star49Can the Tu-160 maneuver like the Su-34? Can the Tu-160 engage enemy A/C with R-73 or RVV-AE including rearward facing radar, launch R-73 rearward?. Perform High-G maneuvers with a significant load? 😮 Tu-160 is advance strategic bomber. Completely different category.
Tu-160 has the same strike role as Su-34 but with longer range weopons and payload. so why they are different when theoretically Tu-160 is faster and can fly higher?
Su-34 replaces Su-24
F-15E replaces F-111
Su-34 replaces Su-25/Su-24/Tu-22 and even has Anti-submarine role like MPA along with dedicated jammer role like EA-18G. i am sure Su-34 role will further expands as more are inducted.
Su-34 and F-15E would be the fair game. And I am certainly not going to which is better than the other. Actually as a fact I DON’T KNOW!. Those are pointless comparisons. But their roles are similar, over lapping etc. (Wouldn’t say identical though). Both fly with their respective AFs.
Su-34 tail sting is bigger than F-15 front nose. i am not going into other huge aerodynamic differences.
why ur putting them in same category?
Su-35BM DOES NOT have an equivalent with USAF. You are better off looking in European airforces for that…
Su-35 does not even have equivlaent in European airforce either.
star49It seems that with modern industrial capacity. ICBMs are getting cheaper when previous experaince is already there.
Strategic Rocket Forces get just 4% of defense allocations – commander
MOSCOW. June 23 (Interfax-AVN) – The Strategic Rocket Forces account for no more than 4% of state defense spending, Strategic Rocket Forces Commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov told the press.
“At a time when the strategic rocket forces had over 1,400 missiles they received around 6% of the country’s defense allocations. This index has not exceeded 4% in recent years,” the commander told journalists on Saturday.
Solovtsov pointed out that the Strategic Rocket Forces have two thirds of the warheads capable of hitting targets in the enemy’s territory in just a few minutes. Their aggregate strike capability exceeds that of any other arm or service, he added.
“The Strategic Rocket Forces’ economical efficiency is due to the nature of the land-based strategic armaments, to the optimal structure of the grouping and to the choice of development priorities on the basis of the following criteria – efficiency, cost effectiveness and feasibility,” Solovtsov said.
Sixty percent of the military budget was spent in 2006 on the current maintenance of the armed forces and 40% on equipping them, he said. In 2007 the ratio was 56% to 44%, and in 2008 almost 53% to 47%. The task has been set to ensure a 50%-50% ratio in the spending on maintenance and equipment, he added.
“In the Strategic Rocket Forces, the ratio between spending on maintenance and equipment is 30% to 70%, which compares favorably with other arms and services, Solovtsov said.
star49Sorry but the USSR wanted to play the Cold War, they lost, they can suffer the consequences. Maybe if they hadn’t dumped all their resources into building weapons they wouldn’t have gotten themselves into the fix they did. Suck it.
Cold War started in 1949 and certianly Soviet Union didnot start it as they dont have financial capacity after world war 2 destruction. Moreover anti-soviet economic policies of West around the world contributed towards its collapse. So either West pay for Russian losses in previous cold war or face another Coldwar in totally diferent level.
star49What did you think “we” should have done? Pumping billions into Russia and drying tears by repeatedly saying Russia still is a super power. Everything that went wrong, went wrong because of miserable decisions in Sovietland before (and some after) 1991. Today “we” are financing your dream of the Red Army II again with our gas bill (and Iran’s nuclear program).
Russia is exactly as high in the agenda as it can be harmful to Western Europe. That is traditional thinking for several hundred years. The Eastern European nations are free to make their decision. They are, in majority, a powerful addition to core Europe, as they were a powerful attrition to the Soviet Union. The majority of these nations actually didn’t see any big money after 1990/1 by the West. They did in on their own.
.
Eastern EU is not an addition to Western EU as it has to subsidize much greater population. so u dont have money for strong military or expeditionary warfare. and Eastern EU has to pay Western EU prices without per capita income.
First Russian went after Chinese in Africa than North Africa/Central Asia and now whole Middleast is in there sights and it will not even stop latin america all the way to Vietnam. If tommorrow Putin Wants license of A-380 he will get it just like Siemens gave licenses for turbine to power machines. It is just matter of time and using appropriate money and force.
http://www.themoscowtimes.ru/article/600/42/368530.htm
Genghis Putin.
Rosneft recently told Mongolian officials that it would lower oil prices if given the rights to run oil production in the country. Moscow also wants to build 100 gas stations throughout the country, which would solidify its overwhelming presence there and reduce consumers’ energy choices even further.
Similar tactics are afoot in other sectors of Mongolia’s economy. Russian enterprises already own 49 percent of Mongolia’s national railway and its largest copper and gold mining companies. An industrial group founded by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wants to consolidate the Russian-controlled shares of all three companies, effectively giving Putin’s cronies a near-stranglehold on key players in the Mongolian economy
star49Are you sure that’s an Su-34 in the photo? It’s clearly got the side-by-side cockpit and is being built at NAPO, but for some reason the nose doesn’t look right. Granted the chine fairings aren’t there yet but the radome looks like it’ll be more round than the oval shape of the Su-34. New weird variant?
It looks Su-34 is alot more complicated than Su-30MK2/Su-30MKI. 200 operational flight tests by 2006. and in 2008 twice the number of 2007 and would still need untill 2009 to complete it. and we are talking time line a decade later than Su-30 when all new computers and equipment are availablef for bomber not some 9G machine.
so there is possiblity of more changes. and i would not be surprized if fuel capacity is increased much further into 15 to 20 tons as Su-35 is now 11.5 tons. They tested 10 hour flights. where Su-30 is limited 4.5 hours.
Flight tests of Su-34 multirole attack aircraft stepped up
MOSCOW. June 11 (Interfax-AVN) – The intensity of the flight tests of the new Su-34 multirole attack aircraft has increased twofold compared with that last year, a source in the Russian defense industry told Interfax-AVN.
“Next year the intensity of flight tests will increase even more, but this depends on the plans of the client, which is the Russian defense ministry,” he said, noting that the dive prevention system was tested recently, for which most advanced specialized equipment was applied.
“There are five Su-34s participating in the tests now, which is quite enough, so there are no plans to build any other experimental vehicle,” he added.
The first phase of the tests ended on October 30, 2006 when the initial 200 flights were completed. The second phase will last for three years.
The source noted that the quantity of Su-34 to be produced is not as important as the cost of the aircraft, which means that the manufacturing facilities of the Novosibirsk aircraft plant must be renewed and improved, so that the prime costs of aircraft assembly could be reduced.
According to earlier reports, the Russian Air Force was going to buy over 70 Su-34s before 2015.
The Su-34 attack aircraft are produced by the Novosibirsk Chkalov aircraft association, which is a division of the Sukhoi holding.
The aircraft can effectively destroy surface and aerial targets in any geographical zone or climate independently on the time of the day and weather. By its performance, the aircraft is referred to Generation 4+. Owing to the active safety system with state-of-the-art computer equipment, the aircraft is capable of precise bombing and agile maneuvering under adverse countermeasures.
Superb aerodynamics, large fuel load, economical bypass turbojets and fly-by-wire control system, as well as the provision of air-to-air refueling capability and additional fuel tanks ensure aircraft’s long range, close to that of strategic bombers.
star49And my favourite exercise at the gym is the Barbell Stiff Leg Deadlift. Seriuosly sir, I am cluless about what you just typed….:confused::confused::confused:
Why not? Su-34 and F-15E are strike platforms. F-15E is a “Strike Eagle” after all! But ok fine, if you are not comfortable with the Su-34, then older Su-30 variants would do.
Su-35BM is brand spanking new plane…It 1st flew just this year…There is no equivelent to it in the USAF (Unless the US will builds some sorta “Super Eagle”, but that won’t happen).
USAF has moved on to F-22 and on their way to the F-35 and maybe a FB-22/FB-23 in the future, but thats all a “maybe”……
u keep bringing Su-34. i can bring new Tu-160 in Strike role with faster speed with larger payload. It is not just the role but size that differtiante.
Now where it is written there should be a Single engine 5th generation fighter not in short or long term when even Supersonic business jet, unmanned is mentioned. So it means Single engine fighter is illogical.
Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi unveils short-term strategy
MOSCOW. June 23 (Interfax-AVN) – The development of a fifth- generation jet fighter and a family of Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional aircraft are the priorities of Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi.
“Sukhoi’s strategy in the sector of combat aviation is anchored in the development and creation of a new-generation aircraft. The current State Arms Program provides for the creation of such an aircraft,” an annual report posted on the company’s web site on Monday says.
The creation of a family of Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional aircraft is a priority in the civilian aviation sector, the report says.
Other priorities include the development and serial production of military aircraft for the Russian Defense Ministry, the company said.
This includes the modernization of earlier built (Su-24s, Su-27s) and the delivery of new (Su-34 and Su-27SM2) aircraft, as well as exports of Su-32s, Su-35s, Su-27SKMs, and Su-30MKs, the company said.
After-sales maintenance of military and civilian aircraft is a priority as well, the report says.
“New areas of cooperation between Sukhoi and Russian and foreign partners have been defined in the company’s long-term strategy. They include the creation of unmanned aircraft, the development of modifications of the Sukhoi Superjet 100, supersonic business jets (SSBJ) and others,” the statement says
star49Interesting! Su-35? Su-35BM?
I’ll use your own logic….
Su-35BM:
1st flight, February, 2008
F-15E:
1st flight, December 1986, 1st production model April 1988 :eek::DWhy are you comparing a 20 year old plane and a brand spanking new one? A modified F-15B? 😮 Su-35BM is considered the ultimate incarnation of the Su-27, essentially the final flanker! Whats the comparison? :confused:
MiG-29OVT? You mean MiG-35 right?
IAIA – Su-30MK, KnAAPO Su-30MK/MK2, NAPO Su-34 Vs F-15E
Well that is probably a very valid comparison. But again I cannot go into technical details (I simply don’t know). IMHO You are probably much better off comparing Su-34 Vs F-15E. Su-34 actually in service and 1st flew in 1990.
So why are you comparing a 20 year old modified F-15B to a brand spanking new flanker the Su-35BM!
I will leave Gripen/EF/Rafale/J-10 on side although they dont have much growth potential aerodynamics wise.
what can be achieved by putting 3D TVC along with increase thrust engine on M2K/F-16E/F-18E/F-15E except for increasing weight and decrease performance, shorter range of higher thrust range along with massive increase in cost. These aircraft are aerodynamically obsolete.
Old 19 ton Su-27M went to Mach 1.9 with 117S engine. Su-35 performance figures are quite realitic and what amazing is that only $71m were used to develop 10 to 1 TWR engine. This just show enormous technical ability to solve problem. Spend a $1B on engine u get TWR 15 to 1.
http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php?staid=1001062
The export approval was issued upon completion of a first series of flight tests. In a total of thirty flights three experimental Article 117 engines flew on a specially modified Su-27M Side 710. The testing demonstrated the Article 117’s compliance to a joint specification of the Russian defense ministry and Sukhoi. Five out of thirty flights were performed on the aircraft outfitted with two Article 117As. The aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.9. The remainder of the flights was made on “wry aircraft” with one Article 117 and one standard AL-31F. One Article 117A was subjected to long-hour bench runs.
Just look at Su-34 size. so it is wrong to compare to smaller aircraft which had different role.
star49Not if Affordability is an issue , and you want RANGE over SPEED , its about requirment and compromises are made . The basing requirments define the F-35 and they wanted range and hence to save money supercruise was out of the door , a $hit load of fuel , plus single engine means a lot of range which was exactly what the USAF wanted . You can say whatever you like if you want to challenge the USAF’s technical team that decided specs then its fine with me i dont want to debate otherwise and waste 20 pages of useless talk.
Twin engine aircraft with 16 ton fuel will go much further than single engine aircraft with 8 ton fuel not to mention much better load flexibility. ur still not getting this very important point just like Boeing forget transportation charges in collecting parts from different places in 787 case. I am not even going into pilot training resource and other issues for maintaining larger fleet.
First you say that tiny bombs wont do any damage and they need bigger bombs and then turn around for UCAV;s like J-UCAS which are much smaller and whose primary weapon of choice would be the SDB.
tiny bombs are good for UCAVs and big bombs are for bombers. so whats the point of JSF in the middle?
Not sure, it is something i read but cant recall , maybe it was 63v2 to v4 , i am not sure . too lazy to check it but it really is no significant weight to effect performance even if it is a few hundred kg as an assumption.
few hundred kg in frontal nose effect the weight of aircraft interms of airframe strengtheining. and in case of AESA there is weight addtion for cooling etc.
For a nation like russia speed is ok , the USAF has to fight very far away from its borders in expeditionary style . The main concern for the JSF which lead to the requirments being framed the way they were was lack of basing flexibility which the USAF had during the GW etc , it is assumed that freindly bases will be harder to get so they chose range over speed. Put a supercruising engine on the F-35 and make it supercruise freindly design then range would suffer and they’d either need a very big and heavy aircraft like the F-22 but with bigger size engines , weight for more range which becomes very expensive and not in line what they were willing to pay.
ur working on mistaken assumptions trying to predict future in a wrong way. Russia want increase the commidity squeeze on the rest of the world to whole different level. just look at Africa what is happening. and now this.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080624/111915879.html
Russia prepares for future combat in the Arctic
F-16’s are not getting any younger , B-3 is a program that is running at the moment. It gets money from the 10-15 billion odd the US spends on Black R and D budget (in addition to nearly 18 billion in Black procurment (god know what they buy ) ) but it will be some time away , we dont know how far it is in development and wont until very late in its maturity.
The F-35 is like F-16 but LO so can penetrate farther , it needent carry RCS-unfreindly tanks , CFT’s and jugs to go the distance – it does so on internal fuel . It is a strike buddy to the F-22 , the F-16 cannot go where the F-22 can for safety reasons the F-35 has a better chance.
u can build many more new F-16s with better capabilities much cheaper for the kind of role like JSF. no need waiting for a decade when prices wil go through roof and there will be no need for it. Just get the plane what is in production. I am sure F-16E can go where F-18E/JSF can go.
star49I know what it means . But what does it have to do with what i wrote ???
saving money on supercruise is much better than non-supercruise design. better be twin engin to achieve that. Single engine does not make sense.
UCAV is not an option in the same timeframe as the JSF is . Their is currently no UCAS even in consideration at the capability level of the F-35 , right now they are working on smaller UCAS programs with range and SO capability but with smaller weapons carraige and sensors , they are working with baby steps at the moment . Like the head of the J-UCAS program told me the idea of a Network of hundereds of Large UCAS’s operating simeltaniosuly with huge bomb bays and deploying bombs all over the battlefeild is not practical till atleast 2025 timeframe and that also with a rudementary capabiltiy to begin with and without cost overruns or pitfalls . UCAV’s are also risky technologies and their maturity is neither guaranteed nor taken for granted.
UCAS does not have to be F-35 size. 1.5 to 2 ton weopon load without pilot will suffice. It can do all the work of F-35.
Their are all sorts of targets that need to be attacked , some need more firepower like from BOMBERs some need reaction time and not so much firepower like from fighters. More b-2’s arent an option , the production is over and they are expensive , low availability , super expensive to maintain and cannot be forward deployed , need long preperation and fly extra long distances. The F-16 has dropped a $hit load of weapons in Gulf war , OIF etc and the F-35 would do the same role only be much more safer and can penatrate farther into enemy teritory then a F-16 .
Better buit B-3 since 2001 than waiting for future unknown cost. F-16 can pretty much do the job of F-35 with CFT and 600 gallon tank just like F-18E.
I believe that going form 63V1 to 63V4 saves weight .
any link for that?
Who cares wether it would be difficult or not , we are only discussing a hypothetical imaginary thing , its not like it is a requirement and we have to make it . Since you dragged in and Starting comparing F-35 to SU-35BM i had to come in with an example , but i dont want to take this hypothetical f-15NG further. Only needed to tell you that comparing a F-35 to Su-35 is not wise.
Both Su-35/F-35 do the same job. One is using stealth while the other using Speed, longer range weopons and external ECM pods in addition to internal. Only time will tell which one is more effective.
F 15E gained weight not only to become multirole, but to have 16,000 hours lifetime and to be able to pull 9G with all fuel (6 t internal, 4,8 CFT and 5,4 t in 3 drop tanks) plus 3,5 tons of weapons (total weapon load at 5 G is 11,5 tons). A Flanker will fly into pieces at this load. BTW, an APG 73-equiped F 18E is 13,8 tons. With APG 79 is stiil under 14 tons.
For your information, the F 15E can carry an IRST in the pylon that carry the LANTIRN navigation pod (already flying on F 15K and ordered future F 15 SG)
Su-35 will need only 3 to 4gs to pull the same manevorability as 9G F-15E.
Su-35>MIG-29OVT>Su-30MKI>Su-30MK>F-15E.
The F-15E got heavier due to a larger avionics suite and a strengthening of the airframe to take much larger weapon loads and to deal with low altitude, high-speed flight. It had nothing to do with it being a “Western” design. The closest “Eastern” equivalent is the Su-34 FULLBACK. I’m willing to bet it weighs a few pounds more than an air-superiority FLANKER-B.
Su-34 is alot bigger than Su-30MK/F-15E. Just the rear tail sting will add 1 tonne over flanker and much bigger/fater nose for side by side seating with big hump in the back. add to that 1.4 tons of titanium protection. They said it can achieve supersonic cruise at Tree height with crusie missile signature. which is much lower than any other fighter. they are pretty much hiding all specification of Su-34 unlike Su-35.
Even Su-35 can achieve Mach 1.35 at 200M. once it goes down to 50 to 100m speed will drop. much comparable to F-15K.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp
Maximal airspeed :
H=200 m, km/h 1,400
star49Not when Affordability is also a priority . They could have gone with a F-22 style engine setup with supercruise in mind but with 18,000 pounds of internal fuel , LO and single engined they clearly went for range over speed . It is all about compromises . The JSF program was quick to ID Supercruise as an expensive item beacuse it would result in bigger engines which burn more fuel , therefore require a larger design to acheive the desired range adding cost . The integrated Avionics suite and Fire control radar the F-35 has is advanced because much of its Technological base has been established by the ATF program over the years which has borne the brunt of the cost.
Supercruise by definition means that you are not going to use Afterburner thus increasing the range, reducing time for mission and decreasing the cost of fuel along with increase engine life.
The F-35 is in all effect (with the way the USAF will use it) a slow speed tactical ranged bomber , with secondary AD capability in support of the F-22’s and F-15C’s . The F-16’s have been pretty much doing the same. They just made an F-16 with greater range on internal fuel and with the ability to go deeper into enemy AD in FDOW scenario supported by F-22’s.
The UCAV technology has been ID’d , but many issues remain leaving it unavailable @ the scale which the US DOD wants it (no. of JSF they actually want for 3 services) , They need atleast a 1.5 generation jump in Data links , bandwith availabliltiy and network security to create that effect with just UCAV”s and no fighters and comming from the head of the UCAV programs of a country which has the largest unmanned aircraft fleat i guess it holds some credibility. We cannot fashion a UCAV fleet of even 100-150 integrated , operating heavy UCAV”s of equal or better capability to the F-35 until the year 2025 and beyond , the J-UCAS was never in that league .
if u spend the same amount as JSF. UCAV is better option. 4G communications are coming near future. It is not just for aircraft but for ground forces.
It need not match the SU-35 as Su-35BM is a designation based on technical specification set forth by the RuAF , the USAF needent have the same requirments and therefore would want a product more suited to their own needs. What i meant was that if one was to compare a Su-35BM to any thing in the USAF even in the hypothetical sence it would be a NG F-15E not a F-35. I didnt mean to hurt your feelings regarding Su-35BM being inferior in any way or not a good aircraft.
Su-35 was private venture started by Sukhoi in 2003 (engine was finance 3 way between saturn/ulfa/sukoi). Ruaf only come in 2008 if at all after first flight. and with that all net centric environment. before that there was only upgrade of old aircraft.
How is it? Almost all sorts of GPS guided bombs , SDB’s , LGB’s , Miniature cruise missiles and in the future JDRADM (mach 3 atleast) . This is almost all the F-16’s use in the FDOW scenario anyways. Long ranged cruise missles are not required to be inside as they are fired from SO ranges anyways. Moreover LMA is developing Minuature versions of those missiles for interna carriage aswell . A weapons system lasts decades of service , usually with a force of many hundreds their are plenty of weapons systems designed around that platform . With close to 200 F-22’s eventually in service (yes i expect one year of production added by next administration) and even by the worst estimated atleast 800 F-35’s (All versions) in service the industry and the DOD will have 1000 internal bays to feed and surely they will design weaponry over the decades for those . Weapons come much later and are upgraded far quicker then the platform. LMA is developing miniature cruise missles on their own money .
when you are making so small bombs. it will not effect hardened strucutres. u need more B-2s not F-35.
I believe the Apg-63V3 along with its cooling actually saves weight rather then adds to it . IRST isnt as important for a medium-long range strike fighter as a targeting pod is (the way USAF will use it) so i’d rather use a POD that does both and use it when required.
Saves weigth compared to Slot array?
If they would seriously look to add capability to the F-15E to make a F-15NG of sorts i’d not even bother with canards , just add TVC , AESA is allready cleared for the entire F-15 family and it is paid for and is lighter , a targeting pod is allready present and for strike that is all that is required , for most A2A threats the AESA combined with a good data link and awacs is ok (we are not going up against russia anytime in the forceable future) , Yes i would look to incorporate a lot of features of NG engines into existing engines to try to get more thrust out of them both wet and dry. CFT’s are fine for strike aircrafts with secondary AD capability and they can fly various profiles with fuel carriage depending upon missions . Aim-120D —–>JDRADM plus AIm-9x JHMCS and PGM would make it a very capable aircraft matching most of the needs of the USAF other then stealth. The USAF doesnt want a SU-35BM currently so it would be waste of capability , the money can be well used to add capability elsewhere.
Where i would spend the money is (on this hypothetical fighter) is to cut weight and add more % of composites and titanium .
thats why said creating Super Eagle like Super hornet will be very difficult if at all possible in given weight and thrust requirements along wit internal fuel.
star49That off-course I don’t know. I am not an aeronautical engineer, aerodynamics expert etc, etc. I leave that to the experts.
We all know the records set by the original Su-27! Ever seen a flanker with drop tanks? 😀 Nobody here can/will deny that. Thats one reason why the F-22 is flying today and replacing some F-15s.
But Su-35? You mean Su-35BM? Or even the older Su-35/37? You are comparing those 2 to a modified mid-70s F-15B…. 😮 Even first production model F-15E flew in 1988. There is no comparison.
Actually F-15B is lighter aircraft than F-15E. Western aircraft has gained weight when they become Multirole. F-18E with AESA is almost 15.5 tons and has 6.5tons fuel capacity. for F-15E Adding Candards, TVC, AESA, CFT to match 11.5 tons internal fuel, 200KG IRST in nose, higher thrust engines will make its weight more than 22 tons empty equiped and would still have less range, performance than F-35 on intrnal fuel.
star49Those huge Canards and the 3D TVC nozzles obviously adds weight compared to F-15A.
But its was an old F-15B.
F-15 ACTIVE: 1993 – 1998
F-15 IFCS: 2002 – 2005F-16 VISTA: 1988 – 1992
F-16 MATV: 1993 – 1994
NF-16D: Cancelled 1997But anyway, true 3D TVC was tested on F-15 ACTIVE/F-16 MATV
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pasa/is_199611/ai_2222386707
Unless u put F-22 engine into F-15 it cannot cope with extra weight of CFT , canards and TVC. Phased array radar and IRST will add another 1 ton.
There is also point of acceleration like Su-35 get maximum speed at 36,000 feet.
http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/
F100-PW-220 F100-PW-229Maximum Thrust 23,770 lb 29,100 lb
Intermediate Thrust 14,590 lb 17,800 lb
Weight 3,232 lb 3,740 lb
Length 191 in. 191 in.
Inlet Diameter 34.8 in. 34.8 in.
Maximum Diameter 46.5 in. 46.5 in.
Bypass Ratio 0.6 0.36
Overall Pressure Ration 25 : 1 32 : 1
Weights
Without CFT With CFTOperating 32,300 lb 36,500 lb
Basic Mission Takeoff 47,800 lb 61,500 lb
Basic Mission Landing 33,600 lb 37,800 lb
Maximum Limit 76,800 lb 81,000 lb
star49star49:
F-15 ACTIVE Factsheet
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-048-DFRC.htmlF-15/F-15E ACTIVE Factsheets
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102
This thing add atleast 3 tons to F-15A weight with only 5.2 tons internal fuel.
Designation: F-15B, originally TF-15A
Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas, 1972
Owner: United States Air Force
USAF Registration: 71-290
NASA registration: (tail number) 837
NASA role: Integrated controls/propulsion research
Maximum altitude: 60,000 ft
Max. speed: Mach 2.0
Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229
Max. thrust: 29,000 lb in full afterburner each
Weight: 47,000 lb takeoff; 35,000 lbs empty
Fuel capacity: 11,520 lb (approx. 1,700 gal)
Wingspan: 42.8 ft
Length: 63.7 ft, excluding flight test nose boom
Horizontal tail span: 28.2 ft
Canard span: 25.6 ft
star49CFTs bump the fuel load to roughly that level and pretty much all the new Eagles have them.
CFT does not add that much fuel compared to drag nor twin seat has that sleek profile for reducing drag. Su-35 is more in F-18E class.
They’ve already flown an Eagle with 3D TVC and the engines/nozzles have already been designed and tested. Thing is, with today’s WVR missiles the ability to do a backflip in an airshow is becoming less and less relevant. Adding IRSTs is no big deal.
What is wait of that Eagle along with FBW control.
star49To be more clear – the type of Strike missions the JSF is designed for , those that replace the role of the F-16 Bloated Piglet in its strike role , replace the F-18 Drag queen in its Strike role and the harrier in its . The Su-35 is totally a different beast not to be compared to the F-35 which is supposed to replace F-16 , F-18 type aircraft and provide for 5th gen feature of LO and still be afordable .
so speed is not necessary for that kind of mission? Slow speed attack capability is more job bombers with massive EW suite or Stealth UAVs.
If their is a US equiviliant of Su-35 it would be a redesigned F-15E with more composites , More LO features , better engines and sensors , AESA , DAS , EOTS etc . for PAKFA like Strike missions (no one knows what pakfa specs are but lets say they are in the F-22 class rather then the F-35 class) then i would say a F-22 designed for Strike with a Stealthy pod mounted EOTS and greater external PGM capability would be fine .
F-15E cannot be upgraded to Su-35 level. What will happen to its weight and aerodynaimcs when 11.5 ton fuel is stored internally? that amount of fuel is necessary for it to achieve optimum height and speed for it to have decent amount of supercruise. Than there is nose point ability due to 3D TVC for cannon firing using IRST for both targets coming from ground & air. It is very offensive defense aircraft.
Even the F-22 is multi – role but i would call its Multi role a PRACTICAL MULTI ROLE meaning that they can only do X no. of stuff with 183 units they . Give me 500 Units of F-22 procured and I’ll add a Targeting pod (Add a comformal LO EOTS type setup pod) and you have LGB capability . The added cost of Such capability would be very little as compared to the tactical advantage . But like the IRST , the HMD the 183 odd raptors do not justify this FULL MULTI ROLE capability because A) cost is spread through too little units B) Most of the 183 units (less then 1 sqd per AEF ) would be doing CAP and AS mission profile so the added capability of LGB delivery wont be used much in FDOW scenario and after that you can have legacy jets to do the same work so F-22’s multi role capability is not required . The USAF is smart in using its Precious Few F-22’s in only SEAD/DEAD missions for A2g where it would use either the 1000 lb JDAM , SDB or in the future miniature internal cruise missiles.
By that definition even F-35 is not mutirole. There is only 3 to 4 light long range PGMs u can take inside Stealth aircraft. Any modern shorad will have no difficulty in hitting those PGMs. It is better just to build more B-2 than F-35.
Sign In
