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.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 14:37
by zero-one
Okay I know this is most probably wrong. Sadly I'm not as knowledgeable as some of our resident engineers out here to explain why its wrong. But if it's actually right, I'll genuinely be surprised

Bad news for AIM-120D - physics says Su-35 can out-turn the AIM-120D.

Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this: missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi.

AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D.

Say AIM-120D lights seeker at 20 km, missile closing at 3,700 kph. So, takes 20 seconds to reach Sukhoi. Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) tells direction of incoming missile, so Sukhoi turns to put missile in rear quarter and starts high-G, jinking barrel roll more than 2 G. More likely closer to 5G. Sukhoi has thrust vector jets (TVC nozzles), so turning at 5 G for 20 seconds no problem. Missile cannot track barrel roll, so fly past and loses lock.

Sukhoi's flight controls computers also have software written into them to specifically avoid the AIM-120D missile. Arm system, and when OLS-35 or RWR see incoming missile, audio horn sound and will Sukhoi fly itself on missile avoiding path.

Fly all air dominance missions with KEDR towed decoy, so if AIM-120D has lucky crossing, it may fly after the decoy instead. Also have new wingtip pods for radio electronic combat (Electronic Warfare) which twist phase of radar wave around (Crosseye jammer for phase front deception) so the AIM-120D's single pulse (моноимпульсная антенна – monopulse antenna in AIM-120D) tracker confused .

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 14:51
by mixelflick
Would not want to be in the SU-35 trying to pull this off...

The notion that a fighter aircraft can pull more g's than a missile (especially an AIM-120D) seems... peculiar. Even after its fuel has long burned out, that AIM-120D is going to be able to crank itself around a lot more aggressively than an SU-35, SU-57 or SU-whathaveyou.

This looks like it was taken from MilitaryWatchMag, or like Kremlin mouthpiece..

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 15:08
by zhangmdev
Missiles do not "follow track of turning aircraft". They anticipate the trajectory of the target and try to meet it at some point.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 16:44
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Would not want to be in the SU-35 trying to pull this off...

The notion that a fighter aircraft can pull more g's than a missile (especially an AIM-120D) seems... peculiar. Even after its fuel has long burned out, that AIM-120D is going to be able to crank itself around a lot more aggressively than an SU-35, SU-57 or SU-whathaveyou.

This looks like it was taken from MilitaryWatchMag, or like Kremlin mouthpiece..


We have pilot which evade couple AIM-120C (three or four) in half working MiG-29 so it is possible. Su-35 pilot have much better SA so it can use agility of plane to maximum.

Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 18:22
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:
We have pilot which evade couple AIM-120C (three or four) in half working MiG-29 so it is possible.


Yeah in the world of DCS where Russian missiles have a 80% kill ratio while modern US missiles will miss almost 75% in the most insanes ways...

milosh wrote:Su-35 pilot have much better SA so it can use agility of plane to maximum.


No doubt an Su-35 has better SA over earlier variants of the Flanker but against more modern AESA radars and missiles, doing acrobatics in an attempt to evade a missile wont give you cool points and really awesome stories to tell at the bar when you're a burning smattering of hear teeth and eye balls falling towards the Earth.
I remember reading how Indian Su-30s used a tactics using a manuevering pattern that could spoof radar guided missiles. Turns out it worked well against older pulse doppler MSA radars, AIM-7s, and early AIM-120 variants. Then they tried that manuever against more modern radars and missiles, then they stopped doing it all together.
Not saying its impossible but now its getting increasingly difficult. Against a proper 5th gen fighter (F-22 and F-35) where they can launch a salvo at you far before you can even detect them and not know you've been engaged until your RWR starts blaring and you have maybe 6 or 10 seconds to react... it gets even more difficult. First look, first shot, first kill...

milosh wrote:Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27.


It isnt much heavier than an Su-27 but it is still just as draggy. Nothing like using thrust and power as a way to show the middle finger to aerodynamics.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 19:33
by milosh
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
We have pilot which evade couple AIM-120C (three or four) in half working MiG-29 so it is possible.


Yeah in the world of DCS where Russian missiles have a 80% kill ratio while modern US missiles will miss almost 75% in the most insanes ways...


:roll:

LtCol Ljubiša Kulačin Kulacin, he gave very precise report about engagement he had, two AIM-120 he evaded using visual tracking, our SPO-15 at least from what we know didn't had ability to detect AIM-120 seeker, then he got RWR warring about AIM-7 but he was already low so he use ground clutter. He landed safely.

Also you have Mayor Nebojsa Nikolic which reported he evaded two missiles but in his case we don't know which and also we don't know did his SPO-15 was working if it did then it was AIM-120 because he never stated anything about RWR warning.

All those pilots fly on half operational MiGs, and have very low flying hours per year in 1990s (because of sanctions).

And then you read fairy tales how one AIM-120 would down best Russian/Chinese fighter even stealthy one flying with pilots which fly far more per year?

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 20:57
by marauder2048
milosh wrote:LtCol Ljubiša Kulačin Kulacin, he gave very precise report about engagement he had, two AIM-120 he evaded using visual tracking,


This was a night engagement right?

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 21:19
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:

"Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27"

The Russians imagine a lot of things: Raptor like engines, supercarriers, combat capable stealth aircraft etc.

OTOH, we actually have Raptor engines (and the follow on to that, the F-135). We've built and fielded a super-carrier (actually, about a dozen). And we have not 1, but 3 combat capable stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22, F-35). In fact, we've retired more combat capable stealth aircraft than Russia has fielded (F-117).

Imaginary engines, weapons etc don't count for much in a real war. Unless of course, you're playing a computer game like DCS. And quite honestly, that's what it sounds like you're doing when you bring examples like this up...

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 21:22
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:Okay I know this is most probably wrong.


Yes ignore that - actually zhangmdevs reply is useful - missiles don't need to even attempt to out turn aircraft in the most part - they certainly dont try to BFM a Jet or get in its turning circle LOL. A missile can hit an aircraft at any angle - very difficult to visualise in the 3D plane what is happening it is entirely down to how the missile is programmed to fly towards the target.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 21:30
by basher54321
marauder2048 wrote:
milosh wrote:LtCol Ljubiša Kulačin Kulacin, he gave very precise report about engagement he had, two AIM-120 he evaded using visual tracking,


This was a night engagement right?




If this was the 24th then around 22:00 at night - Shower did miss with 2 AMRAAM. However the chances of anyone seeing a smokeless high mach object with mk1 eyes even in clear daylight out of trails must be near zero - which also would never move on the horizon if coming at you.

As brave as those guys were any missile evasion they did probably didn't happen that way.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 01:50
by wrightwing
basher54321 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
milosh wrote:LtCol Ljubiša Kulačin Kulacin, he gave very precise report about engagement he had, two AIM-120 he evaded using visual tracking,


This was a night engagement right?




If this was the 24th then around 22:00 at night - Shower did miss with 2 AMRAAM. However the chances of anyone seeing a smokeless high mach object with mk1 eyes even in clear daylight out of trails must be near zero - which also would never move on the horizon if coming at you.

As brave as those guys were any missile evasion they did probably didn't happen that way.

Even in daylight, the likelihood of seeing an AMRAAM post burn out, is somewhere around 0%. If you're lucky, you'll have ~10 seconds warning, during which you'll be frantically manuevering.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 03:52
by eloise
zero-one wrote:Okay I know this is most probably wrong. Sadly I'm not as knowledgeable as some of our resident engineers out here to explain why its wrong. But if it's actually right, I'll genuinely be surprised

Bad news for AIM-120D - physics says Su-35 can out-turn the AIM-120D.

Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this: missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi.

AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D.

Say AIM-120D lights seeker at 20 km, missile closing at 3,700 kph. So, takes 20 seconds to reach Sukhoi. Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) tells direction of incoming missile, so Sukhoi turns to put missile in rear quarter and starts high-G, jinking barrel roll more than 2 G. More likely closer to 5G. Sukhoi has thrust vector jets (TVC nozzles), so turning at 5 G for 20 seconds no problem. Missile cannot track barrel roll, so fly past and loses lock.

Sukhoi's flight controls computers also have software written into them to specifically avoid the AIM-120D missile. Arm system, and when OLS-35 or RWR see incoming missile, audio horn sound and will Sukhoi fly itself on missile avoiding path.

Fly all air dominance missions with KEDR towed decoy, so if AIM-120D has lucky crossing, it may fly after the decoy instead. Also have new wingtip pods for radio electronic combat (Electronic Warfare) which twist phase of radar wave around (Crosseye jammer for phase front deception) so the AIM-120D's single pulse (моноимпульсная антенна – monopulse antenna in AIM-120D) tracker confused .

that is full of sh*t
Air to air missiles don't follow the exact track of turning aircraft, no missile in the past or future have that stupid behavior. Air to air missile uses what known as proportional navigation, instead of homing at the current location of aircraft, they home at the future position of aircraft, this location is calculated by having the heading, speed of enemy and the distance to them. And just because Su-35 turn 90 degrees doesn't mean AIM-120D need to also turn 90 degrees to intercept it.When enemy turn, the only thing that matter for the missile is the distance between target new predicted location vs the target old predicted location. Depend on where AIM-120 getting mid course correction by datalink, it might need to turn only a few degrees to counter a 90 degrees course change by Su-35. This is hard to imagine so a picture speak a thousand words:
6622BAA7-57AF-4618-8ADC-F3423C2BCDA2.jpeg

If you shows him this picture, he gonna tell you, because the Sukhoi's flight controls computers also have software written into them to specifically avoid the AIM-120D missile and with RWR and OLS-35, it will turn at just exact right moment to force AIM-120 to make a hard turn. That is wrong on two parts: firstly, there is no auto missile dodge pilot on any aircraft, including Su-35 and RWR and MWS only give the heading of the missile instead of distance to them. Secondly, missiles are always launched in salvo of 2-3 missiles at a few seconds interval. So the turn that is at the right moment to dodge the first missile isn't at the right moment to dodge the second and the third.
And he clearly doesn't know that air density affect aircraft turning ability, at 12 km - 39,370 feet height, the air density is only a fraction of sea level air. Su-35 can't maintain 5G for 20 seconds at 39,370 feet. For example, a clean F-15C has excess lift and thrust to maintain 9G at sea level and Mach0.9 , but at 40,000 feet it can only sustain 2.5G at the same speed, Su-35 is a good aircraft but unless it fly on magic, it will have the same problem
BFD69C63-8947-4949-B6E1-E45548538134.jpeg

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 06:15
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Okay I know this is most probably wrong. Sadly I'm not as knowledgeable as some of our resident engineers out here to explain why its wrong. But if it's actually right, I'll genuinely be surprised

Bad news for AIM-120D - physics says Su-35 can out-turn the AIM-120D.

Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this: missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi.

AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D.

Say AIM-120D lights seeker at 20 km, missile closing at 3,700 kph. So, takes 20 seconds to reach Sukhoi. Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) tells direction of incoming missile, so Sukhoi turns to put missile in rear quarter and starts high-G, jinking barrel roll more than 2 G. More likely closer to 5G. Sukhoi has thrust vector jets (TVC nozzles), so turning at 5 G for 20 seconds no problem. Missile cannot track barrel roll, so fly past and loses lock.

Sukhoi's flight controls computers also have software written into them to specifically avoid the AIM-120D missile. Arm system, and when OLS-35 or RWR see incoming missile, audio horn sound and will Sukhoi fly itself on missile avoiding path.

Fly all air dominance missions with KEDR towed decoy, so if AIM-120D has lucky crossing, it may fly after the decoy instead. Also have new wingtip pods for radio electronic combat (Electronic Warfare) which twist phase of radar wave around (Crosseye jammer for phase front deception) so the AIM-120D's single pulse (моноимпульсная антенна – monopulse antenna in AIM-120D) tracker confused .


This analysis is total crap, the missile intercept is not supposed to match the fighter's radius, so the very foundation of the argument is debunked.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 12:24
by madrat
It's a good thing they cannot detect the incoming AIM-120D. The Sukhoi would have to fly constant 3G turns reducing effective range of their operations about 85%...

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 19:42
by nutshell
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Would not want to be in the SU-35 trying to pull this off...

The notion that a fighter aircraft can pull more g's than a missile (especially an AIM-120D) seems... peculiar. Even after its fuel has long burned out, that AIM-120D is going to be able to crank itself around a lot more aggressively than an SU-35, SU-57 or SU-whathaveyou.

This looks like it was taken from MilitaryWatchMag, or like Kremlin mouthpiece..


We have pilot which evade couple AIM-120C (three or four) in half working MiG-29 so it is possible. Su-35 pilot have much better SA so it can use agility of plane to maximum.

Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27.

It will bend space time and physics.
Mostly physics.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 20:37
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:milosh wrote:

"Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27"

The Russians imagine a lot of things: Raptor like engines, supercarriers, combat capable stealth aircraft etc.

OTOH, we actually have Raptor engines (and the follow on to that, the F-135). We've built and fielded a super-carrier (actually, about a dozen). And we have not 1, but 3 combat capable stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22, F-35). In fact, we've retired more combat capable stealth aircraft than Russia has fielded (F-117).


But what you non stop miss is SU-57 engine of tech on other fighters. You can put in any Russian flanker and also for J-10 and J-20. So I really don't see why you can't accept it will happen? You mentioned why Russians is going with Su-57 when all tech can install in Su-35 and now you want to consider type-30 for Su-35?!?

Good thing Russians didn't had money to go with nonsense super carrier because as it look like this is dusk of carriers.

Btw biggest potential of russian navy is in deep, subs. For example 949AM carry 72 antiship supersonic Oniks and not so far away is we see it armed with Zircons:
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Ru_OSCAR-II_Cutaway.jpg

So one 949AM carry three time more then cold war version and those new missiles are much smaller on radar then massive Granit. Granit tubes:
https://i.imgur.com/Z0gQPTl.jpeg

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 22:25
by nutshell
Ohh, so we can add "super submarines" to the list of fictional things the russian military is supposed to own.

Meanwhile, the only things they never fail to deliver are failed projects, economics set backs and nuclear mishaps.

The joy of the east: literal bat sh*t virus and nuclear poisoning, yay.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 03:10
by wrightwing
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:milosh wrote:

"Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27"

The Russians imagine a lot of things: Raptor like engines, supercarriers, combat capable stealth aircraft etc.

OTOH, we actually have Raptor engines (and the follow on to that, the F-135). We've built and fielded a super-carrier (actually, about a dozen). And we have not 1, but 3 combat capable stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22, F-35). In fact, we've retired more combat capable stealth aircraft than Russia has fielded (F-117).


But what you non stop miss is SU-57 engine of tech on other fighters. You can put in any Russian flanker and also for J-10 and J-20. So I really don't see why you can't accept it will happen? You mentioned why Russians is going with Su-57 when all tech can install in Su-35 and now you want to consider type-30 for Su-35?!?

Good thing Russians didn't had money to go with nonsense super carrier because as it look like this is dusk of carriers.

Btw biggest potential of russian navy is in deep, subs. For example 949AM carry 72 antiship supersonic Oniks and not so far away is we see it armed with Zircons:
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Ru_OSCAR-II_Cutaway.jpg

So one 949AM carry three time more then cold war version and those new missiles are much smaller on radar then massive Granit. Granit tubes:
https://i.imgur.com/Z0gQPTl.jpeg

At the rate Russia is going, it'll be 2030 by the time anything is equipped with Type-30 motors, and I suspect the Su-57 will get first priority over Flankers. It'll come down to $$$ whether Su-35, J-10, etc... would ever be so equipped.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 03:58
by Corsair1963
Assuming the izdeliye 30 turns out to be a successful design. Which, at this stage is still very much in question???

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 13:26
by zero-one
I think I found a major flaw in their argument

So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D.


It doesn't have to be a Sukhoi, a B-1 bomber that can pull 2.2Gs will comfortably dodge the Slammer

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 13:49
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:I think I found a major flaw in their argument

So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D.


It doesn't have to be a Sukhoi, a B-1 bomber that can pull 2.2Gs will comfortably dodge the Slammer

Nope. That's not the flaw. The flaw is that a missile has to match maneuvers with the target, when what missiles do is aim for where the target will be. The author is unfamiliar with proportional navigation.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 14:07
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:milosh wrote:

"Now imagine what that machine will do when get Raptor's like engines. Type-30 have dry thrust close to maximum thrust of Su-27 engines! And Su-35 isn't so much heavier then Su-27"

The Russians imagine a lot of things: Raptor like engines, supercarriers, combat capable stealth aircraft etc.

OTOH, we actually have Raptor engines (and the follow on to that, the F-135). We've built and fielded a super-carrier (actually, about a dozen). And we have not 1, but 3 combat capable stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22, F-35). In fact, we've retired more combat capable stealth aircraft than Russia has fielded (F-117).


But what you non stop miss is SU-57 engine of tech on other fighters. You can put in any Russian flanker and also for J-10 and J-20. So I really don't see why you can't accept it will happen? You mentioned why Russians is going with Su-57 when all tech can install in Su-35 and now you want to consider type-30 for Su-35?!?

I never said it couldn't happen. It might, but then again it might not. They may encounter problems they find insurmountable, and work on the engine is discontinued. Wouldn't be the first time in the history of military projects that happened. What's going to happen then to the SU-57, and the half dozen other aircraft you say are going to be re-engined with it?

What I'm maintaining here is that you (and to be fair, not just you) talk about it like it's happening NOW. As if that engine performs flawlessly (or at least adequately), there are tons of them lying around and they fit like legos into the SU-57, 30, 35, J-10, J-20. BTW, how did we get to a point where this new Russian engine now fits Chinese airframes (multiple!)? Every time I turn around it fits a new fighter - and now that's expanded to foreign models. Shazam. My car could use a little more power, will the Type 30 fit that too?


Good thing Russians didn't had money to go with nonsense super carrier because as it look like this is dusk of carriers.

Maybe so, but how exactly is no money a good thing when it comes to defense budgets?

Btw biggest potential of russian navy is in deep, subs. For example 949AM carry 72 antiship supersonic Oniks and not so far away is we see it armed with Zircons:
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Ru_OSCAR-II_Cutaway.jpg

Here, I would agree with you. The Russians don't have the $ or expertise to build and operate super-carriers (few nations do). They're much better off sticking to submarines...

So one 949AM carry three time more then cold war version and those new missiles are much smaller on radar then massive Granit. Granit tubes:
https://i.imgur.com/Z0gQPTl.jpeg


Yes, but that's not so surprising, is it? That's the nature of technological progress - things get better. And in the world of defense, that generally means deadlier.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 15:01
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:Nope. That's not the flaw. The flaw is that a missile has to match maneuvers with the target, when what missiles do is aim for where the target will be. The author is unfamiliar with proportional navigation.


Okay so is the 13.5 times figure correct?
Looking more in to it, there is a procedure called jinking a missile, looks like when timed correctly, it can cause the missile to miss. So is a 2.2G jink effecting against the Slammer

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 15:03
by zero-one
duplicate

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 15:50
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Nope. That's not the flaw. The flaw is that a missile has to match maneuvers with the target, when what missiles do is aim for where the target will be. The author is unfamiliar with proportional navigation.


Okay so is the 13.5 times figure correct?
Looking more in to it, there is a procedure called jinking a missile, looks like when timed correctly, it can cause the missile to miss. So is a 2.2G jink effecting against the Slammer

A pilot will try everything they can to stay alive, but I wouldn't count on a 2.2G manuever to defeat an AIM-120D.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 16:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
this thread is becoming hilarious

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 16:36
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:A pilot will try everything they can to stay alive, but I wouldn't count on a 2.2G manuever to defeat an AIM-120D.


Thats why I'm calling it a flaw in their argument,
2.2Gs is something the B-1 is comfortable with it would be too easy.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:this thread is becoming hilarious


I'd actually love to hear from you on this as my technical skills are severely lacking, I just know 2.2Gs is extremely unlikely to success, but as to why or how, I just don't know

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 16:39
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:this thread is becoming hilarious


This ^

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 20:40
by milosh
nutshell wrote:Ohh, so we can add "super submarines" to the list of fictional things the russian military is supposed to own.

Meanwhile, the only things they never fail to deliver are failed projects, economics set backs and nuclear mishaps.

The joy of the east: literal bat sh*t virus and nuclear poisoning, yay.


Sub you commented as fictional is operational, second and third sub of same class are upgraded right now.

So Russia have economical set back? Yes, but what is 30millions unemployed Americans? Never better economy?!?

@mixelflick

You ask how it can fit in J-10/20? Because type-30 fit in AL-31 nacelles without any problem. And Su-57 use AL-31 variant. So replacing AL-31 with AL-51 isn't so problematic.

And of course type-30 isn't behind corner I just wrote what rocket Su-35 will be with it.

Btw investing nice ammount of money when you don't have lot of money in engine which can power whole Flanker fleet to me sound like logical move and I think engine development of PAK-FA program is most sured part of program.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 22:14
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:I'd actually love to hear from you on this as my technical skills are severely lacking, I just know 2.2Gs is extremely unlikely to success, but as to why or how, I just don't know

a defensive turn needs to generate more separation from the original line of flight than the missile can cope with. If a missile is capable of 20 degrees per second, then the plane needs to move more then 20 degrees relative to the nose of the missile. Since we are talking about a missile that is hauling a$$, the reaction time for the pilot is non-existant. From a range of one mile, 20 degrees is from the view of the missile is a lateral separation of over 2,000ft. And with this "too fast to turn" missile, that distance is being covered in a fraction of a second. It is physically impossible for a plane to change its flight path by that much that fast.

These arguments all start with the same logical fallacy, "A missile moving X times faster than the plane it is trying to hit must pull X^2 the G of the plane in order to hit it." What is really being said is "A missile moving X times faster than the plane it is trying to hit must pull X^2 the G of the plane in order to have an equal turning radius."

See the diagram at the top of the previous page to see why a missile does not need to match the radius of the plane.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 12:11
by nutshell
milosh wrote:
nutshell wrote:Ohh, so we can add "super submarines" to the list of fictional things the russian military is supposed to own.

Meanwhile, the only things they never fail to deliver are failed projects, economics set backs and nuclear mishaps.

The joy of the east: literal bat sh*t virus and nuclear poisoning, yay.


Sub you commented as fictional is operational, second and third sub of same class are upgraded right now.

So Russia have economical set back? Yes, but what is 30millions unemployed Americans? Never better economy?!?

@mixelflick

You ask how it can fit in J-10/20? Because type-30 fit in AL-31 nacelles without any problem. And Su-57 use AL-31 variant. So replacing AL-31 with AL-51 isn't so problematic.

And of course type-30 isn't behind corner I just wrote what rocket Su-35 will be with it.

Btw investing nice ammount of money when you don't have lot of money in engine which can power whole Flanker fleet to me sound like logical move and I think engine development of PAK-FA program is most sured part of program.


"Fictional capabilities meets underwhelming performances"

There you are: russian military for you.

Also, wanna imply that US economy is somehow comparable to Russia?

Komrade stay in your lane.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 16:17
by mixelflick
@mixelflick

You ask how it can fit in J-10/20? Because type-30 fit in AL-31 nacelles without any problem. And Su-57 use AL-31 variant. So replacing AL-31 with AL-51 isn't so problematic.

And of course type-30 isn't behind corner I just wrote what rocket Su-35 will be with it.

Btw investing nice ammount of money when you don't have lot of money in engine which can power whole Flanker fleet to me sound like logical move and I think engine development of PAK-FA program is most sured part of program.[/quote]

Source please, for how the Type 30 fits in all AL-31 powered aircraft (without any problem!)?

Also, can you provide cliffs as to who's on first? Here it says the SU-57 is powered by the AL-41FM1*, not as you say, the AL-31. "The Russian defense ministry previously agreed to launch development and limited production of the Su-57 with AL-41FM1 engines, because of the lack of a bona-fide next-generation engine more suitable to the airframe and its systems". Or is the AL-41MF1 (also known as the type 117) really an up-rated AL-31? And you maintain swapping out the AL-31 (and de-facto, the 117 aka AL-41MF1) with the AL-51 will be no problem? Fantastic! Source please for AL-51? First time I've heard of it.

But wait, there's more... Perhaps you meant the Type 30 was the"next generation" engine? That's odd, because the AL-41FM1 has itself been described as a next-generation engine by the Rybinsk-based Saturn manufacturing company. So of these 2 "next gen" engines, which one is said by Vladimir Karnozov (author of cited article) not to exist?

Wait! I've got it now... Russia has not one, but two "next gen" engines (neither of which exist), but can easily be swapped in both Russian and Chinese aiframes!!!

Shazam... :mrgreen:

* https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... khoi-su-57

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 18:14
by milosh
117 engines are AL-31 derivatives it is common knowledge I don't get how you don't know that? For example wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31

but also official info about that 117S:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... al-41f-1s/

In case of 117 in Su-57 it got plasma ignition system and FADEC everything else is similar as in case of 117 in Su-35.

So if 117 fit in Su-57 and fit in older Flankers then why you think AL-51 will not fit in older Flankers too?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2020, 17:20
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:117 engines are AL-31 derivatives it is common knowledge I don't get how you don't know that? For example wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31

but also official info about that 117S:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... al-41f-1s/

In case of 117 in Su-57 it got plasma ignition system and FADEC everything else is similar as in case of 117 in Su-35.

So if 117 fit in Su-57 and fit in older Flankers then why you think AL-51 will not fit in older Flankers too?


I agree.

Congrats on the AL-61, and all the aircraft she powers.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2020, 04:17
by boogieman
Not sure how accurate this is since it is only a blog post but it did give me a chuckle.
Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat. Russia may start supplying another batch of Su-35 fighters to the PRC, although experts from the PRC said that the Russian combat aircraft could not show its best side during testing during simulated aerial combat, since it lost the battle to the Chinese J-16. and J-10. The Su-35 was put on combat duty of the Chinese Air Force in one year and has already formed combat strength, as well as completed escort tasks for the H-6K and flew around the island of Taiwan. According to Sina Military, to make up for the shortage of fighters, China decided to purchase a batch of Su-35. However, the fighter has flaws, and its avionics system is not very developed.

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/202 ... j.html?m=1

Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the Chinese jets wreaked all kinds of havoc on the PESA Irbis-E with their newest AESA radars. Just imagine what F22 or F35 would do.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2020, 14:39
by awsome
Which makes the F-35 demo that much more impressive.[/quote]


Sensor fusion makes the F-35 the most impressive flight demo to watch IMHO....

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

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2020, 14:50
by mixelflick
boogieman wrote:Not sure how accurate this is since it is only a blog post but it did give me a chuckle.
Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat. Russia may start supplying another batch of Su-35 fighters to the PRC, although experts from the PRC said that the Russian combat aircraft could not show its best side during testing during simulated aerial combat, since it lost the battle to the Chinese J-16. and J-10. The Su-35 was put on combat duty of the Chinese Air Force in one year and has already formed combat strength, as well as completed escort tasks for the H-6K and flew around the island of Taiwan. According to Sina Military, to make up for the shortage of fighters, China decided to purchase a batch of Su-35. However, the fighter has flaws, and its avionics system is not very developed.

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/202 ... j.html?m=1

Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the Chinese jets wreaked all kinds of havoc on the PESA Irbis-E with their newest AESA radars. Just imagine what F22 or F35 would do.


So let's see if I understand this.. The SU-35 got beat by both the J-16 AND J-10. And yet, they're ordering more of them?? I don't doubt their birds with AESA radars can beat it but.... Sounds like posturing to me, in order to negotiate a more favorable deal on their 2nd batch.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2020, 01:45
by charlielima223
mixelflick wrote:
boogieman wrote:Not sure how accurate this is since it is only a blog post but it did give me a chuckle.
Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat. Russia may start supplying another batch of Su-35 fighters to the PRC, although experts from the PRC said that the Russian combat aircraft could not show its best side during testing during simulated aerial combat, since it lost the battle to the Chinese J-16. and J-10. The Su-35 was put on combat duty of the Chinese Air Force in one year and has already formed combat strength, as well as completed escort tasks for the H-6K and flew around the island of Taiwan. According to Sina Military, to make up for the shortage of fighters, China decided to purchase a batch of Su-35. However, the fighter has flaws, and its avionics system is not very developed.

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/202 ... j.html?m=1

Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the Chinese jets wreaked all kinds of havoc on the PESA Irbis-E with their newest AESA radars. Just imagine what F22 or F35 would do.


So let's see if I understand this.. The SU-35 got beat by both the J-16 AND J-10. And yet, they're ordering more of them?? I don't doubt their birds with AESA radars can beat it but.... Sounds like posturing to me, in order to negotiate a more favorable deal on their 2nd batch.


Chinese state controlled media outlets are as trustworthy as their Russian counterparts.

Even though the latest Chinese fighter aircraft have AESA radars, I question how good those radars really are. Much like Soviet era pulse doppler radar on the Flankers and Fulcrums, those radars were not as good as their western counter parts. It could very well be the same with AESA radars on Chinese fighter jets.
China isnt known for being the innovative technological hub of the world. Most if not all of what they have made is in some shape or form copied or stolen. There is a reason why China is known for being the bootleg capital of the world. That part being said I have always believed that China is purchasing the Su-35 so that they can copy it in some ways.