Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale vs Su-35 (splitting from Rafale thread)

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moon_light
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2012
    • 932

    Originally posted by JSR View Post
    optimum condition for which aircraft?.
    i was talking about how thay calculate the ma range for missiles
    Originally posted by JSR View Post
    you simply dont understand concept of surplus power and surplus fuel capacity along with long range radar survellence. Su-35 pilot from the start will go into high altude mode. (it has 3600km rang with 4AAMs). while Rafale pilot will still plannning when to drop fuel tanks and what should he do when he does not have long range battlefield pix.
    you put it in long range mission when bigger fighter have advantage against smaller fighter , but that not always the case , how about a fleet of su-35 want to attack an aircraft carrier with rafale on it ..etc , also what will happened when su-35 able to see an rafale with fuel tank from 400 km and su-35 pilot attack with missiles , then rafale drop it's fuel tank => su-35 lost track on radar => waste missiles for nothing
    Originally posted by JSR View Post
    There is TVC to compensate for less agility.
    Su-35 top speed is different than old top speed of Su-27/F-15. It is aircraft with more power. so likely that with weapons its top speed will be higher.
    TVC dont improve your sustain turn rate
    su-35 is heavier than Su-27 , it's top speed also slower , how come it have higher top speed than F-15 ???? , and i dont really think su-35 have more engine power than F-15
    Last edited by moon_light; 31st March 2013, 22:27.

    Comment

    • moon_light
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • May 2012
      • 932

      Originally posted by JSR View Post
      your not making any sense. where did RVV-BD say it is limited for bombers/AWACS?. RVV-BD is much newer missile than Meteor from more experiance manufacturer with better availability of funding.
      Brahmos is old missile whose technology is sold out. and its airlaunched version yet to go into production and there is MTCR limitations on its range. Kh-58 is again export specification.

      R-73E is 30km.
      http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/504/
      RVV-BD is a big , heavy much less agile than Meteor , aim-120D , R-77 ( it is limited to 8 g target ) , also it dont have engine = slower cruise speed , less terminal maneuver than meteor , RVV-BD is not much newer , it basically an R-37
      talking about funding , does that mean American weapon will always be the best because they spend the most amount of money
      P-700 is even worse than Brahmos
      export KH-58 is KH-58E and it have different specification
      alright R-73E is 30 km then it have less than half the range of Mica , achieve more than twice the range , equal maneuver isnt Mica is a great ( not to mention improve in IRCCM and datalink )
      Last edited by moon_light; 31st March 2013, 22:31.

      Comment

      • JSR
        JSR
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2011
        • 4920

        Originally posted by moon_light View Post
        i was talking about how thay calculate the ma range for missiles
        it is only calculation at mach 1.2.

        you put it in long range mission when bigger fighter have advantage against smaller fighter , but that not always the case , how about a fleet of su-35 want to attack an aircraft carrier with rafale on it ..etc , also what will happened when su-35 able to see an rafale with fuel tank from 400 km and su-35 pilot attack with missiles , then rafale drop it's fuel tank => su-35 lost track on radar => waste missiles for nothing
        when Su-35 see Rafale at 400km and has intention to launch attack. It will accelerate at full speed towards the Rafale and at about 200km range it will launch RVV-BD. Rafale pilot will be confused as such fast moving things coming after him and with load of missiles. Rafale pilot can only make decision at last 100km due to limition of Meteor range.
        TVC dont improve your sustain turn rate
        su-35 is heavier than Su-27 , it's top speed also slower , how come it have higher top speed than F-15 ???? , and i dont really thing su-35 have more engine power than F-15
        highly doubt Su-35 is going to be heavier than Su-27 as it has identical range with more powerfull engines and 4AAM. and its fuel capacity is 11,300kg. i highly doubt you even understand 3D TVC.

        Comment

        • JSR
          JSR
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2011
          • 4920

          Originally posted by moon_light View Post
          RVV-BD is a big , heavy much less agile than Meteor , aim-120D , R-77 ( it is limited to 8 g target ) , also it dont have engine = slower cruise speed , less terminal maneuver than meteor , RVV-BD is not much newer , it basically an R-37
          talking about funding , does that mean American weapon will always be the best because they spend the most amount of money
          P-700 is even worse than Brahmos
          export KH-58 is KH-58E and it have different specification
          alright R-73E is 30 km then it have less than half the range of Mica , achieve more than twice the range , equal maneuver isnt Mica is a great ( not to mention improve in IRCCM and datalink )
          R-73 came 15 years before MICA. so fundamentals are not that much different. There greater emphasis on BVR combat than WVR. so more investment directed to long range weapons like RVV-BD.
          America has private contractors and congress to deal with. so work is more distributed and outsize profits are necessary to stay in business. one of drawback of pure capitalism is that investment needs profits for staying long term in business. you need long term focus to for R&D. you cannot start and stop things. thats why huge quanity of R-77/R-73 were sold to China/India. and now with bigger Ruaf budget coming. there is greater likelyhood that more quantity of RVV-BD will be sold compared to Meteor.

          Comment

          • moon_light
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2012
            • 932

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            it is only calculation at mach 1.2.

            when Su-35 see Rafale at 400km and has intention to launch attack. It will accelerate at full speed towards the Rafale and at about 200km range it will launch RVV-BD. Rafale pilot will be confused as such fast moving things coming after him and with load of missiles. Rafale pilot can only make decision at last 100km due to limition of Meteor range.
            the max range of meteor still classifed it likely have the same range as ramjet R-77M
            btw you should read this
            Some translations and points discovered by Hyperwarp in the AFM concerning an magazine published article of an interview with the designer of the SD-10.

            "Efective combat altitude 0-25Km.
            Ability to engage target 10kms higher or lower than launch altitude.
            Range at 10Km altitude at M1.2 target at same altitude =70Km.
            No escape zone for F-16 type target = 35-45km
            Max overload=38G, Speed =4M
            Plans to be also used as SAM system."

            "Designer was asked at end to rate BVR AAMs. He rated Meteor as best BVR AAM, then AIM-120C, then his SD-10, then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Skyflash at equal fourth, then Derby, and last of all, MICA."

            "What the designer said is that they used the same way AIM-120 calculated its range. target and launch aircraft flying at each other at 1.2 mach and at 10000 metres. The range is 70 km under such circumstance.
            Also interesting is the designer basically said the russians "cheated" with R-77, as they calculated the max range with target and launcher flying at each other at 1.5 mach and at 12000 metres altitude."

            A more detailed translation by Dongdong posted in the AFM forums:

            "I just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative. Add my points for translation:

            Ahout the max shot range:
            The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s.

            About ranking MRAAM:
            Designer : It’s not easy to rank …..Various persons have various standards…
            First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.

            Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
            Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.

            SD-10’s milestones:
            Designer: We started the pre-research work for advanced radar guidance air to air missile in mid of 1980….
            Phase1:mid of 1980 to beginning of 1990, key technologies study
            Phase2;Started from mid of 1990, sub-systems development
            Phase3:Started from end of 1990, missile overall performance verification test
            Phase4:After entering 21st century, demo verification test
            Now, the development of SD-10 has been completed."
            Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakista...#ixzz2P9yuc6Qh
            BTW i think Rafale can carry Aim-120D too
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            highly doubt Su-35 is going to be heavier than Su-27 as it has identical range with more powerfull engines and 4AAM. and its fuel capacity is 11,300kg. i highly doubt you even understand 3D TVC.
            su-35 have less top speed than f-15 = more drag ( if it have more powerful engine => this even more true ) , btw you still havenot gave me any link to support your point that su-35 can go beyond mach 2 with weapon
            TVC only improve instantaneous turn rate not sustain turn rate no matter it 2D or 3D
            Last edited by moon_light; 31st March 2013, 22:51.

            Comment

            • moon_light
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2012
              • 932

              Originally posted by JSR View Post
              R-73 came 15 years before MICA. so fundamentals are not that much different. There greater emphasis on BVR combat than WVR. so more investment directed to long range weapons like RVV-BD.
              America has private contractors and congress to deal with. so work is more distributed and outsize profits are necessary to stay in business. one of drawback of pure capitalism is that investment needs profits for staying long term in business. you need long term focus to for R&D. you cannot start and stop things. thats why huge quanity of R-77/R-73 were sold to China/India. and now with bigger Ruaf budget coming. there is greater likelyhood that more quantity of RVV-BD will be sold compared to Meteor.
              almost every country now emphasis in BVR than WVR that is true
              but my point is R-73 is not the same class as Mica understood , they designed for different purpose , compare them is like compared AIM-120 with Aim-9 they have different purpose => different advantages

              Comment

              • JSR
                JSR
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2011
                • 4920

                Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                almost every country now emphasis in BVR than WVR that is true
                but my point is R-73 is not the same class as Mica understood , they designed for different purpose , compare them is like compared AIM-120 with Aim-9 they have different purpose => different advantages
                AIM-120 came two decades later than AIM-9 and RVV-BD came two decades after AIM-120. or you think world stands still during that time.

                Comment

                • moon_light
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2012
                  • 932

                  Originally posted by JSR View Post
                  AIM-120 came two decades later than AIM-9 and RVV-BD came two decades after AIM-120. or you think world stands still during that time.
                  you dont get my point
                  what i mean is one of them is for medium range , the other is for dogfight => different purpose => it kind of dumb to say that one is better

                  Comment

                  • JSR
                    JSR
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2011
                    • 4920

                    Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                    the max range of meteor still classifed it likely have the same range as ramjet R-77M
                    btw you should read this


                    Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakista...#ixzz2P9yuc6Qh
                    BTW i think Rafale can carry Aim-120D too

                    su-35 have less top speed than f-15 = more drag ( if it have more powerful engine => this even more true ) , btw you still havenot gave me any link to support your point that su-35 can go beyond mach 2 with weapon
                    TVC only improve instantaneous turn rate not sustain turn rate no matter it 2D or 3D
                    it does not say anything about range despite SD-10 being 15 year newer missile than R-77 and R-77 likely to be export down graded. Its only electronics upgrade.
                    Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
                    Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77s, so SD-10s overall performance is better than R-77s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didnt use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.

                    Comment

                    • Andraxxus
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Sep 2012
                      • 939

                      Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                      also rafale Service ceiling: 16,800 m , su-35 Service ceiling: 18,000 m => about 1.1 km different , not alot
                      7% is a lot difference as far as aircraft performance is concerned.

                      Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                      rafale supercruise at mach 1.4 while su-35 do that at mach 1.2 i dont see how su-35 is faster ( btw neither of them will be able to reach max speed with missiles load )
                      Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                      btw can use so me any link say that su-35 can go above mach 2 with missiles load ( su-35 is basically like russian F-15 , and F-15 have very hard time accelerate above mach 1.4 with missiles)
                      Baseline Su-27 can go up to M2.35 (max speed) with missiles on pylons 5,6,7,8. Any missile on pylons 3,4 will reduce top speed to M2.2. Additional missiles in pylons 1,2,9,10 will reduce max speed to M1.7 (As a side note, gun can only be used up to this speed). What matters most is climb acceleration and range is drastically worsen with 10 missiles. (Thats why Su-27s usually carry 4 or 6 missiles operationally.) Su-35 has same aerodynamics and more powerful engines, it should be able to do at least the same.

                      Also, if I understood correctly, Su-27SK manual states;

                      -R-73 missile's max range differ from 13,5 to 30 km,
                      -R-27TE missile's max range differ from 12,5 to 52,5 km,
                      -R-27RE missile's max range differ from 16,5 to 65,5 km ,

                      all depending on launch and attack conditions. Note that those are *effective* launch ranges vs other fighters, not the max range the missile can barely reach. Compare that to claimed ranges on the net; 20 km for R-73, 120 km for R-27TE and 130 km for R-27RE.

                      My point? I have been following this topic since its opened and everyone is trying to compare techical specifications with precision, but
                      a) no one knows the details where those numbers come from: For example RBE-2 has 120 km range vs a 3sqm target. Without knowing the PRF, upper/lower hemisphere, search conditions like TWS, STT or search volume selected, this claim is nothing but useless. Even N001 radar of baseline Su-27 can detect a 3sqm target at 115 km with STT mode at High PRF, againist the clear sky, for example.
                      b) no one knows the numbers that really matters: What is their acceleration, maximum turn rate, sustained turn rate, or excess power for a given turn rate at X speed Y altitude with Z amount of fuel and different payloads? Lower wing loading does not always equal to higher maneuverability, lower T/W does not always mean inferior top speed etc etc. Speculation is nice, but making hard claims like "x has no chance vs y" is nonsense with currently available data.
                      c) no one knows the validity of the numbers around wikipedia or internet: See the missile ranges for R-27 above. (Most would have laughed if someone said R-27RE has a range of just 16,5 km under some circumstances -possibly a high speed tail chase launch at low altitude.) Truth is no one knows RCS or supercruise capability or speed of Rafale or Su-35 in different payloads and altitude.

                      Comment

                      • moon_light
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • May 2012
                        • 932

                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                        it does not say anything about range despite SD-10 being 15 year newer missile than R-77 and R-77 likely to be export down graded. Its only electronics upgrade.
                        read it carefully it talk about testing condition , ranking of missiles , even the range of Meteor

                        Comment

                        • moon_light
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2012
                          • 932

                          Originally posted by Andraxxus View Post
                          7% is a lot difference as far as aircraft performance is concerned.
                          Baseline Su-27 can go up to M2.35 (max speed) with missiles on pylons 5,6,7,8. Any missile on pylons 3,4 will reduce top speed to M2.2. Additional missiles in pylons 1,2,9,10 will reduce max speed to M1.7 (As a side note, gun can only be used up to this speed). What matters most is climb acceleration and range is drastically worsen with 10 missiles. (Thats why Su-27s usually carry 4 or 6 missiles operationally.) Su-35 has same aerodynamics and more powerful engines, it should be able to do at least the same.
                          so su-35 able to past mach 2 with 2 r-73 and 2 r-77

                          Comment

                          • JSR
                            JSR
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2011
                            • 4920

                            Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                            su-35 have less top speed than f-15 = more drag ( if it have more powerful engine => this even more true ) , btw you still havenot gave me any link to support your point that su-35 can go beyond mach 2 with weapon
                            TVC only improve instantaneous turn rate not sustain turn rate no matter it 2D or 3D
                            F-15 figures dont see reliable as twin seat heavier F-15E has same top speed as single seat F-15C based manufacture data.
                            Sukhoi scale down Su-30MK top speed to Mach 1.9. Su-27SK Mach 2.15. Su-35 Mach 2.25. It is not budled together. these atleast in AAM configuration as Su-35 range is calculated with 4AAMs.
                            so it is reasonable presumed that they are more accurate.
                            see this long range stealth attack on aerial radiating target. the emphasis is on long range.

                            http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/military/su-35/
                            Possibility of medium- and long-range stealthy attack of aerial radiating targets;

                            Comment

                            • Jō Asakura
                              多聞天
                              • Jan 2011
                              • 1292

                              Moon_light you might wanna take a good look @ that model before declaring it a "ramjet R-77". Conventional fins replacing the 'grids', longer & straight ducts replacing the shorter, decreasing concave. As for "not even go beyond planning stage"- see page 4:

                              www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p013518.pdf

                              Cream, Su-35S is NOT the Su-30, and I certainly don't think chiseled on saw teeth makes up for eye watering build quality:

                              http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/...089_of_144.jpg

                              Compare:

                              http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jkCeKvr521...s_01_hires.jpg

                              Paralay, who's the guy behind the model missile and how recent is that pic?
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • haavarla
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2008
                                • 6507

                                Seriously, this thread just took a dump..

                                The Su-35S is probably heavier than the legacy Flanker, since it cramed with additional equpment and systems.

                                All evolution on a given jet tends to increase its weight, we seen it on all the other jets, so why not the Su-35S too.

                                The Russian missiles have allways been larger, heavier than western missiles. Will probably be that way long into the future as well.
                                That being said, Russian produced missiles are good at what they are designed to do, period.

                                We'd been over this Rafale vs Su-35s thingie allready, just let this stupid thread die, just like all the other X vs Y threads..
                                Last edited by haavarla; 31st March 2013, 23:22.
                                Thanks

                                Comment

                                • JSR
                                  JSR
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2011
                                  • 4920

                                  Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                                  you dont get my point
                                  what i mean is one of them is for medium range , the other is for dogfight => different purpose => it kind of dumb to say that one is better
                                  you still not getting the point. that in old days AIM-9L could barely pull 25 to 30g. and now medium range BVR missiles pull 40 to 50 g. so that lines are blured. Medium range AAM are now effective in WVR combat as long as new fighters have nose pointing ability. so there is very much less need for extreme agility that decreases the range.

                                  Comment

                                  • JSR
                                    JSR
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2011
                                    • 4920

                                    Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                                    read it carefully it talk about testing condition , ranking of missiles , even the range of Meteor
                                    I went to the link. This interview was done in 2004. so how on earth they estimated Meteor range at that time and from what kind of aircraft.

                                    This is from April 2004 and apparently it was an interview with the SD-10 designer. The original SD-10 was superior to the R-77 and the AIM-120 A/B and was very close to the AIM-120C. So the fact that the SD-10A is superior to AIM-120C should be no suprise!!

                                    Comment

                                    • moon_light
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2012
                                      • 932

                                      Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                      you still not getting the point. that in old days AIM-9L could barely pull 25 to 30g. and now medium range BVR missiles pull 40 to 50 g. so that lines are blured. Medium range AAM are now effective in WVR combat as long as new fighters have nose pointing ability. so there is very much less need for extreme agility that decreases the range.
                                      nose pointing isnot even needed as we have jhmcs and hobs missiles

                                      Comment

                                      • Andraxxus
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Sep 2012
                                        • 939

                                        Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                                        so su-35 able to past mach 2 with 2 r-73 and 2 r-77
                                        Possibly new stations 11 and 12 will behave similar to 3,4 and R-77 should cause a lot less drag than R-27RE. R-73 on 5,6,7,8 and R-77s on 3,4,11,12 is very possible. If ECM pods are used it would be 6 missiles.

                                        Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                                        su-35 have less top speed than f-15 = more drag ( if it have more powerful engine => this even more true ) ,
                                        22,6m long 46 ton MiG-31M with 0,67 T/W can reach higher speed than either. How does that fit in? You are neglecting dozens of factors that contribute to top speed. If you really want to compare Su-27 and F-15 in terms of top speed;
                                        Su-27 can sustain M2.15 top speed indefinately. M2.15 to M2.35 is temporary and restricted to 5 minutes.
                                        F-15C can sustain M2.25 top speed indefinately. M2.25 to M2.5 is temporary and restricted to 1 minutes.

                                        BOTH aircraft are limited due to overheating of cockpit glass.

                                        Comment

                                        • moon_light
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2012
                                          • 932

                                          Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                          I went to the link. This interview was done in 2004. so how on earth they estimated Meteor range at that time and from what kind of aircraft.
                                          missiles producers know much much more than us they may calculate by software or testing..etc who the hell know , if iamnot wrong Meteor have the same design as r-77m
                                          Last edited by moon_light; 31st March 2013, 23:26.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X