China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
I would love the agree with you, but I really don't think it will, and I will say up front, I am not a canard fan, and after reading neutralize, it will certainly be in the ball game, but for any post stall up close war gaming, I'm just not convinced. But my wife tells me I just love to argue.sorry bro Now its sinking in, if your talking J-10 or Raphael, ummmm huummmh, yeah, I will buy that!
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
canards do stall, the only limiting factor on thrust vectoring nozzles is the engine-inlet integration, it means as long as the inlet feeds the engine with air, the TVC nozzle won`t have troubles, F-22 and Su-35 for such reasons do not need canards.
The Su-35 dispensed of canards simply because it has 3D TVC nozzles in pitch and yaw, a canard will only work in conjunction with TVC nozzles like Su-37 or X-31, but the regular Su-33 is not match for the the Su-35BM, the original Su-37 was ahead in maneovrability to the Su-27M (first su-35 with canards) in fact Frolov`s chakra can only be performed on the Su-37, Su-27M only expanded the cobra with the hook but still could not made the the Chakra, no Eurocanard can do the chakra, only the X-31 with thrust vectoring paddles can have Su-37 like agility.
If China will built something like Su-35 they need something like 117s, they might get it in the future either if the develop an engine by their own or by directly one from Russia.
J-11B has more or less Russian equivalents in the first Su-27 upgraded years ago
Last edited:
Su-33 is hardly a fine example. By trying to force a non canard design in redesigning with canard. It hardly changes anything fundemental of its physics characteristic. Anyway, the canard on Su-33 is mainly for lifting to faciliate carrier ops rather than improving its flight characteristic.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Try to fight a JAS-39 versus an F-22 and you will see canards are not synonim of agility, any way what makes an aircraft agile is the max lift/drag ratio it can get and its max thrust weight ratio; Thrust vectoring is an extra vector component that stabilizes a jet when lift has failed due to aerodynamic stall, that is the reason it is used for post stall.
Su-35BM has TVC nozzles and deleted canards why? because thrust vectoring can do things canards can not.
J-11B is just a mere Su-27SK with modernized chinese avionics, the airframe and engine are first generation flanker, J-15 is the same, Su-27K was modified structurally adding weight changing longitudinal stability, they added canards just to regain the lost negative sttability lost when the navalized it.
Su-27M added canards for the same reasons but added more powerful engines to allow for the hook maneuvre, but Su-37 added thrust vectoring to make the frolov`s chakra.
The Su-35BM can beat a fighter like Rafale simply because it will achieve turn rates higher than Su-27 by adding higher thrust to weight increasing sustained turn rates and by adding higher turns rates thanks to thrust vectoring nozzles, if it need post stall it will beat any fighter with the delta canard without thrust vectoring nozzles.
That alleged super agility of TVC fighters is still overrated to some extent I think. I remember an account of a EF pilot on an excersice in India against MKIs. At altitudes over 10.000ft I think the MKIs would do their cobra style maneuvers only nose down (i.e. roll inverted first & then pull), to have gravitiy aid them in immediately gaining forward speed again. Seemingly because at these altitudes they were afraid of inducing a compressor stall with the air already rather thin & a disrupted airflow to the engine. Plus these aircraft, with an opertional loadout, are indeed rather heavy.
If you get suprised by such a maneuver you will overshoot and stuff, but if you can see what's coming there's a way of pulling up & away to create turning room for yourself, stay clear of his Weapons Employment Zone, and come around for another attack.
Adding to that, after one of these post stall stunts you're so much out of energy, and therefore out of options, if you mess up the one chane you may have, or if there's a second opponent, you've pretty much had it.
If you get suprised by such a maneuver you will overshoot and stuff, but if you can see what's coming there's a way of pulling up & away to create turning room for yourself, stay clear of his Weapons Employment Zone, and come around for another attack.
Adding to that, after one of these post stall stunts you're so much out of energy, and therefore out of options, if you mess up the one chane you may have, or if there's a second opponent, you've pretty much had it.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Mig29, I'm sure that Russia has incrementally upgraded her fleet of Sukhois. But however the one that bears the closest resemblance, in terms of upgrades, to the Chinese Flanker is the Su-35. The Su35S is pretty much the only one that incorporates a significant level of radar absorbent material, composites, avionics upgrades, sensor fusion, that is comparable to the Chinese Flanker. I wouldn't compare two planes based on the sole fact that they are upgraded, but I would on the fact that their upgrades are similar. I see very similar goals and results in the upgrade programs for the Russian Su35S and the Chinese Flankers.
---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------
The engines and airframe on the J11B and J15 are not the same as the original. They incorporate 132 kN engines, as opposed to the 123 kN engines of the Su-27, and as well as over 700 kg weight reduction by composites and a 500% RCS reduction by radar absorbent materials. All of its internal technologies were changed. For example, it has been upgraded with various 5th generation technologies such as AESA radar, radar absorbent material, MAWS, IRST, etc.
Like I said, the only link between the J11B, J15, and the old Flankers is the fuselage design. They are essentially brand new fighters.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
People usually use this example to claim thrust vectoring is not an aid, but i will put it in context.
If you have a J-11B without thrust vectoring against a J-10, and a Su-35BM or Su-30SM against a J-10, the differences in agility will be important.
First thrust vectoring increases your instantaneous turn rate, if the Su-27/J-11 has instantaneous of 28 deg/sec, the Su-35 might have one of 30-31 deg/s just by adding thrust vectoring, add the increased power of the new 117 engine and you will increase the sustained turn rate perhaps near 23-24 deg/s from an original of 21 deg/sec.
Due to the greater
increase in the instantaneous turning rate, the aircraft agility
is apparently upgraded; this is more advantageous to air combat.
Thrust vectoring control increases the
persistent turn rate and the instantaneous turn rate of the
aircraft, thus considerably upgrading aircraft agility.
Especially at low speeds, thrust vectoring control greatly
upgrades the aircraft maneuverability and stability, thus
considerably upgrading the close air combat performance of the
plane.
So now you have a fighter that has increased agility without increasing wing area or reducing wing loading.
So a Su-35 can easily tangle with a J-10 or Eurofighter.
Now add increased range and stealth, yes this means thanks to less use in tailplanes and flaperons the range is increased so this will add increases in thrust.
just by pure conventional roll and turns thrust vectoring has added increased agility.
Thrust vectoring can greatly improve the maneuverability of an aircraft such as
turning, useful in combat to out maneuver non thrust vector controlled enemy
aircraft.
Now post stall, post stall is to be used with care, but cobra or hook are not the only maneuvres to be used in combat, in fact post stall allows to fight in a way no other fighter can, it means when a eurofighter is on a head on course with a Su-35 and the eurofighters is flying behind after the head on pass, the Su-35 can turn quicker to kill the EUrofighter in maneuvres such as moongose, helicopter.
Add Su-35 can supercruise, in supercruise the Thrust vectoring will reduce drag and aerodynamic control, so here you have increased stealth.
So in few words J-11B can not tangle with Su-35 in performance and Su-30SM will be the same on a smaller scale.
J-10 is probably better in instantaneous turn rate to the vintage Su-27 and even MiG-29, it probably rolls better, but so is Eurofighter or Rafale due to lower wing loading.
However thrust vectoring will re-gain the advantage for Su-35 in way it simply can down any other jet with canards even having a higher wing loading.
F-22 is even more lethal becuase it lacks external stores so it can achieve turn rates higher than a fully loaded J-10 or Eurofighter at max weapons load, T-50 is probably even better tha F-22 and the Russians say better than F-22 in agility, for the same reason no external stores.
Su-35BM carries external stores so it will limit its agility
---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------
Powerplant: 1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Dry thrust: 79.43 kN / 89.17 kN (17,860 lbf / 20,050 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 122.5 kN[11] / 132 kN (27,557 lbf / 29,101 lbf)
Officially the WS-10 is a 132, still not as powerful to the 117 or the new Al-31F-2 that are going or are being fit to new Su-35s or future Su-30SM
In terms of engineering, the engines are substantially modified AL-31F production engines employing fifth-generation technologies. They use a new fan, new high and low pressure turbines, and a new digital control system. A provision is made for using a vectored thrust nozzle. The modernization has increased the engine special mode thrust by 16%, up to 14,500 kgf. In the maximum burner-free mode it reaches 8,800 kgf. Compared to today’s AL-31F engines, their capabilities will grow substantially, by 2 to 2.7 times. For instance, the between-repair period will grow from 500 to 1,000 hours (the operating period before the first overhaul is 1,500 hours). The designed period will vary between 1,500 and 4,000 hours
AL-31F M2 engine contemplated by OKB Sukhogo (Sukhoi Design Bureau)
28 February 2012, Moscow – Technical experts gathered at FSUE “Gas-Turbine Engineering RPC “Salut” for a conference to review the results of Salut's R&D efforts towards implementing the 2nd Phase of the AL-31F engine modernization (known as AL-31F M2). OKB Sukhogo is showing interest in the engine upgrade to pursue the repowering program of Su-27SM and Su-34 aircraft of the Russian Air Force.
The R&D appraisal meeting – the first one after a five years' pause – saw the participation of all the parties concerned: “OKB “Sukhogo”, “Lyulka NTTs”, “United Aircraft Corporation” and “United Engine-Building Corporation”. The project status report was presented by Sergey Rodyuk, who noted that all the activities for the second phase of the engine upgrade had been in close adherence to the specified timeframes. The special program of the 2nd phase engine bench tests in the climatic test facility at TsIAM has by now been completed with the results demonstrating the engine's capability of attaining 14 500 kgf of static thrust and proving its design performance parameters in flight conditions. Compared with the first-phase AL-31FM, the latest iteration has a 9% higher thrust during flight operation.
check all data is official
Last edited:
Well, frankly I don't intent to downplay the benefits of TVC to agility in general and I agree with a lot of what you say. I see the point of TVC allowing to change direction (or trim the A/C) without the penalty of the added drag that comes from deflecting a control surface.
The single point that I criticise is that (to me at least it seems) these air-show style backflip maneuvers seem to be overhyped as game changers in air combat.
From a defensive position they really seem to be a last ditch maneuver. In the other example, i.e. at/after the merge when trying to get your nose onto the opponent again, I'm also not so sure really. All the time I see these stunts, it appears to me (although that's probably more guesswork) that the planes are moving rather slow anyway. I wonder if all that will be just as controlled when you arrive at the merge with 550-600kts and then do such a pull.
The single point that I criticise is that (to me at least it seems) these air-show style backflip maneuvers seem to be overhyped as game changers in air combat.
From a defensive position they really seem to be a last ditch maneuver. In the other example, i.e. at/after the merge when trying to get your nose onto the opponent again, I'm also not so sure really. All the time I see these stunts, it appears to me (although that's probably more guesswork) that the planes are moving rather slow anyway. I wonder if all that will be just as controlled when you arrive at the merge with 550-600kts and then do such a pull.
Quite true Scratchman, and Col Max Moga, Owner/Operator of the last Raptor, ie squadron commander of the F-22's at Elemendor, "yes I know he's just a telephone Col.", long story I'd love to tell about my old man, but when he was the first Raptor demo pilot, said as much on the old "Airshow Buzz" forum. No "real Cobra", because it was/is tactically irrelevent, for the reasons you note, so mig don't try this in real life with a bogey on your tail, someone will "toast your buns" for you. And yes the Raptor will do a "real Cobra", just ain't gonna happen at an airshow, or in real A2A, and yes three d nozzles are "way more cool" than 2 d nozzles, but heavier and lots more complicated. I would love to know what entry speed is on Pugachev Cobe, guessing somewhere between 200 to 300 knots give or take 50 knots. And your right scratch, if you want to pick up speed you want to roll inverted and pull keeping positive g on you and the airframe, rather than pushing the stick forward and pulling neg g, assuming you have sufficient altitude.
You are a bright lad, and TVC is a game changer, esp at Mach 1.6+ in supercruise, can you say Lock On!
Last edited:
- Status