it might also be underperforming, we just dont know
the point iam trying to make is that the Su-35S would be better than the Su-27Sm, because it gets the
Al-41 (to be more percise the Izdelie 117S)
and i read somewhere that it has a variable bypass ratio, but i cant find it anymore, so take that with a grain of salt
(Item 117 is a misstranslation of Izdelie 117)
“The Pakfa can indeed supercruise anywhere between M1. 2-1.4 with the present Item-117 engines. The Su-35S is said to supercruise at Mach 1. 2-1.3 with an air to air load. Not its full complement of 14 A2A missiles but with 4-6 air to air missiles. Now the Pak-Fa has more advanced aerodynamics, lower wing loading, a higher L/D ratio, no exposed pylons and internal carriage of weapons. So it is only logical that the Pakfa will supercruise, and not at the wee low end of Mach 1.1-1.2 but a notch higher.”
Vladimir Karnozov:
“Russia’s new Sukhoi Su-35 fighter is already showing its high-performance capabilities. This new single-seat aircraft — which combines the proven Su-27 Flanker airframe, 16% more powerful engines and a totally new set of onboard systems — is said to have reached supercruise speed, a distinct feature of fifth-generation fighters.”
Well that is how every modern jet engine works,
The question is for what speeds a certain engine is optimized for.
A good example on that is the F-18, it has pretty good acceleration until mach 1 and then basically hits a wall.
On the other end of the spectrum would be the Mig-25 which doesn’t have the best acceleration until it reaches supersonic speeds.
The only way to do decent at all speeds would be an engine with a variable bypass ratio.
An iam uncertain at best if the Al-41 has it and don’t know at all about the PW119
so the Izdeliye 117S has only ~1000kgf less thrust than the PW-119,
with the Su-35 weighing around 19 tones and the F-22 around 20 tones from what i can find
(both empty weight)
max weight for the Su-35 would be ~34 tones and for the F-22 ~38 tones
with the Su-35 having a lower wing loading than the F-22
(from the estimations that i found)
that indicates it has a better STR than the F-22, a good example is the F-16 vs the F-2
while the F-2 is heavier than the F-16C it has a better STR, due to a lower wing loading
Really? It can carry 18k lb of fuel max internal plus 43k lb empty, adding what like 4k for AAM and 1k for other stuff, it’s about 67,000lb so 33.5 ton max payload, max internal fuel
F119 also not variable bypass, if there was a real threat to the US air Superiority in 90’s then F-22 would probably have gotten variable bypass, and SLAR, IRST etc. if only they knew about Su-57, it would have had no advantages over the 22 in that alternative timeline
Yeah so it would have similar wing loading (quite a bit heavier on max internal+full combat load of AAM) as the F-22 but the raptor would be slick and better thrust/ttw on max internal and combat load
The problem is that max takeoff weight isn’t using the full internal fuel load/ max Payload weight.
You can easily see that by subtracting both the fuel and Payload weight from the max takeoff weight.
34.5 tones - 11 tones - 8 tones = 15.5 tones
wich would be lighter than the Su-27
(Empty weight for the export variant of the Su27 is 16, 380kg, which is a bit heavier than the domestic version)
I doubt that they managed to do that, even tho they used compsits.
Lowest weight I might accept without a manual or another primary source would be around 17 to 18 tones
Well I just wanted to make clear that there is no exact number for its weight and only estimations, the same goes for the Su-30 and the one we have in game also seems to be at the higher end of those estimates.
But 19 tones are on the upper end of the estimates I have seen, for the Su35.
There is a chance that they somehow managed to get it lighter than the base 27sm,but I will only belive that if I see a primary source or manual stating so
Depends on which stations the missiles are (irrelevant for WT bc ppl will just take a full load) for example the missiles between the engines will cause less drag than the ones mounted on the air intakes
Still, I think this could remove any remaining advantage gained from wing loading, if they still exist since with heavier loaded Su-35 they will be reduced if not gone already
Possible, but we will not be able to know for sure, until we know the empty weight of the Su-35S.
And we’ll, there is always the option to jetension your missile if you really need that flight performance.
BTW how would a jetension work on the f-22
Like does it just open the doors and the missiles drop out?
But there is no point, they are internally carried and realistically if there is a problem it’s better to fly back and have it extracted by ground crew so they can hopefully not lose a million dollar missile
While the HMS is part of the larger IRST system, it can also slave the Radar directly onto the its que. IIRC, in interaction mode (IRST and Radar work alongside each other), when HMS is selected and when you hold the LOCK button, both the Radar and IRST will attempt to lock the target. The first sensor to lock will become the “leading” sensor, while the other one will become the “guided” sensor (serves as a back up in case the “leading” sensor loses track. If the IRST is the first one to lock, the Radar can also lock the target in cases like R-27Rs being selected.
I am using info from this very detailed book on the whole fire control system of the MiG-29
The few of my “arguments” as to why HMS on the SUV-29 should not have a 10 km limit would be:
While the 10 km limit is mentioned multiple times throughout this book, it is only ever mentioned when talking about the vertical ACM. No equivalent sections about the HMS mention a range limit of any kind.
The sections detailing how the system works in “interaction mode” when in IRST scan mode and HMS mode, mention that the radar will lock the target, the angular data about which is fed from the IRST, in “point” mode. I could not find specifics of the “point” mode, as the references seem to point to sections that the available PDF does not contain, but from the sound of it, it is just a mode where the radar just scans a specific point to lock a target (probably in MPRF).
In “interaction” mode, there are a few instances where the system may automatically transition to locking a target with its radar. One of those is when a target gets closer than 15 km and is being tracked by the IRST (or even in TWS). There is also a mention of the pilot being able to chose to lock the target earlier (meaning, further than 15 km) by pressing the “lock” button. This implies that the radar can use “point” mode to lock a target further than 15 km (no limit was listed), which is the same mode used by the radar when being fed data from the HMS.
The only possible problem here is with my last point, which is that to know that the target is closer than 15 km, the radar would use periodic ranging pulses (every 5 seconds). This could imply that the radar still requires some target range estimate to lock it. But if I remember things correctly, there were other circumstances where a pilot can choose to lock a target tracked by IRST where there is no range info.
