MarcellogoThe inner compartment of the Su-47 – 4 missile R-77 and 2 R-73.
In the picture a special compartment for the test under the program PAK FA[ATTACH=CONFIG]244223[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244224[/ATTACH]
Most amazing one is the FAB load: six ton in an inner bay, no wonder they still stick on unguided high drag bombs also in Syria.
MarcellogoI don’t understand your criticism of Flankers because a Flanker can be many things. Su-27 and Su-30 support different amounts, and Su-30SM support yet more. I believe Su-30MKI has similar capabilities to Su-30SM.
It is not a criticism of a Flanker!
Ok, maybe I have an issue with English but what i have written is : if there is A THING (one thing is better?) I don’t like on the Flankers and generally speaking of the blended wing body /pod engines configuration of the russian fighters, I though it means that all the rest is ok or to say it all very often drop dead brilliant.
MarcellogoYes, you are perfectly right but we need to understand that they brought in 6 planes for the largest effort (a strike etc…). Most of the mission involves armed persistence above the Theatre of Op. Hence not all mission involves a maximum number of sorties (see the number of daily strikes irrelevant with the number of assets).
How I read those number is that 2 planes are launched Every Day in support of the coalition. The rest is not used or on maintenance. Given the 1.95, it means that those two planes are available everyday on average, what constitute a good performance given that it is a deployment half the globe around.
A comparison with other air forces will surely underline this (and let’s be clear, if the Au Mod had to shy from those numbers there won’t probably have not been such clear publication, perhaps).
No one here is doubting the professional ability of Australian and of any other nation involved in the coalition (well, modern nations not GCC feudal pseudo-states).
It instead the conditions that they are called to operate that are an absurdity.
You talked about armed persistence : let just imagine what it can really be for a plane that have to spent hours just to enter the zone of operation and came back even using drop tanks or aerial refuel.
Still is not like so: really every day just an average of a third of the available force just take off for a lack of available targets and it is something common to all the coalition effort.
Only moment it raise up a bit is when an allied force begin a major ground operation, still even the tiny IqAF does more operation of their forces than all the coalition put together, even if one can argue that most of them are made by armed copters, than in western armies are instead an Army thing but in every case both Mi-35 than Mi-28 can kick some serious asses.
Coalition probably hoped to use their drones to identify targets but it don’t worked well: until hardly pressed by ground forces Daesh and JN could just disperse, hide themselves and/or mixing with civilian population.
MarcellogoThe RAAF are operating out of Al Minhad in the UAE so long commutes to the battle areas.
And THAT is the main problem, not for the Australians alone but for all the coalition.
Together with the lack of intelligence /target designation, of course and the fact that the two just add one to the other: let’s try try to engage a target of opportunity starting from a two-three hours flight distant base.
MarcellogoFA18F:
7 months of OP at 30.5 days per months
418 sorties
=> 1.95 sorties per days.
If we include the month of February as it is with a lower total number of days, this will raise slightly.It is astonishing for the number of planes involved and the distance from the Theater of Operation (11500km). You are not going to do that with a bunch of Kfir!
Also with the kind of fight involved, the number of sorties does not have to be correlated with the number of ammunition delivered. Most of the flight doesn’t see a live fire.
Divide it for the number of the F/A-18 involved i.e. SIX, please. Result is less than one in three days each.
Repeat: sortie means every time a single plane take off for a mission.
MarcellogoExcept that the F-15SE was to receive only it’s share of RCS reduction applications exportable by law. The CFT’s actually were part of the RCS reductions, especially from the side. The quote: “Flying with full ‘RCS Reduction Package’ the F-15SE will be able to carry Air-to-Air (AIM-9 and AIM-120) missiles and air-to-ground munitions to include JDAM and SDB.” Internalized weapons was a significant reduction alone. And then they extended the range of electro-optical sensors, gave it an LPI radar, data interlinked it to the ‘Battlespace’, and overhauled the complete EW suite. Oh btw, it also included fully digital control authority already developed. And oh btw, F-15SE was pre-qualified – because it’s improving COTS – to use SLAM-ER and Harpoon Block II missiles or any other type of weapon qualified for the Strike eagle… Gee, sounds like Su-35S compared to Su-27.
Silent Eagle did have short comings. It was optimized for GE’s F110’s because they were better optimized for the amount of electrical and power demands, which happened to be it’s weaker point with some potential partners. These engines cost more and required some partners to establish non-existent partnerships with GE. And it’s running costs aren’t exactly low, so cost-wise it’s not the best choice. That would be like an Su-30MK partner suddenly deciding their next version of Flanker would be Su-35S. A few very important new – yet non-trivial – supply lines have to be created to make that work.
Again, something I have never said: CFT are not a structural part of any F-15 , you can remove it or add at wish although it practically never happen on a F-15E, on a F-15SE they use another CFT with inner missile bays instead of the old one.
For the rest, if there is a thing doesn’t work well on the flanker design is the few space you have on engine pods to put on payloads: they are shorter than a normal fuselage and the landing gear poition forbid to carry anything on the side of them.
MarcellogoI think everyone here agree that Su-35 has RAM while su-27 dont , however to me the discussion here show atleast one of you guy believe that radar cross section reduction is as simple as swap out all metal parts in airframes and replaces it with radar transparent material
It is transparent word that i have never said and you cited instead rest not relevant.
Su-35 have neither the radar blocker or a S shape duct or a canted tail , these are particularly important features to reduce radar cross section , in terms of outer shape , i got to agree with mig-31 that Su-35 and su-27 is quite similar
I dont think anyone actually take the F-15SE serious however the outer structure modification between F-15SE and F-15E still quite significant ( radar blocker , canted tail , internal weapon bays ) compare to the modification between Su-35 and Su-27
Su-35 have radar blockers as also Su-30SM, look also what wrote FBW for a list of changes that affect the RCS without modifyng too much the external shape, just by blocking all reflection traps you can get great results.
Maybe in the meantime some of that was implemented also on Su-27 during SM2 modification, published RCS obviously is of the original one, so also them can differ.
Again, this is an interesting conversation but i think it would be better to move it from here, maybe opening a new one about changes made on existing aircraft frames in order to decrease RCS.
MarcellogoI think that unless the airframe is hollows with nothing underneath , it not desirable to make the airframe from radar-transparent material , because radar will be reflected from internal structure , AFAIK , when they coat the F-16 canopy with reflective coating the overall RCS reduced by 15%
How it connect with what I wrote?
I newer used the term transparent, so i just don’t know from where have you taken it out: RAM applyed on those points with the most RCS , radar blocker and small frame changes are just that was needed, not just for Su-35 but generally for all 4,5 planes that went re-designed for reduce their observability.
For the rest also the F-15SE Silent Eagle only notable structural variation is the 15% inclination of rudders, nothing more, still none doubt about it or Rafale D or F/A-18E, all planes entered service before Su-35.
MarcellogoNo,Mig-31 you are deadly wrong on that, Su-35 differs from Su-27 more than Su-30 itself.
It carry more fuel of both, has different weight distribution, different material used, no more airbrake and so on
Same with the F-16 E&F when compared and the SH to the Hornet.
Above all they were reconstructed after the whole stealth thing popped out , so all of them paid an attention to this aspect that was absolutely inhexistent when their predecessors were made.
Now back to the topic please
MarcellogoI have no word
As a graduated in ihistory I would insead say that of all such cheastbeating going around this is the only thing right.
Russian as a people is absolutely accustomed to sustain even heavy sacrifices if it believe of being under attack by foreign forces, as it is ATM.
Underestimation of such a characteristics is something that have lead western powers to such animpasse: they were convinced that just putting sanctions would affect government popularity and political will.
Happened just the contrary.
Now, back to the topic please.
MarcellogoI’m not convinced of F-22’s stealth. Lower RCS yes. Stealth no. If YOU can see it, a radar can see it. There’s nothing magical about it.
Let say that f-22 was designed with the concept that stealth would be equally decisive in every segment of radar engagement from early warning to missile tracking.
So it was designed in order to be able to fly at high altitude well into enemy controlled airspace remaining undetected, something no one think would be anymore possible against an up-to data air defense system.
F-35 although less sophisticated for what concern stealth features would instead act as any modern multirole plane actually do.
Being a VLO it would probably try to sneak between AD radars, almost at the beginning of mission, instead of making an enter by force under a strong EW coverage but for the rest it will just enter battle zone, perform its mission and turn back home ASAP.
In every case we are completely off topic now, while SAA’s finest has just scored an outstanding and decisive victory today, so back to the main argument.
Marcellogowell I don’t have acces to top secret informations, but I think it’s possible
because
– the F-35’s tech is dated in many ways, based on old architecture
if research on the Su-35 technology started later, it’ll likely be based on more advanced architecture
– the Russians might use different doctrines, allowing them a degree of technological freedom LMT might not have
a good example of this difference in mentality is that Russia is focussing heavily on armed robot vehicles, something the US has been staying clear of
First can be said also of Su-35 even at a deeper level: it use a PESA radar, an updated version of AL-31 series instead of a fully new item and so on…
Doctrine at the contrary is a very valid point, just think how would have fared at the contrary putting, in the American way of doing such things, an AESA antenna on a Bars radar instead: there would surely have been an increase of range due to the optimal energy emission and reduction of sidelobe effect of such an antenna.
Still it would have changed the weight distribution of the whole set and would have probably forced them to forego the mechanical steering of antenna itself.
Irbis radar use instead two 10Kw TWT modules compared to the single 7kw of Bars and add also elevation feature: the power is such greater that it end to easily compensate the relative losses due to the PESA array.
MarcellogoThe fact that this has not been posted already in the Indian Air Force thread shows that we lack here a Boeing paid troll to re-use a popular name-calling. Sorties number are astonishing.
Astonishing? :confused::confused::confused:
Sorties here means each time a single plane has been sent on mission.
So it means that you have to made 82 (max number of mission in a month)/6 (number of planes)/ (March 2015) i.e. less than 1.4 missions every three days for each plane.
It is the ratio between the numbers of sorties and the munition launched that is utterly ridiculous however…:rolleyes:
More than ten F/A-18 flight hours for each munition launched.
MarcellogoI hope that you are joking.
No, unfortunately is serious.
For: the rest, it depends: if we talk about technological refinement of the single component surely not, but in terms of raw power of radar, ECM suite, computing power and so on the Su-35 has more than a way to compensate this.
However, also in Russia the future would be of the PAK-FA derivatives as impressive as it is Su-35 is based on a precedent generation setting pumped to the max of its possibililties.
MarcellogoI saw somewhere that this Tu-214R had been circling the battlefield near Palmyra or something, at high altitude, with strikes following.
They are really putting a lot of new toys into action, I suppose this beats exercises at home..
Yes, as soon as something its operationally ready, they sent it in action,
Happened with Su-34, Su-35, Bujan-M corvettes, mi-35 as also mi-28 and Ka-52 is something different.
Sign In
