Su-35. How the hell it did that?

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Apr 2020, 16:36

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
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post30 Apr 2020, 16:39

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:this thread is becoming hilarious


This ^
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post30 Apr 2020, 20:40

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4951
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post30 Apr 2020, 22:14

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.
"Spurts"

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

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post01 May 2020, 12:11

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4190
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 May 2020, 16:17

@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
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post01 May 2020, 18:14

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?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4190
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 May 2020, 17:20

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.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post18 May 2020, 04:17

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.
Offline

awsome

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post18 May 2020, 14:39

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....
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4190
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 May 2020, 14:50

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.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1233
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 May 2020, 01:45

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.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests