguar aircraft. It is not known whether the air force is looking at other combat aircraft types as an alternative to a Typhoon purchase.
In the region, Saudi Arabia has already committed to 72 Tranche 2 Typhoons, with interest in additional Tranche 3 aircraft. The first eight Saudi aircraft are now in final assembly at BAE System’s site at Warton in England.
http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/OMAN0717.xml&show=farn08
Scorpion82I mean to remember to read an article which discussed the outdated production facilities in Russian, with russian sources themself claiming that without heavy investment the entire industry could collaps.
BTW Star49,
you are wrong about the MiG-31 operating at higher altitudes, because its ceiling is 20600 m, while your imba Su-35 is going to fly at 30000 m… :-p
Scorpion82Irbis isn’t really that much newer than CAPTOR. It is essentially a more powerful, fine tuned Bars (which entered service around the same time as CAPTOR) that in turn is based on the N011 mechanically scanned radar intended for the original Su-35. CAPTOR/ECR-90 on the other hand has its roots in the Blue Vixen of similar design vintage.
The difference is not that big 🙂
Well Irbis was developed from 2004, while the Tranche 1 Captor-C went into production back in 1998. Irbis is not yet fielded and as it a lot of components were newly developed for that radar it is essentially a new radar in comparison to the BARS.
Scorpion82It’s quite interesting that the BARS is just able to do 15/4. That’s relative low for an ESA of that time. I wonder if the Irbis holds its promised 30/8. By all these discussion things such as MMI, sensor fusion, EWS, other sensors than radar etc. has been almost ignored.
It would be a shame for the Russians if the more than 10 years newer, significantly larger radar wouldn’t offer a better range performance than the Captor. The question is are these figures really that much higher, what about all the other factors which make out a radar such as ECCM, track quality, modes etc…
Scorpion82That’s something I’ve wondered about, because you do hear that a lot about the latest generation of targeting pods. But do they really? Are they purely imaging sensors (FLIRs) that, when pointed at an airborne target, can naturally be expected to provide as good an image as they would of a ground object? Or do they actually have A/A search modes where the system scans a pattern automatically and reports any contact it finds without the pilot having to slew the sensor around the sky manually? Because that’s what an IRST does, it’s like a passive “radar” in the IR rather than RF spectrum. In the Flanker, even the display format in the cockpit is the same, AFAIK.
If the Raptor escaped detection by a F-14D or a PIRATE equipped Typhoon that would be convincing, but I’m not sure about those targeting pods.
Agreed, AFAIK those pods can be slewed to the radar to provide ingle target track and identification, but there is no info about search functions available. IF the ATFLIR would really provide a complete IRST function I wonder why LM has been contracted to develope a podded IRST for the Super Hornet which will be integrated into a centre line 300 gallon tank. MAkes no sense if you ask me, and that’s also a reason why I doubt that those pods have a real sufficient scan/search capability like an IRST.
Which, if one reads the topic title, is kind of the point. I’m not sure who brought the F-22 into it, the Raptor is in a class of its own currently and will remain so until some other country manages to field a credible stealth capability. A clean Eurocanard may have a RCS of around 1m² rather than the 3m² that the Su-35 detects at 400km, but it should go without saying that clean fighters lose a BVR engagement by definition 😉
Against a non-VLO opponent though, the Irbis will create lots of headaches in combination with the Link16-ish datalink that Sukhoi intends to put on the Su-35BM. It will make terrain masking very hard to use effectively, because you are dealing with lots of sensors located all over the place rather than (or more accurately, in addition to) a relatively small number of AWACS aircraft or stationary GCI radars. That the Flanker advertises its position with this brute-force radar is not going to help you much if you are unable to approach within missile launch range without getting detected at obscene distances. Sure, a R-37M fired at maximum range is likely to miss any but the most incompetent enemy fighter, but it will put the adversary on the defensive straight away. This gives the Flanker the opportunity to dictate how the rest of the engagement is fought and prevent the enemy from exploiting his own advantages. You can run, but you can’t hide and even the running might not work because it isn’t the Flanker that locks you on radar which shoots but another, passive fighter that is receiving targeting data from it.
It is not invincible by any measure, but to act as though the Eurocanards would walk all over this new Flanker variant is frankly rediculous. Of course they have certain advantages in terms of efficiency, but given the vintage of their basic design and the price of asking, they’d better do!
What people continously ignore is the fact that the quoted range figure of Irbis is just in very best conditions and a special long range search mode where the radar will just slowly scan a limited slice of the sky. That’s not what you actually want if you have to keep SA. I have even some doubts that this range figure has been proven in praxis. And LINK16 for the Su-35 as proposed by the manufacturer is highly unlikely. Why should the west give away its datalink technologies to the Russians? This is clearly intended to be an option for export customers, I just doubt it will happen.
The F-22 has at least JTIDS which is LINK11 if I’m not wrong. MIDS/LINK16 was abandoned, but other options are examined.
About the missiles like R-37M or KS-172S-1 I’m still waiting for sources which show that these missiles are actually in production or fielded anywhere. The Russians sheered the old KS-172 back in the early 90s too, but it nvber materialised.
Scorpion82MIG-31 can maintain higher speeds and high altitude for greater time with 700kg class missiles than EF so it does not matter whether it is dry or not. Su-27 goes to 59000. Knaapo is conservative about data as they are not showing supercruise either like Npo Saturn
Doesn’t change the fact that the MiG-31 is just a 4th gen interceptor based on a 3rd gen design. Specialised but not really compareable at all.
Scorpion82talking about range is more important for an interceptor patrolling and trying to catch up intruders in remote areas, but for a fighter range is not so important because no one has an air to air missile of 4000km of range it is either you run away or you face the Su-35BM for the Eurofighter, if you choose to face the Su-35 also is what is the range of your best BVR missile and what is your detectability.
And you do assume that the Captor won’t be able to detect and track the Su-35 at distances beyond the engagement envelope?
You might have a lower RCS but if your enemy has a radar that still can detect you at longer range and has a missile capable of hitting your RCS is worthless.
If… And if ECM is completely useless…
Since both fighters have supercruise and missiles of long range the question what missile will be deployed when you fight if you deploy a Meteor and your enemy shorter range AA-10 well still the Eurofighter might win the battle, but if your enemy deploys new long range missiles or long range AA-10s the fight still is very even.
Yeah for sure the fight will be even with an 80s medium-long range missile against a 21t century long range missile. You are really funny…
However remember the Su-35BM now can deploy the R-27 of long range with a range of 110km and the Meteor still is in project
Interesting I have never seen the Su-35 prototype carrying any weapons at all. BTW don’t confuse max cinematical range of a missile with effective engagement range. Don’t consider real Eurofighters or any other aircraft to behave as cooperative as they did in the Sukhoi marketing animation video.
Sign In
