lukosSu-34 has 11 ton greater MTOW than Su-35. based on Sukhoi website they both carry identical weopon load. what is the logic behind that?. Su-34 lacks TVC. so that factor should reduce its weight right? and where is the specification for Su-27SM3?. as according to your statement every thing should be on the website.
Why on Earth are you bringing an Su-34 into this? You may as well bring an F-111 into a discussion about F-14s. Su-34 is a frontline fighter bomber that’s why it weighs more and has a higher MTOW. The Su-27SM3 might weigh more than the basic Su-27 given the strengthened airframe, who knows?
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/12/23/699/
you don’t have any official figures for Typhoon range with 6AAM on internal fuel. so quit posting any claims regarding it. and what is the weight of Typhoon with electronic scanning radar.
It’ll weigh about 200lb more with AESA, as would an Su-27 if it was getting it. The range figure normally is with a nominal load.
Saudi Arabia owns your GDP. you can produce GDP but you cant own it. You don’t have savings to keep interest rates low below real inflation for credit markets. think about all those housing loans.
No it doesn’t because, as already pointed out, it doesn’t have the funds to even buy it for one year. To actually own the industries that produced it, it would need 20 times that. We actually have lots of savings at the moment that built up following 2008 and the interest rates are being kept low to discourage it amongst other things.
rcs with sources? who are those independent scientific sources that use same radar for tracking, same payload, speed. (heat signature), electronic warfare power to come to rcs conclusion?. engine power. think about diesel engine. the low rpm enable it high efficiency. more powerful engine means less revolution needed.
EW factors into detection but not RCS.
RCS sources
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html
http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf
IR detection also depends on aircraft size, because resolution plays a major part as well as temperature. Larger engines produce more total heat (even at a lower temperature) and allow easier tracking.
Do you actually understand the term ‘Specific Fuel Consumption’?! Well, if you transpose the Breguet equation with g*SFC and your beloved L/D, V(L/D), to be precise- you’ll see what it has to do with range (i.e. everything).
Don’t try claim that black is white. He didn’t say ‘Specific Fuel Consumption’, he said ‘Power’. You could have low TSFC and high absolute thrust.
I never claimed that, are you getting delusional now?
What Amiga500 said is a pretty valid range equation. If you dont understand how it works and come up with 5000 km range BS, its your problem. As Amiga500 explains, you are looking at a logarithmic equation, PLUS what he failed to mention is, L/D ratio also drops as the Cl increases. Using Breguet formula in the extreme situations, increase of fuel aboard the aircraft above a certain value will not even increase the range any further.
If you examined the link I posted, I used his range equation assuming equal Lift/Drag (meaning that drag and required cruise thrust is proportional to weight for each aircraft) and using manufacturer TSFC and came up with 82%, which is exactly what the official Su-27 figure vs the figure for the Typhoon on Wiki seems to suggest.
You have no case at all. As said, the Su-27 range on internal fuel would have to be near 5,000km for you to be correct with your 60% figure. Just give it up. You and your fellow mass-debaters started this on the ridiculous premise that the range discrepancy would be equal to the fuel load discrepancy, completely failing to account for the huge size and weight difference between the two aircraft.
The last point you make in bold should also affect the Su-27 more, since it has the higher fuel fraction.
Note how you’ve coupled yourself with JSR. Not so different after all.
lukosApperantly they are the only ones with the stomach to respond to each other.
People -including me- who approximated 62%, 64% 67% are not silenced because they are convinced they are wrong. They stopped arguing because after getting such stupid responses, its pointless and disgusting to go on. Likewise, people who ignore JSR are not convinced russia makes best airplanes. They found it to be futile trying to reason with him.
More to do with the fact your suggested figures are horse**** and using an equal L/D and manufacturer specified TSFC, it comes back with the exact ratio suggested by official Sukhoi range figures for the Su-27 (3530km) and the value stated for the Typhoon in wiki (2900km) – i.e. 82%.
Perhaps if you don’t say stupid crap, which you can’t substantiate, threads like this won’t happen. I’m still waiting for evidence of an Su-27 with nearly 5,000km range on internal fuel BTW.
They haven’t updated specification for Su-34 either. Do you seriously think aircraft with MTOW greater by more than 11 tons has same weopon carrying capacity as the lesser variants?. Su-27SM3 is not even on website.
What aircraft has an 11 ton MTOW? Surely you’re not confusing Typhoon empty weight with MTOW? Oh wait, of course you are.:stupid: Still waiting for evidence of how these lighter electronics will increase Su-27 range by 40%, which is what’s required to make the Typhoon’s internal fuel range ratio 60%.
with money printing continuing. these Oil men will practically buy all the real estate, airline routes, and blue chip firms that at the end of the day nothing will exist without there ownership. oil wont matter.
Even if Saudi Arabia sold every projected barrel of its oil right now, it still wouldn’t equal the combined value of a single year’s GDP for the US and EU alone, let alone the combined value of all the industries.
you are wrong from the beginning. starting with RCS claims, than weights than engine power than load capacity. not to mention exaggerated production numbers for Typhoon. and claims regarding AESA.
Load capacity hasn’t got **** to do with anything. Only you brought that up, I simply said it was irrelevant. I backed up everything I said wrt RCS with sources. Engine power LOL. How does that factor into range?
lukosStealth planes are way heavier relative to conventional planes due to internal volume for weopons/sensors and higher performance loaded envelope. if you don’t see external fuel tanks after years of testing on Su-35 it means they have achieved 4500km range without need of external fuel tanks.
So why haven’t they updated the brochure? You really do just make unsubstantiated claims don’t you?
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/production/military/su-35/su-35_buklet_eng.pdf
lack of infrastructure, low productivity. why they need productivity when they are already wealthy. productivity is for countries like Japan to keep them afloat.
Productivity might give them an actual economy and bring their people out of the gutter, creating some kind of civilisation. The oil won’t last forever.
I am exclusively right in estimation. you should not compare Typhoon with Flanker built with 21st century technology and funding.
What does that even mean? Internal weight has little impact on range anyway. The 60% figure was way off and I was absolutely right to correct that bull****.
lukosIndeed. And displaying his ignorance of the PPP GDP figures which are available, e.g. the World Bank/UN/EU/etc project the latest results of which are available here, & which address his rants about Saudi prices.
After adjustment, it turns out that the PPP GDP of Saudi Arabia is marginally bigger than those of Iran & Turkey, & just behind S. Korea, Spain, & Canada.
Back to topic . . .
The other thing to remember is that PPP doesn’t mean anything when it comes to purchasing power on the global markets. You can spend nominal $s but you can’t spend PPP $s, or save them at a bank.
lukosyes. T-50 is much smaller plane than Flanker but still have more or similar range despite more powerful engines and AESA radars.
Marginally smaller at best. 8% on wingspan and 10% length and 3% on weight but the Su-35 contains 12% more fuel. And it doesn’t mean that the same technology has been applied to the Su-35. I didn’t see anything about an Su-35 update, no official change in range figures, which prospective buyers would be more than interested in.
UK/German GDPs are widely inflated and has nothing to do with reality. for example in Kingdom of Saudi Gasoline prices are 1/10 of UK/Germany. Education even overseas is free. and arms procurement in billions. heavy twin engine airforce with all AESA radars. trillions in soverign wealth fund and private accounts. No debt. No need for Chinese working for them. decisive command on world reserve currencies. picture tell everything.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-kerry-meets-with-saudi-king-abdullah-1403888673
All that oil and still little productivity and lower GDP, not to mention that lack of infrastructure.
I have shown clear pictures of what modern Flanker can lift on various weopon stations. you started with RCS. that I quickly correct you. and than you started with ranges and associating external fuel tanks with Flanker. where none in operational Flankers have yet.
Yeah and you’ve been almost exclusively wrong on everything you’ve said, along with the other idiots who suggested the Typhoon only had 60% of the range of an Su-27 on internal fuel.
lukosAbsurd points, and that’s about the only reply a post like that deserves.
I agree. The F-35 has a lot of strengths. SA plays a huge part of air combat. I’d have liked to see a twin-engined aircraft with a bit more get-up and go but it’ll still be successful as a multi-role aircraft. The points about availability are a valid issue but not put very well.
Availability rates fluctuate over the aircraft’s service life. Trying to predict availability of an aircraft that has not even achieved IOC is a bit like trying to guess keno numbers based on previous lotteries.
Nevertheless it’s something that’s studied extensively in RMA departments. Reliability for unknown systems is calculated from the ground up based on component FMEAs to produces subsystem and aircraft FMECAs along with the specification of maintenance regimes.
lukosdid I said this. upgrade reading comprehension. I said that avionics for 2008 Su-35S will not be the same as avionics for Su-35 in 2014 that’s due to tremendous investment in semiconductor industry by Russia.
And you can verify this amazing 6-year difference wrt weight?
I gave you hint of Noway. no two countries measure the same GDP let alone continents. compare China GDP with Japan. Saudi with Turkey.
And UK and German GDPs are both higher than Russia’s, despite having <25% of the population in the UK.[/QUOTE]
As I said those are paper specification. Su-35 can lift on wing tips as much as EF on centre line. Just look at Electronic pod size on Su-30/Su-34. The centerline may lift as much 2.5 to 3 tons Brahmos. The whole plane is designed from ground up for much heavier loads across various weopon stations.
Anyway, I’m getting branded a troll for correcting the real trolls.
lukosThere was talks of 2000L tanks as well, and that’s where you get it all wrong. Ferry range was never revised despite the withdrawal of 1500L and 2000L EFT.
Anyhow, the Typhoon is not going to go as far as 2800 km on internal fuel only because she can’t stay 3 hours in the air without refueling. That’s as simple as that.
So they quoted a ferry range out of thin air without testing it?
Troll.
Lukos@
Hold it there sister!
The figures for Su-35S does not state at which altitude the Ferry range..
Do you have any similar figures for the Typhoon altitude?
And b.t.w. what altitude is cruise altitude anyway? Is cruise altitude the same on Su-35S and Typhoon?
Seems to me we got more inconclusive figures floating around.And do you have any spesiffic official figures what kind of EFT size we are talking about?
Ferry range is always done at optimal altitude same as optimal cruise. Stop trolling.
lukosI’m aware of it, however, context, the way those sources were reporting was that the F-35 was all but out of the competition, ‘no’ full purchases, ‘no’ reduced unit purchases, ‘no’ split buys as what it came down to in the end, the simple fact of the matter was they made themselves look rather silly be claiming it was is/going to be an outright win for the F-15SE, of which they were adamant. One remembers the reports Slowman was posting endlessly stating such claims, and they were considered to be rather “well informed” sources, too. Someone within those made a bit of mess.
I notice you’re still defending your position despite the fact that you are clearly wrong. What was that about moral fibre and being able to admit you’re wrong again? Pretty much every source of journalism reported it the same way, because at one point in time, those were pretty much the facts of the matter – the F-35 and EF were out and the F-15SE was selected.
Oh and, Lukos. Talk about “respect”, it ends where one flushes away what is put to them,
Pretty much like you’re doing now. At least I had good reason to have my doubts about RAF figures given build quantity vs contracted quantity and an article.
respect was lost for you long before the name calling and I’m not the only one on here that has lost it for you. The number of members that have made it obvious speaks volumes, doesn’t it not. (There’s an insult referring to you in there somewhere, figure it out.)
Ta!
If I provide you with a small bowl, will you cry into it so that I can collect your tears?
lukosAircraft that flew in 2008 does not mean it has semiconductors from 2008 as it takes couple of years to built avionic systems. A lot of Russian semiconductor spending happened after summer of 2008 so those things are entering in post 2012 period.by Spring of 2012 the radar ranges exceed over 400km. You need very powerful engine and electric supply to get those kind of performance figures.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/news/index.wbp?article-id=C746E26A-7022-4C6D-BB49-EDDECAC39C3D
So what are you saying here? The Su-35 still uses Soviet ere electronics? I can’t really figure out what your point is.
The only rich nation in Europe is Norway that can only stay rich if does not spend too much on defense.
Last I looked GDPs suggested we were doing okay relative to Russia.
Empty weights are never published on websites for Flanker rather MTOW. so this the only valid comparision. Su-30MKI has TVC, canards, twin seat raised cockpit, older heavier BARs radar and still manage 3000km range on internal fuel. it means putting weopon load on single seat flanker will not reduce its range that much.
The reason they don’t publish empty weights is because it allows people to work out loaded weights, which in turn give TWRs below 1.0, which is embarassing.
lukoshttp://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/production/military/su-35/su-35_buklet_eng.pdf
Going through the Su-35s PDF booklet:
I see the h=0 figure.. does this translate to deck flight level altitude?Is this the same altitude figures done by all other fighter jets in their advs?
H=0 is for the 1580km (range at sea level). Hcr = cruise altitude, 3,600km.
lukosDon’t care about it.
How convenient since it completely invalidates your point.
So, I used 2.22E-5 and 1.86E-5 (from the same book), you go nuts and quote numbers of 2.1 and 1.94 from disparate sources (albeit quite good ones).
Yes, the bit you chose to put in brackets sums my thoughts up quite well. I just happened to use official sources.
Now. Thing is, at cruise, both of those TSFC values will jump by a factor of ~1.5 for installation losses.
And the percentage difference should remain roughly constant when they do.
OK, using your TSFC (x1.5), and the premise that the range is from OEW+max fuel, then that gives an L/D of ~9. [which would be somewhere in the right area – using F-15 k and Cdo values, I got L/D=9 for EF and 9.6 for Su-27]
Where on Earth are you pulling L/D figures from?
Now, I’m going to use that L/D=9 and apply it to both Su-27 Eurofighter. Before you go biccies about not being able to do that, be aware it is almost certainly a favourable assumption for Eurofighter by dint of its significantly lower wing aspect ratio*.
It spits out a EF internal fuel only range of 2860 km. [Not too far away from the stated 2900km.]
*If you worked out the L/D factor using K and Cd0 (based on F-15=Su-27 for both a EF and Su-27 @ OEW+Fuel, then the EF would need a >7% improvement in both Cd0 and K to match the Flanker. I must emphasis that 7% is a vast chasm! To highlight that difference, even the F-5 has an L/D of approx 9 at CL=0.225 at Mach0.9
So, once again scooting through the numbers, the Flanker can match Eurofighter’s range from OEW with a fuel load of ~67%. Running from MTOW, the Su=27 fuel load can drop to 59% total possible! [with range for both dropping to ~1800 km]
Your logic is complete and utter unfollowable ****e. What are you using to calculate this? Show your damn calculation and don’t just spout disjointed figures at people and state that something has spat out something. You’re using assumed values rather than actually official range and fuel figures. You come out with 2,900km for the Typhoon, which is 83% of the Su-27’s official range and then you argue that it’s only 67%. So the Su-27 has a range of 4,350km on internal fuel now does it? About the same as an Su-35’s ferry range with 14.5t of fuel.
If L/D is the same. The Su-27 has 1.666 times as much drag (56,824lb/34,100lb). However fuel usage is in the ratio of 1.08:1 (Typhoon:Su-27 based on 2.1/1.94) assuming equal cruise speed.
20,724lb (Su-27 IF) / [1.666/1.08] = 13,463lb relative to Typhoon.
13,463/11,000 = 1.224
So the Su-27 can match Typhoon with 82% (100/1.224) internal fuel. Which surprise, surprise is roughly what the official values of 2,900/3,530 suggest.
You might think the assumption of L/D favours the Typhoon but looking at it from another perspective. The Flanker is an older design, the sweep angle of the Typhoon’s wings reduce wave drag in the transonic regime above Mach 0.8 cruise. The Typhoon’s engines were optimised for work at cruise altitude. Not many airlines use Russian engines considering they’re so efficient. Is claimed figure valid? Typhoon also has supercruise capability to keep consumption low when speed in required.
Your going to have to explain that to me. A relaxed static stability aircraft flying subsonically will see nothing but extra weight (and possible nozzle efficiency compromises) in cruise.
Using the nozzle for lift reduces drag in cruise. It’s a fact verified during study of the F-15 ACTIVE:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Active/pub_online/setp_d6.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-048-DFRC.html#.U6_fbvldWak
It is not a direct ratio problem. Please stop treating it as such.
Furthermore, you are grabbing numbers from all over the place without any verification of consistency.
Oh, the irony.
OK, so. Eurofighter can carry 2x2000L + 1x1000L tanks.
No it can’t. It carries three 1000L tanks only. That’s where you’re going wrong. There was talk of 1500L tanks, but nothing materialised.
At density .876 kg/l that is 4380 kg extra fuel. A rough rule of thumb for EFT is that half the extra fuel is burned compensating for the tank drag.
Thus, I’ve increased the Eurofighter fuel capacity to 5000+[4380/2]. Putting it through the same range equation with same parameters as used above gives an answer of….
3840 km.
Which is not a kick in the teeth away from “> 3,800 km”.
For the Flanker, 2x2000L = 3500 kg @ 0.876 kg/l, again, rule of thumb, effective increase is 1750 kg; resulting in a ferry range of ~4500 km.
Needless to say, this is all wrong because of your flawed assumption of 2000L tanks. You also can’t assume that L/D remains the same. Oh, the fail.
lukosIt did win the “competition” – it was selected.
Thanks for that. In no way does it subtract from the credibility of the paper. They reported a fact, which later changed.
lukosSu-35 started with Soviet era avionics. you have to understand Russia has vast budget that’s why it simultaneously develop MESA/PESA/AESA for fighters. and each new batch has tremendous capability difference. Su-35 design they thought they may need ETs but now with advanced engines and light weight materials. it does not need it. so you wont see operational Su-35 picture with fuel tanks. as its range is already 4500 without out ET.
Soviet era electronic in 2008??? Advanced engines mean it doesn’t need ETs? Are these the same advanced engines you, or someone else argued used more fuel earlier? The Su-35’s range is already 4,500km without ETs???
Typhoon developers has limited budget and technical ability. they cannot create fundamentally different export model.
Yes, 4 of the 5 richest nations in Europe(?) have vastly less budget than Russia. Note that I’m not actually saying the export models are different.
MTOW is the key figure to find the empty weight of aircraft. SU-30MKI is 38.8tons. Su-34 is 45tons. Su-35 is 34.5 tons. Su-27SM is 33tons.
Here was me thinking the empty weight was the key figure to finding the empty weight. Silly me.
lukosstated range of 3530km for Su-27SK with 4AAM that is built from Soviet times. you need to understand these figures on website are from that era. It has practically nothing to do with current flankers or its upgrades.
And what about the Su-35? Is that still using Soviet era avionics too when it gets 4,500km with 11.5t of internal fuel and 3t of external fuel (5.1t more than the Su-27 in total). And the Typhoon’s range on internal fuel comes out just below 60% of this ferry range even before tank drag is factored in.
those adverstizements are for export models. Su-35 also coated with RAM.
Doesn’t make any difference. You’re just being disingenuous. We could claim the Typhoon figures are for export models too if we went down that route. Su-35 weighs about 10% more empty, some dispute that. It also has TVC to improve range by reducing drag though.
and you think there is nothing integral in Flankers?. newest flankers can lift on wing tips as much as Typhoon on centerline. There is vast difference in capabilities. and huge weight increase does not inhibit Flanker range that much. Su-30MKI has 38.8 tons MTOW. its empty weight is 4 tons more than Su-27SM. it has raised draggier cockpit but it still manage 3000km range on internal fuel. difference is obvious.
MTOW has nothing to do with range. The Typhoon’s stated MTOW may just be what it’s so far qualified to carry. Anymore than 16,000lbs of load on a fighter is getting a bit silly anyway.
I’ll say again, there’s no possible way a Typhoon’s range on internal fuel comes out to only 60% that of an Su-27. It’s impossible.
Sign In
