Probably the best comparison can be found here:
[Strike Fighters 2025_4.pdf
1 Like
Comparing the engine, the F110-GE-129 has a T/W around 7.5:1 maybe up to 8:1 depending on the setting. The AL-41 used in the Su-35 has around 10.5-11.5:1
The F-15EX has a slightly higher empty T/W rating - ~1.7 as compared to the Su-35’s ~1.67
The 50% fuel T/W for the Su-35 is ~1.18 as opposed to the F-15EX’s ~1.43 w/
Su-35 at 50% fuel (mass of 5,750 kg of fuel) is ~1.18
F-15EX at 50% fuel (mass of ~3,051 kg of fuel) is ~1.42
Note the efficiency of the Su-35S’ engines will be much greater simply because the engine is newer and has a variable bypass. The afterburning efficiency and ability to supercruise will allow the fighter to take considerably less fuel and last longer - the T/W’s are in favor of the Su-35 over the F-15 if it wants to maintain the same amount of time in the sky and even more so if the F-15 equips the CFT’s… which it will need to do if it wants the same time on station as the fully loaded Su-35.
With T/W in the Su-35’s favor it is also on a more favorable airframe in regards to sustained turn rate, climb rate, and high angle of attack flight. The F-15 is good, but it is not Sukhoi good. It also lacks the TVC needed to take advantage of the one circle should the Su-35 start hitting the two circle a little too hard.
Where the F-15EX will perform better is in straight lines, high altitude intercepts. It is more optimally designed for BVR engagements and is obviously better equipped to do so against the Su-35S… which is to be expected as it is considerably newer.
4 Likes
Doesnt EX uses F-110-GE-129?
Correct, the numbers are still accurate I just put the wrong engine name off memory.
4 Likes
Proof of K-27EA existence? or maybe K-77M on something other than Su-57 and 1 mockup at Su-75 that wasn’t even an actual K-77M model
Actually just went and checked, the AL-31-FM1 on the su-27sm/34 were used on some su-30 variants but I can’t find the exact ones, the SU-30SM Was the MKI build but for Russia so it actually has a little less thrust as most of them use the AL-31-FP engines but could be replaced with the FM1 with tvc as an alternative
2 Likes
Regardless of the r27ea existence, there are better options that would be better performance-wise while avoiding the controversy
1 Like
Most definitely (Not a single picture of it being fired)
Yea. But first deliver are 2011 vs 2021.
You better find out man. Be ready, to make THAT report.
It absolutely is. From sensor handoff to air to ground munitions, 2-way datalink and datashare is in full effect and can be used for essentially any guided munition.
i meant in the game
edited original post to fix this
2 Likes
From what i get from the wiki its that AL-31FM1 has being use for Su-27sm, Su-34 and SU-30M2. And it only talk about the Su-30sm using AL-31F with Thrust vectoring AL-31FP. That Su-30 is not a Su-30SM. So even if it can use it. Its the same as saying it can use 177s engine or Al-41.
Irkutsk plant has begun installing AL-41F engine on Su-30SM This page talk that in sept last years some Su-30SM has being “modernize” with Al-41 that the Su-30sm2 use. But i don’t know if that is true. Because someone posted here that the Su-30sm2 was not being produce with Al-41 and they are just rushing it to the SMO with more Ground attack capability.
2 Likes
Don’t know where this goes so I’ll post it here.
Most of Gaijin’s (mainly older, before 4th gen) FMs have an inherent need to overperform because the thrust output at AOA isn’t constant. They like to compensate with drag so the bleed rate is too high, and the plane feels nasty to fly.
If intake losses don’t increase at higher speeds then it also creates a problem they have to fix with drag.
Thrust reduction* by >10% at 14 AOA for shock cone intakes
How do you figure 90% from that
Not Su-35S, but Su-35SM.
Bad wording
1 Like
Thrust loss is combined from inlet losses and stalling of turbulent air on the compressor so the problem is worse than it shows on that chart but Gaijin doesn’t model this issue. Instead - fighters like the F-4 are designed to achieve the correct negative and positive excess power based on AoA and this is fairly close. It only really affects some fighters like the Russian ones who do not have explicit SEP charts included. EM Diagrams have these as standard but are only used by the west.
That was what I had in mind, and I think about this largely in relation to MiG-21 and MiG-23 (mostly 21) because their FM “feels” wrong.
Mainly on low G, they lose far too much speed, kind of like MiG-29 FM.
Not Su-35S, but fake plane