Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1533
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 20:46

zero-one wrote:^^ In their dreams

The Su-35 empty weight used to be listed as 40,000+ lbs in Wikipedia, but they changed it to 37,000+ lbs, however it says "citation needed".

The Drive.com mentions it at 40,000+ lbs as well,
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12 ... w-air-show
Google has it at 38,500

So with that we will use the 40,000+ pound empty weight, just because it was more often used. Now the AL-31F on the Su-35 is rated at 63,800 lbs max. That gives her a Max T/W ratio at 1.6 at empty weights.

The F-22, with its universally accepted 43,340 pound empty weight has a T/W ratio of 1.62 at empty weights.

Now consider that the Su-35 has a larger internal fuel tank which means it will carry more fuel 25,000 lbs to the F-22's 18,000 lbs,
the standard missile load out of the Su-35 in also much larger, 10 to 12 missiles for a CAP mission for the F-22's 8 missile standard load out. Russian missiles are also heavier. the R-77 weighs 390 lbs to the AMRAAM's 335 lbs

So no way will the Su-35 have a higher T/W ratio than the Raptor.
In fact the F-22 still holds the title of having the highest T/W ratio of any combat aircraft ever created

(correct me if I'm wrong on that, I only checked against popular energy fighters i.e. F-16, Mig-29, Su-35, etc)

You have to compare their T/W with the same load out and combat radius. Your comparison is like someone compare a 50% fuel clean F-16 to 50% fuel full internal load F-35. In short, not a fair comparison
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3819
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 21:32

I'm a fan of similar fuel fractions myself. Oh BTW Syria showed us that the actual typical combat loadout for an Su-35S is two R-73, two R-77, and two R-27ER, with wingtip ECM. Only fanboys go for the 12 AAM load.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1869
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 21:46

eloise wrote:
You have to compare their T/W with the same load out and combat radius. Your comparison is like someone compare a 50% fuel clean F-16 to 50% fuel full internal load F-35. In short, not a fair comparison


When comparing the heavy weight fighters, I actually don't mind the 50% fuel comparison. Cause unlike the F-16 which is pretty much RTB at 50%, planes like the Raptor, Flanker and F-35 are the only ones who can stay and fight while at 50%.

They ate also allowed to go into combat without EFTs due to their immense range. Say what you will ahout the F-22's legs but fact is, she has the longest legs of any Western air superiority fighter on internal fuel. Am I wrong to say that?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 07:08

zero-one wrote:^^ In their dreams

The Su-35 empty weight used to be listed as 40,000+ lbs in Wikipedia, but they changed it to 37,000+ lbs, however it says "citation needed".

The Drive.com mentions it at 40,000+ lbs as well,
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12 ... w-air-show
Google has it at 38,500

So with that we will use the 40,000+ pound empty weight, just because it was more often used. Now the AL-31F on the Su-35 is rated at 63,800 lbs max. That gives her a Max T/W ratio at 1.6 at empty weights.

The F-22, with its universally accepted 43,340 pound empty weight has a T/W ratio of 1.62 at empty weights.


Su-35 uses AL-41F-1S (article 117S) engine and that 14,500 kgf or 31,900 lbf is in "Special power conditions". Full afterburner military thrust is 14,000 kgf or 30,800 lbf. I'd say that latter number is comparable to full AB thrust in other fighters. It seems like Su-35 is pretty equal or even slightly inferior to Dassault Rafale in T/W ratio in both dry thrust or AB thrust. Of course it depends on actual empty weight of the jet, but I've not seen anything that would point Su-35 being exceptionally powerful compared to Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon or F-35, let alone F-22. All of them seem to have a lot of power and thrust would not be deciding factor between them.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1533
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 08:34

zero-one wrote:When comparing the heavy weight fighters, I actually don't mind the 50% fuel comparison. Cause unlike the F-16 which is pretty much RTB at 50%, planes like the Raptor, Flanker and F-35 are the only ones who can stay and fight while at 50%.

Su-35 at 50% fuel can fly a lot longer than Raptor at 50% fuel, so that isn't a fair comparison.


zero-one wrote:Say what you will ahout the F-22's legs but fact is, she has the longest legs of any Western air superiority fighter on internal fuel. Am I wrong to say that?

air superiority is a bit vague, do you considered F-15E or Rafale or F-35 or F-18E/F as air superiority? If not then there aren't many aircraft in the first place. Do you consider CFT as internal? why eliminate Russian contemporary fighters like Su-35 or Su-57 or Chinese fighter like J-20?. Do we count interceptor like Mig-31? ..etc
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2707
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 16:30

Interesting design philosophy concerning internal fuel.

The F-22 was designed with less than YF-22A, with the idea of the US having a large tanker fleet. The Russians don't, so the SU-35's internal fuel is 25,000, or 7,000lbs more than the Raptor.

Then again, the Raptor's clean lines and low drag may offset some of this range advantage vs. the draggier Sukhoi airframe, and that's before you hang those AAM's with big honking fins off its wings. Still, 7.000lbs is a lot of extra fuel. Could this work against it though in the event it's in a dogfight earlier in its mission vs. later?

If memory serves, prior Flanker variations were g limited when flying with anything more than 60% internal fuel. Is the same true for the Raptor, or is it a fully 9g capable airframe when combat loaded?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4894
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 11:31

mixelflick wrote:Interesting design philosophy concerning internal fuel.

The F-22 was designed with less than YF-22A, with the idea of the US having a large tanker fleet. The Russians don't, so the SU-35's internal fuel is 25,000, or 7,000lbs more than the Raptor.

Then again, the Raptor's clean lines and low drag may offset some of this range advantage vs. the draggier Sukhoi airframe, and that's before you hang those AAM's with big honking fins off its wings. Still, 7.000lbs is a lot of extra fuel. Could this work against it though in the event it's in a dogfight earlier in its mission vs. later?

If memory serves, prior Flanker variations were g limited when flying with anything more than 60% internal fuel. Is the same true for the Raptor, or is it a fully 9g capable airframe when combat loaded?


Interestingly, the YF-22 had about 25,000lbs of fuel. The F-22A was slimmed down considerably. The YF-23 had about 23,000lbs of fuel.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2707
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 16:14

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Interesting design philosophy concerning internal fuel.

The F-22 was designed with less than YF-22A, with the idea of the US having a large tanker fleet. The Russians don't, so the SU-35's internal fuel is 25,000, or 7,000lbs more than the Raptor.

Then again, the Raptor's clean lines and low drag may offset some of this range advantage vs. the draggier Sukhoi airframe, and that's before you hang those AAM's with big honking fins off its wings. Still, 7.000lbs is a lot of extra fuel. Could this work against it though in the event it's in a dogfight earlier in its mission vs. later?

If memory serves, prior Flanker variations were g limited when flying with anything more than 60% internal fuel. Is the same true for the Raptor, or is it a fully 9g capable airframe when combat loaded?


Interestingly, the YF-22 had about 25,000lbs of fuel. The F-22A was slimmed down considerably. The YF-23 had about 23,000lbs of fuel.


Right, that much I knew. It was slimmed down to improve the area rule, which meant it gained speed. My understanding is LM went to the air force and said, "Something has to give: Speed, Maneuverability or Range... which would you like to go"? And the USAF said range..

It's tempting to think about a somewhat less maneuverable Raptor with longer legs, but in the end I think the Air Force made the right decision. At least given what was known at the time. Unfortunately the Pacific theater's importance vaulted to the forefront, and longer legs became an issue. Having said that, the Raptor's ONLY compromise was range, and it's not like it's short ranged either. The only wildcard now is how effective will Russian/Chinese ultra-long range AAM's be against our tankers/AWACS. I suspect those tankers will be carrying some high end jamming equipment, or otherwise be escorted by jammers. GIven what the EA-18G is capable of, I wonder if... OTOH, they Navy is likely going to need every one of them.

Another reason why the F-35 is so critical... :)
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1869
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 10:22

Lots of good stuff here from you guys.
I hope you wont mind, but I'd love to use some of them when discussing with fanboys.

hornetfinn wrote:Su-35 uses AL-41F-1S (article 117S) engine and that 14,500 kgf or 31,900 lbf is in "Special power conditions". Full afterburner military thrust is 14,000 kgf or 30,800 lbf


Thanks Hornet,
Do you have a link for this,

mixelflick wrote:prior Flanker variations were g limited when flying with anything more than 60% internal fuel.

I always hear this, but do we have a source for this?

eloise wrote:Su-35 at 50% fuel can fly a lot longer than Raptor at 50% fuel, so that isn't a fair comparison.

The point was, a Raptor at 50% fuel is still tactically capable of performing CAP missions. You can't say the same to an F-16 or F-15, even with a Typhoon or Rafale, at 50% you should be heading back to base. the Raptor could possibly still loiter for 30 minutes or so.

air superiority is a bit vague, do you considered F-15E or Rafale or F-35 or F-18E/F as air superiority?

I'm talking about planes that are tasked mainly for air superiority. Can the F-15E and F-16 do that? sure.
But usually they don't, they are mainly used for strike while F-15Cs and F-22s provide top cover.

So when I said "Air superiority fighter" I simply meant aircraft that are used mainly for air superiority not any aircraft that can do air superiority.

why eliminate Russian contemporary fighters like Su-35 or Su-57 or Chinese fighter like J-20?. Do we count interceptor like Mig-31? ..etc


I did say among Western Air superiority fighters the F-22 has the longest legs to drive the point that the F-22's legs are actually quite decent.

mixelflick wrote:The only wildcard now is how effective will Russian/Chinese ultra-long range AAM's be against our tankers/AWACS.


Thats why the Stealth tanker is important. It allows the Raptor and F-35 to remain incredibly viable in the Pacific theater.
In a Hypothetical war with China, Tankers will be placed well within Japanese and Korean protected air space.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 23:58

zero-one wrote:^^ In their dreams

The Su-35 empty weight used to be listed as 40,000+ lbs in Wikipedia, but they changed it to 37,000+ lbs, however it says "citation needed".

The Drive.com mentions it at 40,000+ lbs as well,
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12 ... w-air-show
Google has it at 38,500

So with that we will use the 40,000+ pound empty weight, just because it was more often used. Now the AL-31F on the Su-35 is rated at 63,800 lbs max. That gives her a Max T/W ratio at 1.6 at empty weights.

The F-22, with its universally accepted 43,340 pound empty weight has a T/W ratio of 1.62 at empty weights.

Now consider that the Su-35 has a larger internal fuel tank which means it will carry more fuel 25,000 lbs to the F-22's 18,000 lbs,
the standard missile load out of the Su-35 in also much larger, 10 to 12 missiles for a CAP mission for the F-22's 8 missile standard load out. Russian missiles are also heavier. the R-77 weighs 390 lbs to the AMRAAM's 335 lbs

So no way will the Su-35 have a higher T/W ratio than the Raptor.
In fact the F-22 still holds the title of having the highest T/W ratio of any combat aircraft ever created

(correct me if I'm wrong on that, I only checked against popular energy fighters i.e. F-16, Mig-29, Su-35, etc)


According to sukoi the Su-35 has a normal take-off weight of 25.3 tons ( 55,660 lbs) with 5270 kg fuel and 2 RVV-AE ( 175kg) and 2 R-73 (105kg). That would mean the empty weight is over 19 tons (42,000 lbs).

http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3819
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 19:06

swiss wrote:
According to sukoi the Su-35 has a normal take-off weight of 25.3 tons ( 55,660 lbs) with 5270 kg fuel and 2 RVV-AE ( 175kg) and 2 R-73 (105kg). That would mean the empty weight is over 19 tons (42,000 lbs).

http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

In the name of honesty, that is not what Sukhoi claims. They do claim that "Nominal" weight, and they do list those weapons, but they do NOT give a fuel load in your source or in the brochure. If you have another source that does indicate that fuel load then by all means share. Until then you are making an assumption on the "Nominal" weight using 46% of the claimed fuel load. That is not an assumption I would make. I DO however assumed that the "Nominal" weight is the 9G Maneuver weight.
"Spurts"

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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 21:06

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
According to sukoi the Su-35 has a normal take-off weight of 25.3 tons ( 55,660 lbs) with 5270 kg fuel and 2 RVV-AE ( 175kg) and 2 R-73 (105kg). That would mean the empty weight is over 19 tons (42,000 lbs).

http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

In the name of honesty, that is not what Sukhoi claims. They do claim that "Nominal" weight, and they do list those weapons, but they do NOT give a fuel load in your source or in the brochure. If you have another source that does indicate that fuel load then by all means share. Until then you are making an assumption on the "Nominal" weight using 46% of the claimed fuel load. That is not an assumption I would make. I DO however assumed that the "Nominal" weight is the 9G Maneuver weight.


Normal weight of Su-27 was always with a 5.27 tons of fuel and 4 AAM's. Also the Russian wiki says empty weight of the Su-35 is 19 tons.

https://books.google.ch/books?id=RS8Fz- ... kg&f=false

https://books.google.ch/books?id=Q6xsBw ... kg&f=false

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-35

There was also a site from knaapo or UAC that claim the normal fuel load from the su-35 is 5270kg. Sadly it seems gone.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1533
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post29 Oct 2018, 02:54

zero-one wrote:The point was, a Raptor at 50% fuel is still tactically capable of performing CAP missions. You can't say the same to an F-16 or F-15, even with a Typhoon or Rafale, at 50% you should be heading back to base. the Raptor could possibly still loiter for 30 minutes or so.

Iam pretty sure Rafale can still operate at 50% fuel, it also has decent fuel load.
The point though is that if Su-35 only need 25-30% fuel to remain in the air the same period of time as F-22, then it is unfair to compare T/W of F-22 and Su-35 at 50% fuel
Similarly, it is unfair to compare T/W of rafale and F-35 both at 50% fuel because F-35 can simply stay a lot longer on the air.

zero-one wrote:I'm talking about planes that are tasked mainly for air superiority. Can the F-15E and F-16 do that? sure.
But usually they don't, they are mainly used for strike while F-15Cs and F-22s provide top cover.
So when I said "Air superiority fighter" I simply meant aircraft that are used mainly for air superiority not any aircraft that can do air superiority

It depend on what kind of aircraft they have, if the airforce only have F-15E or F-16 then iam sure they will be tasked for air superiority.
Or for example: Before the introduction of F-35 then F-18E/F is also tasked for air superiority since aircraft carrier can't carry anything else
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post29 Oct 2018, 02:56

Well, if one looks at the Su-30MK2 brochure (enter at your own risk)

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... /su-30mk2/

Its 24,900 kg w 4 AAMs for normal take off weight. Max internal fuel load stated is 9720 kg. Su-35 should be somewhere around that.

Max is 34,500kg minus 8000kg for max weapons, minus 9720 kg for max fuel = 16,780kg for empty weight.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post29 Oct 2018, 03:30

International F-16 with CFTs and 3 tanks carry ~18k lbs of fuel. At 9k lbs, still 2 hours at cruise from bingo. On CAP, once aggressor spotted, drop tanks = fight starts at full internal fuel with very small added drag from CFTs. That's the whole point of putting CFTs on the F-15Cs as well. 3Xk lbs of fuel, longer afterburners.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests