Heard of ear plugs? :p

I’d personally wear more protection than just ear plugs. That guy is never going to get the plugs out now–they probably got pushed past his eardrums. 🙂

I don’t think that the extra .6m is accounted for by the diameter of those pods ??

Anyone know the diameter of a Sorbtsya pod ??

I don’t have an official figure, but 0.6 m looks about right for the two pods together, for what it’s worth.

Funny that they have never ‘included’ the pods when quoting the overall span before – only the wingtip rails.

It would be a departure, but then again, maybe the pods are considered a standard feature now.

Maybe I’m just getting too anal about these things? 😮

I don’t know, but it bugs me how the engineers keep messing with the rudder design–they’re the ones who are anal! 😉

reprofiled cockpit canopy(?)- pilot seems to ‘sit’ higher;

The exterior of the cockpit and canopy look unchanged to me. Perhaps they just have taller pilots now. 🙂

Anyway, it was to be Su-27BM for ‘home’ use (RusAF) and Su-35 for export (without the BM suffix).

It’s also widely known as the Su-35BM, at least on the Internet.

It also has something embedded in the windscreen…..

I took this at MAKS last August…..

Heating element ??

It could be an antenna of some sort, or a way of measuring the buildup of static charge.

Plasma Stealth generator ??:eek:

Very funny…. 🙂

Just how far can they go though redesigning the internals of the flanker, i mean surly everything is already where it should be, i mean its not like they can put the engines some place differant and things like the fuel areas will already be optimised, i can understand minor structual redesigns these days say inside the wings etc altering the layouts of wing spars or whatever optimally using new materials and better computer aided design help but i’m somewhat puzzled on just how far they can alter a winning design like this so radically, hope you get what i mean.

I get what you mean. Sukhoi probably didn’t do much more than you suggest here–it’s effectively like going back to when the Su-27 was first designed and doing an additional internal design iteration using modern materials and techniques. However, this did result in increasing the internal fuel capacity by a couple of tonnes, which is quite significant, as well as achieving a substantial savings in operational empty airframe weight (although no official figure has been given, to my knowledge). Externally, they went back to the original Su-27 vertical stabilizers (I’ve always liked the characteristic “raked” look anyway), did away with the canards, and slightly increased the size of the intakes for greater airflow. Most everything else they upgraded has to do with the avionics (all new I believe) and engines; additionally, there are weapon upgrade projects being done in parallel. If this is indeed the final Flanker variant, Sukhoi are doing all they can to ensure that it will go out on top as the greatest “fourth generation” fighter, despite the new contenders. Of course, there are some who would dispute this. 😉

The fixed fin is more-or-less the same as the ‘standard’ Su-27 – but the chord of the rudder is greatly increased…..

The bottom-rear corner of the rudder also appears to be slightly clipped, unlike the rudder in the diagram and on the Su-27KUB itself. It’s sort of like a cross between the rudders of the Su-27KUB and the Su-30MKI.

Thing is guys it might not be perfect but i bet its still a hell of a combat jet capable of giving 95% of whats out there a run for there money. Certainly still an extremely capable A-G striker too with a huge range of weapons to boot.

This is certainly worth pointing out, but LM’s marketing is just too “rich” to pass on heckling. Even the phrasing is weird: “No Wonder All Other Fighter Aircraft Try To Compare Themselves to the F-16.” Yes, I’m sure that other fighters–the aircraft themselves–are extremely envious. 😉 And how about “Nothing Compares Because Nothing Can Compare”–please stop, I’m dying! 😀 The brochure doesn’t seem to have been written by an American, but if it was, then that would be even funnier. With all of the crap I’ve given to Russian officials for their outrageous claims, I have to be fair now when LM’s doing it.

Well to be honest the USAF wouldn’t go far wrong but to buy some more F16 and F15 for that matter. The fighter fleet is in crisis at the moment and it would be the quickest route to solve some problems.

The quickest band-aid isn’t always the best. While LockMart may apparently consider the latest F-16 variant tantamount to Prometheus bringing fire from the gods down to us mere mortals, the USAF thinks they’re obsolescent at best.

And as for LM’s brochure, it’s even worse than Eurofighter’s “Nothing Comes Close”–how embarrassing! 😮 Geez, act like you’ve sold a plane or two before. :rolleyes:

There was no meantion of stores and the description seems to be focused on the how they worked on intake and treated the exposed engine blades with RAm etc. The 15m RCS was most likely the result of the Russians not doing anything to try and reduce RCS in the orginial flanker, so a lot of fairly simple measures were likely to have yielded much higher the usual gains.

In such cases, applying some -10 dB RAM on the first-stage fan blades can do wonders for a fighter’s overall RCS. It’s interesting that the Chinese and Russians (with the Su-35BM) have opted for RAM on the engine itself for retrofits while the Americans have opted for radar blockers. The tradeoffs may be somewhat different, and I’m not sure which method is better overall (due to lack of hard data).

But it still shows a lot of capabilities in that regard, which makes it seem unlikely that this was the first attempt made by the Chinese at RCS reduction. Since much of the technology used to modify the baseline Su27 into the J11B came from the J10, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest a very high probability that RCS reduction techniques were also transfered.

No doubt, especially in developing RAM that can be applied to moving engine parts–I wasn’t questioning anybody’s capabilities. 🙂

Yet the typhoon and superbug both boasts of having very small RCS. I’m not talking about F22 level RCS reduction, but certainly a lot smaller then most 3rd gen figthers.

I question a lot of things, including the levels of RCS reduction of the Typhoon and Super Hornet, so it is reassuring when I can actually see some visible features, that’s all. By the way, Sukhoi has explicitly acknowledged the issue of external stores, and claim to be working on reducing the RCS of the stores themselves and the pylons; it’ll be interesting to see whether anything tangible comes out of this for Russian fighters (aside from weapon bays on the PAK-FA). So far, there’s the R-77 redesign (conventional instead of lattice fins), although that could be for other reasons, as well.

Although one important think both those planes hold over the J10 is semi-recessed body hardpoints that allow them to carry at least 4 AAMs without having to suffer much RCS increases as would be the case when using pylons.

That’s a good observation (albeit the Super Hornet only has four if you count the wingtip rails), although it’s just one factor. I still wonder about the Typhoon’s intakes, which may or may not hide the engines well.

On a side note regarding semi-recessed missiles, I couldn’t help but smile when I read a website that said or implied that the Su-27 hid missiles from radar in the “tunnel” between its nacelles like the F-14. 🙂 I’m sure this was done just because it was convenient and good for drag–sure enough, the F-4, F-15, and other older fighters also have semi-recessed carriage of some sort (the F-106 even had internal bays just to reduce drag)–but these days, the hot topic is RCS.

That means those two planes probably has a more practical advantage to their RCS reduction measures.

Yes, “probably” in the sense that the measures are more visible to the eye–that’s what I was originally getting at. Official statements that are more specific than the ones we usually get would also suffice, but these are rare.

Also, I would be wary of judging a plane’s stealthiness just on appearences. Aside from the sawtooth doors, the F22 and F35 don’t really strike anyone as having a ‘distinctively stealthy’ appearence, but there is no doubting that they are ghosts on the radar.

Well, their overall configurations may be pretty conventional, but their stealth is still quite visible, especially on the F-22. If you look at the attached image of the F-22’s unusual canopy, you can clearly see how it is aligned with the slope and contour of the fuselage, which is not something you’d likely see on a non-VLO fighter. The second attached image shows the strange shaping that is present on the seams of all of its flaps. We all may have a different idea of what “stealthy” looks like aesthetically, but if you’re familiar enough with the actual principles involved, the F-22 and F-35 do indeed look stealthy, and quite completely so (which is key). Of course, only computer calculations, actual RCS testing, and ultimately combat can reveal the truth, as my SR-71 example showed.

Well there is actually pictures of the PLAAF experienting with tinted canopies some time ago, as can be seen with this J11 pic.

So the PLAAF likely rejected the idea either because it was not deemed to be effective enough to justify the cost, or it could be that the material was not up to standard.

Right, that’s pretty much what I said in the first paragraph of my last post. Perhaps I appeared to contradict myself later on, but that’s just poor writing on my part–there are a lot of factors at play here.

It is also possible that they only just developed the tech, and it will be applied in the future.

Good point–however the J-10’s RCS turns out now, it can still get better.

However, tinted canopies is just a minor issue when it comes to stealthiness,

For “reduced-RCS” fighters, anyway–an uncoated canopy would destroy the F-22’s stealth. 😉

there are many other factors that will effect the plane’s RCS and judging a plane’s RCS just on tinted windows is not very sensible.

Agreed, I was just pointing out something that was missing that raised some questions. Even the YF-23, for example, is not above criticism–in another thread, I showed a picture indicating that contrary to popular belief, its intake S-ducts do not hide its engines from all frontal angles, and another that showed that this issue was addressed in the production F-23. And do you want to know about a visible flaw in the F-22’s stealth? Two of its air data probes protrude from either side of the forward fuselage near the nose (one of which is visible in the first attached image). They were all supposed to be flush with the skin, but there was not enough time to get these two working right in conjunction with all of the flight testing that needed to be done, so they were left this way, and are now the largest single contributor to the F-22’s frontal RCS (the F-35 has the same issue–maybe it’s just extremely difficult to solve). I guess this leaves some room for improvement in the future.

You claims maybe true,

Not to nitpick, but rather than claims, they’re really just possibilities to keep in mind regarding a system, the F-35, about which we currently know quite little.

when it comes to the export-variants of the F-35, but what will be used in different US Blocks is still open for guessing.

Hmmm…are you differentiating between the US and all other countries, or the US + JSF partners and everyone else who comes along later? Either way, any such differences could cause issues with interoperability.

We have to keep in mind, that the F-35 is a decade younger in technology with all the gains related to that.

While that’s true, the biggest caveat is physics–you need to devote some internal space to mitigate some classes of threat, and the F-35 seems to be maxed out on space for fuel and weapon bays. The F-22 had received a number of stealth upgrades during its development while losing a considerable amount of fuel capacity and gaining a lot of weight. Admittedly, this could have been a coincidence, and I might be going out on a limb in this case, but with some luck we may learn the truth someday. 🙂

Maybe you remember my question to the US-members living not far from F-22 ABs, if the F-22 is operated subsonic in general.

It has to be subsonic near residential areas, regardless of its intended use (which is almost always subsonic in any case). There are only a few areas where the F-22 can go supersonic over a considerable distance. The last I’ve heard is that supercruise was used during Red Flag to leave, refuel, and reenter the combat zone quickly in order to provide continuous sensor coverage for ongoing training operations (strike packages wanted the F-22s present even after the F-22s had expended all of their simulated AIM-120s). Most operations in combat will be at subsonic speeds most of the time, as well, in order to save fuel. Supercruise has its uses, giving the F-22 a decent supersonic dash capability while maintaining adequate range and combat reserves, but I was thinking more in terms of what this fighter could do in the heat of combat in full afterburner.

Air combat is no air-race, just to be in a firing position at a given moment. That is achived by stealth and SA at first. The AIM-120* is the one to fly-out and kill the opponent.

That’s the ideal scenario, but in real combat even current fighters often accelerate in full afterburner in preparation to launch their missiles–this not only gives their missiles greater energy but could help the fighters better position themselves for follow-up shots or to escape if necessary. In terms of acceleration when already at high speed, acceleration at high altitudes, and turning capability at high speeds and altitudes, the F-22 greatly excels over other fighters (except perhaps the Typhoon when it’s reasonably clean). I hate to admit this, but real combat just doesn’t look anything like the scenarios that F-22 supporters themselves typically describe–the F-22 will have to prove that it can be so easy (I believe that it will have some measure of success, but not complete success). Until it does, I’m glad that it has such great flight performance, and so is the USAF.

Such weapons do not chase something, but go for a mathematical hitting point somewhere in the space, where the opponent will show-up at a calculated time. As long as you has no idea, where that is, you can not outfly that. You have to change course in some way at all to spoil the calculations some way, when alerted in time and hope for your EW-suit to deal with that threat too.

Yes, and the F-22 as well as many other fighters do have the capability to defend themselves from missiles to a greater or lesser degree. I expect other fighters to be able to defeat AIM-120s more often than most people would like to think, and I expect the F-22 to be even better at defeating the much fewer shots that its adversaries will be able to take at it. I don’t know about you, but this sounds a lot more realistic to me–combat is messy, which is a fact that I usually try to deny as much as I can, and would like to go back to doing. 😉

A stealth fighter itself is a tough target for every seeker-head of an AAM. The highest threat may come from that with an advanced optical seeker head. (Something like Phyton and Iris) But let the enemy come that close is a lack of SA at all.

Agreed on all points. And whether it’s “messy” or not, air-to-air combat against the F-22 is likely to be a one-sided bloodbath. It’s air defenses that scare me because of the wider range of systems and capabilities they can field. I hope that the F-35 will be nearly as survivable as its big brother, but we’ll have to wait and see on that. If they’re smart, the USAF will play up the F-22’s capabilities and let the public assume whatever they want about the F-35, but unfortunately for them, this is no way to get more F-22s, and they want more F-22s.

The J-10 will most likely have a lower RCS due to its smaller size but hanging stores on it as you probably know, will negate much of these advantages, especially with a big radar on the J-11 and J-11B

it’s more than that, it’s engine intake completely hides the blades,

It’s impossible to tell from the pictures I’ve seen, but at least the duct is long enough for this to be true. Overall, the level of RCS reduction depends on how much thought and effort was put into it, which we can’t always see. Also, since detection range varies as the fourth root of RCS, the J-10 would need a relatively large amount of RCS reduction to overcome a much smaller advantage in radar capability by its opponent. This is difficult to accomplish when carrying external stores because the combined RCS of the stores, their pylons, and their interaction with the airframe can overwhelm the efforts to reduce the RCS of the airframe alone.

the intakes are not simple square boxes, the upper part curves and generally speaking, it seems less 90 degree angles

While avoiding 90-degree angles is certainly a good practice, reducing RCS is not as simple as many people may think, and it’s not always possible to tell by eye how “stealthy” a design really is.

+ it also makes use of slightly composite.

I’m afraid that this doesn’t mean anything by itself because the portion of the incoming radar signal that passes through the composite skin is going to reflect off of internal parts and systems anyway. On the F-22, for example, there is either radar-absorbent structure (where needed) or a radar-reflective (that’s right–reflective) layer under its composite skin to make sure that the radar signal cannot “see” the inside of the airframe and that it behaves as intended according to the low-observable shape of the skin (this works much better than any type of RAM). By the way, large portions of the F-22’s skin are made of titanium, and the F-117’s skin is made primarily of aluminum, so the use of composites, on its own, clearly means nothing regarding RCS. Note that I’m just using the F-22 and F-117 as examples to illustrate RCS-reduction principles, not comparing them to the J-10 or any other aircraft in this thread.