F-35 vs Su-30/35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1127
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 06:46

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Is there a way to make a Pressure suit with the flexibility / dexterity of a regular G-suit?


See some of the newer astronaut suits .. http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/ ... 01-17.page

You need some rigidity/straps at the joints to move reasonably freely, and being in an inflated balloon is its own problem.

I`d have to research again, but I think you are good for pressure breathing up to 63,000 feet before CO2 poisoning(or lung boiling? or something bad like that) kicks in, which is why you usually see "60,000 feet" ceilings for the hottest fighters. I suppose you could just have a head/torso suit good enough to get you down lower in an emergency. But it would need to be "descend now and fast" or bad things happen fairly quickly.

Of course you could try trusting a pressurized cockpit, wear shorts and a tee shirt, and just expect to die if you get a rapid decompress. That might be a Russian/Chinese solution ... tough to sell to western pilots though.

BP
Last edited by blindpilot on 04 Feb 2017, 06:57, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 06:49

Jeez. How could anyone on here make it past 1 minute of that video?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 16:20

madrat wrote:I have little doubt that Flanker can climb high enough to fly Mach 2 with those six AAMs. The question is, can the pilot do it without a pressure suit? The real limitations to it happening isn't the potential of the platform. No, it's the limitations imposed by the equipment necessary to happen. Does your guy want to try to fly combat with the pressure suit on?

Probably not. Definitely not against something you can't find with your onboard sensors.


What makes you so sure? The F-15 with 6 to 8 AAM's isn't going much faster than mach 1.8. Gulf war 1 the fastest they flew was mach 1.2 pursuing Foxbats. Iranian F-14's pursuing Iraqi Foxbat's couldn't exceed mach 1.4 carrying AAM's. The Flankers quoted top speed is mach 2.35, which is undoubtedly clean. I'm not buying the mach 1.9 with 6 AAM's thing. Those missiles are way too draggy.

And that's on top of a draggy Flanker airframe!
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 22:02

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Flankers can do mach 1.9 with 10AAM loadout?

That seems like quite a stretch...

Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on his claim. Even a 6 AAM loadout severely affects performance.

IF, and IF, a basic Su-27 is able to hit 2.35 with two R-73s and four R-27s (those are draggy missiles) then I see the Su-35 hitting above M1.9 with four R-73s and six R-77s (less draggy than the R-27)

I seriously doubt the Flanker can reach M2.35 in any condition other no missiles/no pylons.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 07:30

I doubt any model of the Flanker could exceed Mach 2 with any Air to Air Missile Load. Hell, even at a lower speed like Mach 1.8. It would likely burn out it's engines....
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2481
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 07:50

Sukhoi website http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/
says the following for Su-27SK:

Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,400
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 2.35

For Su-30MK: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/

Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,350
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 2.00 (1.9**)
**With canard surfaces installed

For Su-35 they give max speed as Mach 2.25:
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf

Btw, it seems like Su-35 has only very slightly longer range with max internal fuel than Su-27SK. It has higher weight and obviously draggier airframe (as evidenced by lower top speed despite significantly higher thrust).
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 08:04

hornetfinn wrote:
Btw, it seems like Su-35 has only very slightly longer range with max internal fuel than Su-27SK. It has higher weight and obviously draggier airframe (as evidenced by lower top speed despite significantly higher thrust).


Maybe... but not definitely. Look at the F-4. The F-4 E have J79 engines with 52.9/79.4 kN thrust dry/reheat. The F-4K have the rb168mk202 with 54/91. kN thrust. The one with the higher top speed is the F-4E.

It all depends on the thrust lapse of the engine and installation, and if there is a redline in the engine (for instance if there is a limit of turbine inlet temperature).
It might be that the newer engines on the SU family have restrictions of operation to increase service life, and not that the airframe is a lot draggier.

At least that is my guess.

Regards
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 08:30

..and in all fairness, the F-4K had larger air intakes, a contributing factor to restrict top speed, but not all of it.

regards
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 569
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 09:03

On standard day, F-15 can reach Mach 1.6 with CFT and 8 AAM
Image
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2481
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Feb 2017, 09:17

Yes, but RR Spey was a turbofan engine as compared to turbojet engine in J79 and it was somewhat larger too. Su-35 117S engine is almost exactly the same size engine as AL31F used in Su-27SK and both are very similar turbofan engines. So the differences in engines is very much smaller than in F-4K vs. F-4E.

Does anybody know are the intakes similar in Su-35 and Su-27? It might explain something if the more powerful engines required enlargened intakes also.

I think it's the combination of somewhat draggier airframe and higher weight. Both will affect range figures negatively despite much higher fuel volume. Top speed might well be governed by something else besides drag like engine restrictions.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 Feb 2017, 13:46

garrya wrote:On standard day, F-15 can reach Mach 1.6 with CFT and 8 AAM
Image


OK, but the only F-15 air to air units regularly using CFT's are Icelands, no?

I suppose you could make the argument that the rest (F-15C's) fly drop tanks, and you can punch those to get higher mach numbers. Still, the highest mach in actual air to air combat I've read about is 1.2. And that was in GW1, pursuing Mig-25's. Would be curious to know what it's red lined at, as surely in such an old bird such red-lines exist!?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3558
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Feb 2017, 15:24

garrya wrote:On standard day, F-15 can reach Mach 1.6 with CFT and 8 AAM
Image

I don't normally quote pictures, but I want all three together for this. Quoting an F-15A with -100 engines is disingenuous. With the -220 motor found in the C models the Eagle can hit 1.8M in the same configuration and at a higher weight
Capture1.PNG

while the -229 powered Strike Eagle with much more weight can hit 1.9M
Capture2.PNG
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21395
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Apr 2017, 06:54

Sucks to be India - what got IN Da Em? 2nd hand engines installed in new SUKHOI 30 MKIs delivered to India? Sarcophagus
Flying coffins in making? Second hand engines used in Sukhois
10 Apr 2017 SANJIB KR BARUAH

"The IAF's frontline Sukhoi 30 MKI is a multipurpose twin-seater supersonic fighter aircraft which is powered by two AL-31FP aero engines.

New Delhi: In a startling saga of compromises made on the safety and capability of India's frontline fighter aircraft besides posing danger to the life of pilots, it has come to light that at least 18 of brand new Sukhoi 30 MKI had been fitted with already-used and secondhand engines.

"It was noticed while checking the records…that AL 31FP engines fitted in certain aircraft was in Cat B condition at the time of inspection / delivery to Indian Air Force (IAF)," said a report encapsulating the findings that have been accessed by this newspaper. The IAF's frontline Sukhoi 30 MKI is a multipurpose twin-seater supersonic fighter aircraft which is powered by two AL-31FP aero engines.

While this fitment of Cat 2 (category B) or secondhand engines into brand new Sukhoi 30 MKIs was done at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited's (HAL) facility at Nashik "without the knowledge and approval of the defence ministry", what is surprising is the acceptance of such aircraft by the IAF. "Certain aircraft with one new and one old engine were wrongly accepted by IAF and the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance. As these arrangements were not in tune with contractual provisions, it should have been rejected by IAF and DGAQA…. In any case, IAF should have obtained approval from MoD for accepting aircraft with one second hand engine.”...

... • 7 Sukhoi 30 MKIs have crashed to date"

Source: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/c ... khois.html
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Apr 2017, 15:38

madrat wrote:I have little doubt that Flanker can climb high enough to fly Mach 2 with those six AAMs. .


What are you basing this on?

We hear over and over how F-14 and 15's are limited to subsonic speeds with Sparrow/AMRAAM loadouts, but Flankers with their AAM's (a draggier airframe PLUS draggier missiles) can fly mach 2 with... six of them?

This is ridiculous.IF it's even possible, they're going to hit bingo fuel pretty fast. I'd like to know where and when any Flanker hit mach 2 with 6 AAM's. Even Archer's for that matter? I've read of Iranian F-14's flying mach 1.4 firing Phoenix missiles. Other than the Mig-31 (different animal), this is a pipe dream. If any airframe can do it, it's a Typhoon.

Any other 4th gen platform and it's not happening IMO.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1463
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Apr 2017, 20:18

mixelflick wrote:We hear over and over how F-14 and 15's are limited to subsonic speeds with Sparrow/AMRAAM loadouts

Actually, they aren't unless you count 6 AIM-54 load
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: steve2267 and 9 guests