What studies do you have saying it’s useless in a combat.
Simple question. I can say the same thing. “ “go read the studies that say useful.”
Or do you have more American propaganda from our American sweetheart YouTube personality C.W. Lemoine?
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
As it turns out, there is no serious counter argument to him either. Topped by the fact that he’s a real fighter pilot and you’re not means your argument is 100% your opinions alone.
If you want to deface his argument, you need to provide a counter argument from a reputable source.
Strong enough to remain competitive against modern HOBS missiles as it currently sits.
It’s useless in offensive engagements where the enemy hasn’t made a glaringly ignorant mistake. Stop trying to twist other people’s argument to make it appear as though they’re claiming more / less than they are.
It’s a last ditch capability that may as well contribute nothing to the overall design if it comes at the cost of degrading performance elsewhere. A great example that was provided earlier was the YF-23. This would be far superior to the F-22A we have today.
Additionally, the J-20B doesn’t exist. The Su-57 fits their flawed fighter doctrine the same way carousel autoloaders fit their flawed tank doctrine. Supermaneuverability is the turret tossing lynch pin of the Russian air doctrine.
To understand my point better, consider that while the ammo is centrally located behind all of the armor - it is weak armor. Any shot will end up almost always hitting the ammo if it successfully penetrated (and they often do). This means that the design feature sounds good on paper but turns out poorly in practice. For supermaneuverability you sacrifice energy maneuverability, speed, other performance metrics to favor a last ditch effort that shouldn’t be necessary unless you’re in a losing situation to begin with.
Stop the bad discussion practice, post something that supports your opinion and stop flexing a college education. If you really had one you’d know how to source your statements.
1 Like
so, no studies… just some gamer dude you, who pretends to a pilot can dictate what is useless in a field he only knows from video games, google & interpreted with a High School diploma…
cool.
It’s useless, understood. Thank you, gamer dude. Are you done?
get wrecked
:)
Gamer dude. You stay larping as expert huh?
J-20 Stealth Fighter Upgraded With New Engine Claims China (thedefencetimes.com)
Already in full scale production :)
In the two situations I mentioned, it was very much the case. Especially noteworthy was Maverick’s reaction, as he just stared at it and not attempt to gun it. However, since it’s a movie, it would be boring if he did that.
Supposing that a Gentleman’s agreement was made to not shoot before a merge, the combination of high off boresight and strong instantaneous turn makes the Su-27 extremely capable in the one circle, this is undeniable even to those who do not like the aircraft. However, if the inital advantage is lost and a kill isn’t made during the first or second turn, the Flanker will find itself defensive as the two circle ability lags behind even the F-15 as the two planes fight for the advantage. Either War Thunder and DCS are wrong about the Su-27’s flight model (with available public data), or the abilties of the IRL Flanker is overstated.
1 Like
Sure, let’s suppose this still happens, yes.
ok sure, but how much energy you think was wasted? Its a 2-circle fighter too. It Is not the Fulcrum.
Also, you do know no one counts your ability to decoy in these scenarios? If a missile was successfully launched. The simulation is over. The name of the game is no shot. after a merge.
Interesting, China does not seem to think so. They have the money & capability to replace, but the flanker is here to stay. Just like the F15 :)
Public data is not valuable. It’s just open-source garbage put out there to deceive each side. It’s not closed source intelligence. Each side has export restricted flight manuals and doctrinal sources.
You think they don’t?
Thats why I think it’s funny & quite sad to see these dudes really think they know everything. So confident too lol.
In fact, the Fulcrum is a very good 2-circle fighter, the German 29s clearly demonstrated this when training with US F-16s.
Replacing the Flankers with a brand new aircraft will be very expensive, you forget that in addition to ground crew training, new weapons systems and pilot training, the new design will also bring its own problems and these will take a certain amount of time to fix.
Why should the US replace the F-15? It is a battle-proven tool that shows how excellent it is in almost every scenario.
Pretty cool.
But is it a Flanker?
China has the money; they have the “nonexistent” J-20B :)
Right @MiG_23M?
The Flanker is just not replaceable at this time.
Who said this? I said Flanker is here to stay like the F-15 :)
Its actually Better then Flanker in two circle.
Flanker designed to be long range missile bus with supermaneuverability, Mig29 designed to be frontline fighter.
Usa has also shit ton of money but i dont see any replacement for F-15s nor F-22s.
Also J-20B doesnt exist aside from prototypes, its a twinseat version of J-20A thats still under development.
2 Likes
For energy, it depends on how much energy was exchanged for the turn in, it’s not an easy number to pin down since dogfights are fluid. I wouldn’t be able to provide numbers for either aircraft for the first turn in, so I generally focus on mass then T/W ratios, to which the F-15 is slightly lighter, allowing better sustained performance since the T/W ratios are roughly similar from a glance. It especially becomes more prevalent when aircraft go to higher AoA, as aircraft with heavier mass will have greater difficulty moving to the direction they are pointing to. This is, at least, how I understand the basics, there is significantly more nuance to it.
I wasn’t focusing on simulated kills, since if it is just based on missile launch, even a missile that would not be reasonably able to track and kill its target would be counted as a kill regardless.
China struggles quite a bit in the military export market and making new airframes is an extremely expensive endeavor. They are still struggling to make engines that meet their demands, only fairly recently completing trials of a new engine. I do not blame them that they want to save budget by keeping their current inventory especially for parts, it is wise regardless of which military does it. The Su-27 isn’t a bad aircraft by any means, there is a reason it sees export success. As long as there are weapons that keep the airframe relevant, there is no reason to discard it.
For games such as this, it is. Even DCS tries to make adjustments based on pilot feedback both positive and negative. And what the actual capabilities of an airframe can do are restricted to those that do the fighting. For gamers and enthusiasts, public data is the only thing that can be discussed.
Well, you better get started on that bug report.
I am with you the Fulcrum is lacking,
Well, It’s not the Cold War anymore where US can afford to build purebred fighters for every single task each anymore like they once did.
The US, Russia, & China are starting to take the Multi-role & Swing-Role approach like the Western Europeans. High Performance & cost-efficient Multirole platforms. the 5th generation iterations will be the F-35, Su-75 (not looking likely Su) & Shenyang FC-31.
These fighters in theory according to trend will make up the primary force with air superiority at the top in lesser numbers F-22, Su-57 & J-20. Below the primary force will be the F-15EX & advanced multirole Flankers of both CCP & RuF. (I left out B21 Raider & Xi’an H-20)
Of course this is the trend for the next decade+ 6th Gen will enter production but will not be produced in the numbers comparable. These fighters will carry the weight of war for these nations. The US still has quite the lead.
Are they? J-20B, Shenyang FC-31, Xi’an H-20?
They are already in full scale production of their 5th gen TVC engines… Since 2020 & 2023. There are J-20B units delivered. Especially existing J-20As upgraded to B.
J-20B
China now operates a fully capable 5th Generation Air Superiority Fighter. Was just missing that thrust & TVC (supermaneuvrability) lol of course that is one of other benefits.
:)
You are correct.
You guys’ love talking to me, I am flattered but gtg be back to respond to all your concerns later.
They certainly struggle in the export market. Making new fighters to address the current threat environment is a necessity, being expensive does not mean they won’t do it. But in terms of completely replacing old aircraft, it is too expensive just to do that.
The engine did indeed complete trials “fairly recently” and started full production in 2023. This does not mean their engine issues are over, just that they finally were able to produce an engine that meets the needs of their J-20.
The J-20, from current observation and estimates, poses a risk to Strategic targets such as tankers and AWACS, being seen as more of a stealthy interceptor as opposed to the air superiority fighter. In terms of abilities, it will be speculative. It will at least be more successful the the failed Su-57 I would imagine.
2 Likes
You are wrong or do not analyze the facts…
- the most massive fighters of the Russian Aerospace Forces are the MiG-31BM, Su-35S and multi-purpose Su-30SM/CM2… The Su-30SM2 was also recently presented with R-37M. missiles.
- In real combat conditions, Abrams becomes like a T-80…
2 Likes
That’s great, if you can do the first half without resorting to ridiculing and antagonising other users, regardless of their oppinions then we would all be able to get along and have meaningful discussions/debates.
Your idea of “fun” is just another form of trolling.
Supermanoeuvrability has advantages and disadvantages, it’s not a gamechanger, but it can come in handy. As I wrote at the beginning of Ziggi, in BVR the use of supermaneuverability is questionable, so far- In close maneuver 1 vs 1 combat its usefulness is higher, but it depends on the specific situation/timing etc- And it requires an experienced pilot.
In multi aircraft scenarios its use is problematic.
It’s not true that the Soviets introduced and used any supemaneuvering tactics in practice, or that it was the main thing they did - it wasn’t, it’s silly. Maybe after 2010, but certainly never before.
Please don’t write that Lemoine is propaganda, I know at least two Soviet pilots who say what he says. And many others.
The ability to carry weapons internally is very important today, as is the stealth and avionic fusion that gives situational awareness. These are more important qualities than manoeuvrability.
But to put it into perspective, the first in the 80’s with TVC was the F-15 or the Su 27 ?
Here is a photo of the TVC nozzle for the F-15, didn’t get it due to possible technical issues, but it was seriously considered that the FX( F-15) would have a vectoring nozzle from the beginning.
How long has the wing been designed for the Su 27 ?
Show me a picture of the J-20B doing anything super maneuverable with the fabled TVC engines you mentioned
Is that what it is now?
There is little evidence the J-20B or WS-15 are in high capacity serial production. The FC-31 program appears to be stalled and the H-20 hasn’t entered pre production stages.
They are battling a new enemy, cage armor is useful and has been used by the US on all sorts of vehicles dating back to the 80s or even earlier. US Abrams will be less reliant on such things due to superior short range air defense and jamming / EW as well as hard kill. Comparing a T-80 to an Abrams is like comparing Jake Paul to prime Mike Tyson