By: FBW
- 3rd September 2016 at 03:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surprised to see the Su-35S has this capability.. Not a single one has been seen carrying wet bags, AFAIK..
Can't imagine a current scenario where the Su-35 would need to. Massive internal fuel capacity. If the VKS ever expands it's in flight refueling fleet, considering the range of the Su-27/34/35 fleet, they won't need to resort to EFT's.
Which brings up a question: any plans to make the legacy Su-27 models capable of in flight refueling?
By: Freddy
- 3rd September 2016 at 04:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many can carry 2,000lb bombs internally though?
The guess quoted below is for two 3,300 pound/1,500kg bombs for the Pak Fa, given the size of the J-20 expect it to be comparable but the Chinese aircraft are even more secrete than the russians. You might ask Flateric on the Pak Fa thread for a much better assessment.
Other possible loads include one 1, 500 kg bomb per weapons bay
Well someone has claimed 5,400km range for the T-50. The most it could have is about the same as a a clean Su-35 (3,600km) even with marginal improvements to engines and drag.
Without official performance figures it will not be provable one way or the other. Technology is not a stationary thing though & for example I expect the F-35 will have increased range and be able to supercruise without the occasional use of afterburners when it gets the new variable cycle engine being developed by General Electric and the Pak Fa will be getting a type 30 engine.
By: Starfish Prime
- 3rd September 2016 at 08:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The guess quoted below is for two 3,300 pound/1,500kg bombs for the Pak Fa, given the size of the J-20 expect it to be comparable but the Chinese aircraft are even more secrete than the russians. You might ask Flateric on the Pak Fa thread for a much better assessment.
Without official performance figures it will not be provable one way or the other. Technology is not a stationary thing though & for example I expect the F-35 will have increased range and be able to supercruise without the occasional use of afterburners when it gets the new variable cycle engine being developed by General Electric and the Pak Fa will be getting a type 30 engine.
No chance of fitting 1,500kg bombs in the bays of a PAK-FA. Too long and too wide. There are some other comical figures in that link too.
It's a dead cert, it will not go 5,400km or 5,500km (as per link) on internal fuel. It has a 10% lower fuel fraction than an Su-35, so with some engine improvements and drag reduction it might hope to make roughly the same range as a clean Su-35 (3,600km).
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 3rd September 2016 at 08:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never paid attentions to this before, but looking at that PDF from Sukhoi, the Su-35S seems to carry wet bags on Station four and three!? The normal would be station 12 and 11.
and further more the wet bags looks smaller vs the current in service wet bags seen on Su-24/34, Mig-29K
Is the Su-35S really geared for four wet bags(and what about senter station 1 and 2?)??
Su-35 has 6500km one one refuel and Su-34 7000km on refuel based on unofficial figures. There shouldn't be any doubt that single seat Su-35 will exceed twin seat su-30mk.T-50 will go much further than Su-35.
By: haavarla
- 3rd September 2016 at 11:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:highly_amused: Or maybe the one in-flight refuel is how it reaches 5,400km.
Don't know about that. But Su-35S has 4500km with two wet bags(2000l)
That is without Air refueling.
Which is massive range for any fighter.
It is most likely ferry range. But it does not matter, it gives us a clue about its loiter time on a regular mission. Around 3600km.
You never see the manufactors advs use refueling stats anyways.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd September 2016 at 11:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which brings up a question: any plans to make the legacy Su-27 models capable of in flight refueling?
I have serious doubts.. If they haven't done that with the Su-27SM/SM3 upgrade, they they won't bother with it, anymore.. It would require a remake of the nose section, shifting IRST, replacing windshield, all structural mods they most likely would like to avoid..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd September 2016 at 11:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never paid attentions to this before, but looking at that PDF from Sukhoi, the Su-35S seems to carry wet bags on Station four and three!? The normal would be station 12 and 11.
and further more the wet bags looks smaller vs the current in service wet bags seen on Su-24/34, Mig-29K
Is the Su-35S really geared for four wet bags(and what about senter station 1 and 2?)??
As said, they were never seen with any.. Not even the test examples #901-904.. Unlike the Su-34s.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 3rd September 2016 at 11:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't know about that. But Su-35S has 4500km with two wet bags(2000l)
That is without Air refueling.
Which is massive range for any fighter.
It is most likely ferry range. But it does not matter, it gives us a clue about its loiter time on a regular mission. Around 3600km.
You never see the manufactors advs use refueling stats anyways.
Well if I understand the conversation correctly, the 5,400km was claimed for internal fuel only. Now 3,600km is the maximum stated range for a clean Su-35, so an aircraft with a 10% lower fuel fraction would do well to match that.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 3rd September 2016 at 11:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its the draggier twin seat version from Irkut.
The Knaapo su-30mk2 version has 5600km range on one refuel.
Su-35 has 6500km one one refuel and Su-34 7000km on refuel based on unofficial figures. There shouldn't be any doubt that single seat Su-35 will exceed twin seat su-30mk.T-50 will go much further than Su-35.
Wow, next you'll claim it has the same range as a Backfire. I mean, you're not claiming far off at 5,400km, in fact the combat radius of a Backfire with a typical load is only circa 2,400km, so 4,800km return trip.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 2nd September 2016 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Evidence?
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd September 2016 at 02:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surprised to see the Su-35S has this capability.. Not a single one has been seen carrying wet bags, AFAIK..
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 3rd September 2016 at 03:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can't imagine a current scenario where the Su-35 would need to. Massive internal fuel capacity. If the VKS ever expands it's in flight refueling fleet, considering the range of the Su-27/34/35 fleet, they won't need to resort to EFT's.
Which brings up a question: any plans to make the legacy Su-27 models capable of in flight refueling?
Posts: 248
By: Freddy - 3rd September 2016 at 04:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The guess quoted below is for two 3,300 pound/1,500kg bombs for the Pak Fa, given the size of the J-20 expect it to be comparable but the Chinese aircraft are even more secrete than the russians. You might ask Flateric on the Pak Fa thread for a much better assessment.
http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/sukhoi-pak-fa.html
Without official performance figures it will not be provable one way or the other. Technology is not a stationary thing though & for example I expect the F-35 will have increased range and be able to supercruise without the occasional use of afterburners when it gets the new variable cycle engine being developed by General Electric and the Pak Fa will be getting a type 30 engine.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 3rd September 2016 at 05:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
with one air refuel Su-30MK has 5200km range. T-50 will be double of it.
http://eng.irkut.com/products/18/238/
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 3rd September 2016 at 08:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No chance of fitting 1,500kg bombs in the bays of a PAK-FA. Too long and too wide. There are some other comical figures in that link too.
It's a dead cert, it will not go 5,400km or 5,500km (as per link) on internal fuel. It has a 10% lower fuel fraction than an Su-35, so with some engine improvements and drag reduction it might hope to make roughly the same range as a clean Su-35 (3,600km).
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 3rd September 2016 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:highly_amused: Or maybe the one in-flight refuel is how it reaches 5,400km.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 3rd September 2016 at 10:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never paid attentions to this before, but looking at that PDF from Sukhoi, the Su-35S seems to carry wet bags on Station four and three!? The normal would be station 12 and 11.
and further more the wet bags looks smaller vs the current in service wet bags seen on Su-24/34, Mig-29K
Is the Su-35S really geared for four wet bags(and what about senter station 1 and 2?)??
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 3rd September 2016 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its the draggier twin seat version from Irkut.
The Knaapo su-30mk2 version has 5600km range on one refuel.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-30mk2/
Su-35 has 6500km one one refuel and Su-34 7000km on refuel based on unofficial figures. There shouldn't be any doubt that single seat Su-35 will exceed twin seat su-30mk.T-50 will go much further than Su-35.
http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/10753-sukhoi-t-10--su-27-flanker--su-30--su-32--su-34--su-35--su-37
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 3rd September 2016 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't know about that. But Su-35S has 4500km with two wet bags(2000l)
That is without Air refueling.
Which is massive range for any fighter.
It is most likely ferry range. But it does not matter, it gives us a clue about its loiter time on a regular mission. Around 3600km.
You never see the manufactors advs use refueling stats anyways.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd September 2016 at 11:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have serious doubts.. If they haven't done that with the Su-27SM/SM3 upgrade, they they won't bother with it, anymore.. It would require a remake of the nose section, shifting IRST, replacing windshield, all structural mods they most likely would like to avoid..
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd September 2016 at 11:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As said, they were never seen with any.. Not even the test examples #901-904.. Unlike the Su-34s.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 3rd September 2016 at 11:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well if I understand the conversation correctly, the 5,400km was claimed for internal fuel only. Now 3,600km is the maximum stated range for a clean Su-35, so an aircraft with a 10% lower fuel fraction would do well to match that.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 3rd September 2016 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, next you'll claim it has the same range as a Backfire. I mean, you're not claiming far off at 5,400km, in fact the combat radius of a Backfire with a typical load is only circa 2,400km, so 4,800km return trip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_.28Tu-22M3.29