Page 87 – Key Publishing

Nicolas10

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,291 through 1,305 (of 4,147 total)

← 1 2 3 … 86 87 88 … 275 276 277 →

Author

Posts
April 1, 2013 at 10:44 am in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292096

Nicolas10
Participant

Playing Paralay’s game a bit…

Rafale
10,460 kg (equipment) + 100 kg (pilot) + 4700 kg (fuel) + 740 kg (4 Meteor) + 672 kg (6 MICA) + 2540 kg (2030 kg CFT 2) + 2200 kg (2 EFT, 1765 kg of fuel) = 21412 kg, the total weight of 4700 kg of fuel + 2030 kg + 1765 kg = 8495 kg.
Radius of 1050 km, range 3000 km. Fuel consumption 2.80 kg / km

Su35
Take-off weight in this configuration
17,550 (blank) + 100 kg (pilot) + 11500 kg (fuel) + 4408 kg (load) = 33,558kg
Flight distance in this configuration with a load of 3300 km.
4 RVV-MD, 4 x 106 kg = 424 kg. 4 P-72 x 49 kg = 196 kg.
4 RVV-SD, 4 x 190 kg = 760 kg. AKU-170E 4 x 61 kg = 244 kg.
4 RVV-BD, 4 x 510 kg = 2040 kg. AKU-58AE 4 x 186 kg = 744 kg. distance of 200 km / 300 km, warhead. 60 kg.
424 kg + 196 kg + 760 kg + 244 kg + 2040 kg + 744 kg = 4408 kg

TWR:
Rafale: Dry 0.47 ; Wet 0.72
Su35: Dry 0.52 ; Wet 0.95

Wing loading:
Rafale: 468 kg/m²
Su35: 541 kg/m²

That contradicts paralay’s post that the Su has lower wingloading than the Rafale. The difference in TWR is massive in afterburner though.

Nic

April 1, 2013 at 9:58 am in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292121

Nicolas10
Participant

Is there any info about the NEZ of the RVV-BD, and terminal agility?

Nic

April 1, 2013 at 12:25 am in reply to: Pak-Fa News Thread part 22 #2292362

Nicolas10
Participant

They delete every post with highres pics 🙁

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 10:08 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292570

Nicolas10
Participant

What do you think the RCS of a combat-configured (6 to 8 missiles and 1 or 2 tanks, as opposed to clean) Rafale is going to be? About the same as a clean Mirage 2000 or MiG-21 perhaps? Well that puts it at about 3m² and the Irbis is indeed claimed to detect targets of such size at 400km – in fact it’s not a claim anymore either, recent reports say it achieved or exceeded that goal in testing.

I would expect Irbis to cause every bit as much consternation to a Rafale as Meteor would to a Su-35.

Well, paralay rates the RCS of the clean Rafale at 2.8sqm & that of the clean Su35 at 2.5sqm. In total contradiction to what Dassault says about the relative RCS of the Rafale & the Mirage 2000 I might add.

THEN he decides a combat at exactly the max clean range of the Su, knowing the Rafale will need 3 2000L tanks to reach that range (no no he never assumes the customer may opt for CFTs if it ever needed more range for air to air).

THEN he assumes the Rafale pilot is a retard who will just play into the strengh of his enemy’s plane, whereas in real life he will detect the Su’s radar way before the Su’s radar detects him & act accordingly.

’nuff said.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 8:34 pm in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2292681

Nicolas10
Participant

A meeting of two jackasses. Carvalho is standard issue corporate slime, but the interviewer channelling Richard Dawkins with those supercilious glasses of his is even more deserving of a punch in the face. :p

Corporate slime vs media slime. Would make for a good troma movie 😀

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 8:17 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292692

Nicolas10
Participant

It does not change the state of affairs 😉

What does though is that the single most factor in any fight since the dawn of aviation is who sees the other first has the huge advantage. So it comes down to the efficiency of EW suites & sensor fusion to give the tactical advantage.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 7:17 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292756

Nicolas10
Participant

Before you start shooting the Su-35 flew 1,055 km. I chose a level playing field for the Rafale and Su-35, the range of 3300 km with a radius of 3,300 km * .35 = 1155 km. 😉

You didn’t chose a level playing field, you chose the range which favors the Su35 the most, because to reach it the Rafale has to carry 3 2000L tanks, and the Su doesn’t have to carry any tanks.

That being said, the Rafale could have jettisoned the tanks by the time it reaches that distance.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 7:15 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292762

Nicolas10
Participant

Without being uncharitable Paralay the below is a photo of a real Rafale firing a Meteor…

…how long until we see an equivalent image of an Su-35 firing one of these new missiles you talk of?.

To be fair I think it’s just weapon separation tests.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 6:42 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292788

Nicolas10
Participant

Simulation of air combat one Su-35 against two Rafale, shows that:
After 1.17 hours after takeoff, the Su-35 will fire long-range missiles, will change its position and take a high altitude flight. After 1:25 hours after takeoff open fire medium-range missiles. All this time the Rafale can not return fire, had to actively maneuver, dropping external fuel tanks with the rest of 2055 kg. Probability of hitting the two targets eight missiles over 100% in ideal conditions.

Su-35 is a high probability to win the battle at two Rafale, with 10 RVV-SD and RVV-MD.

Rafale shoots down both RVV-BD with 4 Mica (2 each to be sure), then fires Meteor towards Su35, Su35 not lucky enough to reach the merge, 2 Mica IR left just in case.

Fight on guns.
Maneuverability of the Su-35 exceeds the capabilities of Rafale, thanks to thrust vector control, greater thrust and lower wing loading. Weight second volley gun Nexter DEFA 791B slightly above GS-301 – 10.7 kg / s. vs. 9.75 kg / sec. At the same ammunition GS-301 150 shots, DEFA – 125 shots.
In any case Rafale would have to withdraw from the battle before the Su-35 due to the much smaller fuel capacity.

I believe you are mistaken. The situation isn’t as clear cut.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 4:40 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292846

Nicolas10
Participant

Somehow those khibigny pods don’t appear on the very detailed RCS frontal graph.

Just sayin’…

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 3:50 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292901

Nicolas10
Participant

Rafale fighter detection range: 400 km

lol

Come on…

BTW what is the distance at which spectra detects the IRBIS?

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 3:06 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292928

Nicolas10
Participant

Minimum possible value of RCS Rafale fighter – 1.4 square meters. Less will not, can not dream 🙂

What are you basing this on?

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 3:02 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292934

Nicolas10
Participant

It’s not “my” article, I merely linked to it.

The article is not “way wrong”, it merely did not make the point clearly. “EM silent” means that there are no active radars in the area; that would include AWACS, ground, and sea based radars.

If that’s not the case, the assumption is broken and RCS obviously plays an important role.

Of course I know it’s not yours, but in any case, short of a dogfight over the south pole I don’t know where you could place some warfighting in an EM silent environment.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 12:47 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2292994

Nicolas10
Participant

The key is to avoid emissions, not just from radars, and at the same time passively listen for emissions from the opponent; any signals are shared with other assets and fused to determine where the opponent is.

Does the Su-35S have beamed datalinks? Does it have sensor fusion?

Does the Rafale have beamed datalinks? I believe it does have sensor fusion?

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=1d32d33f-2d8a-4254-ba7e-7f020e980176&ID=11&Web=f4e358e9-9737-43b1-b2f9-c11c7b4ca9fa

As a matter of fact, your article is way wrong insofar as the RCS is crucial even in a “EM silent” environment.

If you have a high RCS, you are going to be a nice juicy blip on the screen of AWACS, ground and sea based radars.

For example a Mica can be fired by a Rafale with sea or awacs based guidance. The rafale won’t even have to fire it’s radar or slave it’s OSF to the target first.

Nic

March 31, 2013 at 12:35 pm in reply to: Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread) #2293004

Nicolas10
Participant

RCS of 2.8 sqm is off Dassault’s claim that the Rafale’s RCS is 1/10th of the Mirage 2000 RCS, which is around 1-3 sqm. So Rafale is at worst 1/10th of the 2.8 sqm paralay is claiming.

The Rafale will never go for an air dominance mission with 3 2000L fuel tanks. It will be equipped with 3 1250L tanks at the most, because those are supersonic while the 2000L tanks aren’t.

90+% of the time, the Rafale won’t need to have the same range as the Su35. And the times it does it won’t be equipped with 2000L tanks, but will be refueled in flight instead.

Any comparison which isn’t done with operationally relevant loadouts is moot.

Nic
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,291 through 1,305 (of 4,147 total)

← 1 2 3 … 86 87 88 … 275 276 277 →