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

[zero-one]

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

Okay, but without a credible Empty weight specification on the Su-35, we can't make a definitive conclusion.
What if we use fixed fuel loads (i.e. 10,000 lbs seems respectable for both) thats 55% for the F-22 and 40% for the Su-35

Is this site credible?
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... raft_id=88

Su-35
Empty weight: 40,565 lbs
Fuel load: 10,000 lbs
Weapons load: 2,970 lbs (6 x R-77-1 and 2 x R-74)
Total: 53,535
Max thrust: 63,800
T/W Ratio: 1.19


F-22
Empty weight: 43,340 lbs
Fuel load: 10,000 lbs
Weapons load: 2,286 lbs (6 x Aim-120 and 2 x Aim-9)
Total: 55,626
Max thrust: 70,000
T/W Ratio: 1.25

[hornetfinn]

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.

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,

Here are couple:
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf (Power plant page 13)
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... al-41f-1s/
https://flotprom.ru/industry/images/Saturn_eng.pdf

One can't get much more official info than that. Sukhoi themselves say "Special mode" for the highest AB thrust. I'm sure F-35 could state "over 50,000 lbf thrust in Special mode" or whatever it was what F135 has been tested with.

[swiss]

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.

Don't now if you see my post on the previous page. But 16.7 tons is to light.

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

Технические характеристики[править | править код]
Экипаж: 1 человек
Длина: 21,9 м
Размах крыла: 14,75 м
Высота: 5,9 м
Площадь крыла: 62,04 м²
Угол стреловидности по передней кромке: 42°
Шасси: трёхопорное, с передней стойкой, убирающейся против полёта
Масса:
пустого: 19000 кг[источник не указан 1955 дней]
нормальная взлётная масса (2 x Р77 + 2 x Р-73Э): 25300 кг
максимальная взлётная масса: 34500 кг

Finally I found the data sheet from UAC who confirm this also.

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... t-specific

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The thing is, those planes, the Su-27 and the Su-30MKI, all have less fuel that what is stated for the Su-35S. The fuel load you list for Nominal is, what, 60% of their max? 50%? I would expect the nominal weight fuel to be the same percentage, not the same weight, given the increase in capacity.

[swiss]

The thing is, those planes, the Su-27 and the Su-30MKI, all have less fuel that what is stated for the Su-35S. The fuel load you list for Nominal is, what, 60% of their max? 50%? I would expect the nominal weight fuel to be the same percentage, not the same weight, given the increase in capacity.

You cold be right.

5270kg are 56% from the max fuel weight. That would be 6328 kg for the Su-35 (11,300kg)

Problem is the Su-30MK has a normal Takeoff weight of 24,9 tons. The Su-35 25.3 tons. That would mean the MK is 600 kg lighter
That seems unlikely to me, because the Su-35 has additional fuel tanks and more wingspan.

And im pretty sure i saw an official Data sheet about the Su-35 also with 5270kg fuel load. I really hope can find the page again.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

5270kg are 56% from the max fuel weight. That would be 6328 kg for the Su-35 (11,300kg)

Problem is the Su-30MK has a normal Takeoff weight of 24,9 tons. The Su-35 25.3 tons. That would mean the MK is 600 kg lighter
That seems unlikely to me, because the Su-35 has additional fuel tanks and more wingspan.

I think you mean the MK would be heavier.

MK 24.9t - 5.27t = 19.63t empty plus weapons and pylons.
35S 25.3t - 6.328t = 18.97t empty plus same weapons and pylons. Remember the MK has a double cockpit and possibly canards depending on model. Also, older electronics and less composites in the airframe, oh and the dorsal speedbrake. It's a big heavy SOB, especially for two 12t class motors.

[zero-one]

the Su-35 has additional fuel tanks and more wingspan.

correct me if I'm wrong but don't all Flanker types use the same exact wing?
In fact I'm under the impression that in a high subsonic energy fight, the baseline Su-27 may be one of the best Flanker variants, 2nd only to the Su-35 while the heavy Su-30 with additional canards will be the worse.

[mmm]

For PCA I think going from Guam to 500nm inland into Chinese territory without refueling in highly contested environment is a pretty reasonable requirement. And I don't see adding more fuel or moderate cruise efficiency gained from adaptive engine on an existing fighter is the solution here. You add more fuel you add mass, more mass demands more lift to maintain G performance, means even more mass and drag which drives for more thrust that eats more fuel. You may or may not get the aforementioned range by supersizing a traditional fighter, but even if you do it's clearly not cost effective. Since there are increasingly few numbers of benefits that can be derived from flight performance exclusively, for that hefty price fighter-like flight performance doesn't really confers that much capability in the medium to longer term.

Now I heard the "stealth tanker" argument. I do see a need for such a tanker in the future. But probably not used in a way that the safe return of the entire flight hanging on the success of 2,3 times of refueling, likely conducted over very hostile airspace. Some degree of "supersizing" to existing fighter might reduce the times of refueling somewhat, but you still need to keep in mind the amount of fuel that's required to transfer will not only not reduce, but quite likely increase due of the increase consumption of the "supersized" fighter. And there will still be the question of cost effectiveness. Say even if the risk and complexities are deemed acceptable to refuel in such a way, is it a cost effective approach to achieve the bomber escort range by dramatically increase the size of tanker fleet, with gold plated stealth tanker? I see the stealth tanker as more of a way to maintain the existing tanker orbit at the outer rim of enemy fighter reach, as the less survivable tankers pulled even further back to uncontested areas. The survivability built into them will likely not be meant to penetrate into enemy airspace and refueling right over the top of their heads, but rather to survive the "assassination attempts" by the likes of J-20, the likes of which might find a gap in a fighter sweep. Consider the expected fleet size of short legged tactical aircraft I think KC-Z will have their hands full just feeding them to maintain their current reach already.

[marsavian]

If LMT can get a stubby STOVL fighter to maneuver well in a knife fight then they can do the same for a Blackbird sized bird built for ultra stealth and fuel efficient cruising. Let's not limit the aircraft of the future with design expectations/results of the past.

[swiss]

I think you mean the MK would be heavier.

MK 24.9t - 5.27t = 19.63t empty plus weapons and pylons.
35S 25.3t - 6.328t = 18.97t empty plus same weapons and pylons. Remember the MK has a double cockpit and possibly canards depending on model. Also, older electronics and less composites in the airframe, oh and the dorsal speedbrake. It's a big heavy SOB, especially for two 12t class motors.

Yes i was meaning the MK.

Convincing arguments. 4 AAM are included in the normal Take-off weight. If you are right, that would mean roughly 18.4t for the Su-35 and 19 tons for the MK.

correct me if I'm wrong but don't all Flanker types use the same exact wing?
In fact I'm under the impression that in a high subsonic energy fight, the baseline Su-27 may be one of the best Flanker variants, 2nd only to the Su-35 while the heavy Su-30 with additional canards will be the worse.

The Su-27 up to the Su-30MK have a wing span of 14.7m. The Su-35 has 15.3m.

https://www.webcitation.org/6J6cwo1bR?u ... et_eng.pdf

But indeed, there are also Russian sources who say the Su-35 has 14.7m

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... t-specific

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

[
The Su-27 up to the Su-30MK have a wing span of 14.7m. The Su-35 has 15.3m.

https://www.webcitation.org/6J6cwo1bR?u ... et_eng.pdf

But indeed, there are also Russian sources who say the Su-35 has 14.7m

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... t-specific

Perhaps that is with/without the Khibiny ECM pods? I remember back in the day the F-16 was listed as a 30ft span. 30ft on the money. These days it is listed as 31ft w/o missiles (but with rails).

Just a WAG.

[zero-one]

But are they in fact using the exact same wing , there have been claims that the Su-35 has a different Camber than the Su-27.
more fluid dynamic and wind tunnel test improved the overall aerodynamic shape of the 35 compared to earlier flankers and of course, improved fly-by-wire control algorithms.

This is when I claimed that the Su-27 and Su-35 would have nearly identical high G performance at high speeds due to the same aerodynamic shape and similar thrust values.

[swiss]

Perhaps that is with/without the Khibiny ECM pods? I remember back in the day the F-16 was listed as a 30ft span. 30ft on the money. These days it is listed as 31ft w/o missiles (but with rails).

Just a WAG.

Could be.

According this german book about the Su-27 "the wing area was increased by extending the wingspan from 14.7 to 15.3m"

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Hmm, I still see 667ft^2 as the wing area for both.

[mixelflick]

Concerning the cover of that German book, SU-27...

Is that not an SU-35?