star49You’re shadowboxing. You take a quote of mine then argue on something that my quote had nothing to do with.
The first thing I wrote on had to do with fuel. Why you’re bringing up anything else, I don’t know. You originally said that you can’t have that great of an increase in fuel capacity without an increase in airframe weight. I said that that wasn’t necessarily so, gave an example, and backed it with figures. Rather than admit you were mistaken, you’ve now tried to steer my example and comparisons toward other categories that had nothing to do with your original statement.
But still ur aircraft increased weight by 3% unlike Sukhoi whose weight has decreasd?. u just cannot compare something made of titanium with some aircraft made of wood and plastic. If u ignore all other criteria like 40 year life.
The second statement of yours also has nothing to do with the original argument. When I used the P-47 as an example, you said that it didn’t apply because it’s old and so much lighter than anything that is built today. I compared it to a similar multi-role aircraft and showed how they have very similar operating weights and, while very different aircraft, shows how the P-47 example is still somewhat valid.
Nope P-47 is only valid when u look at things in only one dimension.
The third bit was my refutation of your assertion that things were so much simpler back in the day that it was easy to have that sort of radical redesign, which I also disagreed with, mentioning how, while designs are more complex now, computers can certainly help take out much of the guesswork that had existed in the past. You then tried to turn this into some sort of East vs West argument (oh how we love those!), which I never was bringing up.
Aircraft in West has clearly gain weight when the become Multirole. I will give u another example. MIG-35 is only 500KG heavier than MIG-29A but MIG-35 can carry more than twice the load of MIG-29A with more than 50% fuel capacity of MIG-29A and with much greater service life and heavier AESA radar and Two IRST. which alone add weight. and another example is new Tu-204SM. so this thing is not limited to only one aircraft.
Last but not least, you seem to be inaccurately equating increased maneuverability from TVC with higher Gs on an airframe and a need for a stronger airframe when that just isn’t the case. I was reading an interesting interview with a Russian designer associated with the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 design and its 3D TVC and that was one of his main selling points. You can retrofit existing airframes with TVC with no need for airframe modifications. Likewise he was playing up the face that TVC allows maneuvers that used to impart high-Gs on an airframe to be accomplished at much lower Gs.
TVC changes the game when it comes to maneuverability vs Gs. That’s one of its advantages.
Logan Hartke
Existing airframes? first IAF should try that on Su-30K. It is technically possible but result as not as desirable like aircraft that is designed for it from ground with FBW.
star49one thing I wonder is why did the PLAAF choose to use the Il-76 as the aircraft to attach their AWACS to rather than say, an aircraft based on an airliner instead
The answer is obvious. I doubt Boeing/Airbus will transfer any knowledge of aircraft construction/modification for any military use to China. why do u think China cannot show more than 4 A-50s.
25 September 2002
Defense & Security
In cooperation with the Israeli company Elta the TANTK participates in development of the A-50E AWACS airplane. This airplane represents a combination of the Russian carrier and the Israeli radio electronic equipment. In Taganrog an IL-76 airplane was retrofitted into the A-50E version. The new array of this airplane has passed the strength and service life tests. The array is located in the fairing with diameter of 11.50 meters, that is slightly bigger than the fairing of the initial A-50 having diameter of 10.2 meters. Some elements of the airplane design were also changed. For example, the airframe was strengthened, and new pylons of the array fairing were mounted
star49This is what I am talking about Star49:
This clearly shows they want to make major components locally if they can… and if they designed the components in Russia then they certainly can make them in Russia too.
you are talking about making old engines. offcourse new engines will be built in Russia on new production technologies in much greater quantities
Regarding just having Sukhoi making planes in Russia and MiG disappearing… read this from the same article above:
Source link for both quotes: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070821/72922066.html
they are talking about engine manufacturers. Each manufacturer has different speciallity so they will exist independently.
while MIG and Sukhoi products role cross each other.
star4960% of what it had (570 gallons compared to 305 gallons originally).
ur just looking at one parameter of increasing fuel without anything about service life, acceleration, manevoarability, load on different weopon stations.
As far as weights go, there’s certainly some truth there, but a lot of the same principles apply. Besides, while it’s a light-end, heavy-end comparison, fuel weight doesn’t change and a normal-loaded P-47 weighed less than 3,000 lbs less than a normal-loaded Gripen.
But Gripen can carry 5 times load of P-47 at much higher speeds. it is another thing to built airframe for higher speeds service life.
Things were simpler, but I would contend the “obvious” remark. Especially when you consider that they didn’t have the ability to simulate things the way we can today. You had to design then fly and hope you didn’t screw up too badly. Oftentimes, some problems sources were not discovered until after it was too late, if they ever were at all. You had to correct stability issues with actual airframe redesign as opposed to a software update, for example.
As far as airframe life, considering the more advanced metallurgy and composites, the software preventing the pilot from over-Ging as seriously, and the more advanced computer-aided stress design from the outset, modern airframes should (and do) have a greater airframe lift than an aircraft of a comparable role from 60 years ago. As far as 3D TVC airframes go, as I understand it, they should actually improve airframe lift, as they actually lessen the Gs required to accomplish a certain maneuver. They can increase the amount of negative Gs that an airframe is likely to bring on itself, but that isn’t as strenuous on an airframe. .
Logan Hartke
Those computers and simulation were available to West long before Russians employed them. so why the weight of aircraft increase with increasing sophistication?.Russians can do things in first attempt but others need trial and error for very long time. when same conditions and money is provided.
read the line. Dramatic and sharp improvement in manevarability. It is not incremental performance boost. u need very strong airframe to do this.
what will happen to Gripen weight when it has TVC.?
“What we have to offer today is a combination of cutting-edge achievements in aircraft science and deep marketing researches. The new aircraft is equipped with a phased array radar, a computer, and thrust vector control (TVC) engines with an increased thrust,” Klementyev said.
According to him, the nozzle will be controlled with the help of the aircraft control system, rather than the engine control system. “It will be an integrated digital system. The new aircraft features the same aerodynamics as the Su-27. There have been quite a number of modifications, since the Su-27 was developed. However, all of them led to increasing the weight and the air drag, and worsening the maneuverability. The Su-35 is fitted with lighter hardware. Given a super-charged engine, its maneuverability will increase dramatically,” Klementyev said.
He also noted that the Su-35 featured certain state-of-the-art technologies to be employed on the fifth-generation aircraft.
“The Su-35 is a response to the U.S. F/A-18E/F. They boast similar equipment and combat employment principles, though, the U.S. aircraft is heavier. The U.S. has earlier won the race by fielding better avionics and armament, but I hope it will not be the case with the Su-35,” Klementyev said.
According to him, the Su-35 is fitted with new armament and the upgraded AL-31F power plant. “Its thrust will be increased from 12.5 to 14.5 tonnes. The acceleration, rate of climb, and maneuverability of the aircraft will improve sharply. The engine boasts a long service life as well,” he said.
The contemporary after-sales services network and logistics support, enjoyed by the Su-35, provide the aircraft with a flying time of 6,000 hours, and a service life of 40 years, Klementyev said.
star49“It ain’t necessarily so.” (for any Gershwin fans out there)
The depends entirely on the way you do things. The P-47 comes to mind. Between the P-47D and the P-47N, it gained more than a 60% increase in fuel capacity for less than 3% increase in empty weight and all that with a bigger wing.
How is this possible? In operating the airframe, they were able to determine what parts were more than strong enough and they put the airframe on a serious diet, losing weight wherever they could while adding tanks where possible. The same can be done with any airframe, just some more than others. For example, there was no weight to lose on an A6M. That was as light as possible off the drawing board.
The same is somewhat true on the Gripen, for example, a bird that had light weight in mind from the outset and already incorporated advanced weight-reduction technology for its time. It’s primarily just going to get heavier with increases in capability, but not necessarily so for a big bird like the Su-27 originally designed decades earlier in the Cold War Soviet Union.
Logan Hartke
60% of what capacity?
Very good example. now try to reduce the weight of modern car to second world war era car. things werer simple and obvious.. What do u think about airframe life with Supermanevorability of 3D TVC engine aircraft.
star49Well the F-15E is heaver because the airframe was strengthened in part due to the large ordnance loads now expected to be carried, and also partly because of the different mission profile over the F-15A/C.
so Su-27SK and Su-35 has same mission? one has 10 weopon stations & the other has 14 not to mention carrying much heaveir weopons on each weopon station.
China does appear to have replicated the Su-27SK as the J-11A in a relatively short period of time, also incorporating changes to the aircraft to take Chinese systems and engines. Who’s to say they couldn’t produce a J-11C based on the Su-35BM?
They managed to replicate a fighter after getting a license for airframe. Building over a 100 from kits and spending a decade for fighter which is built on Soviet standards on western industrial machinery. Now when Sukhoi designed a fighter to be built on western industrial machinery and manufacturing processs. the end product is very different/complicated
star49You’re assuming that the electronics of the Su-35BM take up the same amount of space and weigh the same amount as those from an early-model Su-27. I’d bet that they are more compact and far lighter. Also, if you add a fuel tank internally somewhere, depending on the location, you may be able to do away with a lot of the intrernal bits in that part of the airframe. There is also the issue of using composites to save weight as well.
so why does F-15E/F-16E weigh much more than earlier F-15/F-16 despite having no TVC engines and same internal fuel capacity?. u have to beef up airframe substantionally to carry 2 tons of internal fuel. I doubt Su-35 is using all composite wing/fuselage not even Sukhoi SSJ but still lighter than Embrarer. The whole point it is not easy for any other country to replicate Sukhois with same amount of money and time as Russians can do. so better to buy license not even try to reverse engineer.
star49Your claim was dry thrust power. Period.
dry thrust power relative to size. u cannot put newer GE-110 engines into old F-15/F-16. Sukhoi not only managed to increase 2 tons internal fuel capacity along with much more electronics, phased array radar, TVC engines and still managed to have weight less than original Flanker. how can u increase 20%internal fuel capacity without increaseing Weight?
Yes, aircraft size is generally length and width. You could add height as well and yes, the Flanker is much taller than the F-22.
But still it has less volume, smaller engines and that counts towards weight.
star49Well, then it MUST be true. :rolleyes:
ofcourse.
That wasn’t your claim though now was it? You said only the F119/F135 had more dry thrust than the AL-31. I pointed out that you are incorrect. And you can add the YF120 and F136 to the list of more powerful engines as well.
my claim was related to Su-35 engine which is 117S and is smaller than old AL-41. otherwise i would brought have upgraded MIG-31 engine.
You think the Flanker is SMALL? You need to get your eyes checked. The Flanker is significantly larger than the F-22.
so aircraft size is just length and width? there is no such thing inside that length and width.
Seriously that was good for a laugh. 😀
ur wasting ur time on issue on which u have no knowledge.
star49Says who?
The maker Sukhoi.
There are variants of both the F100 and F110 that do better than that.
F100-232: 21,600lb dry. Demonstrated 37,000lbs thrust full afterburner in 1992
F110-132: Has demonstrated 36,500lbs thrust.
Both were with 3D TVC
3D TVC controlled by fly by light . and both F100/F110 does not have 10 to 1 TWR. they are both heavier engines than AL-31. More in AL-41 class that is 20 ton.
Which has ZERO to do with how advanced an aircraft is.
11,500 KG fuel in small and light weight airframe is nothing short of miracle. It is not bulky like Stealth fighter.
Time will tell.
Time will not tell i am already telling you. China even if import all its knowledge from West cannot compete with Russia in Science. There complete new techniques of aircraft development that without making a prototype can validate the results in various ways. I am not even going into this. I am just giving you layman example of auto parts.
http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/SUB/806020378/1069
Everybody’s romantic and excited about China, and we’ve done business in China and Russia. But from my standpoint, Russia is a much better place to do business, at least for what we do,” Carbone said.
“It’s a better market because it’s more consolidated, more volume per application, and in general the engineers and the technical level are way better than in China.”
star49I would be surprised if their J-XX isn’t BETTER than the Su-35.
Just look at Su-35 individually by parts.
3D TVC with most advance FBW.
8800KG non-afterburning thrust. Only F-119/F-135 produce more but they are likely to be heavier engines,
11,500KG internal fuel.
Radar, IRST, internal and external EW/ECM capability with only Two big LCD screens. Just look at sensor fusion. All this in package that is similar in weight to F-18E with Supercrusie ability. And than there is production rates of complex fighter like Flankers also. there is no point if factory can hardly produce 5 to 10 flankers per year in China. just the cost and operational ability is not there.
star49Good finds Otaku, tnx for sharing
The last article mentions China as a potential buyer of the Su-35. How likely is that? Is it in really in Russias interest to export the BM to China?
China will get bankrupt try to match Russia scientific power especailly in fields where benefit to economy/jobs relative to investment is quite low. It will take very long time for China to built some thing superior based on Su-35.
star49I’ve seen, in the 2007 SIPRI database, a fairly significant export deal to Vietnam including a pair of Gepard class light frigates and a 3K55 Bastion/Yakhont coastal defence system ordered, allegedly, in 2007. Possibly also incorporating an order for around 10 Tarantul FACs.
Can anyone confirm such a Vietnamese order and what it comprises?
Pretty much what is stated at Sipri
http://www.royfc.com/news/feb/0707feb01.html
19. Vietnam: the first project 12418 “Molniya” missile patrol boat ((RAKETNYY KATER)) was transferred in accordance with a 3-year contract for delivery of tow and the licensed production of ten more patrol boats
6. Vietnam: obtained 2 small project 11161 “Gepard-3.9” patrol boats and 1 “Bastion” stationary shore-based missile complex.
Vietnam To Get First Russian-built ‘Gepard’ Patrol Ship In 2009
Vietnam to get first Russian-built “Gepard” patrol ship in 2009. 28/3 Tass 194 MOSCOW, March 28 (Itar-Tass) – Vietnam will get the first Russian-built “Gepard-3.9” patrol ship in 2009. The second one is scheduled for delivery in 2010, Director-General and Head Designer of the Zelenodolsk Design Office Leonid Sharapov stated on Wednesday. The delivery of Gepard-type warships to the naval market of Southeast Asia was achieved due to the vigorous marketing efforts of the “Rosoboronexport” company and of specialists from the foregoing design bureau. The contract, which “Rosoboronexport” had signed with the Vietnamese navy, envisages the construction of two more warships of this type. The licensed construction of “Gepard” warships on Vietnamese yards is not ruled out, too. Sharapov noted that deliveries of “Gepard” vessels to the naval armaments market was facilitated by the fact that they are based on project 11661 ships. The “Tatarstan”, which is the head ship of this type, was accepted for service at the end of 2006 and is now the flagship of the Russian Caspian Flotilla. The second ship of this project, “Dagestan”, which is being built for the said Flotilla, is all but completed. It is to be commissioned in 2009. The “Gepard-3.9” patrol ships are designed to seek, track, and knock out surface, submarine and air targets both independently or in squadron formation, for escort purposes, patrol missions, and defence of naval sea borders and economic zones. At present, the Zelenodolsk Design Office has developed a still more efficient version of this patrol ship for several foreign countries. It has a special aft hangar for a deck helicopter. A “Klab” complex and a Shtil-M type anti-aircraft missile complex can be installed on it instead of the “Uran” missile system[Description of Source: Moscow ITAR-TASS in English — main government information agency]
star49This means replacing the R125-300 and R95TM-300 engines with the 36MT.
The specs of each engine is:
R125-300
max thrust: 380 kgf
SFC (at max power rating): 0.92 kg/kgf per hour
length: 550mm
width: 315mm
dry weight: 66kgsR95TM-300
max thrust: 360 kgf
SFC (at max power rating): 0.82 kg/kgf per hour
length: 870mm
width: 315mm
dry weight: 95kgs36MT
max thrust: 450 kgf
SFC (at max power rating): 0.71 kg/kgf per hour
length: 850mm
width: 330mm
dry weight: 71kgs…So expect Kh-35, Kh-55 and Kh-59s with engine fairings 1.5cm wider than before.
Not replacing but building new missiles.
Russia has now much more money to build better quality stuff on modern plants so with time this defence relationship with Ukraine or any other country will break any way.
star49this show 32 Flanker per year at Irkut with complete armament of Yak-130.
http://www.arms-tass.su/data/Files/File/119.pdf
2007, the Irkut Corporation accounted for 20% of Russia’s
total defense exports which, based on preliminary estimates,
amounted to US$ 7.1 billion. The Corporation’s net
profit was US$ 162 million. Today, the Corporation’s order book is
worth US$ 4.6 billion. This has been revealed by Oleg Demchenko,
the president of the Corporation.
According to ARMS-TASS Agency, under existing contracts,
in 2007 Irkut supplied forty Su-30MK multi-role fighters: 16 readymade
machines to India and 8 component packages for licensed
assembly at the facilities of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., 6 aircraft
to Algeria and 10 to Malaysia. Twenty-eight of the exported fighters
were fully built in 2007 at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant. The remaining
twelve were 80% built in 2006. In 2007 they were completed and
delivered to the customer.
According to ARMS-TASS Agency last year Irkut concluded
contracts to supply the Indian AF with a further forty Su-30MKIs
and eighteen under a trade-in scheme in exchange for Su-30Ks.
According to him, Irkut expects to build and hand over to the customers
35 combat aircraft under current contracts this year, 35 in
2009 and 35 in 2010. O.Demchenko did not rule out that the supplies
could grow due to new transactions.
In 2008, Irkut will roll out the first Yak-130 operational trainer
whose production is transferred from Sokol Plant of Nizhny
Novgorod. This year, Sokol will assemble four Yak-130 operational
trainers from a pilot lot of 12, after which the remaining 8 aircraft
and all subsequent ones ordered for the Russian Air Force and for
export will be built at Irkutsk.
Last year, the Russian AF issued a preliminary conclusion,
which permits the series production of the Yak-130 trainer. In
March 2008, a fourth Yak-130 has been handed over for joint acceptance
trials. It participates in the second stage of the trials for
operational employment with a standard armament package. By
year end the trials will be complete.
The Irkut Corporation,now Russia’s largest exporter
of aviation products Nikolai
Sign In
