star49I think especially the Brazlian will put the biggest disadvantage of the Suchoi 35 in perspective: its excessive weight and size without any noticeable gain in performance.
It is very light weight consider the engine power and fuel capacity, radar size etc.
The RMAF operates 0 Super Hornets.
They evaluated it before chosing MKM.
star49The RMAF consider the Su-30MKM as superior to the Super-Hornet, and the SH has considerably better avionics kit than the Eurocanards. I guess we’ll have to wait for the production representative prototype #06 for a better picture, but if the Su-35 fancies its chances against the F-35, then it’s ‘goodnight Eurocanards’.
Sens, the ’35BM/SM2 is significantly better than the ‘Super-Flanker’ the Eurocanards were designed to counter, some 20 yrs ago. In the meantime watch for export orders as they all go head-to-head, Brazil’s FX-2 tender in particular.
It is not avionics but superior kinematic performance of Su-35 both in speed/altitude that will always give it first shot ability because of longer range AAMs and than 3D TVC with generous fuel capacity for quick turn around from front to tail chase and again frontall shots
star49Actually it would be WVR don’t-care-how-manueverable-you-think-you-are missiles before you ever got to guns.
Dont automatically assume that missiles are going to work. first example is Su-34.
star49Doesnt matter about the british pilot , but plenty of US pilots can train with F-22’s with themselves being equiped with the JHMCS , the best success against the raptor would be with JHMCS but then you’d have to get into the WVR and that would require ROE’s to be strictly NO BVR , infact that is the case now a days because many raptor pilots were getting easy kills linking up with their IFDL’s and making minced meat of the teen series @ BVR using their full capability but at WVR their is more about TACTICS and your own expereince with the particular aircraft so now they fight more WVR also to get a better feel . JHMCS is a serious drawback of the raptor , against most modern 4.5-5 gen aircrafts but its not gonna make much difference in time of war .
Modern 4.5 to 5th generation fighters will have very powerful EW suites. It is likely most of BVR/WVR shot will be missed. So end result will be using gun with IRST.
star49This boost of thrust enables the Raptor to take off with a full load of weapons and fuel. Furthermore, mach speeds are attainable without afterburners (supercruise) and coincidently, the F-22 features better fuel efficiency than legacy fighters. This increased fuel efficiency raises eyebrows considering the F-22 boasts 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15 Eagle it’s replacing.
that is true for 1970s era F-15 but total thrust difference is around 10,000lbs region with newer F-15 engines. increase weight practically cancels that performance difference
star49So where are the other two hardpoints? They can’t fit under the inner wing, they’d interfere with the main gear doors. The Su-35 at MAKS had a Kh-59M on the starboard inner wing pylon and the forward main gear door, the part that opens outward, had very little clearance. Putting something in that inner wing space clearly wouldn’t work.
8 R-27, 5 LRAAM, 12 R-77
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/acheroncyc/su35_08.jpg
star49How do they manage that when the two wingtip stations are used for the ECM pods? There are two stations under the fuselage, one under each nacelle, and three under each wing, discounting the two wingtip stations. That leaves 10 hardpoints, not 12. There are no other underwing stations; when the Su-35 was displayed at MAKS every harpoint was loaded and there were no remaining attachment points under the wing or body. So where do you get 12 R-77s with 2 ECM pods?
there is presentation slides of Su-35.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp
6 underwing, 4 under belly, 2 under engines. Isnt it 12
Also, supercruise is the ability to exceed Mach 1 in level flight and maintain supersonic level flight without using afterburners. If you have to use burners to get through Mach 1, you aren’t supercruising. If you use burners the whole time, you aren’t supercruising. This should not be so hard for certain individuals to grasp.
MiG-31: not a supercruise platform, merely a long-ranged supersonic cruise aircraft.
so there is difference between Supercruise and Supersonic cruise. and i highly doubt MIG-31 using afterburners whole time. merely when it is in Mach 3 region. Almost 22,000lbs of non-afterburning thrust with 0.72 Sfc in non-upgraded version.
http://www.avid.ru/eng/products/military/D-30F6/
star49I think the only meaningful definition is “moves at supersonic speed for a useful distance with a useful payload without draining the tanks”. In other words, so what if a Mig-31 uses afterburner?
Thats correct definition. Sustain high altitude should be added along with high speed.
http://www.royfc.com/news/jul/2307jul03.html
Engineering Embodied in Fifth Generation Airplane to Be Realized in Upgraded MiG-31
Heavy upgrade is underway in Russia of the high-altitude, high-speed MiG-31 fighter interceptor. The improved MiG-31 “will be a worthy opponent to fifth generation fighters of foreign states,” Russia’s air force commander-in-chief, General-Colonel Aleksandr Zelin
http://www.royfc.com/news/nov/1607nov01.html
According to him, the MiG-31 is the primary PVO fighter aviation airplane, and this interceptor’s development program always was regarded in the air force as the highest priority and it was financed even under the conditions of a deficit of financial resources.
star49They will , atleast UK subs might provide intel and other critical service needed
Dont underestimate UK submarine service , they are second to none and best out there , they have a small but well trained and advanced subs out there.
I recollect reading a statement of a Russian admiral stating that during the cold war it was the UK submarine service they feared the most.
Dont underestimate the power of Money. it will be France and others that will provide intelligence to Russians. Ever thought why France so arrogantly deals with China now because they have found much wealthier market for there products.
star49Why not have a single UAV do both the jobs and leave tactical fighter fleat for what it does best???
UAV cannot take all the roles fighter. Just the payload, speed and size is not there. Dedicated variant of Hybrid of fullback/Flanker is most suitable for AWACS role since it can have side by side crew. and have engines commonality with rest of the fleet. No need to train pilots separately.
What targets , where and under what defences?
offcourse Against there own SAM and radar network.
star49K , Give me a good source from official circles when it is made available in the future !!
Test Pilot is not the official person which have actually flown the aircraft for 13 tes flights and u can actually see logicially that Multirole Su-27SKM have 3530KM range on 9.4 tons fuel.
There is display board 2450KM/hr top speed and 4000KM range for Su-27SM. I would assume they are counting upgrade AL-31FM-1 engine performance over standard flanker.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits2-pages/mos2005_day02.html
the point is Flanker range on internal fuel is so good that few percentage changes in internal fuel/thrust/aerodynamic and engine efficiency make a big difference.
star49Then why do we see so many onboard E-3’s and E-8’s ?
Why do u see that many on board A-50 with 10 ton antenna over the top. Every thing has its role. Just larger fighters can now take the role of smaller AWACS and there is UAV for even smaller roles.
Better then E-2’s ?
Russians claimed Su-34 can bomb targets without escort. Just show the EW and radar performance.
star49And according to this source —->
http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/su-35bmt-10bm-the-last-flanker
The 4500Km range claimed for the Su-35BM is with 2x PTB-2000 . I Dont know how much fuel each one of the carries , but internally the SU-35BM carries 11.5 tons of fuel for around 3600 Km range . Anyways i always maintained that the F-15K is not going to be able to out manuver or our supercruise the Su-35BM (not that their is any evidence of F-15K demonstrating any supercruise not even without weapons) .
Thats is old source when the aircraft hasnt acutally flown. Even Knaapo website is outdated. 3600KM is the range of Su-27SK with 9400KG fuel so how can Su-35 with lighter and more aerodynamic with much greater non-afterurning thrust hence high altitude and speed can have the same range. Pilot estimations are correct. It can fly highter and go much further than any other flanker.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su27SKM.wbp
star49But what is the point ? I can understand that if someone uses carriers and doesnt want to invest in a E-2 type of platform etc for either cost or floor space but for an Air force what is the point ? What is the Loiter time for this SU-34 type set up as compared to the E-2 and what about Manpower ?
Su-34 has done 16 hr continous mission with 4 refuelling. So 4 hr mission on internal fuel on average or more depends on speed. and it carry 3 3000 LT ET. It has much higher acceleration and can operated at higher altitude for optimal radar performance. with all that Sensor fusion i think one person is sufficient for relaying combat information incase date links fails. It is good for both Airforce and Naval operations. Just the bigger nose in front gives big advantage over standard flanker. and there is big hump and tail sting in back. it is ready made AWACS in its own way
star49You are ofcourse correct , The F-15K would need a Structural upgrade , greater use of modern materials , and some tech from the F-119 incorporated into its engine and that would be a real upgrade to the level of the upgrade we have seen from the Su-35BM over and above the Su-30 . However its range is about 4400 km which is quite close to the 4500km the sukhoi test pilot estimates the BM to have . The BM is lighter @ max takeoffweight but the F-15K can take more then 2000kg’s of extra ordinance and has an airframe life of 8000 hours as opposed to the service life of 6000 for the BM.
That said interms of Handling and aerodynamic performance and Manuverability the BM would be much ahead of the F-15K no doubt but with the AESA (F-15SG) as bomb trucks they are pretty much similar with slight advantage going to the BM for its FDOW role because it appears to be a genuine super-cruiser whilest the K (AESA) would have to rely upon EW and support aircraft for SEAD and to penetrate .
4400KM range of F-15K comes with 3 ET/CFT with almost 16.5 tons of fuel which degrade its performance and make it costy operator. This thing was designed for low fuel price of 90s.
6000 & 8000 can be extended during mid life updates. Su-35 is designed for much higher maneovrability than any other fighter currently in service with FBW 3D TVC system. so life will be shorter.
8 vs 10 ton external load hardly matters in air to air roles for supercruise and ultramanevourability. Even in multi-mission assignment long range standoff weopons will be released at much greater range than BVR AAM. so aircraft will be free for supercruise. Su-35 gets its top speed at low altitude. Su-35 can carry twe external ECM pods and still carry 12 R-77 with sufficient range on internal tanks. so it is more like airborne SAM platform.
Sign In
