francThe Su-35BM is really not 4++ it’s more 4–.:diablo:
Your theory was confuted before where I forgot.
francYou have a strange combination of lack of knowledge and healthy self confidence.
To make it simple for you:
At launch both aircraft fly head on, noses point at each other.
Aircraft launches missile.
The distance the missile effectively travels is:
Distance at Launch – Flight Time * Target’s VelocityHere an example:
100nm distance at launch.
Target closes in with 500kts true air speed.
Missile flies Mach 4 on average.
At impact missile has flown 81.9nm in 130sec.
Target has flown the remaining 18.1nm itself.You can turn that around and assume the target is running.
Then the distance at launch drops by about 30 to 50%, very depending on the targets speed.One can easily see, that the distance between the two aircraft is not the missiles range. The often quoted 100nm distance for the Phoenix are exactly that distance. And to achieve it, it needs a very cooperative target.
Thanks for your reply, your calculation is quite practice. But according to what I known, the both of target and launcher are fixed for any missile test. so the range published is theoretic.
francwhat is VR?
And yes the su-30mki appears sluggish. It may be able to position itself very well, TVC, however from darting from one peice of the sky to the other, it does not look as good as even the F-16. Like a cheeta vs a bear.
Please do some research before you come to discuss maneuverability. I also can say F-22 APPEARS sluggish more, but is this meaningful?
francJust 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?
It is good for free more pylons to load weapons
F-15C is given with 1000nm radius for interdiction mission or a 5000km ferry range with CFTs and all wet hard points stuffed.
This is a data with CFTs, a very bad aerodynamic shape.
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.
francYes but significantly ? Which flew after 1980? Out of the 3 euro canards only the Typhoon can supercruise at a decent speed with a decent load and that is around mach 1.2-mach 1.3 with 6 missiles and extra fuel . The significant part about the F-22 is that it can do so with 8 missiles and at mach 1.7+ so that gives it an edge , the rest who came first is all stupid talk anyhow and hardly matters on how aircrafts perform ? So many aircrafts that flew after 1980 cannot supercruise . Can the Su-30 ? Can the F-16 block 60 ? Can the F-15K ? Can the LCA ? Can the J-10 ? Can the T-50?
Such count I saw before when somebody laugh at Russian were good at making Designation Number rather than design a new generation fighter, but now I saw it was created again. What a lot F-16 in this world, block 20/25/30/40……etc etc. each blocks are new generations or new designations just for stand place. Who can tell me how many MiG-21’s are there in this world, I didn’t mean product number, I mean a new designation.:D
francSecond 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?
What a math is this?:eek:
francThis thread is quite comical on how alot of people are down playing the Eurofighter. I’m going to stick up for the plane and set a few things straight.
Eurofighter can supercruise at mach 1.25, optimum conditions, loaded with 4 amraam’s, 2 asraam’s, and two wing mounted tanks. Removing these stores will enable higher, but not a significant amount.
Eurofighter has better climb, acceleration, sustained, and in some circumstances better instantaneous turn rates than su-35. It can consitently pull a sustaind 6.2g turn at mach 1.6, giving some indication of its supersonic agility performance. Only the F-22 beats it in certain areas in this place, not all.
Not having TVC in terms of MANOVERABILITY not AGILITY is only benefical at the very slow speed flight end, but if you have seen the eurofghter it basically behaves like it has it anyway, hence none of the partner nations really pushing for it, instead avanced short range missiles, IRIS-T, ASRAAM combined with helmet sight, enabling to pull nearly 50g will sort anything out! TVC does not improve agility, how quick the plane can move from one place to the other in a vector of space. An A380 is manoverable(how it can position itself in that vector of space but is it agile? No. They are completely different things. YEs the su-35 is relatively agile, but seeing it, it is still rather sluggish compared to fighter such as even the F-16.
Sluggish more compare to F-16? ???
Nonsense, please speak after thinking. The Su-30MKI even can did VR which I never saw F-16 did not even F-22.
francPilot clearly stated he could go faster in first flight but chose not to and still Su-30MK using afterburner cannot keep up with it. Su-35 performance can only be compared with F-22/MIG-31 both in range, non-afterurning performance and high altitude performance. Not some thing Eurcanards.
Please read what is so-called definition of supercruise in “F-22 internal fuel”. Now this capability seem to be done by most of jetfighters which flew after 80’s last century. The confusion I got was if so many fighters has already can done this capability, what made F-22 was so proud on speed aspect? :confused:
francМОСКВА, 2 июля. (АРМС-ТАСС). Су-35 превосходит по своим характеристикам истребители ведущих мировых производителей – “Мираж”, “Грипен”, “Хорнет” и др., а также состоящие на вооружении ВВС России Су- 27 и Су-30. Такое мнение высказал в интервью еженедельнику “Военно-промышленный курьер” летчик-испытатель Сергей Богдан после проведения серии полетов на этом новейшем боевом самолете компании “Сухой”, первый из которых состоялся 19 февраля этого года. Машина показала высокую устойчивость, управляемость и маневренность. Хорошо работает силовая установка. Перечисляя достоинства истребителя, пилот отметил увеличенный почти на 20% запас топлива во внутренних емкостях, что позволяет, по предварительным оценкам, увеличить дальность полетов до 4,5 тыс. км, а также работу бортового компьютера. Самолет воспринимается как очень комфортный: “мягкий”, в тоже время очень послушный, с прекрасными переходными характеристиками, энергичный при маневре, отмечает Сергей Богдан и называет создание Су-35 серьезным прорывом в области военного авиастроения.
MOSCOW, July 2. (ARMS-TASS). Su-35 surpasses its characteristics fighter world’s leading manufacturers – “Mirage”, “Gripen”, “Hornet” and others, as well as those arming the russian Force, the Su-27 and Su-30. The opinion was expressed in an interview with the weekly Military-Industrial Courier “pilot-test Sergei Bogdan after a series of flights on this new combat aircraft company Sukhoi, the first of which took place on 19 February this year. The machine showed high stability, manageability and agility. Good engine work. Listing the dignity of fighter aircraft, the pilot noted the increase of almost 20% in domestic fuel tanks, which allows, according to preliminary estimates, increase range up to 4.5 thousand flights km, as well as onboard computer. The aircraft is seen as very comfortable: “soft” at the same time very obedient, with excellent transient response, energetic, with manoeuvres, Sergei Bogdan notes and calls the creation of Su-35 major breakthrough in the field of military aircraft.
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=56749&cid=24
The F-18 is not comparabel to the Su-35BM, the Eurofighter is the closest in flight performace
Произвела приятные впечатления на летчика-испытателя и работа новых двигателей 117С с уникальной системой дистанционного управления СДУ-Д. Разработанная НПО “Сатурн” силовая установка имеет форсажную тягу в 14,5 тонны, что на 16 процентов больше по сравнению со стандартным двигателем АЛ-31Ф (первый летный экземпляр Су-35БМ с таким двигателем был продемонстрирован в 2007 году). Управляемый вектор тяги и экономичность 117С обеспечивают более высокую маневренность и дальность полета.
Двигатели 117С. Фото НПО “Сатурн”
При первом полете новый Су-35БМ сопровождал Су-30МК. Это позволило сравнить тяговые характеристики двигателей двух самолетов. Во время полета Су-35БМ выполнял разгон на максимальном бесфорсажном режиме, при этом пилоту самолета сопровождения приходилось использовать форсаж, периодически отставая от новой машины. В ходе последнего на данный момент полета (13 по счету!) летчиком-испытателем Сергеем Богданом были отмечены интересные особенности Су-35БМ – на бесфорсажном режиме самолет, находясь на небольшом сверхзвуке, продолжал разгоняться. Это означает, что машина при определенном весе и высотно-скоростном диапазоне способна переходить в так называемый “суперкрейсерский” режим полета (лететь на сверхзвуке без форсажа). Из всех серийных истребителей такой способностью обладают только МиГ-31 и F-22A RaptorThe Su-35BM made pleasant impression on the test pilot with its new engines at work 117 C with a unique system of remote control SDU-D. Designed by Saturn engine it has a max thrust of 14.5 tons at after burner, a 16 percent increase compared with the standard engine AL-31F (the first copy of flying Su-35BM this engine was demonstrated in 2007). Managed traction vector and cost 117 S provide greater maneuverability and range.
In the first flight of the new Su-35BM it was accompanied by Su-30MK. This allowed to compare the characteristics of traction of both engines of these two aircraft. During the flight of Su-35BM used its military power mode without afterburner, the pilot had to escort the Su-35 at afterburner periodically to keep pace with the new machine. During the last flight at this time (13 of the account!) Pilot-test Sergei Bogdan was particularly impressed – at military power without afterburner mode the aircraft, while on a small supersonic speed , continued accelerating. This means that the machine with a certain weight and height-speed range is able to move into the so-called “supercruise “ flight mode (fly at supersonic without afterburner). Of all the modern fighters only MiG-31 and F-22A Raptor have that capability
What capability is that? If my memory works right, somebody in that “F-22 internal fuel” thread defined what is supercruise. But now we can see either Russian did never admit supercruise so they put so-called in front of supercruise or they did think some their fighters also has such capability.
francSome sources quoting Sergei Bogdan claim the Su-35 can compete with the F-22, and the Eurofighter has a Mach 1.2 supercruise ability, the Su-35 is quoted to being able to supercruise at higher speeds and that is logic the 117s is an engine for the PAK FA. so it is specifications are set higher than those of the euroengine
MiG:
The so-called supercruise is a capability that only F-22 can do as somebody here claimed. And vaguely stated “can compete with F-22”, which was something untruthful.
francMiG:
If as they claimed the EF has some sort of suprcruise capability, then its flight envelop must contain the Su-35’s. Otherwise, Su-35 has no AESA which EF equiped. So we have to say EF must be superior than Su-35.
francNot to be rude, but unless there is a language barrier issue here, what is your problem? He explained perfectly what supercruise is, and even said that it is a brochure/marketing term first and foremost.
As it is understood today, supercruise is defined as crusing at a high speed, over mach 1, usually well over, without the use of afterburners.
Again if there is a language issue I apologize. I am not one of those ignorant Americans that expects everyone to speak and understand English perfectly.
But if it is a different issue, well I cant help ya out there, the premise of supercruise is very simple.
The word “moron” isn’t a rude word in your sight? I just asked what if AB wouldn’t be used/fitted, and he didn’t answer but the moron.:rolleyes:
francAnd exactly !!! Like i said Supercruise is a Brochure terminology not some Sceintific or physics terminology . Which part did you not understand ???
So, only you can understand the socalled supercruise.
and the concept of supercruise you understood even couldn’t be prescribed by yourself.
franccoincidence, me too.
francEF team uses similar definition —->
Also without afterburner employment a cruising flight with approx. Mach 1.5 is possible (Supercruise)
Is this your definition or their definition?
They said cruising flight without AB, and put the so-called supercruise in bracket
Do you know where a bracket normally be used? —–to Annotate an informal word！！！
Sign In
