star49Mate – you mostly misunderstand whats being said.
Weight will have very very little effect at all in straight and level SC buddy :). If enough lift is generated that is. So thats not a logical response at all.
Your second paragraph – shows a misunderstanding of things mate. We are talking about supersonic acc/agility. So it doesn’t need to maintain those speeds for ages. But it sure can maintain them in a turn better – especially against a Mig-31! Look at Toans figures for basic range. I
No i havent misuderstood. MIG-31BM/Su-35 have longer range radar will see EF before EF can see it. And since they have plenty of fuel capacity. they can take initiateve to move up to require speed and altitude for first shot at longest possible range. while EF will be deciding about fuel. EF is simply not fit for such high altitude lockon on far away targets. AWACS cannot help in lockon. The fuel and radar power is not there. and Su-34 will pretty much blind it.
star49Sorry – star49 – your rebuts are going off on tangents now mate. Theta seems pretty far off the mark too. 🙂
Scorps has it pretty much correct. I can’t see it being any lighter than 17.5 tons. That error on thrust in the brochure is wierd. Russian claims have proven to far off the mark – to often – in the past; thats not to say US/EU ones haven’t – because they definitely have. Still looks a fantastic prospect – from a cost:benefit ratio – the 35 looks pretty outstanding!
17.5 tons? not gonna happen. look at performance figures. It simply cannot supercruise from 5km to 11km height as tested by Sukhoi.
Testing New Fighter Jet Is Successful
Sukhoi Design Bureau is testing a new multipurpose jet Su-35, and the tests are successful, test pilot Sergei Bogdan announced in the interview with the Military & Industrial Courier edition. Thirteen flights have been made, Bogdan specified.
Even the first flights of Su-35 confirmed the excellent flying and technical characteristics of the jet, and were completely in line with the stand tests.Stability and controllability of Su-35 was evaluated at the altitude of up to 11,000 meters. The fighter was accelerated up to the speed corresponding to the Mach number of 1.3.
In terms of tactical and technical characteristics, Bogdan went on, a new jet leaves behind most of the foreign analogues, including F/A-18 Hornet, Mirage, Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon and is capable of opposing the G5 fighter F-22A Raptor.The bulk production and supplies of new jets to the RF Air Force and overseas customers are slated for 2010-2011.
Flex – LPI – has a lot of relavence in my opinion.
That is possible but exactly what sense does it make to design a fighter enjoying advantage in areas of the flight envelope where almost no actual aerial combat takes place (or ever took place)? What fraction of its service life will an EF spend soaring at M1.5-1.6? 2% or less?
Why design for super-manuervability in the slow/low envelope – where ASRAAM is simply better – while EF is smaller.
The EF has a design philosophy that is yet to be operationally tested – but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong – why stay with the old legacy fighter type? No matter the time spent during those conditions – the EF from its supersonic performance gets a big boost – BVR wise. Why because – it gets there very quickly – maintains the speed – and maneuvers effectively enough to shatter relative NEZs.
45,000 feet & Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.8 is nothing special. What is important how long can stay there on those speeds. with its tiny fuel capacity and limited range radar. What is the range enevlope?. Su-35 has massive internal fuel capacity with long range radar suitable for seeing much further which is strategic advantage @those altitudes & would have no problem in staying & surpassing those speeds for far longer than EF. But it cannot still match the high altitude and high speed performance of MIG-31. that thing with recent upgrades is in different league.
star49Look at other AC, further developed with newer tech and even new materials they are still heavier than the original airframes.
25.3 t is the normal TOW for the Su-35 with 2 R-73E & 2 R-77 according the Su-35 Knaapo brochure. Assuming a 60 % fuel figure as it is common for the Flanker series. Empty weight is around 17 t (taking gun ammunition, the pilot, fluids etc into account and that’s already very optimistic. To be fair the fuel load in that configuration hasn’t been disclosed, but its highly unlikely that the Su-35 just weights 14.5 t as does the F/A-18E/F.
Other aircrafts are irrevlant. as Sukhoi stated goal is creating fighter in F-18E weight class and lighter than Su-27SK.
For engine thrust it states:
That’s from the same brochure!
They say 400 to 450m takoff run under full afterburning mode. so only 14tons of thrust is used. which is pretty similar to Su-27SK but with two tons more fuel.
how is EF takeoff run compared to it.?
star49Although not related but it put final nail in the claim that China itself put several tons antenna over the top of IL-76 couple of years ago which is much more complex aerodynamically which Brits/Israelis refused to do it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2008/09/18/chinas-flying-phoenix-stalls-before-take-off/?mod=googlenews_wsj
China’s ‘Flying Phoenix’ Stalls Before Take-Off
star49Sorry mate – I’m very skeptical of this. Regarding the 35’s weight. I’d be surprised if they can deliver on the 17.5 ton claim – come the end of testing and the 16.5 to me is pushing it. The stated normal weight – generally on half fuel – of 25.3 tons which seems to be the only offical figure I can find a decent source on – would indicate it is actually much higher weight class. 25.3 – 5.75 (half fuel) = 19.55 tons. Which means a payload of 4 AAMs is 3.05 tons taking the 16.5 empty weight or 2.05 taking 17.5 – or perhaps the much more realistic weight of 17.5+ tons?
This normal normal takeoff for Su-30MK without TVC of mKI. Although Knaapo hasnt given exact configuration of Su-35 at 25.3 tons. but u can see from takeoff run. it is 400 to 450m at most vs 550 m for Su-30MK which clearly showing heaiver fighter.
http://www.irkut.com/en/services/production/SU30MK/
Take-off weight (normal / maximum), kg 24,900 / 34,500
Fuel reserve, spec. weight 0.785 g/cu.cm (normal / maximum), kg 5,270 / 9,640
Max flight range, km:
with internal fuel reserve 3,000
with one in-flight refueling, km 5,200
Maximum take-off run at normal take-off weight (afterburner), m 550
Maximum landing run at normal landing weight, with drag parachute 750
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su-35.wbp
Take-off run in “full afterburning” mode with standard take-off weight, m 400-450
Landing roll on concrete runway in braking mode with brake parachute and wheel brakes use, with standard landing m650
star49Su-27SK lacks lighter radar, LCDs screens, fibreoptics, greater amount of composites/titanium like Su-35. I highly doubt they have same range or weight considering the internal fuel increase of Su-35.
when three tons heavier Su-30MKI has 3,000km range with much greater drag and Mach 1.9 has 3,000km so 20% increase in fuel translate into 3600km. which cannot be the case as Su-35 is lighter and less drag. So 4,500km is more reasonable as confirmed by the pilot.
star49Don’t know. Was just thinking of engine cycles, wing area etc. compared to other aircraft with similar and never heard of any of them getting to 70 either. On the other hand certain versions of the B-36 (yeah the one with props) could get to 65k so who knows? :confused: If it had been something more than “I heard from a friend” it would carry more weight. Also with Russia and their setting of records with it none of them even approached 70k and if it were really capable of it that could have got them a whole lot more and they never did it.
I have read of flights above 60K. with normal criuse at 45K Mach 1.3. which is pretty fast. another report from exercises show greater than 8000km distance at about 8 hrs. assuming they are in normal cruise.
Tupolev havent put official figures anywhere.
star49This is true against a foe with the capability to hit you with a saturation of weapons. If they don’t have that capability, then it still has some efficacy.
The Soviet Union bankrupted itself trying to deal with SDI(among other aspects of Reagan’s buildup), and we never even had to deploy any hardware.
Soviet Union got bankrupted because of its own economic system & lack of world reserve currency to finance itself with unlimted debt. not due to SDI. Which was late anyway.
star49All that I have can estimate for you are the figures roughly equal to the T/W ratio for taking-off or sea-level flight with very low speed, since it is impossible for me to get the complete thrust envelopes of 117S and EJ-200 engines in different height and speed.
1. Empty weight:
a. F-22A: 18,160 ~ 19,700 kg
b. EF-2K: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg
c. Su-35: 16,500 ~ 17,500 kg
d. MIG-35: around 12,000 kg2. Internal Fuel:
a. F-22A: 8,165 kg
b. EF-2K: 4,600 ~ 4,996 kg
c. Su-35: 11,500 kg
d. MIG-35: 4,800 kg3. Ferry range with internal fuel only:
a. F-22A: 3,000 km
b. EF-2K: 2,600 km
c. Su-35: 3,600 km
d. MIG-35: 2,000 km4. Maximal engine static thrust at sea-level, AB / Mil:
a. F-22A: 15,876 ~ 17,690 kg / 11,567 ~ 11,839 kg*2
b. EF-2K: 9,185 kg / 6,125 kg*2
c. Su-35: 14,000 ~ 14,500 kg / 8,800 kg*2
d. MIG-35: 9,000 kg / 5,398 kg*25. Normal take-off weight / Maximal take-off weight:
a. F-22A: 27,500 ~ 29,250 kg / 37,876 kg
b. EF-2K: 17,000 ~ 17,500 kg / 23,500 kg
c. Su-35: 25,300 kg / 34,500 kg
d. MIG-35: 17,500 kg / 23,500 kg6. TWR for normal take-off, AB / Max Mil:
a. F-22A: 1.086 ~ 1.287 (1.210) / 0.791 ~ 0.861 (0.810)
b. EF-2K: 1.050 ~ 1.081 / 0.700 ~ 0.721
c. Su-35: 1.107 ~ 1.146 / 0.696
d. MIG-35: 1.029 / 0.6177. TWR for maximal take-off, AB / Max Mil:
a. F-22A: 0.838 ~ 0.934 / 0.611 ~ 0.625
b. EF-2K: 0.782 / 0.521
c. Su-35: 0.812 ~ 0.841 / 0.510
d. MIG-35: 0.766 / 0.459
Both ur MIG-35 and SU-35 figures are wrong. 2000KM range is for MIG-29K which is heavier than MIG-35. MIG hasnt released figure for MIG-35 with new MIG-29K wing.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
Similar is case of Su-35. 25.3 tons normal weight includes 4 AAMs. And it cannot be 16.5 to 17.5 tons as this weight of Su-27SK. More likely it is 15.5 tons similar to F-18E what Sukhoi said. and there is only one figure of 14.5 tons thrust. 3600Km is the range of Su-27SK which has less fuel. Sukhoi hasnt updated it yet just like Supercruise capability. Test pilot confirm both of those things.
star49You are going to have to show that. But generally speaking, the most important part is not the range, but the NEZ. It’s pretty much useless to state the range or the maximum ballistic range. Because it’s measured under optimal scenarios when you are facing an incoming aircraft at an unrealistic altitude. There is a reason AIM-54 is got retired. If it’s such a magical weapon, Americans would have designed a LRAAM for F-22.
Russian have retired there space shuttle since 80s. What US do is completely irrelevant to Russian apporach. Ultra LRAAM are now fact of life starting from MIG-31BM to Su-35 to PAK-FA.
then don’t overstate it.
They have been understating the range according to pilot.
I know what they advertised, but I was asking if it has been achieved in trials. It was said before that they couldn’t during one of the trials. I guess from one of the replies, it was achieved.
One trial is not representation of consistent performance. Aircraft at 40K feet probable does not need afterburner to stay above Mach 1. There is other issues like internal fuel load. as external fuel will be mostly empty. Rafale has only 4700kg fuel.
star49http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Begins_Elbowing_Ukraine_Out_From_Brazil_Space_Program_999.html
RUSSIAN SPACE
Russia Begins Elbowing Ukraine Out From Brazil’s Space Program
star49A: Do you mean it can’t reach the thrust class that it is declared ~ 14,000 to 14,500 kg class ??
.
There is no problem with engine thrust or TWR otherwise there wont be Supercruise on first flight and so many flight tests in short time.
It is just TP personal opinion that he like Salut engines since Chinese dont use Saturn engine.
I don’t see why you need to color code it, it’s not really that impressive. Basically, the two biggest components they are emphasizing are the new engine and radar. The former is overhyped, it’s TW ratio is overrated. I personally like the 99M series a lot more. The radar shows a lot of potential. If it actually achieves the specs we mentioned, it will be quite useful.
star49http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/080920172815.b60mbf3y.html
France to buy 10 Soyuz launchers from Russia
SOCHI, Russia, Sept 20 (AFP) Sep 20, 2008
The European commercial space-launch consortium Arianespace on Saturday signed a deal with the Russian space agency Roskosmos to acquire 10 new Soyuz launchers for around 500 million dollars (347 million euros), a French diplomatic source told AFP.
The contract was signed on the sidelines of a visit by French Prime Minister Francois Fillon to Sochi in southern Russia where he met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Friday.
The new launchers would be used from the second quarter of 2009, said an Arianespace statement.
In April, the European Parliament gave the green light for the deployment of the European Union’s Galileo satellite navigation programme, which is seen by space experts as a challenge to the US-administered GPS global positioning system.
To meet European Space Agency requirements for two different launch systems, the organisation’s chief executive Jean-Yves Le Gall said Arianespace would use both Ariane 5 and the Russian-developed Soyuz rockets capable of carrying four and two satellites at a time, respectively.
The first four of 30 operational Galileo satellites were due to go into space over the next few years using the Soyuz rocket.
star49This information is from Kanwa military magazine and a military researcher in Taiwan. Both of them had some interviews with the people of Sukhoi before, and I guess they got this information from the interviews.
However, since Su-35BM has just started its flight test, this information is still nothing more than an anticipation. All that I can say now is that with the lighter airframe and the more powerful engines, it seems that the T/W ratio and specific excess power of Su-35BM now may be no less than EF-2000, or even being close to Raptor.
Su-35 has the best TWR of any fighter in modern fighter in the world. And frontal x-section of Su-35 is smaller than twin seat Su-30. So it is not only 10 to 15% weight difference but 15% extra thrust and unknown %age amount of x-section difference. Sukhoi test pilot has clearly said that it can go 4500km based on this estimation of flights. and i did went supercruise in first flight and still alot of excess power left. Sukhoi has said that they were plesently suprized by this capability. And it can it can carry 6 R-77 underbelly with two wing tip pods. 4500km range should not be surprized as 3600km range is of Su-27SK and 3000km is for heavier Su-30.
star49Once again FAIL, the Russian invasion of Georgia has absolutly nothing to do with the forth fleet being reactivated. I would try and explain it to you but you are clearly to simple to grasp it. Congrats on being the first to be added to my ignore list. 🙂
Where i said Georgian war has anything to do 4th fleet activation. i said it isnot good idea to publicly activate this as it gives those latin people different meaning.
Infact i said they were preparing for this for long time. Even the Naval exercises were scheduled since July for Nov-Dec. But u cannot ignore the fact that Russian support for latin leftists is entirely due to NATO in the East EU. Infact this thing is gonna escalate with time.
Sign In
