By: haavarla
- 27th June 2011 at 23:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But is that under these conditions?
Acceleration time at H=1,000 m and
fuel bingo 50% of the standard capacity.
This would mean half of 5270 kg fuel?
This is the Su-27 normal fuel fraction, the Su-35S could have a marginal higher fuel fraction on normal mission profile.
Consider the fact that the Su-35S seldom need any ext DT which pretty much all the F-22 Rafale and Typhoon feature on any regular missions, id say 280m/sec is great.
Doesn't the size(drag) of the airframe have a say in climb performace?
By: haavarla
- 28th June 2011 at 09:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With 11.500kg fuel onboard, i think not.
It has to carry some weapons too, that way beeing very lumbering by all that weight.
Anyway, is this really an issue?
The question is this, how much fuel would you likely have on board when you are trailing along, fencing any borders..
Certainly not topped out.. and doing full AB will drain it fast.
Any mission profile which include a topped out Su-35S and/or with any ext DT would be if a detachment of Su-35S where to re-enforce other Sq based far away.
Which if the case would be a nice capability, not beeing as depended on tankers.
You would also get from airbase A to B faster without having to do any/multiple airial refueling.
Or god forbid any offensive escort/strike mission deep into enemy territory.
By: swerve
- 28th June 2011 at 09:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't the size(drag) of the airframe have a say in climb performace?
No, not as an absolute. Forget absolutes & consider relatives. What matters is the relationship between drag & weight, on one side, & thrust on the other.
By: Blitzo
- 28th June 2011 at 22:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Says who?
They say seeing is believing, so behold.
And here is a close up.
And I believe that gives the J11B 360 MAWS coverage. Where did you hear this 'MAWS in the rear hemisphere only' claim from in the first place?
I've never seen that particular trinket before -- where exactly is it located on the J-11B? How do we know it's on the J-11B at all? :confused:
EDIT:
Oh I see it's the little ball under the aircraft's nose... Lulz I thought the second photo was the guy actually holding that piece of avionics up as a display or something.
That's really interesting, I've never seen anyone point that out before -- good catch. I suppose that exposed placement might compromise RCS to an extent, but considering the overall RCS of the flanker airframe it's no big deal.
Considering the position and appearance of that, I'd say that is a MAWS or at least some sort of electro optic detection system. Now if we can find a similar set up on the top of the aircraft it will (most likely) have 360 degree coverage.
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th June 2011 at 23:00Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Says who?
Me.
They say seeing is believing, so behold.
I am beholding a laser reflector for trajectory tracking during test flights, as used on the wing tips of some Russian Flanker prototypes. What is that supposed to tell me about MAWS coverage?
And I believe that gives the J11B 360 MAWS coverage.
Needless to say, I don't. Did it never strike you as unusual that photos of production J-11Bs show no sign of this appendage?
By: Blitzo
- 28th June 2011 at 23:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ Yeah, just flicking through photos it doesn't seem to be on the production versions.
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th June 2011 at 23:08Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe J-11B first entered service around 2006, and Su-35S is entering service now?
That's about a five year difference, but J-11B did have some issues when it first entered service... :confused:
Either way J-11B does not have the extensive modifications and upgrades which the Su-35S has. But by the sounds of it J-16 will be a whole different aircraft altogether, that should rival the 35S. Let's wait and see as always.
Point taken, but even so that means the J-11B is just as appropriate to compare to the Su-35S as the J-16 ;)
By: Blitzo
- 28th June 2011 at 23:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Point taken, but even so that means the J-11B is just as appropriate to compare to the Su-35S as the J-16 ;)
Exactly :)
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th June 2011 at 23:36Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I do wonder about the rationale for the J-16 though, unless it is born with a tail hook. If the modifications really are as extensive as is being alleged it will basically have ceased to be a Flanker derivative and become commensurately expensive to develop. In fact, trying to preserve some Flanker DNA will arguably hold the design back, much like the Super Hornet which, despite the similar lines, has hardly anything structural in common with the basic F/A-18A/B/C/D other than the canopy. The Su-35S is about as far as you can sensibly go without throwing away the benefits of basing your project on an existing aircraft and being left with only the constraints.
What with the J-11B being a pretty decent and yet cheap update of the basic J-11A and the J-20 shaping up to be a creditable fifth generation fighter, where else is there a niche for the J-16? The only reason why Russia is procuring both the Su-27SM and the Su-35S is that the former is actually not a new aircraft but an upgrade for existing airframes (and hence dirt cheap). Which brings me onto an interesting idea: if the J-11B airframe really is all but identical to the J-11A it might be possible to upgrade the latter to the former standard. That in turn may offer a roundabout way for SAC to generate some export revenue from their reverse engineering of the Flanker, without technically violating any agreements with Sukhoi...
By: Blitzo
- 29th June 2011 at 01:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do wonder about the rationale for the J-16 though, unless it is born with a tail hook. If the modifications really are as extensive as is being alleged it will basically have ceased to be a Flanker derivative and become commensurately expensive to develop. In fact, trying to preserve some Flanker DNA will arguably hold the design back, much like the Super Hornet which, despite the similar lines, has hardly anything structural in common with the basic F/A-18A/B/C/D other than the canopy. The Su-35S is about as far as you can sensibly go without throwing away the benefits of basing your project on an existing aircraft and being left with only the constraints.
Apparently J-16 is a whole new design?
But the situation isn't very clear -- before the idea was that J-16 was an F-15E style J-11BS (whether J-11B and BS can fire A2G weapons is controversial), and that J-17 is the silent flanker, J-19 is the cleen sheet design. All three are by SAC, and all three are set to appear sometime this year and next.
By: Pinko
- 29th June 2011 at 01:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J15 is a more logic comparison to su35s. Both still more or less a flanker aerodynamic design, both are abt to enter service. Both feature phased arrary radar. Like J10b is a further improvement from J10a , J15 is an enhancement of J11b in terms of avionics & radar.
By: Blitzo
- 29th June 2011 at 01:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ So J-15 isn't just a Su-33 with J-11B avionics? What additions are there exactly.
What kind of ESA radar will J-15 be equipped with?
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 29th June 2011 at 03:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J16 is less like flanker than PAk-FA does.
shame on you. stop trolling with non sense comments like that. there's no public info on the J-16 yet for you to spew flankerism comments. and this thread isnt even on the J-16 or Pak-fa. do u see it in the title? want me to re-edit the first post for you so it can say J-16 and Pakfa?
By: Pinko
- 29th June 2011 at 03:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
shame on you. stop trolling with non sense comments like that. there's no public info on the J-16 yet for you to spew flankerism comments. and this thread isnt even on the J-16 or Pak-fa. do u see it in the title? want me to re-edit the first post for you so it can say J-16 and Pakfa?
Shame on u when ur handle with J 20 but " no public info" on it. :D
Hey, when I opened the J20 thread, few believed and none took serious look at the pic of j20 imagery I posted. Then look back, the imagery looks exactly as the real thing.
If want " public info " u need wait ten years then cab talk. Haha, I guess u r not the fresh in this board?
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 29th June 2011 at 04:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shame on u when ur handle with J 20 but " no public info" on it. :D
Hey, when I opened the J20 thread, few believed and none took serious look at the pic of j20 imagery I posted. Then look back, the imagery looks exactly as the real thing.
If want " public info " u need wait ten years then cab talk. Haha, I guess u r not the fresh in this board?
what are you talking about? what does your moment in gloating have to do with Su-35S and J-11B.. or even J-15!?
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 27th June 2011 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But is that under these conditions?
Acceleration time at H=1,000 m and
fuel bingo 50% of the standard capacity.
This would mean half of 5270 kg fuel?
This is the Su-27 normal fuel fraction, the Su-35S could have a marginal higher fuel fraction on normal mission profile.
Consider the fact that the Su-35S seldom need any ext DT which pretty much all the F-22 Rafale and Typhoon feature on any regular missions, id say 280m/sec is great.
Doesn't the size(drag) of the airframe have a say in climb performace?
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 28th June 2011 at 08:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't forget - the P-42 variant of the Su-27 took all the time-to-height records from the 'Streak Eagle' - and still holds them.
Ken
Posts: 135
By: Grizzly01 - 28th June 2011 at 09:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does Su-35 still have a G limitation with full fuel load or has this problem already been addressed?
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 28th June 2011 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With 11.500kg fuel onboard, i think not.
It has to carry some weapons too, that way beeing very lumbering by all that weight.
Anyway, is this really an issue?
The question is this, how much fuel would you likely have on board when you are trailing along, fencing any borders..
Certainly not topped out.. and doing full AB will drain it fast.
Any mission profile which include a topped out Su-35S and/or with any ext DT would be if a detachment of Su-35S where to re-enforce other Sq based far away.
Which if the case would be a nice capability, not beeing as depended on tankers.
You would also get from airbase A to B faster without having to do any/multiple airial refueling.
Or god forbid any offensive escort/strike mission deep into enemy territory.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 28th June 2011 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, not as an absolute. Forget absolutes & consider relatives. What matters is the relationship between drag & weight, on one side, & thrust on the other.
Posts: 3,857
By: plawolf - 28th June 2011 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Says who?
They say seeing is believing, so behold.
And here is a close up.
And I believe that gives the J11B 360 MAWS coverage. Where did you hear this 'MAWS in the rear hemisphere only' claim from in the first place?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 28th June 2011 at 22:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've never seen that particular trinket before -- where exactly is it located on the J-11B? How do we know it's on the J-11B at all? :confused:
EDIT:
Oh I see it's the little ball under the aircraft's nose... Lulz I thought the second photo was the guy actually holding that piece of avionics up as a display or something.
That's really interesting, I've never seen anyone point that out before -- good catch. I suppose that exposed placement might compromise RCS to an extent, but considering the overall RCS of the flanker airframe it's no big deal.
Considering the position and appearance of that, I'd say that is a MAWS or at least some sort of electro optic detection system. Now if we can find a similar set up on the top of the aircraft it will (most likely) have 360 degree coverage.
By: Anonymous - 28th June 2011 at 23:00 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Me.
I am beholding a laser reflector for trajectory tracking during test flights, as used on the wing tips of some Russian Flanker prototypes. What is that supposed to tell me about MAWS coverage?
Needless to say, I don't. Did it never strike you as unusual that photos of production J-11Bs show no sign of this appendage?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 28th June 2011 at 23:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ Yeah, just flicking through photos it doesn't seem to be on the production versions.
By: Anonymous - 28th June 2011 at 23:08 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Point taken, but even so that means the J-11B is just as appropriate to compare to the Su-35S as the J-16 ;)
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 28th June 2011 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly :)
By: Anonymous - 28th June 2011 at 23:36 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I do wonder about the rationale for the J-16 though, unless it is born with a tail hook. If the modifications really are as extensive as is being alleged it will basically have ceased to be a Flanker derivative and become commensurately expensive to develop. In fact, trying to preserve some Flanker DNA will arguably hold the design back, much like the Super Hornet which, despite the similar lines, has hardly anything structural in common with the basic F/A-18A/B/C/D other than the canopy. The Su-35S is about as far as you can sensibly go without throwing away the benefits of basing your project on an existing aircraft and being left with only the constraints.
What with the J-11B being a pretty decent and yet cheap update of the basic J-11A and the J-20 shaping up to be a creditable fifth generation fighter, where else is there a niche for the J-16? The only reason why Russia is procuring both the Su-27SM and the Su-35S is that the former is actually not a new aircraft but an upgrade for existing airframes (and hence dirt cheap). Which brings me onto an interesting idea: if the J-11B airframe really is all but identical to the J-11A it might be possible to upgrade the latter to the former standard. That in turn may offer a roundabout way for SAC to generate some export revenue from their reverse engineering of the Flanker, without technically violating any agreements with Sukhoi...
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 29th June 2011 at 01:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Weird looking MAWS on the J-11.....:confused:
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 29th June 2011 at 01:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apparently J-16 is a whole new design?
But the situation isn't very clear -- before the idea was that J-16 was an F-15E style J-11BS (whether J-11B and BS can fire A2G weapons is controversial), and that J-17 is the silent flanker, J-19 is the cleen sheet design. All three are by SAC, and all three are set to appear sometime this year and next.
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 29th June 2011 at 01:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J15 is a more logic comparison to su35s. Both still more or less a flanker aerodynamic design, both are abt to enter service. Both feature phased arrary radar. Like J10b is a further improvement from J10a , J15 is an enhancement of J11b in terms of avionics & radar.
J16 is less like flanker than PAk-FA does.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 29th June 2011 at 01:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What?
There is zero basis for this statement.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 29th June 2011 at 01:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ So J-15 isn't just a Su-33 with J-11B avionics? What additions are there exactly.
What kind of ESA radar will J-15 be equipped with?
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 29th June 2011 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
shame on you. stop trolling with non sense comments like that. there's no public info on the J-16 yet for you to spew flankerism comments. and this thread isnt even on the J-16 or Pak-fa. do u see it in the title? want me to re-edit the first post for you so it can say J-16 and Pakfa?
Posts: 1,291
By: Pinko - 29th June 2011 at 03:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shame on u when ur handle with J 20 but " no public info" on it. :D
Hey, when I opened the J20 thread, few believed and none took serious look at the pic of j20 imagery I posted. Then look back, the imagery looks exactly as the real thing.
If want " public info " u need wait ten years then cab talk. Haha, I guess u r not the fresh in this board?
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 29th June 2011 at 04:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what are you talking about? what does your moment in gloating have to do with Su-35S and J-11B.. or even J-15!?