Legacy Hornet vs Su-30MKM

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6931
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 09:36

boogieman wrote:
How much of a weapon's bay/internal payload would that give you though? Two engines plus tight size constraints leaves me guessing the answer would be "not much". The J31 seems to be a flying embodiment of this from what I can tell.


Most sources I've seen show a similar weapons capacity to the F-35A. Either two BVR Missiles and two PGM's or six BVR Missiles.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 10:35

Last I checked it was 4 x AAMs max, which is fine and all. Quick google says ~4400lbs internally - 1300lbs less than the F35. How that affects air to surface payload options comparatively speaking I'm not sure. Suffice it to say that 2 x 2000lb class weapons plus 2 x AAMs is out. My bigger question is what else (other than AAMs) they can fit in there. I would have expected the J31's internal bays to be less voluminous than the F35's, with corresponding limitations on loadout options.
Online

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3257
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 10:40

mixelflick wrote:I agree, but it's sad really. Think about the limited resources those engineers had to work with, the system they were constrained by and always being one step behind in avionics, engines etc.. Given all of that, I thought they did an outstanding job in building aircraft that could compete with the F-15, 16, 18 etc.. In fact, I think their airframes are every bit as good as ours.

The problem is.... everything else. Radar/sensors, weapons, engines, manufacturing tolerances etc. I would LOVE to see what someone from the Mikoyan or Sukhoi design bureau would come up with, were he to move to the US and work for Boeing/Lockheed. Now THAT would be something..


I agree that their airframes were good or even very good in some cases. I think their engines were pretty good too, although they had shorter service life than Western engines. Saturn AL-31 was very good engine when it was introduced. It was powerful, reliable and had good fuel consumption figures and high stall margin. Klimov RD-33 was not bad engine either, although it was smoky in the original version. Otherwise it had much of the same qualities as AL-31.

They also had some good or very good weapons. R-73 was likely the best IR-seeking missile when it was introduced and was slaved to HMS. Sure the Soviets were not the first to do it, but on the forefront still. Another very innovative solution was MiG-31 and R-33 combo. A first fighter aircraft with PESA radar and able to engage multiple targets simultaneously using SARH guidance. They also had some impressive air-to-ground and anti-ship missiles, like Kh-22 and Kh-15.

I'm very impressed how innovative and often elegant solutions they came up with under the Communist regime in Soviet Union. They didn't have access to the kind of computing systems or manufacturing equipment that Western countries had but still managed to make impressive systems. Overall they were behind technologically and in capabilities though. The same tradition continues, but nowadays they have a lot smaller resources to draw from than during Soviet era. I think they should really become more democratic and get closer to USA and Europe in all areas and become a partner rather than opponent. I think that would be the best for both Russia and the rest of the world.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2821
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 13:07

The nation is unsustainable without the harsh hand that runs it. It's not like the communists were true ideologs and didn't adapt to change with the times. You'd be hard pressed to find leadership in any former CCCP member state that did not have ties to the Soviet Party. And Putin has made it readily apparent to all former CCCP member states that there is a sense of ownership to their futures regardless of what names changed. This makes it really hard for Western countries to warm up to Russia as a partner. And there really isn't a shortage of talent or money in the former Soviet Bloc, there is just a refocus of resources that shifted economics towards their consumers. The military could certainly turn the economy back towards a war machine in a crisis. I wouldn't count them out as they have a great education system and a huge potential for improvement. If 16,000 hour airframes were important to them you'd see them.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 13:32

mixelflick wrote: I would LOVE to see what someone from the Mikoyan or Sukhoi design bureau would come up with, were he to move to the US and work for Boeing/Lockheed. Now THAT would be something..

Ufimtsev published the Physical Theory of Diffraction, which was discovered in the West. Not someone from those famous design bureaus works for the skunk works, but the point is the other side didn't lack good scientists or well-trained engineers. It's a pity such talent was wasted in such a system. Imagine a Soviet stealth bomber flying in the 1980s.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Sep 2020, 19:27

Corsair1963 wrote:Of course this is why I keep coming back to the J-31. Which, could be Russia's savior. As they could build it under license and with considerable amount of Russian Components. (Engines, Avionics, and Weapons)


I really doubt that would save some money to Russia. I mean you save on airframe design which isn't something expensive today. Everything else cost lot more then that. Production line for stealthy airframe (not cheap at all), sensors expensive, VK-10M isn't build at all so you need to finance that too.

If Russians wanted smaller stealth they could design airframe without problems but they don't want smaller stealth. In fact they could do that with India for example ACMA, they didn't want. They could probable do that with Turkey now, they don't want.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6931
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 01:27

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Of course this is why I keep coming back to the J-31. Which, could be Russia's savior. As they could build it under license and with considerable amount of Russian Components. (Engines, Avionics, and Weapons)


I really doubt that would save some money to Russia. I mean you save on airframe design which isn't something expensive today. Everything else cost lot more then that. Production line for stealthy airframe (not cheap at all), sensors expensive, VK-10M isn't build at all so you need to finance that too.

If Russians wanted smaller stealth they could design airframe without problems but they don't want smaller stealth. In fact they could do that with India for example ACMA, they didn't want. They could probable do that with Turkey now, they don't want.



The J-31 is already in development and near production. A clean sheet design for another new stealth fighter would be vastly more expensive and take another twenty years. Plus, a Russian / Indian / Turkey Stealth Fighter is "highly" unlikely....

Also, Russia already has versions of the RD-33/RD-93 that produce over 20,000 lbs in service. Which, would be adequate at least for now...

Lastly, Russia may not want a smaller / mid-sized Stealth Fighter. Yet, what she can afford and produce in adequate numbers is another matter! Russia was never going to be able to produce several hundred Su-57's. Even if the type 'had" proved to be successful....

Which, is why we keep coming back to the J-31 as the most logical alternative...."IMHO"
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2821
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 05:56

The production J-31 won't used RD-33/RD-93.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6931
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 07:08

madrat wrote:The production J-31 won't used RD-33/RD-93.


If, the WS-13 works out the Chinese version of the J-31 won't use the RD-33/RD-93. Yet, I was talking about a "possible" Russian Version of the J-31. Which, would clearly have a high Russian Content. Hence the RD-33/RD-93....
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4188
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 17:25

Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Of course this is why I keep coming back to the J-31. Which, could be Russia's savior. As they could build it under license and with considerable amount of Russian Components. (Engines, Avionics, and Weapons)


I really doubt that would save some money to Russia. I mean you save on airframe design which isn't something expensive today. Everything else cost lot more then that. Production line for stealthy airframe (not cheap at all), sensors expensive, VK-10M isn't build at all so you need to finance that too.

If Russians wanted smaller stealth they could design airframe without problems but they don't want smaller stealth. In fact they could do that with India for example ACMA, they didn't want. They could probable do that with Turkey now, they don't want.



The J-31 is already in development and near production. A clean sheet design for another new stealth fighter would be vastly more expensive and take another twenty years. Plus, a Russian / Indian / Turkey Stealth Fighter is "highly" unlikely....

Also, Russia already has versions of the RD-33/RD-93 that produce over 20,000 lbs in service. Which, would be adequate at least for now...

Lastly, Russia may not want a smaller / mid-sized Stealth Fighter. Yet, what she can afford and produce in adequate numbers is another matter! Russia was never going to be able to produce several hundred Su-57's. Even if the type 'had" proved to be successful....

Which, is why we keep coming back to the J-31 as the most logical alternative...."IMHO"


J-31 nearing production? Did I miss something??

The last I knew of the J-31 it sounded like the outer mold line was still in flux, and if anything China was downplaying its role (at least in Chinese service). OTOH, the Chinese are usually farther along than western intelligence estimates. Still, without enough engine its going to be very, very limited. If this thing really was hitting on all cylinders, I think we'd see all work on the J-15 Flying Shark grind to a halt, recognizing that the J-31 likely has the airframe with the most potential to be navalised...
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 19:09

hornetfinn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Klimov RD-33 was not bad engine either, although it was smoky in the original version.


As far as I remember the RD-33 was smokey because the soviets used high oil mix percentage in the fuel to increase maintenance intervals and extend the life of the engines.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post24 Sep 2020, 20:14

energo wrote:because the soviets used high oil mix percentage in the fuel to increase maintenance intervals and extend the life of the engines


Jet engine combustion chamber and turbine is cooled/protected by a thin layer of air redirected from the compressor. The combustion chamber has no moving parts, unlike pistons and cylinders of car engines, and consums no lubricating oil. Of course rotor bearing needs lubricating oil, but that should never touch the hot gas.

Old jet engines are very smoky. Check photos of B-52 and Boeing 707 taking off. Simply because there isn't enough air flow to burn all the fuel. Later engines have better combustion chamber designs, so the smoke is reduced.

Rocket engines are cooled, partially, by high fuel oxydizer mix ratio.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2432
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 Sep 2020, 04:41

Is the smoke in part caused by Russian fuels (TS-1?) which is partly caused by the lower operating temperatures? I know fuel blends then to lower exhaust smoke but clearly Russia (or Northern Canada) probably have to use fuels with a lower freezing point.
Offline

em745

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 152
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 08:28

Unread post17 Nov 2020, 01:46

Tiger05 wrote:The Hornet sure has impressive manoeuvrability for a non-TVC aircraft. This Swiss Hornet display is well worth watching in full:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf5A13atLHQ&t=76s

Those high AoA maneuvers... :shock:

The Swiss Hornets are a special breed though since they are the only ones stressed for 9G and have no AoA limiters unlike other Hornets.


More...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OkvVp4QolE

:shock:

Who knew!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4188
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Nov 2020, 15:29

Not a Hornet fan, but there are times it'll surprise you. These (3) displays are good examples. Still, like so many others they're flying 100% clean. Much more impressive IMO was a SH display seen here with a 6,500lb air to air loadout. Here she is..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziRO0wW ... zazzmatazz

The block III should be fantastic, but of all the improvements the Navy decided to fund.... why (never) a more powerful engine? I get it extends engine life, but the Hornets lack of "grunt" has been an issue since the legacy. Once and for all, I wish they'd fix that.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests