uss noviceI agree that Eurofighter or Rafale from pure technological point of view (materials and production) are somewhat ahead of Su-35 (which is actually claimed to be wholly revised in comparison with Su-27). Su-35 is also aerodynamically unstable plane and has TVC. I can see Eurofighter coming most closely to Su-35 – but it is smaller and hense – less capable (to hold different kinds of avionics, weaponry; range).
Hmm, have to agree with hexpop here. While the Eurojets may be “technologically” superior considering they were designed and built much later than a flanker, they’ll still have a very difficult task in taking on an Irbis equipped flanker derivative (su-35/MKI/mkm) with TVC, AESA or not. So technological superiority doesn’t automatically transalte to performance and combat superiority. By virtue of some amazing salient features such as huge fuel loads, large radars, huge payloads, massive sensors, engines and a solid aerodynamic design, the Su-35 competes quite favorably vis a vis the newer Eurocanards. And comes much cheaper.
Kinda tough really for the Euros. They design something from scratch to take care of an existing russian threat and all the russians do is modify the original a bit and its back to square one. AMazing what that Vodka can do 😀
An additional statement would be that Irbis most probably will be the pinnacle of fighter PESAs – like the Su-35’s airframe 🙂 .
yeah, looks like it.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceShooting at a noncooperative target at very long range is not advisable. The target has too much time to disengage and outmaneuver the weapon. Point in case, the USN trying to bag easy kills with AIM-54s over Iraq in 1991.
hmm, but those were Sarhs right? Perhaps the Iraqi a/c could break lock at such ranges? Or perhaps the missiles were fired @ max ranges 150km+? if modern radars (circa 2010) can paint ’em better, and emit only when required (to MCU), will the target even know the missile is approaching? Or will targets detect missile launch at such ranges? Something like the KS-172 would have tremendous energy @ 150-200km and could do some fancy manouvering. To complicate matters, future KS-172 smight come in 2 variatioins AR and IIR!
Just throwing out some thoughts so bear with me.
Regards,
USS>
uss noviceThe original KS-172 could be extended to 400 km with the addition of a booster stage. In theory this option still exists for the current KS-172S-1 variant.
That’s the real advantage of this weapon, it forces you to define new tactics to ensure you can deal with the shooters before they can get a shot off.
I’m guessing, the best idea is to have a raptor type engage with phoenixes or meteors. Rafales and typhoons armed similarly might also stand a chance. What would be truly scary is if this missile was adapted to deal with fighter types!:eek: Perhaps tVc could help. Equipped with a/c like Su 30MKI/M or Su-35, it’d put a whole bunch of the 4 and 4+ gen a/c out of the picture quite decisively. Imagine getting detected, tracked and shot at all over 200 odd km!
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceThat shot with it dropping 12 bombs is of 12 Mk83 (1000lbs).
edit: Hmmm. I remember reading the AvWeek article way back when and IIRC it said they were 1000lb bombs. Looking for sources though and there are a few that repeat the 1000lbs but then others that say 500lb with F-16.net saying the stubs were rated for 750lbs. :confused: Anyway, here’s a couple pics. One with an F-16 dropping Mk82 and the F-16XL dropping. . .whatever it’s dropping. Based on the slightly larger length compared to the respective radomes and the way the tail necks down more on the ones dropped from the -XL I’m inclined to go with the Mk83. The other picture is a couple interesting graphs I found out on the web.
Amazing! Those charts are impressive! Wonder what it could do with newer 35000lb engines:eek: the IAF will be sorely tempted if a derivative of the XL is in the offing as an MRCA. One drawback to the F-16 is the small size of the nose which prevents the use of a massive antenna, did the XL in any way address this? An XL with 35k lb engines and integrated IRST+TVC+1200 module AESA would be too much to ask I s’pose 😀
regards,
USS.
uss noviceI know the literature. 😉
Very well. But i don’t see more than 1 or 2 sources for it.Then,
“worlds best fighter aircraft” if it’s the way you call the F-15 (in dogfight), this makes me laugh. Sorry. F-15, in a dogfight is an heavy fighter. Nothing comparable against a Typhoon, a Rafale, or even against a Mirage 2000.The only thing I know is that Rafale played an other scenario, which, to me, is much more impressive, and it did it even with its poor RBE-2. I keep this one for my personal satisfaction. And the man who told me this just had no idea (before i showed him the article after) of what the Eurofighter had done, so he really told me the Rafale story sincerely.
Yes, the Rafale didn’t kill 3 F-16. But if the Typhoon could do this, then, believe me, this is not the impressive part of the scenario, and i think that whether we still ignore 90% of the scenario, or the Typhoon really did nothing interesting by shooting down 3 F-16.So, i’m repeating, these claims aren’t really impressive, in addition, they may be exaggerated, or truth may be distorted. Be careful.
The truth is elsewhere.:D
Ahem, Tmor, at the risk of asking too much, would you mind disclosing what you keep so close to your heart about the Rafale. I’m a superfan of said beauty and would like to know. Would understand however, if you cannot share the same. Thanks
regards,
USS.
uss novicethat’s what they advertise, not necessarily going to reach that. Did you see what they were going for before with N-001 and didn’t reach their ambitious goals?
Let’s put it this way, China has already tested this thing according to JDW and Chinese sources and the Russians are trying to sell su-35 along with Irbis to China right now (confirmed by Kanwa). If this thing can actually track F-22 from 90 km out and other radars available do not have this capability, they’d be jumping at the opportunity. I certainly wouldn’t trust Russian sales pitch.
I think there is a difference between NIIP Tikhomorov and Phaza in that the former have come out with some stellar stuff (Zaslon, Bars), while the latter are as you point out, big on claims. Considering NIIP’s excellent pedigree, one doubts the Irbis won’t peform as claimed. There is hardly any reason this radar is not everything that they say it is. They have a wealth of knowledge when it comes to Pesas and the experience with the MKI Bars was obviously quite fruitful, the Irbis is just a follow on to the Bars.
Also, from recent open source reports, the chinese were in full force @ maks 07 and were seen devoutly studying the su-35. They seemed to pay particular attention to sub systems such as the Irbis and the engines. Obviously, they are still jumping @ something and the Irbis seems to be it. Thing is the russkies seem to want china to buy the entire a/c and not just one of its subsystems. And even then, one doubts they are going to sell china something that could very well undermine their own security.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceI find that really hard to believe. If you fire a KS-172S-1 at an AWACS from 300km, and have no midcourse update feature, you’re asking for it to miss. If you got a hit off of the AWACS towards the turnpoint of an AEW orbit, and your FCS projects that the AWACS will continue on its present course, your missile may arrive within theoretical seeker range of the position only to find that the target has altered course and is now outside the seeker’s FOV. The most logical and sensible route is to provide the missile with a midcourse update feature taking cues from the FLANKER’s RWR and ESM gear. You don’t have to operate your radar to provide midcourse updates. Also, if you shoot one at a head-on target at 300km, and it turns away while the weapon is in flight, you’re probably going to miss anyway as the target will probably be outside the missiles range by the time it gets to 300km. BVR weapons are rarely fired at their maximum range for that reason, they’re easy to avoid, even by accident in this case.
Really, the prospects of a kill at maximum range are not that good, but the strength of the weapon is that it possesses such a range, making hostile nations have to take the system into account and have a plan in place to counter it, be that more effective ECM gear of barrier CAPs 200km or so from the AWACS. If you have the KS-172S-1 in your arsenal, what you want to do in order to be successful is not to fire it at 300km, but to identify how the enemy reacts to the presence of the missile, and then exploit the weaknesses of that defensive strategy.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but I thought the max range for the KS-172 was 400km and not 300km. So theoretically @ 300km shouldnn’t this missile have plenty of fuel still left? Translating it into the above scenario, a KS-172 fired @ 300km will reach its target in ~ 3-4 minutes. the AWACS needs to get away in that time window. however, it can travel only about 60-70km in that time.
As to the rest of your post, i’d agree, having midcourse guidance will be crucial esp. @ such ranges and scenarios. Even if it is radar guidance, i’d say thats good enough, cause something like a Su-35 could fire turn and still keep tabs on the missile thanks to its HUGE FOV, something like 120deg IIRC making it that much more difficult for AWACS escorts.
Point is can the AWACS escorts get the flankers before the flankers get the AWACS? Cat and mouse as usual. But the Raptor stands a good chance, although slim imho.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceIt really matters little how the Rafale would rank vs the Typhoon. As it is unlikely they would ever meet in combat. So, the real question is how it would stack up against the Flanker and/or Fulcrum.;)
hard to say, it’d probly fare better against the fulcrum than the flanker.The newer versions of both these a/c are no cakewalks for sure. BVR it’ll have a tougher time against the flanker thanks largely due to the flanker’s endurance; WVR, it’d have a tougher time against the fulcrum thanks to its smaller size and 3D TVC. But there are too many variables, It’ll come down to tactics i think. JMT.
Regards,
USS.
uss novicei have to agree with kovy. whether it be british posters or british journos or british mags, they are full of how ef is the 2nd best fighter around and how so and so told them and this and that. afm goes so far as to publish “anonymous” or whatever jingoistic claims in this regard which read like fanboy drivel from the internet.
seriously, the ef camp have gone so overboard with the propoganda that it isnt even funny.
Yeah, I really liked the part where the guy says the Typhoons made “mincemeat” out of the Su-30MKIs. Where’s burgerboy (F-18 hamburger) gone, he’d have loved it! 😀 Can’t believe an international mag like AFM will give such reports print space. 😮
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceA more surviable scenerio would have the SU-35 not radiate at all because the F-22 is likely to be between it and the AWACS. Use the AWACS signal to tell you where to point the IRST (you’re assuming the IRST can see to the full range of the missile which is likely not the case) but then you have to translate that picture into coordinates for your missile’s active seeker unless you plan on the Su-35 radiating in which case it’s probably toast
.
The gig will be up when the first target position update is datalinked to the missile. The F-22s ALR-94 will have a fix and so will the AWACS if it is in passive mode. If you are close enough to the F-22, it will see the missile plume with it’s MLDs.
Even so, doesn’t the F-22 have to get kind of close to the flanker (around 40-50km) to fire an Amraam? However, the Su-35 could fire off a couple of KS-172s @ 300km or more against the AWACS and then buzz off.
perhaps the Raptors will still get it, question is can they do so before the flanker gets the AWACS? Interesting scenario, tactics could make a lot of difference.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceAfter some thought, I came to the conclusion that the IN would do well to get a package deal with the U.S. ala Gorshkov (of course without the delays + cost hikes). Get carrier Kitty hawk for next to nothing (without a/c) but buy a bunch of hawkeyes for a $ 2 billion deal. The IN has shown need and interest for these babies and the U.S. has been pushing them consistently.
Have the Kitty Hawk refurbed for STOBAR ops and minimal Catobar (only for Hawkeye) and allow the MiG 29s to equip it and later, the NLCA. If the IN does indeed order additional fulcrums, these could again be based on the Kitty Hawk.
it’ll give India excellent power projection capabililty in the IOR for the next 15+ years and great experience in dealing with a future 60ton carrier.
Only thing is the infrastructure required to handle the mammoth ship, perhaps Karwar can accomodate it. I bet they can get the Kitty operational within a year or so if they really so desire.
That way the IN is not stuck with an 8 harrier carrying Viraat for the next 4-5years. As soon as the Vikads/ADS come in, retire the Viraat and start on the ADS2. By 2015, you have 4 carrier navy. The next carriers built in India could thereafter always be 60 tons. JMT
And call it Chandragupta please. 😀
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceQuite willing to stand corrected on that one. Whilst doubtless impressive I dont think it alters the basic premise that using Flankers as Ocean Recce platforms is not necessarily the optimum use for the type!.
Agreed!
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceWhat surface area can an Su-27SM radar scan though 30 degrees either side of centreline to 300km depth?. Calculate the surface area that scans (about 48k km.sq to help) then divide that figure by the length of the Russian coastline to a 500km depth!. How many Su-27SM’s are going to be needed to rerun a Midway-esque SURCAP one wonders!.
Hate to nitpick, but I thought newer Russki radars such as the Irbis have a 120 deg FOV, i.e. 60 deg each side of the centerline. Does anyone have information on the N001V?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceThe trick as Jonesy points out lies in finding/tracking said CVBG. If and when that is managed, the task becomes a lot easier. It seems Russia obviously doesn’t lack in putting enough platforms in the air ESSM or not. Ultimately the whole thing as usual comes down to tactics.
For starters what would be a CVBG mission against Russia? Would a launch of cruise missiles from “enough” distance, get past Russian air defences, esp. on strategic locations? You are looking at everything from MiG-31 patrols, S-300s, S-400s, Tunguskas and Tors. Can a heavy CM launch achieve success?
Again, will such a massive strike be detected by Russian assets (A-50s, satellites etc) and if so, can the CVBG be tracked? If it is, then perhaps you can lay a trap with a lovely sqd of Su-34s, Tu-22M3s et al, perhaps even a few subs/cruisers. Trying to stop supersonics/subsonics all fired from a distance in insane numbers is going to be very difficult for CVBG defences, probly be swarmed and overwhelmed.
PRoblem here is that he scenario painted by Schumacher in the first post is far too ambiguous, we need specifics. But the answer it seems is that it would all depend upon tactics and early detection. JMT
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceExcactly. The empty equipped of the MKI is >19 tons f.e. With max fuel and max weaponsload of 8 tons the MKI is 38 tons MTOW.
The F-15I is cleared for MTOW of ~42 tons f.e.
Sens, could you please clarify this a bit, what is “empty equipped” weight? Most open sources I found simply put the empty weight @ about 17500kgs for the MKI (perhaps this doesnt include the TVC nozzles?). I realize that the Su-37 was heavier (18500kg?).
Schumacher, where did you get that 38000kg figure from?
In either case, 8000 kg of payload and 9000 kg fuel carried internally make it one hell of an a/c. I’d still prefer it to the F-15 strike eagles simply because the latter are loaded down with EFTs, which would compromise performance esp. in A2A mode.The MKI seems more versatile @ extended ranges.
Regards,
USS.
Sign In
