Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 11:45
by Patriot

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 13:22
by marsavian
Probably the best nose pointer of them all, best taken out with missiles at range ;).

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 14:00
by sferrin
Patriot wrote:2:14 minute mark :shock:

https://youtu.be/5vTUkLrxPfw


With TVC. You could make a brick do that with TVC.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 15:42
by Patriot
What speed could he be at? Some 300kts? How these wings did not broke away? From this angle this looks like he just made an u-turn with a car, almost like all the inerital effects were cancelled :doh:

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 06:31
by knowan
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 08:12
by Corsair1963
It's not what they tell you, it's what they don't..... :wink:

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 13:18
by sferrin
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.


Also he pulled way back on the gas to lose speed before he pulled the turn. Not sure why anybody would think the wings would, "snap off".

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 13:38
by charlielima223
marsavian wrote:Probably the best nose pointer of them all, best taken out with missiles at range ;).


If it does manage to get close, keep the fight at a highspeed depriving it of the ability to point its nose.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 13:40
by charlielima223
Their demo flights are always amazing to watch. Compared to F-22 or other western fighters, their maneuvers appear more ballistic than acrobatic IMO.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 15:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
charlielima223 wrote:Their demo flights are always amazing to watch. Compared to F-22 or other western fighters, their maneuvers appear more ballistic than acrobatic IMO.

I've described it as thus:

Russian Demo: See what Sir Issac Newton can do with this plane?

US Demo: See what a service pilot can do with this plane?

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 00:07
by wrightwing
Patriot wrote:What speed could he be at? Some 300kts? How these wings did not broke away? From this angle this looks like he just made an u-turn with a car, almost like all the inerital effects were cancelled :doh:

That wasn't anywhere near 300kts (and was likely not even 200kts.)

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 03:52
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
Patriot wrote:What speed could he be at? Some 300kts? How these wings did not broke away? From this angle this looks like he just made an u-turn with a car, almost like all the inerital effects were cancelled :doh:

That wasn't anywhere near 300kts (and was likely not even 200kts.)


And would have probably had a good chance of falling out of the sky without TVC.

Looking at it again (several times) I think this one is still more impressive. The F-22 is going right into a climb vs a dive to gain speed back. (2:40)


Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 09:30
by boilermaker
Patriot wrote:2:14 minute mark :shock:

https://youtu.be/5vTUkLrxPfw


Probably took the limiters away. In vertical climb Indian Mig 21 pilots regularly practice this maneuver against G and AOA limited fly by wire aircrafts which cannot allow this kind of acrobatics. I think that was an article in huskit

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 13:58
by mixelflick
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 14:43
by charlielima223
mixelflick wrote:
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.


I think I know what you're talking about. I think it was an Su-30 with inert simulated weapons on it. Very impressive visually but compared to other Flanker demos where they fly clean, it was sluggish.

Both F-35 AND F-22s demos are impressive in their own right. (To me) The F-22 always puts on the best show because its raw power its insane...

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 16:18
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:Probably the best nose pointer of them all, best taken out with missiles at range ;).



*Laughs in F-22, Super Hornet*

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 19:06
by milosh
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 03:47
by wrightwing
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 12:10
by vilters
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 14:33
by ricnunes
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).

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 16:15
by mixelflick
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..

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 18:49
by milosh
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 18:50
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 22:18
by ovod
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?

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 02:12
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 03:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 10:10
by swiss
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?

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 10:56
by milosh
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 12:50
by Patriot
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.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 13:13
by ovod
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

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 13:56
by ricnunes
ovod wrote:
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.


Well, I found this source (airforce-technology.com) which IMO is more reliable than wikipedia:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

Where you can read the following:
The total fuel capacity is 14,350l. In order to increase the unrefuelled range and endurance compared to earlier models the Su-35 incorporates additional tailfin and fin-root tanks. The fuel tanks are of aluminium lithium construction and are located in the wings, fuselage and in the square-tip twin tailfins. The unrefuelled range on internal fuel is 1,580km.


14,350l of jet fuel seems indeed to be something around 25,400lb of fuel or 11,500kg previously mentioned.

Now the question is:
- Does that "total fuel capacity" value refers to internal fuel only or internal plus external fuel tanks?

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 15:20
by zhangmdev
I don't remember seeing a photo of a Su-27 carrying external tanks. That must be a rare occurrence.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 17:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The 27 can't only the 35 does

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 17:44
by Patriot
Only been able to find photos of Su-34 with centerline tank.
The world wide web sources claim that Su-27SMK can carry 2000litres tank under each wing. Although I never ever seen a Flanker in such configuration.

Image
Image

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 20:44
by swiss
Thy Milosh. Only 6g. :shock: 56% is only 5.2 tonnes of fuel. 2000 lbs less then the F-15C

ricnunes wrote:
ovod wrote:
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.


Well, I found this source (airforce-technology.com) which IMO is more reliable than wikipedia:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

Where you can read the following:
The total fuel capacity is 14,350l. In order to increase the unrefuelled range and endurance compared to earlier models the Su-35 incorporates additional tailfin and fin-root tanks. The fuel tanks are of aluminium lithium construction and are located in the wings, fuselage and in the square-tip twin tailfins. The unrefuelled range on internal fuel is 1,580km.


14,350l of jet fuel seems indeed to be something around 25,400lb of fuel or 11,500kg previously mentioned.

Now the question is:
- Does that "total fuel capacity" value refers to internal fuel only or internal plus external fuel tanks?


According to the UAC the Su-35 has 11.3 tonnes of internal fuel.

https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/li ... n-features

The structure (including major elements of the fuselage, wing, stabilizers, and landing gear) of the Su-35’s airframe was reinforced, enabling an increase in the airplane’s maximum takeoff weight. That made it possible to significantly increase the amount of fuel on board (as the Su-35 carries 11.3 tons of fuel in its integral fuel tanks while the Su-27 carries just 9.4). Along with this, the fighter is equipped with a flight refueling system and can carry drop tanks with a 2,000 liter capacity each. The payload remained the same as in the Su-27: 8 tons. The number of hardpoints grew from 10 to 12.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 21:08
by madrat
The centerline tank is probably unique to Su-34. Using one on Su-30SM would marginalize the Su-34 role. Su-27 and Su-35 have pretty extreme fuel fraction and can refuel in the air, so not much call for EFT. They already need TVC to log those big planes as it is, the EFTs would restrict maneuvering with TVC to some extent.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 21:29
by milosh
swiss wrote:Thy Milosh. Only 6g. :shock: 56% is only 5.2 tonnes of fuel. 2000 lbs less then the F-15C


I think they wanted better range then F-15A not F-15C, because F-15A was actual when requirements for Su-27 were created or to be precise for Sukhoi T-10. Su-27 is Sukhoi T-10S radical redesign.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 21:55
by ricnunes
swiss wrote:According to the UAC the Su-35 has 11.3 tonnes of internal fuel.

https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/li ... n-features

The structure (including major elements of the fuselage, wing, stabilizers, and landing gear) of the Su-35’s airframe was reinforced, enabling an increase in the airplane’s maximum takeoff weight. That made it possible to significantly increase the amount of fuel on board (as the Su-35 carries 11.3 tons of fuel in its integral fuel tanks while the Su-27 carries just 9.4). Along with this, the fighter is equipped with a flight refueling system and can carry drop tanks with a 2,000 liter capacity each. The payload remained the same as in the Su-27: 8 tons. The number of hardpoints grew from 10 to 12.



So that means that the wikipedia entry on the Su-35 and its internal fuel information isn't far off (it erred by 200kg), thanks swiss!

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 07:59
by knowan
mixelflick wrote:As someone else pointed out, the SU-35 is more powerful and lighter.


Heavier

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 17:08
by milosh
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:As someone else pointed out, the SU-35 is more powerful and lighter.


Heavier


It is lighter then Su-30MK which was in that video.

Su-30MK is two seater. Su-35 is single seater.

Su-35 weight is 17.5tons, Su-30MK is 17.7tons. Though some on net (Russian sources) are compare Su-35 to Su-27SK in therms of weight, Su-27SK is ~17tons.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 21:22
by swiss
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:As someone else pointed out, the SU-35 is more powerful and lighter.


Heavier


It is lighter then Su-30MK which was in that video.

Su-30MK is two seater. Su-35 is single seater.

Su-35 weight is 17.5tons, Su-30MK is 17.7tons. Though some on net (Russian sources) are compare Su-35 to Su-27SK in therms of weight, Su-27SK is ~17tons.


There is no way the Su-35 weight only 17.5 tons. Yes its a single seater. But as you can read above, the structure was reinforced to increase in the airplane’s maximum takeoff weight. The normal Takeoff weight is 25.3 tons with 2 РВВ-АЕ and 2 x Р-73E. ( 600 kg) and 50% fuel (5.7 tons) which give us 19 tons .

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

This is also confirmed in a TASS article from September
https://tass.com/defense/1078209

The Su-35S supersonic fighter jet performed its debut flight on February 19, 2008. The fighter jet is a derivative of the Su-27 plane. The Su-35S weighs 19 tonnes, has a service ceiling of 20,000 meters, can develop a maximum speed of 2,500 km/h and has a crew of one pilot. The fighter jet’s armament includes a 30mm aircraft gun, up to 8 tonnes of the weapon payload (missiles and bombs of various types) on 12 underwing hardpoints. The Su-35S has been in service with the Russian Army since 2015.


The Su-30 MK has roughly the same weight as the Su-35s. Normal Takeoff weight is 24.9 tons with 2 x R-27R1 + 2 x R-73E and 5,270 kg of fuel.

https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/li ... t-specific

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 22:44
by milosh
swiss wrote:There is no way the Su-35 weight only 17.5 tons. Yes its a single seater. But as you can read above, the structure was reinforced to increase in the airplane’s maximum takeoff weight. The normal Takeoff weight is 25.3 tons with 2 РВВ-АЕ and 2 x Р-73E. ( 600 kg) and 50% fuel (5.7 tons) which give us 19 tons .

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


Where you have data about normal fuel weight? I don't see it on that site, nor anywhere else. Btw if you look you can see info about acceleration with 50% of fuel but at 1000m altitude. So 50% fuel isn't normal weight of fuel but at minimum weight of fuel it have when it reach 1000m.

With 19tons empty weight plane would be nowhere near agile as it is. And another problem is weight of Su-30 variants which is between 18-19tons.

Su-35 is smaller and use lot lighter materials, Al-Li and composites.

Even if it is same weight as Su-30MK it have more poweful engines and TVC which Su-30MK from heavy load demo don't have, so Su-35 would be noticeable more agile with such heavy and asymetrical load. But I still think it weight noticable less becuase how it regain energy is very impressive.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 23:08
by swiss
Well, 19 tons fits perfect with 4 AAM and 50 % fuel, for 25.3 tons take off weight. As mentioned in the knaapo document. And i don't think TASS says 19 tons out of the blue. :wink:

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 03:40
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:With 19tons empty weight plane would be nowhere near agile as it is. And another problem is weight of Su-30 variants which is between 18-19tons.

Su-35 is smaller and use lot lighter materials, Al-Li and composites.

Even if it is same weight as Su-30MK it have more poweful engines and TVC which Su-30MK from heavy load demo don't have, so Su-35 would be noticeable more agile with such heavy and asymetrical load. But I still think it weight noticable less becuase how it regain energy is very impressive.


Maybe I am misinterpreting you about your opinion of weight in relation to agility.
The F-22 Raptor has an listed empty weight of 43340lbs, that is about 21.67 tons. At 50% fuel that would mean the F-22 would have a weight of 52340lbs or 26.17 tons. Despite this weight however the F-22 is able to demonstrate impressive AoAs, post stall maneuvers, and acceleration.
I would think that an important factor other than T/W ratio is also the aerodynamics of the aircraft as well as the flight control systems/logic/laws of the aircraft itself.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 09:41
by disconnectedradical
We should clarify to make sure we’re using same units. A short ton is only 2,000 lb while a metric ton that Russia uses is 1,000 kg or 2,205 lbs, so F-22 is actually about 19.7 metric tons.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 18:22
by charlielima223
disconnectedradical wrote:We should clarify to make sure we’re using same units. A short ton is only 2,000 lb while a metric ton that Russia uses is 1,000 kg or 2,205 lbs, so F-22 is actually about 19.7 metric tons.


I was using short tons...

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:24
by XanderCrews
Flankers have always been amazing at winning airshows.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2019, 06:19
by Patriot
XanderCrews wrote:Flankers have always been amazing at winning airshows.

Considering it has a wingspan of the F-16's length (actually more than that), length of F-111 or a business jet, inertia of an infantry armoured vehicle or medium tank and can change directions like a paper airplane model or a fly bouncing underneath a lamp - yes.

Although I always loved :inlove: F-16's energy conservation, acceleration, sustained turn rate and continuous 9g capabilities :P
...and the smart sexy fragile aggressive look it has 8)

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2019, 16:42
by mixelflick
I think you really have to hand it to the Russians insofar as internal fuel goes, regardless of Flanker model. They carry a LOT of gas, and need only burn off a portion to get the kind of "supermaneuverability" seen in their flying displays. Tactical usefulness aside, it must be nice flying a sortie without checking your gas gauge every few minutes. Or being dependent on tankers all the time.