FloggerThe fact aside, that SK is related to export models. Su-27M is Su-35.
At the moment no Su-37 at hand, such modifed Su-35 was lost in accident.
The Su-27 ‘Flanker B’ is the most agile variant, similar MiG-21F13. Best wingload and thrust/weight-ratio. To compare fighters we have to look into empty equipped, without weapons and fuel. Which gives us a constant value to judge and compare fighters. Weapons and fuel are variables to add.
So we seldom find trustworthy values from producers/users, when ist comes to basic equipped or empty equipped weight. To be fair, it is no constant value and depends on how much extras in equip. are fitted, similar to your car.
The MiG-21bis is much more capable and offers a better ratio in AB-thrust, but still less agile in the classic sense. Canards at the lower speed-end and TVC over an wider range will give better directed thrust forces, but for some penalties too. The Su-35 have a better combat value, but true agility is limited, similar to F-16A and last block F-16C.
Sens According to what i know the Canards improve the Su-35 agility by an order of 1G, able to whistand 10Gs with no structural reinforcement, it`s lift /drag ratio during manouevers improved thanks to the Canards that reinvigorated the wing flow. So i did not believed that the Su-27SK was better might be more cost effective, a Su-30MKI has Thrust vectoring improving further those features
FloggerI will not ask where those data come from.
To reach 3680 km you have to have 10 tons of internal fuel.
Your MKI will take off at 24 tons to reach a T/W better 1:1.
What is the range than.
None is listening to each other and posting max numbers out of context to bolster his claim. Maybe good for ego, but it is of little help for others. 🙂
sens the Su-30 i feel is a better jet 25,600kg of thrust of the AL-31FPs in the Su-30MKI ensure a high TWR, with or without Thrust Vectoring the Su-30 is an agile fighter, i asked Yahoo25 to tell me if the FC-1 could do the Cobra, Kulbit or the Bell, i said the 110 degrees or 1８０ degrees pitch few jets can do it, and only the F-16VISTA or X-31 can do the Helicopter, Thrust Vectoring Nozzels help turning capability, the Su-30 can fire a ripple shot of eight AAMs at once and track 24 is not logic to think the FC-1 will beat the SU-30 at close range, in fact only the SD-10/R-77 is the only parity you can see among these jets but weapons load and better range ensure a total dominace on the inferior low tech FC-1, if both fire R-77 or SD-10 at each other the Su-30 will lauch six or eight the FC-1 four or two but no real adavntage beyound that you can find outside that in the FC-1 over the Su-30MKI also the AA-10 has a version with 130km named R-27TE making the Su-30 also superior in BVR
Floggerwhy are you not answering the list of questions that i posted? F-22 and Su-30 does not belong to same generations. One is higher TWR(1.3), supercruise and fully Stealth jet while the other is huge RCS, lower than 1 TWR , non-aesa white elephant. they cannot be compared in any shape or form.
the Su-30MKI empty weight 16,380kg and a Max range of 3680km and the AL-31 of 12,800kg so 24,000kg is not su much for a normal takeoff
FloggerYou better read the Russian airforce chief statements regarding Su-27SK program which he considered better than anyother export Flanker due new AL-31FM-2 engines, new digital FBW,EW suite, Same optrotronic system as Su-35 and weigh less than Su-35. So it is basically a Su-35 but without canards. But why you are avoiding my questions are they true or false
Yahoo25 you are going against the logic, the top Su-27 variant is the Su-37 and Su-30MKI, you are simply telling me a statement that does not go with the reality, the Indians got the must advanced Su-27 variant, the F-22 has Thrust vectoring and the AL-41 is the most advanced three dimensional thrust vectoring engine in the world and the Russians fitted those to the MiG-1.44 and Su-47 was to be fitted also with them why? because the thrust vectoring enhances the turning ability of any jet the F-16 VISTA can defeat any J-10 or FC-1 only becasue it has thrust vectoring and the Chinese know they will need Thrust vectoring to enhance the J-10 if the F-35 or F-16 are fitted with thrust vectoring engines and the F-16 VISTA can point it`s nose independently o f it`s flight path at any direction in the horizonatl and vertical the Su-30MKI can do the same you are simply saying things that have only sense to you but not to the F-22 designers or Su-30MKI makers
FloggerF-22 TVC are different. they are 2D square. Su-27 is lighter than MKI by 4 tons so Su-27SK upgrade is not getting them even with newer uprated engines.
Su-35 les agile than the Su-27, su-37 less agile than the Su-27 also new for me 😀 :rolleyes:
FloggerFirst you have avoided the question that i posted.
Cobra maneuver with what kind of weopons specially strike weopons? to evade any thing. FC-1 is under tests so assuming one way or the other is not accurate but that its agility will be better than F-16 in horizontal turns not in vertical.
TVC is used by those aircraft which are not by itself agile specially in turns. As MKI weight is 21 tone empty(26ton normal take off weight with normal fuel) so it needs TVC. I have already posted the AW&ST article about TVC for RD-133/RD-93 but this aircraft does not need TVC for its turn rates. It has enough agility for operational requirments. TVC needs maintainance after 250hrs which is not compatible with high mission rate of FC-1.
MiG-29OVT not agile uhmm…. 😮 Su-27 not agile uhmm….i did not know that, F-22 not agile new for me, so the Fc-1 is the most agile fighter ever
FloggerProvide figures for basis of this argument that FC-1 is less agile than Su-30. Just simple TWR ratio will reveal that both are the same. Su-30 has higher frontal cross section and heavier weight larger RCS and carries inferior russian weopons. the same the case with low MTBO russian radar.
okay you prove me the FC-1 can do the cobra maneuver, and has supermaneuvrability and has thrust vectoring and later you need to prove me that the AL-31 with thrust vectoring is inferior to the RD-33 and later you will to tell me who builds the avionics and head seeker for the SD-10 and who is selling the RD-33 i think is Zimbawe or perhaps Mexico or perhaps Costa Rica or Vietnam yes the RD-33 must be egyptian s not it Yahoo25 😀
FloggerFirst you assumed that 1200KM combat radius is with 3 fuel tanks and 2 BVR and 2 WVR so it means that this range included all kind of drag factors. secondly how can you assume 1500KM with 8 BVR for Su-30 when R-27 alone weighs 250 to 300KG and drag factor of 8 missiles on an aircraft. And how about Su-30 turn around time on ground?
You can see from my pictures that FC-1 airframe looks equal to F-16. So future increase in weopon stations and two BVRs on intake cannot be ruled out just like Gripen. another point how do you assume that FC-1 agility is less than Su-30? They change FC-1 intakes to side to improve high altitude interception versus F-16.
secondly you missed the most important factor that at extreme ranges there will be no GCI or AWACS support (AWACS range is usually 500KM) So how can a single Su-30 deals with 3 datalinked FC-1 when only one FC-1 will engage the su-30 the others will be ready for passive attack?
And also just a look at these future trends
1. The range of stand off weopons is increasing for ground attack so less need very very deep strike.
2. Compare the weight of Phoenix with Meteor weopons. Clearly missiles are becoming lighter. or AIM-120 to AIM-7.
3. Compare the range of F-16Block 60 AESA with non-AESA F-15C. they are almost equal. So radar size and weight is decreasing and performance is increasing.
4. Every airforce is trying to induct Tankers and AWACS which favors smaller large number of aircraft.So unless you can provide evidence the contrary to above trend you have already lost this debate.
you are utterly wrong if you think the Su-30MKI is less agile or even as agile as the FC-1, and come on the FC-1 is not match, is just a design exercise that has tried to give the best compromise but it is as good as a MiG-21-93 Bison operated by India in weaponry you
FloggerNonsense. The FC-1 can carry 3800kg, and one SD-10 is only 180kg.
also the AA-11 weights 100kg and the Su-30 can carry a max ordenance load of 8000kg under you logic the Su-30 should carry eighty AA-11 or or thirty two AA-10 Alamo since the Alamo weights 250kg in it`s lightest version why it does not carry so many missiles, well the hardpoints are designed to carry a certain number of weapons and a limited number of each type of weapon or fuel tank and avoid the less of drag that also affects speed and range have you ever seen a fighter decorated as a X`mas tree? the same applies to this J-8II that can carry 4000kg of ordanance, it`s air to air missiles as relativeli feathers but only carry few of them
FloggerYou again demonstrate little knowledge. You think that SAMs should be evaded? SAMs should be decoyed. Evasion is often not a very good idea because SAMs have proximity fuse. It does not matter if you evade them or not, when they get close, they blow, and no amount of evasive maneuver is going to escape the proximity effects of the explosion. Small SAMs like AAMs have maneuverability limits much greater than fighters (like over 35G) and their circuits do not suffer from blackouts like pilots. No matter how much G you can turn, the missile will always out turn and you will never escape its proximity blast.
you need to do both things decoy and evade SAMs and if possible out run them, a more agile fighter is an advantage rather than a shortcoming
FloggerMiG-23
FloggerJH-7A
FloggerThat actually induces more drag and reduces speed.
You do have to consider that FC-1’s aerodynamics, borrowing fromt he F-16’s, are also designed to bleed energy minimally, compared to the Flanker, which does bleed speed rather quickly (more so than an F-15 or Tomcat).
Mach 8.5Gs or 9Gs are not boundary limits. These are just ratings for routine use. Do you know what is that? It means you should not hit these numbers often. Most planes can go well past 9G for emergencies. The kind of situation you say like evading SAMs are emergencies and are not held by these limits. For that matter, routine G limitation use have the Hornet and the Ching Kuo pegged at 6.5G even though both airframes can take 9G. Just like in the CDF you have been corrected on this before. You apparently do not seem to understand maximum G overload vs. G limits under routine use.
Israel has lost more aircraft by SAMs than by fighters, SAMs are not emergencies but routine in time of war, the USAF also lost fighters to SAMs, war is a constant stressful routine having two crew helps rather than one pilot and SAMs can shoot down more Su-30MKIs or J-10 than any other thing
the routine G limits you are talking are in peace time when war is not a reality and in order to keep the airframe life to last the longest you need the less g forces applied to the airframe, but in time of war specially when you are flying against an Air Force as capable as yours the G limits are more often violated but 9Gs in the Su-30MKI are the human and airframe G load limits that offer in an operational Su-30 the best compromised with the airframe life and the pilot capacity to take`em, the Su-30MKI is a better fighter in capabilities either in the military or economic aspects that they represent, the FC-1 is not a true adversary fighters like the Su-30MKI or MiG-29OVT are ahead of many western or Chinese fighters but Russia`s current economic crisis has halted the true meaning in the Russian Air Force of this overwhemly superior jets over F-16s, JAS-39, J-10s or FC-1
FloggerSu-30 can hold 8 BVR, at least 6 R-77s and 2 R-27Rs. Fire control system limits it to using 6 R-77s but it can carry another pair of R-27Rs.
FC-1 can theoritically carry four SD-10s, as the pylons in the mid and inner wing appear strong enough for such. It is also possible that the plane can carry another two SD-10s in the centerline, using the same arrangement in the F-CK-1 Ching Kuo, one in the front and another in the back. You can also use in theory, a rack like that used in Hornets, which enables you to carry two BVRAAMs in one hardpoint.
50, 60, 70km range figures for missiles are useless since you will hardly expect to get a kill at that range. NEZs for missiles are much shorter, and planes are much more likely to shoot within the 20-30km range to assure greater chances of a kill.
even if the FC-1 carries six SD-10 it will add weight and reduce range to it`s minimun due to weight and lack of fuel tanks, air refuelling it`s an obvious solution but having a short legged jet
that needs to refuel constantly only eats up time and make it vulnerable besides geopardizing it`s tanker, the Su-30 will fly 3000km without fuel tanks and without spending all the time refuelling, the FC-1 is only comparable to the MiG-21-93 but definitively quit inferior to the Su-30MKI, the only jet i feel Pakistan can use as a true powerful light weight fighter is the J-10, which will turn up as capable as the F-16 but loaded with six SD-10 and three fuel tanks is as heavy as the late F-16s but has a less powerful engine unlike the late F-16s, also carrying so many missiles makes a larger radar signature unlike the F-35 that will remain invisible until the end and the time it fires it`s AMRAAMs and with two AMRAAM or Meteors will simply kill two or four J-10 by no losses, the F-16 is the only american fighter comparable to the J-10 and as capable as it specially the Block 60.
The greatness of the SU-30MKI and Su-35 is they do not need fuel tanks so all the harpoints are loaded with missiles unlike the light weight fighter such as the F-16 even in the Block 60 fitted with CFT and even the J-10 with three tanks in order to increase range only will carry two or four SD-10 to increase it`s range
FloggerDo you even understand the logic behind FC-1 program that you ask the same questions again and again?
If it is 80 to 85% as capable as F-16 in range and weopons and hard points than price of one F-16 is equal to 2.5 FC-1 interms of unit. So for the price of one F-16 you got 250% capability with same standard of avionics,BVR and WVR missiles.( i will give edge to AIM-120). And top speed of FC-1 is based on initial specification not the revised it is more likely to be Mach 2 versus Mach 1.9 of Su-30.
And how is new F-16 less capable than Su-30. F-16 with CFT has same range as Su-30, higher TWR, Better engine uptime, better weopons, smaller RCS and lower maintainance cost and with datalinks and new EW suite any F-16 can shoot down Su-30 with ease.It is official news from horse mouth. Notice the emphasis on 1/4th price tag, efficiency and fuel consumption.
At max range the FC-1 and Su-30 will have a weapons load relation as folllow: two SD-10 versus eight R-77, four R-73 versus two PL-5 so in weapons load the SU-30MKI equals to three FC-1 when both fighters are flying max range missions where is the 300% capability, and two sorties per one where is the advantages of that FC-1 so called low price
Sign In
