| Author |
Message |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 03:04 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
You claim the T-50 is somewhat larger vs Flanker. And the latest Flanker can carry 11.500kg of internal fuel.
Are you saying the T-50 will surpass the Flanker figures here?
Whatever the Flanker carries for internal fuel, the T-50 wouldn't be much of a 5th generation fighter if it didn't carry substantially more more. |
_________________ The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 25, 2013 - 7:34 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 05:24 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
11.500kg internal fuel is a heck of a lot!
It might be a compromise to make room for more internal WB.. but what the hell do i know.
For another comparison, the Su-34 is even larger, it can haul some 12.000kg+ of fuel internaly. I just don't see where the T-50 could fit all the fuel? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2012 - 12:19 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
11.500kg internal fuel is a heck of a lot!
Yes, indeed it is... which why I said "whatever the Flanker carries." I don't know the source for your figure. Using Wiki as a quick reference, the difference between empty weight and loaded weight for the Su-35 (which one assumes would include full internal fuel AND basic weapons) is only 6900 kg total. Something is bogus here.  |
_________________ The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2012 - 03:07 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
Whatever the internal fuel the Su-35S carries???
i just posted in an official link, only for you, so don't flatter yourself. The official figures are very clear.
If you have a problem believing other sources than LM sources, then i cant help you.
Wiki is your choice of source.. lol, its just as bad as strategypage!!
Here, let me help you help you once again:
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
It cant be much more black and white than this..
What, do you not understand the difference between the NTOW and MTOW on the Su-35S??`
Its well over a 8 tons of different weight. Come on! You are very much mistaken here.
Ok, this is the last time i'll bother explaining..
The Su-35S, like its older Flankers are labled as an heavy interceptor.
An heavy interceptor is rather large and therefore carries a lot of internal fuel.(its one of VVS golden requirements)!!
It is unproved that the Su-35S can carry full(11.500kg) internal fuel and at the same time carry EIGHT TONS of Weapons on a REAL Mission.
This is a comon limit on several fighters and bombers around the world.. you end up having to pick your mission weight.
More fuel or more weapons. |
Last edited by haavarla on Oct 25, 2012 - 10:56 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2012 - 04:20 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
It is unproved that the Su-35S can carry full(11.500kg) internal fuel
If you say so; all I know for sure is what basic math tells me, implausibly high fuel-fractions notwithstanding. |
_________________ The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2012 - 10:53 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
Su-35S can ofcource carry 11.500kg of internal fuel, but at the cost of less than eight tons of armament. If need be it it can even mount two ext DT of 2000L each.
Empty weight: Approx 18 tons
Max Int fuel: 11.5 tons
Max weapons weight: 8 tons
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf
That is 37.5 tons which exceed the MTOW of 34.500kg
As to NTOW, it is very NORMAL for a Flanker to do mission with 5700kg of fuel for older Version. The New Su-35S has a little bit more, around 6000kg of internal fuel, and 4-6 missile, or whatever depending on its mission.
There is absolutly no reason to top the fuel tanks on a Flanker on a NORMAL mission. It does not need the extra fuel, hense its dead weight. It allso have the option to refuel in the air.. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Oct 27, 2012 - 01:06 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
Heh. Just as i had forseen
http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/td110.jpg
It looks like HAL cannot handle such a complex and huge program. The Indian FGFA program has been shelfet(for good).
Instead India has now decided to get the Russian singel crew fighter AKA Su-50I.. much like the MKI orders was done.
Which mean, the first order will come directly from KnAAPO, Russia.
And later down the road, HAL will get supplied with Kits and perhaps in the later stage of such deal, HAL will produce some airframes under liecens. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Oct 29, 2012 - 03:25 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
| One of the many different Indian points of view on the matter (posted on the F-22 topic for some reason). http://rupeenews.com/fgfapmf-two-seater ... sian-kits/ I was confused until I realized the article was substituting "Bharat" for "India." |
_________________ The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 - 01:42 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
5..4..3...2...1
|
Posted: Dec 13, 2012 - 03:42 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 23, 2011 - 12:25 AM
Posts: 20
Location: Not telling you
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Dec 13, 2012 - 04:19 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
5..4..3...2...1
|
Posted: Dec 15, 2012 - 02:58 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 23, 2011 - 12:25 AM
Posts: 20
Location: Not telling you
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
borntoholdout
|
Posted: Dec 15, 2012 - 04:07 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Nov 15, 2012 - 05:06 PM
Posts: 115
Location: closer than you think
|
| The next thing your going to tell me is they have 5 of them. Doesn't the pak-fa have a operational date before the F-35's? At least I keep hear fan boy's touting that like it's gospel. |
_________________ Being an American means I would die for your childrens freedom. WOULD YOU?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
5..4..3...2...1
|
Posted: Dec 15, 2012 - 05:48 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 23, 2011 - 12:25 AM
Posts: 20
Location: Not telling you
Status: Offline
|
|
borntoholdout wrote:
The next thing your going to tell me is they have 5 of them. Doesn't the pak-fa have a operational date before the F-35's? At least I keep hear fan boy's touting that like it's gospel.
[/url] |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
haavarla
|
Posted: Dec 15, 2012 - 06:01 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 573
Status: Offline
|
There seems to be new sensors on this T-50-4.
There are one placed at each side of the canopy. |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
8.69 KB |
| Viewed: |
5157 Time(s) |

|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
6.63 KB |
| Viewed: |
5157 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|