SU30 vs Super Hornet

[Vault]

This article was written in 2000. We are 2010. Why stick to webpages from a decade ago while you can have up-to-date information in journals like Airforces Monthly, Air International, Aviation Week, Flug Revue to name only a few?

 

Kopp's article has some merit; but since Typhoon is operational the supercruise ability has been validated and the engines have proven extremely satisfactory, both in performance and in reliability. It is typically an engine in the F414 class, with considerably less weight than F100 engines, allowing twin engines in same aircraft class.

 

That article was last updated in 2010. The EJ2000's are a great powerplant. The Typhoon can indeed supercruise with a minimum A2A payload.

 

Pirate was introduced rather silently, and for A/G Litening is used, the HMS is there. As was to be expected, the most foolish aspect was the UK Mod intension to drop the gun. They had to reverse course on this, as about anyone on this planet except the Mod could have foreseen.

 

I agree they should of installed the gun. It's appears that the UK MoD failed to learn from the lesson of the UASF's F-4. What is it they say "a clever man learns from his mistakes but a wise man learns from others peoples mistakes".

 

Thrust vectoring is again considered, though no customer committment has been taken. It would not be pursued for added manoevrability since the aircraft performs already very well, but rather for fuel economy and engine wear reduction.

 

TVC is a waste of money. An RAF pilot is quoted saying "I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the advantages of TVC". I'd much rather see an AESA in the EF2K.

 

Ed Firth Typhoon pilot.

 

I'm waiting to be told how cobras, hooks, or vectored thrust help in combat. They're great at air shows, but zero energy is a fighter pilot's nightmare. Shoot your opponent down and his number two will be on your tail thinking it's his birthday — a target hanging there in the sky with zero energy.

 

Most likely tranche 3B will feature AESA radar, since this is an export market requirement. Compared with legacy fighters, aircraft like Eurofighter and Rafale stand out mainly in three areas: production techniques and materials; integrated self-defense systems and digital fly-by-wire.

 

It makes no sense to compare Eurofighter with SU-35BM or Pak-Fa since Eurofighter is operational now and who knows what upgrades will be fitted in 10 years time. Maybe thrust-vectoring, certainly AESA and Meteor. I never read anything about RCS improvements like RAM coating or inlet blade shielding and the likes. I guess we wont see that on Typhoon.

 

Agreed. I would like to see a comparison done by Kopp. Now's not the time. I'm genuinely concerned at the survivability of the EF2K against the PAK-FA but that's just my opinion.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Vault

[bumfire]

Kopp -

 

As the unit procurement costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter progressively converge with the unit costs of the F-22A Raptor, and the F-35 becomes progressively less survivable as threats evolve, it is time for the UK to cut its losses, bail out of the JSF program, and opt for the F-22A instead.

 

This was in 2009 he said that, no way are the UK ever gunna be A, allowed to buy the F22 and B, couldnt even afford it even if they were allowed to buy it.

 

He says the unit costs of the f35 is expensive, yet he would rather us buy something even more expensive, I dont understand the reasoning behind the above statement.

 

Flyaway cost as of 2010 for F35 is est89 million dollars, as projected by USAF in 2010. Roughly between 60 - 113 million dollars for the various different versions.

 

Flyaway cost for F22 as of 2009 was 150 million dollars, FY2009.

 

Obviously the f35 isnt a f22, and it is eminently less survivable in certain conditions, but the US isnt allowing export of the f22 even if we had the cash to buy it, which we dont.

 

That was known in 2009, so why say that we the uk should opt for the f22 ?

 

It seems a stupid thing to say knowing that the f22 isnt up for export or infact isnt even made anymore.

 

I am not gunna get into an arguement about his qualifications or whatever as I dont know the bloke and up until now havent read his site, but the above text is kinda stupid if you ask me, because he must know that the F22 isnt being exported to anyone, so the UK couldnt just leave the f35 programme and "Opt" for the F22 instead, as he puts it.

[exec]

Vault, all you do is contradict everything we say, and you clearly don’t want to know the truth. There is a lot of sources about ranges of this missiles. Exact capabilities of the missiles are classified, but there is a lot of available information which we can use to understand their capabilities. I can understand why you don’t want to accept AIM-120A chart – because its Russian. But there is evidence – F-16 HUD picture with flight parameters and range displayed. Why you don’t want to accept this is beyond me. Especially when the shot was taken inside [a]American[/b] aircraft and it confirms the Russian chart!

We know Adder has 20% better range than R-27R and we know exactly what is the max range of the R-27R. There is a lot of facts there. Enough to draw accurate conclusion. Of course if one want’s to draw that conclusion.

 

So far only the R-27R has proved to be false information.

Now you present selective memory. What about other things:

1. OLS-35 – false frontal sector detection range information.

2. Radar charts – comparing apples to oranges (long range mode detection range for Ru radars and tracking range for US radars on one chart). This is clearly a bias because he’s trying to make an impression of Russian radars having longer range than US radars.

3. False radar range data – for example 160km detection range vs 1m2 target for Bars radar when manufacturer claims 140km vs 3m2 target.

4. Comparing yesterday’s Us missiles with future(sometimes with unfunded and uncertain development status) Russian missiles. For example R-74 vs AIM-9M or R-77M with AIM-120C…

5. Biased/false charts for example: Graph with combat loaded (50% fuel + 2k lb weapons) Su-35 vs Super Hornet.

The chart shows superior wing loading and T/W ratio of the Flanker. Reality check: T/W ratio F-18E: 0,90 and Su-35: 0,86. Wing loading F-18E: 80 lb/ft, Su-35 83 lb/ft

6. Biased tone – when the Flanker is better at something he writes “Flanker outclasses Hornet”. When Hornet is better at something he writes “Hornet should be better, but Russian scientist are working on this so the Hornet won’t hold that advantage for long”.

7. Exaggerating/misleading information: “add some RAM here and there and the Flanker will have signature reduced to the level of the Super Hornet” or “40k lb supercruising AL-41 engines are already in LRIP so the Flankers soon will have better engines” Reality check: next gen supercruising engine will be ready in 10-12 years.

[tflash]

TVC is a waste of money. An RAF pilot is quoted saying "I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the advantages of TVC". I'd much rather see an AESA in the EF2K.

 

Well, actually the converse is being argued in the german press:

 

The fully digital 3D TVC they are working on is mainly used to complement the digitally controlled flight stability. When you use trim, there is always a drag penalty; since Eurofighter is an inherently unstable design it is continously micro-trimmed, which causes structural extra drag. This can be reduced by using TVC. A cost simulation has been proposed to the partner nations detailling how they would earn back the TVC investment over time.

 

Fuel economy is becoming a very important issue today, also for fighters. E.g. Super Hornet is cleared in the US to use the high altitude civil airways so as to save fuel.

[amalahama]

Well, actually the converse is being argued in the german press:

 

The fully digital 3D TVC they are working on is mainly used to complement the digitally controlled flight stability. When you use trim, there is always a drag penalty; since Eurofighter is an inherently unstable design it is continously micro-trimmed, which causes structural extra drag. This can be reduced by using TVC. A cost simulation has been proposed to the partner nations detailling how they would earn back the TVC investment over time.

 

Fuel economy is becoming a very important issue today, also for fighters. E.g. Super Hornet is cleared in the US to use the high altitude civil airways so as to save fuel.

 

What about the weight? TVC are quite heavy (they have to use powerful hydraulic actuator and reinforced materials), which penalize aircraft weight (thus increasing induced drag) and on the other hand, a heavy weight added at the end of the aircraft blow CG position up, forcing to put balance in the front of the aircraft (=more weight).

 

Regards!!

[tflash]

What about the weight? TVC are quite heavy (they have to use powerful hydraulic actuator and reinforced materials), which penalize aircraft weight (thus increasing induced drag) and on the other hand, a heavy weight added at the end of the aircraft blow CG position up, forcing to put balance in the front of the aircraft (=more weight).

 

Regards!!

 

On the second argument: it is proposed to balance the added weight for the AESA radar, the introduction of which implies adding ballast to the tail.

[EtherealN]

The question there, amalahama, would be: if this is noticeable, how much weight? And then the engineers run a few simulations and tests to find out if there is a net gain.

 

Do remember though that these planes are made to be unstable. I don't know how large margins they have, but I'd expect this to not be a huge problem, nor do I really think there will be all that much added weight. Do you have example numbers for how much weight would be added?

 

EDIT: I am too slow, thanks flash.

[Vault]

Vault, all you do is contradict everything we say, and you clearly don’t want to know the truth. There is a lot of sources about ranges of this missiles. Exact capabilities of the missiles are classified, but there is a lot of available information which we can use to understand their capabilities. I can understand why you don’t want to accept AIM-120A chart – because its Russian. But there is evidence – F-16 HUD picture with flight parameters and range displayed. Why you don’t want to accept this is beyond me. Especially when the shot was taken inside [a]American[/b] aircraft and it confirms the Russian chart!

We know Adder has 20% better range than R-27R and we know exactly what is the max range of the R-27R. There is a lot of facts there. Enough to draw accurate conclusion. Of course if one want’s to draw that conclusion.

Your putting 1 plus 1 together and coming up with 3. Show me an R-77 envelope from Vympel and then we can discuss this. Post the video. I've already proved that using Minizap is inaccurate, even the coder that makes Minizap states it's inaccurate by 10% and has distance and loft issues.

 

Now you present selective memory. What about other things:

1. OLS-35 – false frontal sector detection range information.

Prove that Kopp's estimation is false!. That abstract of information you posted on the OLS-35 is probably an advertisment for an export version of the OLS-35. Popular beleif is that the Russian's like to export "dumbed" down versions of the hardware their airforce is using. The specification in that list also uses a Su-30 as the target aircraft. Not all aircraft put out the same amout of IR. That ad is crap.

 

2. Radar charts – comparing apples to oranges (long range mode detection range for Ru radars and tracking range for US radars on one chart). This is clearly a bias because he’s trying to make an impression of Russian radars having longer range than US radars

Then provide the official radar chart for both the radar types.

3. False radar range data – for example 160km detection range vs 1m2 target for Bars radar when manufacturer claims 140km vs 3m2 target.

 

Then provide the official radar chart for both radars to prove your point and provide a link where Kopp states that.

4. Comparing yesterday’s Us missiles with future(sometimes with unfunded and uncertain development status) Russian missiles. For example R-74 vs AIM-9M or R-77M with AIM-120C….

 

As I said he an analyst maybe he's analysing the worst case scenario. No one can prove or disprove what the Russian's do and don't have in their weapons inventory.

 

The chart shows superior wing loading and T/W ratio of the Flanker. Reality check: T/W ratio F-18E: 0,90 and Su-35: 0,86. Wing loading F-18E: 80 lb/ft, Su-35 83 lb/ft.

 

Prove he's wrong. I see nothing about wing loading figures of the Su-35BM or the Su30 on the Sukhoi website. http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/

 

6. Biased tone – when the Flanker is better at something he writes “Flanker outclasses Hornet”. When Hornet is better at something he writes “Hornet should be better, but Russian scientist are working on this so the Hornet won’t hold that advantage for long”..

Like he said it's his website and he IS entitled to his own opinion.

 

7. Exaggerating/misleading information: “add some RAM here and there and the Flanker will have signature reduced to the level of the Super Hornet” or “40k lb supercruising AL-41 engines are already in LRIP so the Flankers soon will have better engines” Reality check: next gen supercruising engine will be ready in 10-12 years.

 

You make the accusation then you must be able to prove it. You can't dismiss the bloke without having some evidence.

[Vault]

On the second argument: it is proposed to balance the added weight for the AESA radar, the introduction of which implies adding ballast to the tail.

 

After TVC and AESA will that require adding ballast to the front?.

[GGTharos]

A lot can happen in 4 years. Including finding out that MZ can give reasonably accurate results. I used to talk quite a bit with SK and he was quite happy to see MZ giving a good match for ballistic properties.

 

Prove it doesn't. Quoting Fleeman or 4 year old post won't hack it.

 

5%, well you got that wrong the coder of Minizap states the error margin is a massive 10%, and that is compounded by the fact that this technique can also incur further error margins as stated by Fleeman.

 

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.msg560

 

 

 

Minizap is an estimation tool at the best. It's 90% accurate and the accuracy is further compounded by unknown variables which don't even give you a "reasonable" comparsion. I'm still waiting for your evidence on the R-77 simulation that brought you to your conclusion that the R-77 has less range than the AIM120A.

 

Now you used your Minizap "comparison" to argue that the AIM-120A has better range than the R-77. Can you prove that?.

 

The coder of Minizap makes all the statements below here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.msg560

 

"I don't have a solid confirmation that the results are accurate"

 

"I've found it educational and somewhat useful for rough comparative purposes"

 

"The errors result from (a) trajectory model, since this is mostly guesswork especially for loft, and (b) drag coefficient"

 

"Although it probably won't give absolute range/speed accurately"

 

"Some data for Russian missiles came from modern Russian-language journals "

[EtherealN]

Come on, do you really need charts to see the fundamental error in comparing one aircraft's Long Range Detection with another's tracking range? It would be wrong even if the comparison was only between Detection and Tracking, but now it's even worse since it's a very specific Detection mode.

 

As for analysing a worst case scenario... again: come on? You compare what the other side has with what you have. If your comparison is made on speculative hardware that you don't have information on you end up with worthless numbers - if it cannot be confirmed or denied that it's ever been more than a prototype in development, how is the numbers going to be useful? Or maybe Mr. Kopp has his own spy ring in Vympel giving him information...

 

When it comes to his underlying agenda, that of securing a purchase of Raptors instead of superbugs, wouldn't it be useful to work with those missiles that will be employed on said aircraft versus those missiles that will be employed by possible adversaries?

 

If we're going to make comparisons with stuff that's in some vague stage of development in russia, perhaps compare it against things that are in long-term development in the US?

 

Seriously, if you want to be skeptical, please apply the skeptical toolset to all sides. Right now you are applying skepticism to everything anyone says that breathes a word against Mr Kopp, but whatever he says you appear to be taking as gospel and the word of god. Why is what he says true until proven otherwise, while whatever anyone else says is false until proven otherwise? The proper method would be to apply the null hypothesis on both.

[exec]

Your putting 1 plus 1 together and coming up with 3. Show me an R-77 envelope from Vympel and then we can discuss this.

I have already showed it to you. If you have a problem with that envelope and don’t believe it’s from Vympel then you can check it. You know from official Vympel statements that R-77 range is at most 20% better than R-27R then you just have to use your brain and take R-27R envelope as a starting point and extrapolate ranges. Guess what – when you do that, you’ll get results almost identical to what you can see on the R-77 envelope.

 

 

Prove that Kopp's estimation is false!. That abstract of information you posted on the OLS-35 is probably an advertisment for an export version of the OLS-35

LOL I can’t believe that! I’ve already proven that the estimation is false! I gave you OLS-35 specification from manufacturer! It’s OLS-35 not some degraded version. Prove that I’m wrong.

 

Popular beleif is that the Russian's like to export "dumbed" down versions of the hardware their airforce is using. The specification in that list also uses a Su-30 as the target aircraft. Not all aircraft put out the same amout of IR. That ad is crap.

Popular belief? LOL :D So now you take popular belief and Kopp’s estimations over official manufacturer data! This is crap right? So you demand official sources and data but it doesn’t matter if I give you any source, even official one. You just disregard it and call it crap. This is pure trolling.

 

BTW: Su-35 is a large aircraft and has big IR signature. SH detection range will be even smaller.

 

 

 

 

 

Then provide the official radar chart for both the radar types.

 

 

Then provide the official radar chart for both radars to prove your point and provide a link where Kopp states that.

Why do I need to do that? Official data is just crap, right?

You can find official data for Bars radar on NIIP website. 140km look-up detection range using long range detection mode vs 3m2 target. Why on Kopp’s website there is 160km detection range vs 1m2 target?

Tracking range for the APG-77 is close to 120 nmi (requirement was 110 nmi, but it was beaten by 5% at least). Carlo takes that range and put it near ‘detection’ ranges of radars like BARS and it looks like these two radars have similar performance.

 

 

As I said he an analyst maybe he's analysing the worst case scenario. No one can prove or disprove what the Russian's do and don't have in their weapons inventory.

Why doesn’t he compare the R-77M to hypersonic scramjet version of JDRADM II? How can you prove that in US they don’t have this kind of weapons?

 

 

 

Prove he's wrong. I see nothing about wing loading figures of the Su-35BM or the Su30 on the Sukhoi website. http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/

I already did! Ok, just take calculator and do the math. Empty weight + half fuel + 2k lb / wing area. You’ll get the same results.

 

 

Like he said it's his website and he IS entitled to his own opinion.

Yes and that proves it’s not objective, but heavily biased.

 

 

 

You make the accusation then you must be able to prove it. You can't dismiss the bloke without having some evidence.

Yeah well, if you believe that you can reduce Flanker 20m2 RCS by just adding some RAM here and there to the level of the Super Hornet then it’s your choice. Hornet was redesign to have small RCS. It has blended airframe, S-ducts with radar blockers, some RAM materials, canted stabilizers which are aligned with the intakes and so on. Even Pogosyan said that using RAM treatment you can lower radar cross section by an order of magnitude at best. Well, Carlo believes something different. And you believe him implicitly.

And about engines: also Pogosyan said that if the development stats now the engine will be ready in 10-12 years. Again – Kopp seems to know better.

[Pilotasso]

EXEC, dont take too much effort, I have found out alot earlier that this quest is useless. This is more about face saving than anything else.

[Vault]

I have already showed it to you. If you have a problem with that envelope and don’t believe it’s from Vympel then you can check it. You know from official Vympel statements that R-77 range is at most 20% better than R-27R then you just have to use your brain and take R-27R envelope as a starting point and extrapolate ranges. Guess what – when you do that, you’ll get results almost identical to what you can see on the R-77 envelope.

 

 

But I'm not the only one who's had problems with that chart before am I? ;) . So do you have that evidence yet? Show me where that chart comes from then. You couldn't supply evidence over at F16.net and I see you still can't supply them now.

 

Remember this topic? http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13506-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html

 

LOL I can’t believe that! I’ve already proven that the estimation is false! I gave you OLS-35 specification from manufacturer! It’s OLS-35 not some degraded version. Prove that I’m wrong.

 

Popular belief? LOL So now you take popular belief and Kopp’s estimations over official manufacturer data! This is crap right? So you demand official sources and data but it doesn’t matter if I give you any source, even official one. You just disregard it and call it crap. This is pure trolling.

 

That advert is written in English and not Russian which is a clue that it's an advert for a dumbed down export version of the OLS-35 that's currently in the Su-35BM. Sure, I can't disprove that it isn't, but you can't prove that it's not. Anyway I'm not the only one who suspects that's for an export version. Anyway like I said the target is a Su-30 and not a Rhino and is that at cruise or with afterburner on?. I would also like to see where that information was abstracted from because I can't find that article on the official website. ;) www.niip-moskva.ru

 

BTW: Su-35 is a large aircraft and has big IR signature. SH detection range will be even smaller.

 

Now how would you know that?.

 

Why do I need to do that? Official data is just crap, right?

You can find official data for Bars radar on NIIP website. 140km look-up detection range using long range detection mode vs 3m2 target. Why on Kopp’s website there is 160km detection range vs 1m2 target?

Tracking range for the APG-77 is close to 120 nmi (requirement was 110 nmi, but it was beaten by 5% at least). Carlo takes that range and put it near ‘detection’ ranges of radars like BARS and it looks like these two radars have similar performance.

 

You keep stating this is official data but you fail to provide any links to this information. Lets see you provide links to the official information for all of the facts you just posted above. But we both know detection and tracking ranges of US systems are highly CLASSIFIED.

 

I already did! Ok, just take calculator and do the math. Empty weight + half fuel + 2k lb / wing area. You’ll get the same results.

 

Did you, great. I can't find anything about wing area from the manafacturers website. Considering Sukhoi have not released the official wing area of the Su-30 how did you manage to work that out? http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/

 

Yeah well, if you believe that you can reduce Flanker 20m2 RCS by just adding some RAM here and there to the level of the Super Hornet then it’s your choice. Hornet was redesign to have small RCS. It has blended airframe, S-ducts with radar blockers, some RAM materials, canted stabilizers which are aligned with the intakes and so on. Even Pogosyan said that using RAM treatment you can lower radar cross section by an order of magnitude at best. Well, Carlo believes something different. And you believe him implicitly.

And about engines: also Pogosyan said that if the development stats now the engine will be ready in 10-12 years. Again – Kopp seems to know better.

 

Highly doubtful it'll have the same RCS. Can you link to where Kopp says the Flanker will have the same RCS using RAM as the Rhino?.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

Fun quotes:

 

Read back to yourself your last sentence. Do you really think Sukhoi with absolutely ZERO experience in operational LO aircraft can field an aircraft "in the same RCS ballpark" as the USAF 6th Generation of LO aircraft(F-35)? WHen I call the APA incompetent I'm being charitable. In reality they are most likely using the Web as a platform to launch an agenda. Remember what I said about people being stuck in the cold war mind set and not wanting to change even if the battlefield they trained for no longer exist. APA is a tool that can be used by officials unofficially to throw mud. When "enthusiast" who are passionate and ummm how shall I say it politely, "misinformed" of the details get ahold to it. It creates a buzz. Buzz that is heard by politicians and used against voices of reason. Think about who the beneficiaries are.

 

The only other alternative is utter incompetence AND agenda.

 

-DA

In case you haven't noticed, no one of any importance really listens to them, which should say something. Of course, they blame this all on "groupthink" in various governments, rather than considering maybe their analyses aren't really accurate.

 

 

"Detailed strategic analysis"...lol. WTF? What detailed analysis? Okay, lets give them a pass for a second. SO I guess we gotta terminate the F-35, all our obviously outclassed F-teens and guess what. BUY MORE F-22's they just finished telling you that PAK FA outclasses...LMAO. YOu have to wonder does anyone actually proof read anything on that website! Never mind the fact that F-22 cannot handle all TACAIR needs!

 

What utter incompetence. I hope this simple to debunk APA nonsense shows all the quality of an APA analysis or rather the lack thereof. Never reference APA if the intent is to be taken seriously...

 

-DA

 

 

 

Remember this topic? http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13506-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html

 

Edited August 13, 2010 by GGTharos

[exec]

That advert is written in English and not Russian which is a clue that it's an advert for a dumbed down export version of the OLS-35 that's currently in the Su-35BM.

Soviet era is over. Russia is now exporting things better than what they have (R-77, Su-30MK, Bars Radar and so on). Well if you think this is downgraded version then I think this is upgraded superb export version.

 

Sure, I can't disprove that it isn't, but you can't prove that it's not.

Yeah right, and I call it trolling. I gave you official OLS-35 data and now you want me to prove that its real OLS-35. And if I post OLS-35 data in Russian then you'd want me to prove if it's not some kind of fake. So first you want evidence, when the evidence is presented you want to prove that it's not a fake. And when it comes out that it's not a fake you want to prove that this is not about something degraded or stripped or something else. And even if I could prove that this is not something downgraded you'd want me to prove that the proof is real! :D You always bring the discussion to impossibility. It IS pure trolling.

 

Anyway like I said the target is a Su-30 and not a Rhino and is that at cruise or with afterburner on?.

Well if it's MAX range then it should be with AB.

 

 

I would also like to see where that information was abstracted from because I can't find that article on the official website. ;) www.niip-moskva.ru

Look better.

 

 

 

Now how would you know that?.

Because Su-35 is much bigger and easier to spot by optical sensors?

 

 

 

You keep stating this is official data but you fail to provide any links to this information. Lets see you provide links to the official information for all of the facts you just posted above. But we both know detection and tracking ranges of US systems are highly CLASSIFIED.

For BARS radar check rosobronexport catalogue or NIIP website. For APG-77 range check ATF requirements, for APG-81 I think there is information somewhere on NG website or some NG documents. Why should I give you anything more? No matter what I give you - you disregard it. Spend some time and dig something by yourself.

 

 

 

Highly doubtful it'll have the same RCS. Can you link to where Kopp says the Flanker will have the same RCS using RAM as the Rhino?.

No, but it's easy to find. I did it in less than 60 seconds.

[Vault]

Fun quotes:

 

I can post some fun quotes too. ;)

 

around 90% is based on verifiable unclassified data

 

I don't have a solid confirmation that the results are accurate

 

The errors result from (a) trajectory model, since this is mostly guesswork especially for loft, and (b) drag coefficient

 

Some data for Russian missiles came from modern Russian-language journals (there was a good series in M-Hobby in recent years)

 

It may come as a surprise to you, but those of us who do use these tools understand what some of the problems with those are, and we have an idea of how to use them to make our comparisons.

Our first confirmation that minizap (as well as our guesses concerning missile fuels and other things) was reasonably accurate if you could plug in the right parameters, was when we got very accurate ballistic charts for the AIM-9L in its basic and 'future missile' test configuration (they were testing part of aerodynamics for AMRAAM on it). Minizap (With our guess) ended up over-estimating about 5%, which we knew it would do - it does this for ALL missiles, so that error can be ignored.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, have you actually read them? They tell you someting different than what you are trying to imply ;)

 

Kopp is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. Get over it.

 

I can post some fun quotes too. ;)

[Vault]

Soviet era is over. Russia is now exporting things better than what they have (R-77, Su-30MK, Bars Radar and so on). Well if you think this is downgraded version then I think this is upgraded superb export version.

 

Like I said I'm far from the only one that beleives that. :)

 

 

Yeah right, and I call it trolling. I gave you official OLS-35 data and now you want me to prove that its real OLS-35. And if I post OLS-35 data in Russian then you'd want me to prove if it's not some kind of fake. So first you want evidence, when the evidence is presented you want to prove that it's not a fake. And when it comes out that it's not a fake you want to prove that this is not about something degraded or stripped or something else. And even if I could prove that this is not something downgraded you'd want me to prove that the proof is real! :D You always bring the discussion to impossibility. It IS pure trolling.

 

 

Well if it's MAX range then it should be with AB.

 

:) ;)

 

 

Look better.

 

Your source, you provide the links, that's how it works.

 

 

Because Su-35 is much bigger and easier to spot by optical sensors?

 

ROFL. OK, IR eyes!.

 

 

For BARS radar check rosobronexport catalogue or NIIP website. For APG-77 range check ATF requirements, for APG-81 I think there is information somewhere on NG website or some NG documents. Why should I give you anything more? No matter what I give you - you disregard it. Spend some time and dig something by yourself.

 

Links please.

[exec]

ROFL. OK, IR eyes!.

Don't tell me that you didn't know that IRST are optical sensors?:doh:

[Vault]

Don't tell me that you didn't know that IRST are optical sensors?:doh:

 

No of course I don't what does the IR bit stand for?. :D

[Vault]

BTW: Su-35 is a large aircraft and has big IR signature. SH detection range will be even smaller.

Now how would you know that?.

Because Su-35 is much bigger and easier to spot by optical sensors?

ROFL. OK, IR eyes!.

 

Classic.

 

Well if it's MAX range then it should be with AB.

 

You've gone quiet. :) Do you reckon it's a coincidence?. With or without AB that's the question. But we both know don't we. ;)

 

 

Edited August 13, 2010 by Vault

[exec]

You've gone quiet. :)

Because there isn't any discussion with you - you're just a waste of time.

 

Do you reckon it's a coincidence?. With or without AB that's the question. But we both know don't we. ;)

If it's without AB then the detection range would be greater with AB, so maybe that's not max detection range. Maybe the 90km rear hemisphere detection range is also without AB(or maybe even with engines turned-off -I can't prove that this is not the case) so the detection range with AB should be like 200km.:D Of course then there is no explanation why there is so big difference between frontal and rear hemisphere detection ranges.

Personally I think the frontal hemisphere range of 35km can only be achieved when there you there is a fire in a cockpit. Otherwise the range would be much smaller. Prove that I'm wrong.

[topol-m]

This thread is awesome :D

Next in the list of "must be started" threads:

 

In "Military and Aviation" section:

"Su-35 vs F-22", "Mig-35 vs F-35", "EF-2000 vs Su-30", "EF-2000 vs F-15SE", "Su-35 vs F-15SE", "Rafale vs Su-30", "PAK-FA vs F-22", "PAK-FENG :doh: owning everything"

 

In "Digital Combat Simulation" section:

"I want DCS:F-22, when is it coming ED?", "DCS: T-1000 brings the combat to the ground"

 

In "Chit-chat" section:

"Are the 5th gen fighters going to save us from the aliens in 2012?" (this is serious stuff should be moved by moderators in Military and Aviation)

[Boberro]

Yeah it is really funny thread :D