JSRBest run defense firms are probably Israeli owed to high salaries relative to crappy budgets keeping the make work to a minimum out of necessity as an Israeli engineer is probably the most in demand engineer there is today while in the US the REAL level of unemployment among engineers is actually pretty bad.
Israel is the world most subsidized country from funding from Persian gulf arabs to US to engineers from ex-USSR education system. despite all this help there product exports are far less than Sweden.
IF Sweden become militarized country like Israel and ask for bases in Middleast. Its defence exports will sky rocket.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/03/15/sweden-may-lose-gulf-allies-over-saudi-spat/70222682/
In 2013, Saudi Arabia purchased two Saab 200 airborne early warning aircraft worth $670 million, while gulf ally United Arab Emirates acquired four L-22 landing craft, 12 Ghannatha fast attack craft, six Giraffe AMB air-search radars, seven APID-55 unmanned aerial vehicles and two Saab 340 airborne early warning aircraft between 2007 and 2013. Kahwaji added that Saudi Arabia also made deals with Sweden for ground and airborne early warning systems on behalf of Pakistan.
JSRWhile the original Su-27 had good range, it still did not have enough range for the Soviet Air Defense Forces (PVO, as opposed to VVS – the Soviet Air Force). The Air Defense Forces needed to cover the vast expanse of the Soviet Union. Hence, development began in 1986 on the Su-27PU, an improved-capability variant of the Su-27 capable of serving as a long-range interceptor or airborne command post.
The two-seat Su-27UB combat trainer was selected as the basis for the Su-27PU, because it had the performance of a single-seat Su-27 and long-range missions require two crew members. A “proof-of-concept” demonstrator flew 6 June 1987, and this success led to the kick-off of development work on two Su-27PU prototypes. The first Su-27PU flew at Irkutsk on 31 December 1989, and the first of three pre-production models flew in 14 April 1992.
how this related that twin has greater range than single seat?. it is more like giving rest to crews than actual range of airplane. this obsolete philosphy.
Reality check:
http://defensetech.org/2015/06/19/russia-to-ink-deal-to-supply-china-with-24-su-35-fighter-jets/
does it prove that export Su-35 is same as Ruaf?. it can downgraded version in development for years.
only allowed to disclose export version of missile range.
http://www.missiles.ru/RVV-BD.htm
Due to the high aerodynamic characteristics and the use of high-energy launch dual-mode solid rocket motor (SRM) launch range missiles probably can be close to 300 km, like the “Soviet counterpart.” But the head of the corporation at a press conference held at the MAKS-2011, said that in the export version of the range of the missile is 200 km
JSRWhy do you need to bet? You can easily find their dash speed number, it’s open source. You’re not even trying now.
Look at the MTOW difference. this will give you answer why JSF is not much faster than F-16. JSF is also far more draggier than F-16.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon.aspx
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 70,000 pound class
T-50 NTOW is similar to Flanker with 40% thrust boost and much aerodynamic profile. It face no limitation in top speed.
What difference? How is it at all related to the fact that there’s NO indication that “export” Su-35 somehow has different performance?
They will be clearly down graded. Start with engine thrust levels, degree of materials used in airframe. thats why it takes very slow production rate for Su-35.
JSRYes.. But in 1995 the improved MiG-31FE was offered for export.. This variant was supposed to carry Kh-31P, Kh-25MP, Kh-31A AShMs, Kh-59M, Kh-29L/T missiles, KAB-1500L/TKs and KAB-500Kr bombs and R-33S/R-73/R-77 AAMs. That was far beyond what Russian MiG-31s could do at that time.
That is paper project and never single aircraft was tested with all those loads.
1. Su-30 was created as long range interceptor.
2. Both Su-34 and Su-35S are on Rosoboroneksport’s export list..
Su-30 is shorter range than Su-27
Su-34 and Su-35 are never meant for export thats why its export modification will take long time to down grade them for actual delivery.
JSRThat’s gotta be BS.
why? every islamic country is potential customer of Russia weopons.
http://www.worldfinance.com/home/russias-sberbank-to-launch-islamic-banking
JSRThe MiG-31 was offered for export, under the designation MiG-31E. The fact that it failed to attract foreign interest doesn’t change anything on that.
MIG-31E was offfered to export without modernization. Essentially early 1980s fighter.
The downgrade of the Russian exported machines is actually not that severe. Usually involves different IFF, ECM and RWR systems. But nothing prevents the clients from choosing to integrate a Western alternative (even a superior one to the original system) if need arises.
I don’t think that there will be a low-cost PAK-FA version without TVC, as it would require a complete rework of the whole FCS. Besides that, Russian TVC has already been exported (India, Algeria, Malaysia, Kazakhstan).
[/quote]
Su-30 was created as export project. but not Su-35/Su-34. It will take many years before there export verison come and they will be 20 year behind from Ruaf in technology.
JSR:stupid: So by that logic, did the F-35 have more fuel than the F-16 for higher max speed? Oh, and in your incessant non sequiturs and changing of topics you have forgot why you even brought up the Typhoon.
Yes to sustain very heavy and draggier platform (its NTOW is weight about 150% of F-16) it need lots of fuel. and i bet JSF is faster than so called 10 ton F-16E.
That is not evidence. You have NO evidence that the “export” Su-35S has different performance. None. Zero. Export Su-27SK has difference in avionics, but its performance is the SAME as the VVS Su-27S. You’ve debunked your own claim. And what does the Su-35’s wing pods have anything to do with this discussion?
Those Su-27SK was soviet creation and much simple structure. Su-35 much more complex structure. Very big difference.
No amount of wishing from you will make the T-50 even touch Mach 3.
There is no such thing as wish. it is proven beyond doubt. T-50 having more powerful engines than MIG-31 with sleekest aerodynamic form with newest materials built into its structure. even Mach 3 is understatement.
JSRPAK-FA is 20 years younger but it was meant to counter the F-22, not surpass it. Russians have expressed no motivation in developing an aircraft which would outperform the F-22A at the cost of ruining the whole economy for having six squadrons. A Mach 2 supercruise might be technically possible today.. all aspect RCS reduction would most certainly be possible, too.. but I have serious doubts that Russians were aiming to achieve it, unless it can be done [relatively] affordably..
The way the PAK-FA looks today proves that there are some clever minds in the decision process. A true Pareto principle in the works.. Russians want sheer performance, yes, they want stealth, they want fusion and cheek arrays… and let’s admit it, showing the F-22 a middle finger here and there would be nice, too.. but at the same time it should be an aircraft which even clients like Algeria or Vietnam can afford to buy one day… Russians cannot afford to simply put a non-export sticker on it like the US did with the Raptor, there is no selling Flankers in 2040+ and besides PAK-FA they have nothing else in the works.. at least for now, that is..
They haven’t exported MIG-31 and its successor will not be exported and PAK-FA will not be exported before 2020 and even if exported it will be severally downgraded. Exports are none issue just like non export of PAK-DA.
only thing matter is putting very powerfull engine. Those who want to save money will not be putting TVC engine on every fighter.
JSR.
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Here you go. 1,520 mph at altitude is roughly Mach 2.3.
BAE clearly put Mach 2. that is the operational speed.
But your slow head completely missed the point, so let me spell it out to you. The Typhoon with its large composite usage is limited below Mach 2.35, and operationally around Mach 2. Coincidentally, Sukhoi’s paper arrived at the conclusion that Mach 2.35 is the practical limit for extensive and affordable composite use. It was for structural reason the PAK FA max speed was relaxed from Mach 2.35. Is this clear enough?
why did Sukhoi increase the fuel capacity. it is to maintain much higher speed than Su-27. Su-35 is titanium and composite developed in late 80s for EF has no relevance to composite developed in 2010 for PAK-FA.
You call this solid evidence? There’s a difference between export Su-35 performance? That is your speculation. You evidently don’t know what evidence is. And in case you misheard, the T-50 has twice the supersonic range of the Su-27, no comparison was made to the Su-35.
You still stand by your Mach 3 PAK FA delusions?
It is based on solid evidence that export fighters are downgraded compared to Ruaf. Export Su-35 is 2500km/hr from public statement. Su-35 also carries the biggest pods on the wing tip.
JSRWow… So why did you ask about the Typhoon’s max speed then? Because I presume that since it uses considerable amounts of composites you’re interested in knowing its max speed for comparison,
Because you throw a random Mach 2.35 number for typhoon. I want to know how you came to this number & at what altiude. thats why i ask.
then you totally change topic to something completely unrelated and said “NOPE limited internal fuel on Typhoon.
why do you think they increase the fuel capacity of Su-35 by 2 tons. (they could have reduce the fuel capacity and make the plane lighter)
it is to give it sustain top speed. EF has very draggier design like F-16 with that raise canopy and small fuel tanks relative to its weight and size.
So Mach 3 PAK FA”. You haven’t provided a shred of solid evidence. Are you even listening to your drivel? How does that have any logic?
I did provide evidence .Export Su-35 has 2500 Km/hr speed. Its reasonable to assume that Ruaf Su-35 are faster than that number. PAK-FA has twice the supersonic range of Su-35 and Su-35 by itself has huge supersonic range.
JSRTyphoon is operationally limited to under Mach 2.35. Still nothing to support your Mach 3+ T-50 fantasy.
EF carries limited internal fuel. it cant even sustain Mach 2 let alone Mach 2.35. Show me official link of EF top speed and Altitude?
MIG-31 replacment is Mach 4.3 class fighter not Mach 3 PAK-FA.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/05/mig-41-mig-31-replacement/
MiG working on a new interceptor, capable of Mach 4
JSRDoes it matter? The Typhoon may have the highest current level of composites in its body design, but it is not considered a truly stealthy aircraft. Look at the limits of RAM that exist and you will see why a Mach 3 claim is simply pixie dust, and dumb to boot.
Su-35 also use coating. it does not prevent it from 2500km/hr top speed.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/military/su-35/design-features/
Система управления вооружением позволяет самолету применять практически все современные управляемые и неуправляемые авиационные боеприпасы российского производства. В ОКБ Сухого совместно с отраслевой и академической наукой нашли пути радикального (более чем в 5-6 раз) уменьшения радиолокационной заметности самолета, что существенно сокращает дальность его обнаружения БРЛС и наземными РЛС противника.
JSRI was simply replying to JSR’s ridiculous “logic.”
The T-50 will also be heavier than the Su-27. And none of what you said has any support for your fantasy of Mach 3+ PAK FA.
Then again in JSR world gun+TVC=AAM shootdown.
T-50 uses alot more powerfull engines. and T-50 using far more composites in body than Su-35.
what is top speed of Typhoon since it use composites.
JSR:stupid: Nice, so the Su-27 has max speed of Mach 2.35, while the Su-35S is the same size but with more powerful engines but with max speed of Mach 2.25. Care to explain that?
Su-27 is much lighter (less avionics, no OBOGS, no TVC,) and much shorter life span fighter. Su-35 can fire 5 long range cruise missiles. Su-35 specification are likely for export. T-50 has much bigger design advantage over Su-35.
JSR:stupid: Because max speed is somehow correlated with range? What’s the max speed of the Concorde then? :rolleyes:
Did i say max speed is related to range?. Its the supersonic speed range that is double for T-50 compared to Flanker. not subsonic. Since T-50 is smaller plane than Flanker but more powerfull engines so it is reasonable that its top speed will be much higher than Flanker.
Sign In
