Russian Flanker and SU-3X Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views


SteelBird

Major
Would love to see the Typhoon showing its stuff to the Flanker like they showed it to the Typhoon :)

Standaard RAF Typhoon armament seems to be 4x AMRAAM + 4x SRAAM.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 9951
Off-topic: Really love the half-buried hard-points of the Typhoon. J-10 does have hard-points at the same area but I think they are much smaller compared to those found on the Typhoon. End of off-topic.
 

F-15

Banned Idiot
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Well, here's a first run at a comparison of these various Russian flankers to their Chinese counterparts:
Your data is wrong, the Su-35S does not weight 18000 kg, just look at the official brochure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
its max weight is 34500kg, max internal fuel is 11500kg and its max weapons load 8000kg make your math and you will find the Su-35 weighs 15000kg empty.

It is even logic since the jet will have super cruise and its minimal thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.14 and that is at take off, its combat thrust to weight should be in the range of 1:1.5
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Your data is wrong, the Su-35S does not weight 18000 kg, just look at the official brochure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
its max weight is 34500kg, max internal fuel is 11500kg and its max weapons load 8000kg make your math and you will find the Su-35 weighs 15000kg empty.

It is even logic since the jet will have super cruise and its minimal thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.14 and that is at take off, its combat thrust to weight should be in the range of 1:1.5
Well, not necessarily . You see, max weight doesn't mean plane loaded with maximum fuel and max payload. It is simply maximum takeoff weight, and often it means maximum payload with fraction of fuel (to be refilled in air) or maximum fuel with few weapons .
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Re: loadout on SU27

That's a pair of AA11 archers and quad AA10 Alamos. That flanker definitely means business!
It looks like 2xR-27RE (under belly) , 2xR-27T and 2xR-73 (I could be wrong ) . Standard configuration for older Flankers in Russian service . For some reason or other, VSS doesn't often employ R-77.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Your data is wrong, the Su-35S does not weight 18000 kg, just look at the official brochure
Read Thunder's response. The data is not wrong...people just interpret it and list it differently.

A brochure from the manufacture is not wrong either, it just portrays the data in the most advantageous light.
 

F-15

Banned Idiot
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Read Thunder's response. The data is not wrong...people just interpret it and list it differently.

A brochure from the manufacture is not wrong either, it just portrays the data in the most advantageous light.
The question is you have to prove your point, where do you get 18000kg from any official data? you can say easily i am not wrong everything is interpretation, no things are not like that, you have to prove the 18000 kg is official, i know that is not official but a rumor spread on internet since any source will tell you that 18000 kg is an estimate .

Now Physics do not lie, Su-35 can not be heavier and super cruise just by formula F=M times A or to put it simple A=F/M or acceleration equals force divided by mass, if you understand that you know the Su-35 is basically aerodynamically the same Su-27 air frame with few aerodynamics changes just a different airfoil and change of the tail sting which was reverted to the original SU-27

Read the official website it says it has better acceleration
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Please prove with official sources the Su-35 weighs 18000 kg empty, otherwise your estimate is wrong, the Su-35S only carries more fuel internally, meaning its internal structure has been modified extensively, there is no point increasing its empty weight and its thrust in order to get a faster jet, the jet to super cruise will use more composites and the jet will super cruise armed and fueled
 
Last edited:

F-15

Banned Idiot
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Well, not necessarily . You see, max weight doesn't mean plane loaded with maximum fuel and max payload. It is simply maximum takeoff weight, and often it means maximum payload with fraction of fuel (to be refilled in air) or maximum fuel with few weapons .
that is speculation not a fact, official sources must say it
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

The question is you have to prove your point, where do you get 18000kg from any official data?
So...you have a link to the Offical Russian Air Force source? If you do...you would not be posting it here.

Have you served in, or worked directly with the military?

If you have you know full well that the actual, offical numbers are almost always classified. Data is put out for public consumption, both by governments and by the manufacturer.

So, official is not a set thing, unless you are working with the branch of the military that deals in the specifics...in which case, you would probably be violating all sorts of laws and regulations if you divulged the "official" number.

...you can say easily i am not wrong
I never said or implied that you were wrong.


Now Physics do not lie, Su-35 can not be heavier and super cruise just by formula F=M times A or to put it simple A=F/M or acceleration equals force divided by mass, if you understand that you know the Su-35 is basically aerodynamically the same Su-27 air frame with few aerodynamics changes just a different airfoil and change of the tail sting which was reverted to the original SU-27.
F-15, I am an engineer and have worked on military aircraft. I know how the basic laws of Physics (and quite a few more complicated ones) work. I also know that they are many variables and dependancies on how they interact with any object...particularly one as complex as a modern military aircraft.

So, while Physics does not lie, the results do vary depending on a myriad of conditions.

Please prove with official sources...
Already addressed this above.

We are here to discuss these things, F-15, and I have no problem with doing so...but sometimes folks come on the forum and want to somehow show everyone that they, and they alone, have a channel into the absolute truth about things. Such attitudes make having any reasoned discussion difficult.

As I said, official data in this regard omn a firum like this is not a set thing, and our actual access to it and ability to really discuss those absolutes is limited. Again, unless you are working with the branch of the military that deals in the specifics...in which case, you would probably be violating all sorts of laws and regulations if you divulged the "official" data.

Also, F-15, no one has said that the dats you have shared is wrong, but, as Thunder pointed out, there are varying ways of looking at the material and data depending on the reference you are taking. Thrust/Weight ratios are a good example of this. Depending on the load (weight) of the aircraft at the time, the ratio varies..as I pointed out earlier.

As it is...for the empty weight of the SU-35 I relied on all of the following:

MILVIA lists it as 18,400 kg
Global Security lists it as 18,400 kg
KNAAPO lists it as 18,400 kg
Janes lists it as 18,400 kg
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
@F-15

It is true that 18000 kg empty weight is not official . We could only speculate how did they get that number. My guess is this : from official catalog normal takeoff weight with 2xR-77 and 2xR-73 is 25300 kg. In Russian doctrine normal takeoff weight is usually calculated with 50% fuel . With maximum fuel at 11500kg, and taking into account weight of the missiles, you would get something like 18-19000 kg empty weight .

As for supercruise, it is not simply T/W as you think. Main problem is to overcome sound barrier without engaging afterburners . Resistance of sound barrier does not depend on the weight of the plane, it depends on front profile of the plane. As we could see, Su-35 and Su-27 have similar front profile and at the same time Su-35 has stronger engines . So, it is entirely possible that even with similar T/W , Su-35 could supercruise and Su-27 could not .

-------------------

And to better understand things about supercruise, simple example : you have one paper plane and similar plane made of steel . They both have same dimensions and shape, only difference is material (and mass of course) . They both accelerate with equal acceleration and hit glass window with same speed (let's say 5m/s ) . What would happen ? ;) Do you understand now ? :p
 
Last edited:

F-15

Banned Idiot
Re: Russian SU-3X Flanker Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

Depending on the load (weight) of the aircraft at the time, the ratio varies..as I pointed out earlier.
Look i do not need a long excuse, Sukhoi gives you details by them selves

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


read they give you the minimal weight for a Su-27 landing, they are saying the Su-27 will land under safe conditions at 21000 kg, you simply are giving a weight based upon an estimate circulating on the internet, there is no factual data.

It says the Su-27 takes off at 23430 kg with 5 tonnes of fuel and the same weapons load a Su-35S, here is the reason of your estimate, the SU-35 will do teh same at 25300 kg
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


thus people think the Su-35 empty weight is heavier, the data does not say so, since Sukhoi says the newer Su-35 carries more fuel more almost 2 tonnes more.

your data is not factual, is just a supposition people gave based upon both website pages of Sukhoi
 
Last edited:

Top