Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: SU-35 maneurous  (Read 4502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16370
  • Ask me if I care.
    • Friendly Fire isn't.
Re: SU-35 maneurous
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2017, 05:28:06 AM »

Sorry guys, you are obviously wrong ....... why would a Russian "independent military analyst" lie ......    ;)
Russian Proganda at it's most pathetic.

And once again the ancient story of shooting at 5th gen. planes from 400km comes up, with the pathetic statement "The radar of the Su-35 can detect targets at a distance of up to 400km if they have a radar cross section of just 3 square meters".
Oh yeah, how cool, just 3 square meters eh?
Too bad the F-22 has a typical RCS of 0.0001m² only.
At what distance can the Su-35 radar detect that? 400 meters maybe?
And how many AIM-120 missiles did it swallow up to then, with it's "small" typical RCS of 4m²?

Back to the drawing boards my dearest Suchoi engineers and mind you, this isn't "Dawn of Flight" anymore.

Best regards - Mike
Logged
Learn. Challenge. Improve. In loving memory of the times when I cared...

Koty

  • Mr. MiG
  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1993
  • It's a MiG!
Re: SU-35 maneurous
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2017, 12:28:00 PM »


At what distance can the Su-35 radar detect that? 400 meters maybe?
And how many AIM-120 missiles did it swallow up to then, with it's "small" typical RCS of 4m²?

we won't know until someone tries

as for manouverabillity - better safe than sorry, right?


As online fights in DCS show - things can go from BVR to "Dawn of flight" fights quite fast, but according to people the reliability of the missiles there is too low.

HOWEVER even so, when things go from bad to worse, the supermanouverability of Su's plays much less important role than people make it out to have.

But still - better safe than sorry.
Logged
If I don't have to do it, I won't. If I have to do it, I'll make it quick.

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16370
  • Ask me if I care.
    • Friendly Fire isn't.
Re: SU-35 maneurous
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2017, 10:44:21 PM »

Sure thing, with "supermanouverability" it's the same like with any other gadget:
It won't hurt if it comes without detriment, so in that case better to have it than not.

However there's a correlation between stealth characteristics and manouverabillity from an aerodynamical point of view and I'm afraid that the Su's design focused on the latter and paid for it by neglecting the first.

If your plane has the abilities to dominate an opponent at BVR but is inferior in a WVR dogfight, then it's a matter of situational awareness whether you let a WVR dogfight happen or not.
Quite contrary, in contemporary "match test" fights it's a matter of the rules of engagement, that's why you can find all kind of strange results from such tests.
This is no news.

We know so at least since the german reunification, when the western german Luftwaffe took over the MiG-29A from the NVA, converted them to MiG-29G (upgraded avionics to match NATO standards) and integrated them into JG73, side by side with their Phantoms.

In "How to fly and fight in the MiG-29 (Jane’s At the Controls)" (ISBN-13: 978-0004721446), Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck who, after flying the F-4 Phantom, became commander of the only Luftwaffe MiG-29 squadron, recalls:
Quote
But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and R-73 ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

So the MiG is superior? Not at all. Mind you: "we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR".
The limitations he is talking about are mentioned earlier in the interview:
Quote
(...starting off with range limitations...)
Another limitation of the aircraft was its radar that was at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and was not line-repairable: if a MiG-29 experienced a radar problem, the aircraft went back into the hangar.

The radar had a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this was compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar had reliability and lookdown/shootdown problems, hence  its poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and moreover it couldn’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead.

Due to these limitations the integration in the NATO environments of the Luftwaffe MiG-29s was really hard and restricted to only few roles: as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defense, and as wing (but not lead) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations.

Nevertheless the onboard systems were still too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system. These restrictions brought to several problems that the Fulcrum pilots faced in tactical scenarios, such as a  poor presentation of the radar information (which led to poor situational awareness and identification problems), a short BVR weapons range and a bad navigation system.

So there we are, with a typical design feature (and at the same time: flaw) of russian jets of that time, they're great at close range but lack sufficient capabilities to ever get there in a real balanced combat situation.

Best regards - Mike
Logged
Learn. Challenge. Improve. In loving memory of the times when I cared...

Toobone

  • Mapper
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 308
Re: SU-35 maneurous
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2017, 06:45:55 AM »

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 28 queries.