Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Su-35S at Le Bourget -WOW!

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Su-35S at Le Bourget -WOW!

Old 23rd Jun 2013, 09:26
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,053
Orca
I have injured my arm, and so was trying to post with as few words as possible, and then fighting the constant correction of predicting text on my ipad caused by pain induced typing errors, but you have forced me to type more

The 35 has a very powerful radar, as do many Russian/soviet types, and it can see all kinds of aircraft at long range. It's all well and good being in JSF, but if the 35 can see you clearly at longer range than the missiles the JSF carries then the stealth is a bit pointless IMHO.

The Americans have already realised they need a new generation of missile in the short range class to counter the latest Chinese/Russian offerings, so it could be said that the 35 comes out on top or equal at BVR, top of the class at short range, and looks to be a good dog fighter too, if the comments of ppruners who have done these things are anything to go by.

I wish the RAF could have some 35's
barnstormer1968 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 12:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
As has been noted, I wouldn't fancy my chances in one of these in a typical BVR scenario. And, no matter how spiffy it might look to the airshow crowd, would these maneuvers really have any currency in a guns only scenario?? Seems to me that being in a persistent low energy state is probably not such a good thing in that environment...

Regards,

Frank
JG54 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 14:50
  #23 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Seems to me that being in a persistent low energy state is probably not such a good thing in that environment...
- indeed - as with Viffing in the bona-jet, whilst having it uses, the loss of energy could lead to being a 'stationary' target for the No2 Redski.
BOAC is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 15:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
What I was trying to get across was as the design layout remains roughly the same, two engines, two vertical tail planes, conventional wing layout , same aircraft layout, that way each model no matter the differences learns from the predecessor as to how to improve the design, it evolves.
Chopping back and forth, conventional, swing wing, delta, conventional, that evolution doesn't tend to happen as they in effect start from scratch each time, and is a more expensive option because of that fact.
Nutloose I think general configurations are copied, the trick is in the detail. I think the Mig25 was from the sixties (without implying the F15 was a copy). The russian R&D (Tsagi) did dozens of models and configurations together with a string of design bureaus to come up with the most suitable designs to meet requirements.

What amaes me on the russian fighters is the way they put full thrust on the engines without stalling them at all speeds and angles. The Mig29 could even shut off its intakes for bad /soft runways..
MiG-29 FULCRUM Wallpaper free wallpaper download no19232

The big sukhoi fighters like the Su-35 have enormous radars, range and weapon load too. And are successfully exported everywhere. Scaring e.g. the Japanese and Koreans..

The Chinese are testing their copies on aircraft carriers, earlier then anyone had hoped. The USN is looking brave with their Super Hornets and JSF but doesn't like it either. Let alone the big Chinese stealth fighters.
keesje is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 15:41
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
True, but "persistently low" is less persistent when you have 64,000 lbst motivating 52,000 pounds, which is a pretty conservative estimate with half internal fuel and four AAMs.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 16:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
I must admit that, as with viffing, I'm struggling to think of much real world utility for thrust vectoring outside of losing control surfaces (either as a design feature - which no-one seems to have done or by damage). Better roll rates maybe?? High alpha landings??

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will be along soon to point out glaring omissions but that's all I've got!

LO, yes, thrust / weight ratio is good but is it really good enough to regain the required energy with sufficient speed in a classical "Knife fight" scenario? I have my doubts.

Regards,

Frank

Last edited by JG54; 23rd Jun 2013 at 16:10. Reason: Addendum
JG54 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 16:44
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
JG54, I think TV helps the controls at low speed. It also makes it possible to put the aircraft in the optimal angle / reducing drag at high speeds/ moving lift vectors. E.g. on the F22.
keesje is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 00:02
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kowloon
Posts: 104
I'd still prefer 10 of these to one F35...

Numbers count, whichever way one looks at it.

Of a carrier, though, might be different (or not).
China Flyer is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 00:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,640
I always thought this showed off their thrust to weight ratio well


Last edited by NutLoose; 24th Jun 2013 at 00:32.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 04:10
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by JG54
I must admit that, as with viffing, I'm struggling to think of much real world utility for thrust vectoring outside of losing control surfaces
Well, in canard configuration you get better direct force control (DFC) and lower approach speeds.
Also, TVNs appear to offer some improvements in speed and reduction in consumption, both of which can come handy.
And of course, you get to do PS flip-flops which always look great on airshow.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 07:27
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,655
Thrust vectoring?
Just an excuse to slow right down and present a lovely big fat target.
Maintain energy...!
tartare is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 07:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
Tartare,

If thrust vectoring is such a waste of time why are both sides running with it (and spending vast amounts developing it) in their top of the range fighters?
Flap62 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 08:58
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Thrust vectoring should have been on the Eurofighter Typhoon all along.


It was available in the nineties but the top heavy politcal project isn't exactly agile.

Similar to AESA radar. http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver...85c9.Large.jpg

The long development cycle (because of post cold war cuts) made the Eurofighter yesterdays technology tomorrow in some critical areas.

Add stealth.
keesje is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 09:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
TVN increases stealth because control surfaces are needed less. Especially when ordnance is used asymmetrically.
Also it increases top speed, reduces landing distance, increases engine life and increases supercruise speed.
Increased agility is just one benefit.
Eclectic is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 09:31
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 105
But you can't do that when you've been smacked in the face by an AMRAAM at 40 miles.
Really? Have you seen their EW kit these days? Much better than those who hide their head in the sand would have you believe.

Bear
Big Bear is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 11:39
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
Flap62: Possibly for the same reasons (or lack of!) that everyone went crazy for VG a couple of generations ago? Conceptually valid but with not much payback in the real world? Indeed, wasn't the initial thrust (pun fully intended!) behind TVC (at least in the west) aimed at giving the pointy stuff better STOL characteristics?

Eclectic: Rather less stealthy when applied to a big, honking legacy design like Su - 27/30/35 series, surely? And with IRST as it is today, spreading the thermal footprint everywhich way can't be a good thing, can it? As for increasing speed and engine life - how?? I'm just seeing extra weight and complexity.

I do see less reliance on control surfaces and better low speed authority as others have stated but at a cost (the aforementioned weight and complexity) but I'm still not seeing how, in an operational sense, that might lead to fewer Su - 35 shaped smoking holes in the ground.

Regards,

Frank
JG54 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 11:44
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Thrust-Vectoring Upgrade for Typhoon Eurojet EJ200? - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

According to Eurojet, a Typhoon equipped with thrust vectoring nozzles (TVN) could reduce fuel burn on a typical mission by up to 5%, while increasing available thrust in supersonic cruise by up to 7%. Typhoon is already capable of performing ‘super-cruise’ (flying supersonically without afterburner) and the proposed modification will further increase this capability. Other cost saving aspects of thrust vectoring include the potential to extend engine life by reducing operating temperatures at a given power setting. It could also be used to reduce take-off and landing distances and approach speed. Beside the operational cost savings, TVN enhances the aircraft maneuvering as it becomes a ‘virtual control surface’ when coupled with the aircraft flight-control system. Another aspect is improving the aircraft ability to carry an asymmetric weapons load.



TVN for the Eurofighter? - Armada International
According to Eurojet officials, the adoption of the TVN should decrease fuel consumption on a standard mission by about three per cent, while in the afterburner mode the hot section temperature could be lowered. 10° K less during take-off and 10 to 20° K less at high altitude, with beneficial effects on the engine life. As for performances, a seven per cent increase in supercruise mode has been realised during simulations. The TVN would also become a third attitude control system besides the forward canard surfaces and the wing mobile surfaces, thus increasing redundancy and survivability in combat. The TVN also allows better aircraft behaviour when asymmetric payloads are carried, avoiding the need to use mobile surfaces to trim the aircraft, something that considerably increases drag and therefore fuel consumption.

Last edited by Eclectic; 24th Jun 2013 at 11:47.
Eclectic is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 12:00
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
Who'da thunk that? Claimed benefits from the vendor! Okay, if that's so - and I'm not doubting it is, the benefits still don't look like game changers to these jaded eyes.

What about capital costs? What about the complexity and associated maintenance issues (of which surely there will be many). What happens when a nozzle fails in flight?

Regards,

Frank
JG54 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 12:03
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
JG54

Part of the reason designs such as F15, SU27 etc have honking big engines is to enable them to minimise energy bleed in manoeuvres. If the aircraft is more agile due to TV then there may (note may) be less need for huge power outputs so the engines can be smaller (reducing weight, fuel burn and thermal signature) offsetting the weight penalty of TV gubbins.
Flap62 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 12:15
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
Flap62: Understood - there is no such thing as too big a donk!

The "Big, honking" was primarily used to describe the airframe (and likely radar return from same!) of a jet not optimised for stealth when TVC is touted as being more, um, stealthy.

Regards,

Frank
JG54 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.