1MANBe that as it may, the point is that the Su-27 is not more capable than the F-15C in every way. Going strictly by the numbers, the Su-27 seems to be of a very similar level of technology indeed, with the exception of its more refined aerodynamics. The F-15C’s design is leaner and more powerful, while the Su-27’s design gives it some advantages of its own. However, with regard to the subject of external tankage vis-à-vis extra-large internal tankage, it seems that the use of external tankage can actually yield advantages in both performance and range under some circumstances, at the cost of taking up space for ordnance, as you pointed out.
More refined “aerodynamicly” is what makes it “leaner” than the F-15.
My comparison was limited to the merits of external fuel and the relative power of the two aircraft. Somebody suggested that the Su-27 is more powerful than the F-15C, but the opposite is actually true in most cases in terms of T/W.
Not according to the U.S.A.F. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
That is a rather vague statement made by an entity that has a strong interest in convincing the Pentagon and Congress to procure a next-generation air dominance fighter in greater numbers, namely the F-22. I happen to agree with them for many reasons that I won’t get into here, even though the F-15C upgraded with AESA and JHMCS would be a formidable platform for quite some time.
Yes the 18 F-15’s that have AESA/JHMCS’s are more formadible but not against the 24 Su-27SM’s.
Start of mission:
Obviously, some very simplistic assumptions are made for this hypothetical scenario, such as equivalent fuel burn rates, but their listed maximum ferry ranges in these configurations are fairly close, with the drag of the F-15C’s external tanks apparently balancing the additional thrust needed for the Su-27’s larger size.
It’s aerodynamic design is 1 of the features that helps “cuts” the fuel burn rate, from a normal fighter with another design.
The external fuel figure for the F-15C here looks strange–why should it be different from that of the F-15A? To me, it looks about right for two conformal tanks, but I’m talking about two external 610-gallon tanks (at 6.7 lbs/gallon for JP-8).
It may look strange to you but not to: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/
Ah, this means that the Su-27 carries around a bunch of space that it supposedly doesn’t use all of the time. Obviously, this is difficult to reconcile with the USAF doctrine of loading tactical aircraft full of fuel for every combat mission (you never know when it might come in handy).
Wrong during actual patrols/comabt practices it filled.
This is not something I had intended on getting into, but I doubt that the Su-35’s (probably the Su-30MK variants in the real world) radar is superior to the AESA that equips some (and eventually all) F-15Cs.
Acutally they’re descibing the Su-27 vs. the F-15 with the APG-63 v1’s of the 230 F-15 C/E only 18 have APG-63 v3’s (AESA)
1MANWell, the Su-27 is also significantly heavier than the F-15C, so while its higher fuel fraction with full internal fuel is a plus on its own, in order to match the F-15C’s power loading, the Su-27 must carry less fuel than the F-15C.
To illustrate, let’s set up a hypothetical scenario in which a Su-27 and an F-15C meet each other halfway between their airbases. The F-15C initially carries two 600-gallon external tanks (typical), which it drains completely and dumps as it reaches the combat zone, while the Su-27 burns off a similar amount of fuel from its internal tanks. At this time, the Su-27 has similar (actually slightly inferior) power loading as the F-15C with full internal tanks, making the fight more or less a fair one in terms of raw performance; however, the F-15C now has a better fuel fraction and greater combat persistence. This may seem ironic or counterintuitive at first, but it’s true by the numbers.
Comparing the fighters directly while loaded with full internal fuel is more problematic because the F-15C is a significantly leaner fighter, while the Su-27 is relatively heavy with internal fuel at takeoff. While we’re on the subject, another interesting comparison is the F-22 because it seems to combine the capabilities of the two. Its figures for empty weight and internal fuel are similar to those of the newer Flanker variants, but its stronger structure, more powerful engines, and greater lifting area allow it to perform more like the F-15C at takeoff, and it can also carry external tanks when needed.
I wouldn’t put my money on the F-15 going against the Su-27 if my life depended upon it.
The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
Range 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks. 3,100 nm (3,570 miles; 5745 km) ferry range with CFTs and drop tanks
2,400 nm (2,765 miles; 4445 km) with drop tanks
1,000 nm (1,150 mi; 1,853 km) Max Combat Radius
685 nm (790 miles; 1270 km) combat radius
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm
Range: 1,340km combat mission at sea level 3,530 km combat mission at high altitude (800 mi at sea level / 2070 mi at high altitude)
Range 1,500 km combat radius [typical] (Su-27)
1,800 km cruise radius
4,000 km maximum range
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-27.htm
So as you can see combat ranges favours the Su-27 and obviously so considering it’s a rather larger ( empty weight differ by 30%) plane with a significantly larger internal fuel carriage ability
Fuel Capacity (F-15A)
internal: 11,600 lb (5,260 kg)
external: 11,895 lb (5,395 kg)
(F-15C)
internal: 13,455 lb (6,105 kg)
external: 9,750 lb (4,425 kg)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/
Fuel 13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter~ drop tanks;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm
Maximum internal fuel, kg 9,400 (Su-27)
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/
Fuel in four integral tanks: three in the fuselage and one split between each outer wing. Max internal fuel capacity is approximately 11,775 litres (3,110 US gallons or 2,590 Imp gallons), while the normal operational fuel load is 6,600 litres (1,744 US gallons or 1,452 Imp gallons). The higher figure represents an internal auxiliary tank for missions in which manoeuvrability is not deemed important. There are no provisions for external fuel tanks, except in those versions where it is specifically indicated. The aircraft is fuelled by either pressure or gravity fuelling. An in-flight refuelling capability is optional, as the Su-27UB operated as buddy tanker during the development of the system.
http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-27
So given that it’s obvious which is going to go further and very probably faster….
In long-range encounters, with its superior radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
1MANThe S-500 should be in capabilities somewhere between THAAD and SM-3. (That is my assumption).
If you want to do an “BMD Umbrella”, you need first of all – besides enough range, obviously – a VERY good cross-shot capability. I mean, in theory you could intercept a BM with a Napoleon-era 18-pounder, you just have to place the ball in the right 4D location.
Looking at some basic termincal phase BMD parameters like system reaction time, engagement precision, and cross-shot angle the later is what enables a “BMD Umbrella” without you having to put too many batteries on the ground.
PAC-3 as a pure point defense system for example has to placed right on a potential target, its cross-shot angle is limited to collision-course intercepts, (also because of the short range).
THAAD and Arrow 2 are a little better, but still have to be positioned very close to, and under a potential flight path in pretty close vicinity of a potential target. Against the most demanding target they are designed against I’m pretty sure your battery position has to be a single-digit distance away from the flight path, although the missile performance would give you a little downwind flexibility.
SM-3 probably has the largest cross-shot angle, since it’s a midcourse interceptor. Not sure they did or will do any terminal phase intercept tests with it.
GBI is limited by its seeker to almost pure head-on intercepts.So if the Russians want an umbrella-BMD, the S-500 would have to combine THAAD with SM-3 capabilities. Long Range of course, but more so a VERY precise end-game.
What would be really interesting to see is a 4D plan view of the capabilities of the respective systems. But I guess that’s about the most secret stuff you can look at in BMD…
Russia has had ABM capabilities for 40+ years:
1MANAdd to that all the western equipment they would need to buy to replace all the ex soviet/russian gear and this could put them in deep debt… in addition to the old debt to Russia.
The SMT would not need western gear to replace it, it can do just fine, now if it was MiG-29A/B/C’s then yes replacement is needed.
1MANThat is my point, there is nothing to suggest that this is any more than the a TEL launched 3M14. Everything fits with that at the moment, the performance figures available thus far and the appearance of the modified TEL at MAKS-2007. I dont doubt that the 3M14 is a good missile but with a 500km range limit and the missiles that Russia has produced in the past this just seems somewhat underwhelming.
The reason being that these are defensive weapons not offensice weapons that Russia is selling.
1MANAlong with having some ideas of their own, it’s well known that the Soviets regularly tried to copy most things Western, from Concorde to the B1.
I’m scratching my head trying to think of the Soviet equivalent of one of the most iconic US machines of the 70s and 80s, in the shape of the F111.
There seems to be no direct copy in this instance. IS there a Soviet type which comes remotely close?
The Soviets didn’t copy them, thats a BIG misconception.
Planes can only be built in a certain way because of the “Laws of Areodynamics”, the best way I can explain it is to use this example: “If you want a plane to fly an X-Amount of speed you can only design it in a certain way, if you don’t want it to fall apart”
Russia can argue and say the F-86 is a copy of the MiG-15, or the F-22 is a more refined copy of the MiG-31, for example the Tu-144 was designed and built before the “Concord”
and BTW the Su-24 is Russia’s version of the A-10 Groundfighter, not F-14.
Sign In
