SU 30 Question

[eloise]

Oh I see how it can be read that way.
But I'm under the assumption that he should automatically associate the Su-30 pilot as himself since he is a Su-30 pilot.
Its like when you ask an American, What do Americans like about (insert random object). You would most likely say. We like this and that, instead of, they like this and that. You associate yourself and talk in 1st person not 3rd person. Most likely anyway. Maybe he's just weird.

May be he fly other type as well

I also think the RSAF Viper pilots might not be up to speed when it comes to ACM or at least may have been their more junior pilots with fewer hours.

Loosing steam after the 1st turn seems to be the same comment the JF-17 pilot has about the F-16.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2554&p=423994#p423994

In a WVR fight would you rather be in an F-16 or JF-17?
“F-16 .. for the initial 180deg turn, then Thunder all the way. JF-17 with PL-10 mod (currently in pipeline) will trump F-16 with AIM-9M any day of the week, but currently on brute performance F-16 has the edge.”

Weird since energy retention is the Viper's strong suit.
Maybe they were 2 bag vipers, I don't know.

Sound like bad piloting, ITR isn't exactly F-16 strong suit since it is AoA limited

[knowan]

The Russian sources claiming the MiG-35 has the same 11 ton empty weight as the MiG-29A are certainly a load of crap; it's likely up around 13 or 14 tons empty.

While it has improved engines, it's only about 8% more thrust versus at least 25% more weight, so thrust/weight has gone down significantly, as has maneuverability.

[mixelflick]

The Russian sources claiming the MiG-35 has the same 11 ton empty weight as the MiG-29A are certainly a load of crap; it's likely up around 13 or 14 tons empty.

While it has improved engines, it's only about 8% more thrust versus at least 25% more weight, so thrust/weight has gone down significantly, as has maneuverability.

This is a really unusual move for the Russians, who previously prized high thrust to weight ratios and "supermaneuverability", as they've coined the term. Does this mean they're finally coming around to the fact TVC isn't worth the cost, and sensors/SA is the new "speed is life"?

If so, they've got a lot to think about with the SU-57. I understand its going to have a lot of sensors and probably better SA than any previous Russian jet. But they made a LOT of design tradoffs insofar as stealth is concerned, focusing more on pure kinematics, TVC etc.. So although their armed forces may not pay a lot for the jet, foreign operators are going to have to pay through the nose for it. They can drop the TVC, but not much else...

[zero-one]

This is a really unusual move for the Russians, who previously prized high thrust to weight ratios and "supermaneuverability", as they've coined the term.

Actually the Russians have never been able to match the west in T/W ratio
Western fighters, specially american ones have always enjoyed higher T/W ratios and better high speed agility.
to compensate, Russians went for slow speed and post stall

[mixelflick]

This is a really unusual move for the Russians, who previously prized high thrust to weight ratios and "supermaneuverability", as they've coined the term.

Actually the Russians have never been able to match the west in T/W ratio
Western fighters, specially american ones have always enjoyed higher T/W ratios and better high speed agility.
to compensate, Russians went for slow speed and post stall

Their later designs (Mig-29, SU-27) seemed to have thrust to weight ratios at least in the ballpark of the F-15 and 16, and certainly more power than the F-18. The SU-35 and 57 likewise have very high thrust to weight ratios, although to be fair I think the Mig-35 was a step back in that dept.

One thing about those Flankers though is how much gas they carry. Unless they're under 60% internal fuel, they're super-manueverability doesn't sound so super..

[zero-one]

Their later designs (Mig-29, SU-27) seemed to have thrust to weight ratios at least in the ballpark of the F-15 and 16,

Thats true,
I once commented on an Indian defense page and said that the West and Russia basically have differences in WVR doctrines.

The west places a premium on high speed and high G maneuverability, the goal is not to get slow or to accelerate back to speed if you happen to get slow.

The Russians on the other hand believe getting slow is inevitable and worked on what to do once you get there.

But both sides have exceptions, the Mig-29's performance would fit nicely on Western dogfighting doctrines and the F/A-18 is the other way around.

The top tier fighters of both seem to want the best of both worlds.
The F-22 has both high and slow speed prowess but has a higher T/W ratio then any other fighter in combat config as a result of US emphasis on high speed and high G doctrines. The Su-35 is the same but has 3D TVC as a result of Russian emphasis to post stall,

[milosh]

The top tier fighters of both seem to want the best of both worlds.
The F-22 has both high and slow speed prowess but has a higher T/W ratio then any other fighter in combat config as a result of US emphasis on high speed and high G doctrines. The Su-35 is the same but has 3D TVC as a result of Russian emphasis to post stall,

Su-35 don't have 3D tvc it have same thrust vectoring as F-22 has but it is shifted so nozzles can make V shape. Only russian fighters with 3D tvc are MiG-29OVT (which is demonstrator like F-16VISTA) and Su-57. Maybe Su-35 got or will get same tvc as Su-57 have.