Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection

[MiG_23M]

@ZVO_12_INCH

In real combat conditions, Abrams becomes like a T-80…

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

[Raldi92]

That is not a TVC nozzle , it’s a flat nozzle design with the purpose of cooling exhaust gases to reduce IR signature, same design has for instance been addopted on B2 Spirit. TVC nozzles don’t have asymetrical lips ( be it 2D or 3D ). The TVC nozzle for the F-15 you are looking for is this one :

For the Su-27 work on TVC nozzles started in the 80s on the T-10-26 irrc . Both cylindrical 3D and flat 2D nozzle designs were experimented but yeah as we know they went with the 3D design .

[BBCRF]

@_ShadowFang_

In game, I have used high AoA as a last ditch attempt to kill aircraft, sometimes being successful. However the Su-27 is a terrible close range fighter. It is humongous and burns energy so fast for its one turn advantage. There have been others that have tried to do this against me, and every time it has led to their death as they get gunned down due to their more exposed surface area or I exploit their energy disadvantage.

It has a very terrible implementation in the game

@_ShadowFang_

From C.W. Lemoine, a retired F-16 pilot, these maneuvers just make you an easier target and would only work against pilots that are just “driving”. This was his comment from his reaction to BF3’s Hornet mission and to TGM’s clip you showed. The reason these maneuvers are looked down upon is that it bleeds all of your energy for an attempt at a target overshoot and follow up missile shot.

This man cannot distinguish the Su-30SM from the Su-35S. And he certainly doesn’t know about supermaneuverability

[BBCRF]

@MiG_23M

The Su-57 fits their flawed fighter doctrine

What what?

@MiG_23M

carousel autoloaders

The problem is not with the carousel.And in the shells that are there.Load such projectiles into an Abrams or Leopard and the flight of the turret with the crew is ensured

@MiG_23M

the J-20B doesn’t exist.

[BBCRF]

@_ShadowFang_

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.

You will not beat a Flanker in two laps unless you reach a speed of more than 650 km/h and yes FM in DCS and Wt is wrong and has nothing to do with reality

@Ziggy1989

Pretty cool.

But is it a Flanker?

on the MiG-29, as on the F-16, you need to keep a high speed of 700 + km/ h, unlike the flanker

@_ShadowFang_

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.

No adjustments were made for the Su-27 and SU-33 based on feedback from pilots and engineers

@_ShadowFang_

the failed Su-57 I would imagine.

What did the Su-57 fail at?

@MiG_23M

[_ShadowFang]

For Flanker performance, I do not reasonably see how it should be performing better. It is a heavy, unstable fighter which gives it good AoA authority. I would imagine that for Flankers, their biggest weakness is higher intertia compared to its competitors, which would lead me to conclude that high AoA advantage is to finish fights at the start, not win a protracted fight. Just so I can understand your position, what aircraft should it have similar sustained rate performance to?

@BBCRF

You will not beat a Flanker in two laps unless you reach a speed of more than 650 km/h and yes FM in DCS and Wt is wrong and has nothing to do with reality

I would imagine pilots would attempt to stay in their optimal speed band if possible, plus I gave the advantage to the Flanker regardless for the first two turns anyway, I did not say anything to the contrary. However, if the Flanker is modeled according to public data, which to my knowledge so far is generally close, then there’s no improvement that can be made in these games. Is the performance of the Flanker overstated? Maybe? I don’t have any reason to think so, as opposed to the Su-57. Which leads me to-

@BBCRF

What did the Su-57 fail at?

In my current view, the Su-57 is a failure of an aircraft as a whole. Especially if we compare it to the J-20. According to radar reflection modeling and estimates, it is less stealthy than the French Rafale in clean configuration. Extremely limited production numbers prevent it from being a present threat, even if actually used on the battlefield. To be fair, a loss of an Su-57 in combat would be a PR nightmare, not to include the ones destroyed on the ground by drones.

My criticism is also based on a lot of predjudice though. I realistically do not know how capable the plane actually is. I assume and hope that the aircraft is terrible, without much other evidence to go by. Maybe I will eat my words and acknowledge that I underestimated it, but until that time my opinion of it is extremely skewed.

[BBCRF]

@_ShadowFang_

For Flanker performance, I do not reasonably see how it should be performing better. It is a heavy, unstable fighter which gives it good AoA authority. I would imagine that for Flankers, their biggest weakness is higher intertia compared to its competitors, which would lead me to conclude that high AoA advantage is to finish fights at the start, not win a protracted fight. Just so I can understand your position, what aircraft should it have similar sustained rate performance to?

The Flanker, no matter how it sounds.Low inductive resistance and high aerodynamic quality. It is comparable to the F/A-18. However, the Hornet has weak engines and slightly higher inductive resistance than the Flanker

@_ShadowFang_

I would imagine pilots would attempt to stay in their optimal speed band if possible, plus I gave the advantage to the Flanker regardless for the first two turns anyway, I did not say anything to the contrary. However, if the Flanker is modeled according to public data, which to my knowledge so far is generally close, then there’s no improvement that can be made in these games. Is the performance of the Flanker overstated? Maybe? I don’t have any reason to think so, as opposed to the Su-57. Which leads me to-

I will say that the developers did not look for data on the flanker well

@_ShadowFang_

In my current view, the Su-57 is a failure of an aircraft as a whole. Especially if we compare it to the J-20. According to radar reflection modeling and estimates, it is less stealthy than the French Rafale in clean configuration. Extremely limited production numbers prevent it from being a present threat, even if actually used on the battlefield. To be fair, a loss of an Su-57 in combat would be a PR nightmare, not to include the ones destroyed on the ground by drones.

My criticism is also based on a lot of predjudice though. I realistically do not know how capable the plane actually is. I assume and hope that the aircraft is terrible, without much other evidence to go by. Maybe I will eat my words and acknowledge that I underestimated it, but until that time my opinion of it is extremely skewed.

The Su-57 has the best flight performance among all 5th generation aircraft combined. Better load capacity. More missiles. All simulations are coffee fortune-telling (if you don’t have the exact geometry, you won’t get accurate data). I was near the Su-57 in person, unlike all these bloggers and “experts” and others. And what you see in life is different from what these “experts” say and write.

Russia has doubled the number of Su-57 aircraft received in 2023

[Ziggy1989]

You went from this…

@MiG_23M

Additionally, the J-20B doesn’t exist.

To this….

@MiG_23M

There is little evidence the J-20B or WS-15 are in high capacity serial production.

They are in serial production since 2020 & 2023. There’s nothing more to it. If they are in serial production that means there is a completed pre production aircraft.

It exist. Stop coping. Take your L.

You said the aircraft does not exist get own

[MiG_23M]

The L is when you thought J-20B was the same as J-20A but with TVC and called it supermaneuverable

[Ziggy1989]

I thought a J-20A was the J-20B with TVC engines but not really at the same time supermaneuverable, kind of?

What the hell are tot talking about?

[BBCRF]

The J20B is a two-seater J-20, not with a TVC

[BBCRF]

China is only creating an engine with a TVC

[Panther2995]

@MiG_23M

Is that what it is now?

As far as i know J-20B hasnt entered the service and its a twinseat version of J-20.

Feel free to correct me if im wrong.

[warthogboy09]

@Ziggy1989

never touched of a country they are not even from. In Air Forces they never served.

Wanna bet?

[Ziggy1989]

Actually, I was correct. The J-20B is the designation for the for the variant that will receive the WS-15 & thrust vectoring capabilities. The J-20S is the two-seater.

The aircraft has three variants: the initial production model J-20A, the thrust-vectoring J-20B, and twin-seat aircraft teaming capable J-20S.

The June 28 flight of J-20B (the designation when fitted with two WS-15 engines) appears to be the first time the aircraft has flown with the new engine in both nacelles. Standard practice in evaluating a new engine design in a twin-engine fighter has been to begin flight testing with one new engine in one nacelle and an older-model engine in the other in case of a failure.**
China's J-20 fighter seems to have a new homegrown engine, after years of struggle - Breaking Defense

The J-20B was reported to enter production in July 2020, while full serial production of the WS-15 engine began in March 2023. Clear images depicting the engine in flight testing were publicly released on April 5, 2023. The J-20 fighter already boasts superior endurance compared to Western fighter classes, and the WS-15 is anticipated to further extend this advantage due to its enhanced fuel efficiency.

J-20 Stealth Fighter Upgraded With New Engine Claims China

A new variant of the J-20, which is speculated to be the new airframe type first seen in December 2022 with improved stealth features, is thought to have been modified to make better use of the new power-plant and may be designated the J-20B
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/ws15-j20-enter-serial-production

[BBCRF]

@Ziggy1989

The aircraft has three variants: the initial production model J-20A, the thrust-vectoring J-20B, and twin-seat aircraft teaming capable J-20S.

As far as I remember, China designates the B-version as a two-seater

[Ziggy1989]

I think you are still right as well. It appears China just started shifting around these designations very recently. I don’t know how it works over there. Doesn’t matter.

The J-20B is an aircraft & China now has 5th generation power plants with tvc like other the other 5th generation air superiority fighters.

[BBCRF]

@Ziggy1989

The J-20B is an aircraft & China now has 5th generation power plants with tvc like other the other 5th generation air superiority fighters.

@Ziggy1989

The J-20B is an aircraft & China now has 5th generation power plants with tvc like other the other 5th generation air superiority fighters.

I haven’t seen any engines with TVC yet

[wasa850]

Here is the (early1970s) original assumed nozzle for the F-15, it has a dual function - thrust reversal and thrust vectoring.

[wasa850]

@BBCRF

You will not beat a Flanker in two laps unless you reach a speed of more than 650 km/h and yes FM in DCS and Wt is wrong and has nothing to do with reality

It is possible to beat a Su 27 under 650 km/h, pilot experience and skill are the key.