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 24th Jun 2013, 12:44
  #41 (permalink)  
AR1
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 59
Posts: 691
I started reading this thread wondering how long it would be until the Raptor Brigade reared their heads (From BVR - Obviously..)

Serious question... How are external stores rated when it comes to throwing stuff around the sky. Is it the airframe that gets down-rated due to load, the plyons/stores tanks etc, or the increase in mass that does it?

Clearly this wouldn't be half as exciting with fuel tanks on.
AR1 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 14:05
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
A couple more comments about TV:

Sukhoi has said that increased control authority has safety benefits in terms of better departure resistance, particularly in cases such as asymmetric loadings or damage/failure modes.

TV has also been advertised, on occasion, as achieving superior maneuver at less weight/drag penalty than doing the same with bigger aero surfaces, actuators &c.

TV on a round variable-area nozzle does not add a vast amount of complexity. The system that SENER (I think) demoed on the EJ200 involved adding a few double-jointed linkages and three actuators.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 20:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by barnstormer1968 View Post
The 35 has a very powerful radar, as do many Russian/soviet types, and it can see all kinds of aircraft at long range.
And you know this how, exactly?
Any figures with reference RCS of the target?

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.
I'm definitely not a huge JSF fan, but this I heavily doubt


so it could be said that the 35 comes out on top or equal at BVR,
This seems to be far fetched. I wouldn't expect wonders regarding RCS.
The somewhat bigger dish won't compensate for the expected difference in RCS compared to a VLO platform as F-35.

top of the class at short range,
probaly sharing this trait more or less with Typhoon.

I wish the RAF could have some 35's
Although it is a lovely bird I wouldn't expect it to be significantly more capable than Typhoon. Should be rather closely matched.
From what can be read between the lines the current Generation of the SU27/30 is slightly inferior to Typhoon in most (Air Combat relevant) aspects.
This one should correct that, but I don't see a siginificant superiority especially once the F gets the CAPTOR-E.

T-50 though might be a bit more worrying although maybe not as impressive in Air Show mode.

Last edited by henra; 24th Jun 2013 at 20:50.
henra is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 20:58
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
TV has also been advertised, on occasion, as achieving superior maneuver at less weight/drag penalty than doing the same with bigger aero surfaces, actuators &c.
Although this is frequently stated anectdotal evidence for this is scarce - to be polite.
Neither of the current TVC deigns use the Nozzles for sustained turns.

It should be noted that in an longitudinally unstable design (which are practically all actual FBW designs) the aero surfaces only create downforce during the initiation of the maneuver. After that they start creating lift, especially since most unstable designs have an increasing Pitch Moment with increasing AoA.
The instability margin of the EF was limited by the capability of the Canard to get the nose back down from high AoAs.

So in brief, I don't see how TVC will improve Sustained Turn Rate one bit.
It might help g onset rate and thereby ITR from stationary flight.

Last edited by henra; 24th Jun 2013 at 20:59.
henra is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 21:21
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 528
The near-future version of this Le Bourget flight demo will proceed as usual, moving along through the normal 15 minute long slow-motion thrust vector ballet (just as this 2013 version does), except that along about 13:45 minutes into the show an unmanned drone shows up and starts throwing 15 to 20g turns and 720 degree-per-second roll rates, just toying with the human pilot for about a minute, then at exactly 15:00 the drone blows the fighter out of the sky (after which it wanders off, sniffing around for more targets or a refueling tanker while a long line forms at the vendor's kiosk).
Greg Horton is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2013, 21:44
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 86
And is that UCAV autonomous or controlled by a Mark One Meat Computer (TM) from a ground station?

If the former, I rather suspect the future mightn't be quite so near...

Regards,

Frank
JG54 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 09:33
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,053
Hi Henra

I'm not going to bother to go into a point by point reply, but see you noted I said that many Russian/Soviet aircraft have powerful radars. As to how the flanker E sees (easily) types including VLO's at long range, how to western types see out to long range? The Flanker E is not the only aircraft in the sky, and for a couple of decades data sharing and AWACS have been pretty good at finding baddies.
You know the larger dish of the flanker will be useful, so should note the local AWACS dish will also be pretty good at pointing out VLO's to the flanker, hence it can see them. Coming from a green background, I'm also very aware that NO western aircraft will leave its airfield un reported in time of conflict. The exact route or target may not be obvious, but this technique has been more widely used and refined since the nineties.

Thirty years ago stealth gave a massive advantage, but modern defences react MUCH more speedily, and I'm sure you know that stealth only offers protection at long range these days. I remember how crest fallen some special forces soldiers were when they were told their top secret HAHO drop was all seen on radar from some distance.........and that was twenty years ago. They were convinced they were invisible, as did the USAF over Serbia in F117's.

Stealth may well be the future, but stealth missiles will need to be a major part of that IMHO.
barnstormer1968 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 09:44
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
What happens if a nozzle fails in flight?

From the article:
"The balance beam also improves safety as it allows the nozzle to close and set itself at 0 deflection in the maximum dry thrust position should the hydraulic system fail."
t43562 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 18:26
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by barnstormer1968 View Post
As to how the flanker E sees (easily) types including VLO's at long range, how to western types see out to long range? The Flanker E is not the only aircraft in the sky, and for a couple of decades data sharing and AWACS have been pretty good at finding baddies.
Hmm, that's a bit generic to me. Yes maybe an AWACS might see it. IIf it gets close enough to a USAF Strike package and survives - which in itself is highly optimistic.
Next issue: Do we really know SU-35's DataLink capabilities? Do we assume that the Support aircraft of the Strike package leave the Data Link from the AWACS to the SU and to the Missile totally un-jammed?
Or are we going RAND and assume maximum optimistic values for everything Russian / Chinese and Maximum pessimistic for the western stuff?

You know the larger dish of the flanker will be useful, so should note the local AWACS dish will also be pretty good at pointing out VLO's to the flanker, hence it can see them.
The Problem with that is that the Diameter of SU-35 Irbis-E (0,9m, same Diameter as F15's APG63V3, whereas F22's APG77 has 1,0m) isn't really that much bigger than that of the APG81. The APG63 has 1500 T/R modules, APG77 2000 and APG 81 has ~1200. That would roughly correspond to a 0,8m dish.
edit: To give a perspective that is a factor of aperture size of1,25. For doubling the range you would need a factor of ~10!
/edit.
At the same time the RCS of F-35 is said to be somewhere below 0,01m^2. Su35 will have a really hard time to get below 2 - 3m^2. It is a huge Jet and the Basic structure wasn't designed with RCS anywhere in the mind. And you can't fix that fact with just some RAM coating.



I'm really far from being a F-35 believer. Really.
But concluding from a few admittedly cool Air Show Stunts and some fancy Marketing Claims that an aircraft is far superior to anything out there is highly -how should I call it?- un-scientific. Leave that to the Fanboys on youtube, please.

Last edited by henra; 25th Jun 2013 at 18:43.
henra is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 20:37
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E in Paris (video / PDF)

Link to a PDF and video here:

Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E in Paris - The DEW Line
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 22:27
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 657
Originally Posted by gr4techie View Post
I thought the MiG29 and SU27 were two completely different concepts.

The MiG being designed as a cheap mass produced aircraft and the SU27 being much much bigger, powerful, cost-not-as-much-an-issue air superiority fighter. Like comparing F-16 to F-15.
Completely incorrect I'm afraid.

The guys who designed the MiG-29, basically designed a fantastic wing and then worked out how to add on extras like engines, fuselage etc which disturbed the airflow over that wing as little as possible. Mikoyan didn't think much of the idea so those designers felt unloved and went to work for Sukhoi. Who did go for the idea.

Models of their design duly popped up in the centralised Soviet testing facilities, whereupon Mikoyan said "hang on a mo, we recognise that!"

The decision was taken that Sukhoi would proceed with a larger, longer range version of the design, which would become the Su-27 while Mikoyan would concentrate on a smaller shorter range version of the aircraft, the MiG-29.

I'm sure John Farley will happily confirm all of that (as well as mentioning that he was the first westerner to fly a Mig-29. Lucky buer!)

As an aside, the reaction to the capabilities of the Su-35S now is not very dissimilar to that of the West when the peskie Ruskies displayed their wares / gave NATO a horrible wake-up call at Le Bourget 20 years ago with their ability to turn tightly and do what were dismissed then by some as 'party tricks'. Tricks like Pugachev's Cobra which the Sovs have clearly now evolved into something rather special and is a very clever trick indeed.

As someone mentioned in this thread, getting the pipper on the Su-35S might be a tad difficult. I would say that the writing was on the wall, plain and clear for all to see, back in 1993.

A rather nice quote from John Farley is that when, in 1993 at Le Bourget, an F-16 pilot who had just witnessed the display by the Su-27, including a 10 second 360 degree turn and a cobra, was asked by a reporter what he would do if he found himself in close combat with the Su-27?

The F-16 pilot's reply?

"I'd eject!"


CS
cargosales is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 07:42
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,244
Cargo

Just read the article on John Farley flying the Mig.
Very interesting.
500N is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 07:54
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 105
Next issue: Do we really know SU-35's DataLink capabilities? Do we assume that the Support aircraft of the Strike package leave the Data Link from the AWACS to the SU and to the Missile totally un-jammed?
If we don't know about the datalink capabilitiies how do we jam them?

BTW, How good do you think the SU35's support package's EW capability would be - a bit of research might surprise some people

Bear
Big Bear is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 09:46
  #54 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
In 1970 Hugh Merewether said the Harrier was an example of how an inherently good idea was capable of development (P1127 Kestrel Harrier) and for me the Su27s journey to Su35 is another such example.

I never did see what went on at airshows with the 29 and 27 as other than a demonstration of reliable aerodynamics that could handle enormous angle of attack, later sideslip and even later the rolling moment due to sideslip that comes with a combination of the two. Plus of course an engine intake combination that provided astonishing surge margins under the circumstances. The TVC discussed in this thread is just another step on this journey.

BTW I loved the manoeuvres at idle RPM. Every sound tells a story.

I wonder if those who write off the whole significance of this manoeuvring so far as combat is concerned (thanks to radar/stealth/BVR issues etc) ever stop to think that perhaps an organisation that can engineer what went on at Paris actually understands these other issues as well. In which case stand by for puzzlement when your target at the last moment unbelievably nips out of the lethal range of the missile you just used.

There is no doubt that providing stealth is expensive in design compromises, maintenance and money. Some people might think it better to avoid such issues and look at alternative strategies to cope with an enemy that chooses that route. Think reduced cost, more availability and the simple numbers game.
John Farley is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 14:38
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
JF - as always.

Meanwhile, declassified, the official JSF counter-Su-35 tactics manual:

History Curriculum Homeschool | Heritage History presents A Moral Alphabet by Hilaire Belloc
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 15:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,151
Shots from last Tuesday's flying display at Le Bourget

As I was on business on the Tues at the show, I managed to take quite a number of shots of the SU35S so enjoy please











Cheers

Last edited by chopper2004; 26th Jun 2013 at 15:34.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 18:48
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by John Farley View Post
I wonder if those who write off the whole significance of this manoeuvring so far as combat is concerned (thanks to radar/stealth/BVR issues etc) ever stop to think that perhaps an organisation that can engineer what went on at Paris actually understands these other issues as well.
Oh, I wouldn't doubt that. I found the sustained climbing Turn Performance at that speed and AoA truly impressive.
More so that some of this falling Leaf stuff.
Also acceleration was really excellent. A huge plus,
If I were a Pilot facing one of these I would be much much more concerned about the amazing energy conservation capability and SEP also at low Speeds than most of the Display 'donut's' to be frank.

In which case stand by for puzzlement when your target at the last moment unbelievably nips out of the lethal range of the missile you just used.
Of which it will not so much be capable beacuse of the TVC induced nose pointing than energy conservation capability in hard maneuvers.
That post stall nose pointing doesn't really help much to change position in space. In These admittedly spectacular maneuvers the trajectory of the Jet hardly changes. Therefore that doesn't really help shrinking the opponents missile's NEZ.

Again much more worrying also with regard to NEZ is the obviously excellent EM capability of this Jet.

In my pov that thing would be 99% equally lethal w/o tvc.

From a design perspective I absolutely love this thing. But for somewhat other reasons than probably most of the spectators.

I would love to know the STR at 15kft with 45 minutes fuel. Should be super impressive.

Last edited by henra; 26th Jun 2013 at 18:56.
henra is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.