Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6448
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Nov 2019, 16:18

marsavian wrote:Probably the best nose pointer of them all, best taken out with missiles at range ;).



*Laughs in F-22, Super Hornet*
Choose Crews
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1135
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Nov 2019, 19:06

mixelflick wrote:I recall seeing at least one Flanker demo with a damn impressive external load.


Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKgyywH7TN8

Tail slide with such heavy and non symmetric load is quite impressive.

This was done to stop BS about Flanker flying on fumes and without weapons on airshows, Su-27 constructor talked about that, he said we want to show what plane can do with heavy weapon load and nice % of fuel, of course in real combat it wouldn't see dogfight in such configuration but we want to push it to max.

That is early 1990s Su-30, new Su-35 is lot more agile and have TVC which Su-30MK from video don't have.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 03:47

mixelflick wrote:
knowan wrote:It burned a hell of a lot of energy doing that turn; notice that afterwards the plane dived for over 10 seconds before making any more turns.

Also note this was a clean Su-35 with a low fuel load.


Source for low fuel load? Even if it's only 50%, 50% of a Flankers internal fuel is more than many western fighters can carry in total. 50% is 12,700lbs, or damn close to an F-15's total internal fuel (13, 850). And that's one of the largest Western fighters there is...

I recall seeing at least one Flanker demo with a damn impressive external load. Same for the SH. And if the SH can do it, why not a Flanker with a much better thrust to weight ratio to begin with?

I would agree Russian fighter demo's are much more impressive to watch vs. Western ones, but only if you're the average person. The average person doesn't understand the effect a full AAM loadout would have on performance. They don't understand after pulling a high AOA maneuver off, not re-gaining energy leaves your a sitting duck, or that a plane that loses altitude after such is much less impressive than one gaining altitude.

Which makes the F-35 demo that much more impressive.

Flankers don't fly airshows at 50%. That's always been one of the critiques of Russian aerial displays (low fuel, limiters off, test pilots, non-combat related manuevers/speeds) vs F-22/35 flying at high fuel states/representative weights and speeds/combat pilots.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 12:10

Go Slow.
Turn on the burners.
Yank the thing around using full TVC power.
Dive to regain the lost energy.

Airshow stuff to please the public but tells nothing about the aircrafts combat performance.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 14:33

wrightwing wrote:Flankers don't fly airshows at 50%. That's always been one of the critiques of Russian aerial displays (low fuel, limiters off, test pilots, non-combat related manuevers/speeds) vs F-22/35 flying at high fuel states/representative weights and speeds/combat pilots.


Exactly.
I also read somewhere (can't remember, sorry) that Russian Sukhois (Su-27/Su-35) flying during those airshows are often modified aircraft which are stripped from important mission/combat avionics (which of course makes them lighter and thus having for example a higher TWR).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4159
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 16:15

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I recall seeing at least one Flanker demo with a damn impressive external load.


Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKgyywH7TN8

Tail slide with such heavy and non symmetric load is quite impressive.

This was done to stop BS about Flanker flying on fumes and without weapons on airshows, Su-27 constructor talked about that, he said we want to show what plane can do with heavy weapon load and nice % of fuel, of course in real combat it wouldn't see dogfight in such configuration but we want to push it to max.

That is early 1990s Su-30, new Su-35 is lot more agile and have TVC which Su-30MK from video don't have.


That was it, thanks for finding/posting it.

To me, this was pretty incredible especially for a non thrust vectoring jet. The rough comparison in the West would be loading out an F-15E and trying this, and matching it maneuver for maneuver. I'm not so sure it could do so, but wondering if the new, FBW F-15's could.

As someone else pointed out, the SU-35 is more powerful and lighter. And while its true about the ballistic nature of some of these maneuvers, it would be ridiculous to say they're not incredibly impressive. Combat relevant? That's debatable. If they weren't or if the Russians didn't at least think so, I doubt they'd go through the expense and extra weight of adding it.

At the end of the day it's clear America has bet big on stealth, SA and BVR engagements to win the day. The Russians clearly put heavier emphasis on the dogfight. I wonder how much of that is due to the fact they know about their abysmal BVR record? In any case, someone is going to win or lose big given those diametrically opposed viewpoints.

I'd say given the outcome of multiple Red Flags, there's a good possibility its the US. That doesn't mean the dogfight is dead though. Old school dogfights occurred between India and Pakistan quite recently, or at least that's how I understand India lost a Mig-21. That's the thing... I think for quite some time 2nd and 3rd world nations will be fighting "old school" air to air combat. Lack of fielding a stealth fighter, coupled with a lack of BVR training/unreliable weapons will be what continues to drive it..
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1135
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 18:49

ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Flankers don't fly airshows at 50%. That's always been one of the critiques of Russian aerial displays (low fuel, limiters off, test pilots, non-combat related manuevers/speeds) vs F-22/35 flying at high fuel states/representative weights and speeds/combat pilots.


Exactly.
I also read somewhere (can't remember, sorry) that Russian Sukhois (Su-27/Su-35) flying during those airshows are often modified aircraft which are stripped from important mission/combat avionics (which of course makes them lighter and thus having for example a higher TWR).


Old BS from time when ordinary folks were impressed with Pugachev's cobra. So to explain that some folks imagine some tuned up Su-27 which fly on fumes.

Whole point of Su-27 performance is TWR and engines which tolerate problematic air flow coupled with radical design.

T-10S design was very controversial when was presented to important people of ussr aero industry and technology. There was big argument about T-10S design, some say it break rules of aircraft construction (mostly arguing about fuel tank which goes behind engines, CAGI director and professor said to Simonov it is same as you put boobs on women back) others call it waste of resources because airforce wanted F-15C internal fuel range and T-10S range was lot better on internal fuel.

And in west its design was poorly understood, huge size lead western analysts to concluded Soviets failed with turbofans so they use turbojet for this new fighter that is why it is so big to carry lot of fuel so it have good range.
Last edited by milosh on 16 Nov 2019, 18:51, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 18:50

ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Flankers don't fly airshows at 50%. That's always been one of the critiques of Russian aerial displays (low fuel, limiters off, test pilots, non-combat related manuevers/speeds) vs F-22/35 flying at high fuel states/representative weights and speeds/combat pilots.


Exactly.
I also read somewhere (can't remember, sorry) that Russian Sukhois (Su-27/Su-35) flying during those airshows are often modified aircraft which are stripped from important mission/combat avionics (which of course makes them lighter and thus having for example a higher TWR).


Not true, even unmodified Sukhois can pull off those maneuvers. Not that it makes much difference, you bleed so much energy you're a sitting duck for a second shot.

As for fuel, I think I read somewhere that Flankers fly at 50% fuel for airshows, but that's only for the fuselage tanks while wing tanks are empty. Either way I don't think you're giving the airplanes enough credit. Besides taking out avionics and other heavy stuff would affect CG and handling and would make it more dangerous so there's no reason to do that.
Offline

ovod

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2019, 11:38

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 22:18

mixelflick wrote:Old school dogfights occurred between India and Pakistan quite recently, or at least that's how I understand India lost a Mig-21. That's the thing... I think for quite some time 2nd and 3rd world nations will be fighting "old school" air to air combat. Lack of fielding a stealth fighter, coupled with a lack of BVR training/unreliable weapons will be what continues to drive it..


I wouldn't have thought that was a dogfight, although it looked like some sort of ambush. I thought the Pakistani AF used an AIM-120C5 to shoot down the Indian MiG-21 - hardly a dogfight missile?
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 02:12

milosh wrote:So to explain that some folks imagine some tuned up Su-27 which fly on fumes.

Whole point of Su-27 performance is TWR and engines which tolerate problematic air flow coupled with radical design.

T-10S design was very controversial when was presented to important people of ussr aero industry and technology. There was big argument about T-10S design, some say it break rules of aircraft construction (mostly arguing about fuel tank which goes behind engines, CAGI director and professor said to Simonov it is same as you put boobs on women back) others call it waste of resources because airforce wanted F-15C internal fuel range and T-10S range was lot better on internal fuel.


I heard in airshows Su-27 flies at 50% fuel but only for the fuselage tanks but wing tanks are empty. I don't remember the exact reason though.
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 17 Nov 2019, 08:14, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 03:30

disconnectedradical wrote:
I heard in airshows Su-27 flies at 50% fuel but only for the fuselage tanks but wing tanks are empty. I don't remember the exact reason though.

Because the forward fuselage tanks need to be empty in order for the weight and balance to allow full AoA and G.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 456
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 10:10

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
I heard in airshows Su-27 flies at 50% fuel but only for the fuselage tanks but wing tanks are empty. I don't remember the exact reason though.

Because the forward fuselage tanks need to be empty in order for the weight and balance to allow full AoA and G.


Are there g restriction when the tanks are full, for the Su-27/30/35?
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1135
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 10:56

swiss wrote:Are there g restriction when the tanks are full, for the Su-27/30/35?


Of course. For Su-27 it is 6G with full fuel tank (9.4tons) and full A-A loadout (lot of R-27 and R-73).

VVS wanted 9G fighter at 100% fuel with similar range as F-15C so Su-27 with 56% of fuel is 9G.

This is why others thought T-10S is waste of resources becuase no one asked for 9.4tons of fuel, but there wasn't other solution to fix problematic T-10 design fast.

T-10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPdX4iWDg_c


T-10 I think was 9G capable with 100% fuel, it carry noticable less fuel then T-10S (main fuel tank is lot shorter no tail sting).

T-10 was more brainchild of TsAGI then Sukhoi, this is why TsAGI folks were furious when Simonov proposed T-10S with long fuel tank which have sting.

Simonov called it additional fuel tank, presenting it as external fuel tank but carried internally :D for which minister of arms said to him good thing this is 1980s if this is 1930s you would be in gulag with that smart a$$ philosophy.

So only Sukhoi was pleased with final design, later huge fuel capacity was key selling point of Flanker so in the end that overkill was success, which saved Sukhoi from similar fate as MiG.
Offline

Patriot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 12:50

9.4t fuel is for two seat Flankers like Su-27UB & Su-30.
Wikipedia claims the Su-35 fuel capacity to be 11,5t (25,400lb) which is basically roughly the equivalent 4x F-16 or 2x F-15C and it has ~25% more fuel than Raptor.
Quite impressive.
I didnt knew it has such g limits with full internal.
So the rear sting is a fuel tank?? I always thought it was for some EW equipment/rear hemisphere radar.
Offline

ovod

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2019, 11:38

Unread post17 Nov 2019, 13:13

Patriot wrote:9.4t fuel is for two seat Flankers like Su-27UB & Su-30.
Wikipedia claims the Su-35 fuel capacity to be 11,5t (25,400lb) which is basically roughly the equivalent 4x F-16 or 2x F-15C and it has ~25% more fuel than Raptor.
Quite impressive.


I suspect Wikipedia is wrong with 11.5 tonnes - 10 tonnes would be more like it - you would need a source for it.

EDIT: Correction!
As a newbie it seems I am only allowed 1 post a day... :x

In answer to ricnunes post below:

Hi, found a good source - the people who make the Su-35S - KNAAZ. They do indeed say 11500 kg and it does refer to interrnal fuel load only. My humble apologies...
Максимальный запас топлива во внутренних баках, кг 11500

http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

And in English:

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf
Last edited by ovod on 17 Nov 2019, 14:32, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: milosh and 46 guests