4c Hajduk Veljko Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 ... I gues the original concept doesn't need some mayor modificatios after all.That certanly appears to be the case. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikoyan Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) I was expecting modifications after seeing the mig-29k, which seems to have better high alpha performance (without tvc engines) than the mig-29a. I was hopping to se the same happening to the su-27. juli 07 2008 demo flight here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMyBqR1iqQ0&feature=related Edited July 10, 2008 by mikoyan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexHunter Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Heh, the block on top of the stick is getting bigger and bigger! One day they'll just stick a qwerty keyboard on it and be done with it. Oh well, I'd rather have it on the stick and throttle than in the cockpit. ;) The marketing gimmick, btw, comes from a couple sources I've read that say the design bureaus will often paint a plane with a scheme that might appeal to possible buyers. I assumed that the one on this Su-35 was a desert one, similar to the one on the now-defunct Su-37 demonstrator. So therefore, they're trying to market to the middle east? Take that one FWIW. :) I like the US approach; "Well, it comes in grey". :D hung additionally devices it is obligatory at test flights, this hanging whorehouse will not be on an eventual variant! on the account of colouring of booth of airplane, as it is done in the USA I dislike and to many to the Russian pilots also, dark color with dark devices not well, there must be a contrast, better grey blue color of device board. Открылась бездна звезд полна; Звездам числа нет, бездне дна. (М. В. Ломоносов) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-man Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 when I saw the su-35 I was a bit dissappointed, because I was expecting aerondinamic improvements like for exaple the mig-35 The mig 35 has new wings, the elevons are bigger;but the su-35 seems to have minor changes. I was especting full span slats and bigger elevons and ailerons, I gues the original concept doesn't need some mayor modificatios after all. One change that is semi-major is the tailfins; They have been replaced by much bigger ones. 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTiger Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I kind of doubt that export customers in this day and age would accept anything but the "full spec deal" :) . Yeah, but what they want and what they'll get may be different, right? One thing that comes to mind immediately that countries have been historically stubborn to export is ECM capability. And it makes really, really, really good sense. Giving that away is big disadvantage. That just seems like a one-way ticket to making any advantage it gives you completely null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) when I saw the su-35 I was a bit dissappointed, because I was expecting aerondinamic improvements like for exaple the mig-35 The mig 35 has new wings, the elevons are bigger;but the su-35 seems to have minor changes. I was especting full span slats and bigger elevons and ailerons, I gues the original concept doesn't need some mayor modificatios after all. One change that is semi-major is the tailfins; They have been replaced by much bigger ones. And don't forget new dragbrakes, increased gross and max. takeoff weight, increased payload weight, increased internal fuel weight! Things like this indicate some changes in design, although not visible by a plain eye but if you manage to get some blueprints of Su-27 and Su-35 and compare 'em you'll notice lots of "misallignments" or changes! EDIT: BTW, design of Su-27 or let's say Flanker begun in late '70s with creating a "highly unstable" wing! Wing that's fast enough to cut through the air at supersonic speeds but creates a lift good enough for a hi AoA, extremly slow level flight without any help from FLCS or some similar device! You must admit that creating a wing that "perfect" in '70s was a helluva job! So why changing what's perfect! Edited July 10, 2008 by Vekkinho [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexHunter Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Many changes are real in Su-35, a glider was far better ennobled, a new machine turned out fully, a power set is counted on new and other, keels already other, and much what changed, simply attentively will compare an old and new machine, the most important there completely another filling under which a glider is anew done from after what and much place appeared under fuels. With old SU-27 it is impossible to do such, it is impossible to convert him into SU- 35, maksimum if to put new rendering-engines and "IRBIS", SU-27 SM2 will become, what will be done with remaining SU-27 P.S. Sorry to bad English all of it is a translator on-line :) Открылась бездна звезд полна; Звездам числа нет, бездне дна. (М. В. Ломоносов) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 There U have it! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Yeah, but what they want and what they'll get may be different, right? Not really - since the end of the cold war it has been buyer's market. Just look at the current multirole fighter tender for the Indian airforce - all the major manufactures are represented and are trying to out-do eachother with the latest state-of-the-art tech. MIG first offered the MiG-29M2 with Zhuk-M slotted array radar, but has now "up'ed" the offer with the new AESA(Zhuk-AE) equipped MiG-35(easily the most advanced Russian fighter to date), Dassault first offered the Mirage 2000-5 but is now promoting the Rafale instead, while Boeing brings the F/A-18E with an option for the APG-79 AESA. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The only good that Cold War offered was a enormous technology race between east and west! Lot's of development, ideas and protos were emerging on a daily basis! Today there's no Cold War, there's "Sales War" but thanks to it development is still as aggressive! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTiger Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not really - since the end of the cold war it has been buyer's market. Just look at the current multirole fighter tender for the Indian airforce - all the major manufactures are represented and are trying to out-do eachother with the latest state-of-the-art tech. MIG first offered the MiG-29M2 with Zhuk-M slotted array radar, but has now "up'ed" the offer with the new AESA(Zhuk-AE) equipped MiG-35(easily the most advanced Russian fighter to date), Dassault first offered the Mirage 2000-5 but is now promoting the Rafale instead, while Boeing brings the F/A-18E with an option for the APG-79 AESA. Ok, but what about ECM? ;) I specifically brought that up because thats what seems to separate the men from the boys, or at least the exporters vs. those who are domestically producing and using their own fighters. Is it possible to get an ECM suite that is identical to the one the USN uses on the F/A-18E? Or do you get a downgraded version or no version at all? Did the Russians and or French provide their top-notch ECM packages for those Indian Flankers? Not being facetious, here, I seriously want to know. My rather cursory observation is that ECM is usually not offered freely by the seller. It seems that you have to develop your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted July 11, 2008 Author Share Posted July 11, 2008 According to an article in Combat Aircraft, Su-35 is proposed for export to a number of countries. I also guess ECM is something so sensitive that it is never in a standard "package". But the article states that Su-35, in contrast to Su-30MKK, has an open architecture, so that customers can hook in their own systems. They take about a Mil Std 1553B compatible databus, but it is not clear to me this will be the case for Su-35 or that the author just cites a common example. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Ok, but what about ECM? ;) . I specifically brought that up because thats what seems to separate the men from the boys, or at least the exporters vs. those who are domestically producing and using their own fighters. Is it possible to get an ECM suite that is identical to the one the USN uses on the F/A-18E? Or do you get a downgraded version or no version at all? ECM is obviously part of the package - you would be hard pressed to sell a modern fighter plane without such capability :) . But you are right that ECM and RWS are of more sensitive nature and its likely that some aspects differ between those offered for export and those employed by the nation of origin. Did the Russians and or French provide their top-notch ECM packages for those Indian Flankers? Well India pretty much composed the system package for the Su-30MKI themselves - a mixture between the original Russian, "after market" French and Isreali components and "home made" Indian ones. IIRC they got the NAV system from France, ECM from Israel, while the RWS is their own(called "Tarang"). Not being facetious, here, I seriously want to know. My rather cursory observation is that ECM is usually not offered freely by the seller. It seems that you have to develop your own. No it is definately offered as part of the package - I think it has more to do with the configuration/data and level of access to customise it. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTiger Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 That's interesting Alfa, thank you. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikoyan Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 did you guys see the su-35 (su-27bm) flight demo on youtube? I think that the pilot wasn't using the tvc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 According to an article in Combat Aircraft, Su-35 is proposed for export to a number of countries. I also guess ECM is something so sensitive that it is never in a standard "package". But the article states that Su-35, in contrast to Su-30MKK, has an open architecture, so that customers can hook in their own systems. They take about a Mil Std 1553B compatible databus, but it is not clear to me this will be the case for Su-35 or that the author just cites a common example. Or could it be that the use of ECM-systems is practically useless against nowadays AESA-radars? It is very difficult (read impossible) to jam an AESA-radar. DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 It isn't impossible to jam an AESA radar. It's just much harder. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 That is where I learned about K-172S missile. Yes this is a reliable source of information. So is Wikipedia. What does it mean? Most likely nothing. This C-130 can shoot down your aircraft, destroy the runway it took off from, wipe out the area defences and have 6 crewmembers drink coffee and using the restroom at the same time. http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/how-it-works-airborne-laser-cannon You heard it here, folks, you can trust the information. You read it on the "internet". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Hitman, screw the C-130, did you see that A-10 model in the link you posted, that thing looks awesome. At any rate, magazines, different websites, books etc, is all we aircraft enthusiast have Hitman, it may not be accurate but is nice to read and at best it is entertaining. Believe me when I say, most aircraft manuals are so boring and hard to understand. They would not be consider best sellers :D. A F-16 -34-1-1 is 900+ (I have no idea how many pages it is actually, but the book is like 6 inches thick) pages of information, monotone, No matter how interested you are, you would fall asleep. Nice to read some cool stuff that might not be accurate but entertaining. Just my two cents. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Hitman, screw the C-130, did you see that A-10 model in the link you posted, that thing looks awesome. I totally did not...wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts