Su-35S: News

GarryB wrote:In which case they would not drop them which means a higher drag penalty.

Isos wrote:You can found the consumption of the engines on the web and calculate it depending what fuel tank you take

But fuel isn't the only issue. I read somewhere that Rafale is more limited by the oil for its system during long flight than fuel.

You can't just refuel a plane and fly it 24/7. At one moment you will have other issues that will oblige you to land.

And like in cars no oil can destroy the engine.

P.S: my 4000km number seems to high. Like LMFS wrote its more 3600.

I think they can be dropped can't they?

In any case the use and discarding of EFTs is wasteful and forces the planes relying on them to dedicate their most capable suspension points to fuel rather than payload, effectively turning very nice looking payload capabilities in way less stellar figures in actual missions. With Flankers 8 t payload is the actual amount of weapons they can carry in real missions and that makes a big difference.

owais.usmani wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:
Great pic.  Can someone identify the unknown to me weapons?  I see wingtip jamming pods, R-73/74. R-77-1 or AD? the newer longer range which I barely identified with the tapered end and I have no idea what the red ones are?  And are they red because they're inert used for testing?

owais.usmani wrote:

LMFS wrote:Observe how he does not talk about the Su-57, which does not indulge in the same kind of predictable layout and could hardly be considered inferior in the aero department to the Su-35, actually the feedback of the pilots is the opposite. There are some aspects of the stealth design that are indeed good for aero, like internal bays or the fuselage chines, which can create lift at positive AoA. Another aspect is the supercruising requirements, present in the 5G but much less in the Flanker. But of course LO design is an additional restriction in the already very restrictive field of aircraft design, so of course he has a point IMHO.

Hole wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:

In reality why would you have such a loadout?

Both A2G and anti-ship missiles?

The Kh-35U can hit ground targets as well and the ARM can be used to hit the radars of ships.

LMFS wrote:Observe how he does not talk about the Su-57, which does not indulge in the same kind of predictable layout and could hardly be considered inferior in the aero department to the Su-35, actually the feedback of the pilots is the opposite. There are some aspects of the stealth design that are indeed good for aero, like internal bays or the fuselage chines, which can create lift at positive AoA. Another aspect is the supercruising requirements, present in the 5G but much less in the Flanker. But of course LO design is an additional restriction in the already very restrictive field of aircraft design, so of course he has a point IMHO.

lyle6 wrote:There's not much indication that the Su-57 sacrifices any aspect of its aerodynamics for stealth unlike just about every other stealth design out there. On the contrary, it could very well be the opposite - the Su-57 could be even better than the supposedly second-to-none in the aerodynamics department Su-35. Its simple really - the Russians know something the rest of the world doesn't. Ufimstev couldn't have only worked on PTD, in all likelihood he and his collaborators would have worked on many other related developments which have never made it out of the Soviet Union. This difference in theoretical background knowledge would have substantial implications most prominent of which is a more harmonious melding of stealth and aerodynamics of Russian designs (as well as the high stakes gamble that the Russians have placed on echeloned, netted AD against trillions of dollars worth of stealth).

Backman wrote:Yeah he probably excluded the su 57 and the YF-23 in the opening lineup because they are true blend wings. I suspect an episode about blend wings will be coming.

The midwing strakes looked too long to me to be Kh-38, plus the fact that the Kh-38 has nose mounted fins on the actual missile, I would expect the red coloured dummy would have those nose mounted strakes there too.:

GarryB wrote:

(centre missile from Vitalys excellent site.)

LMFS wrote:

What is the monster missile on the left?

That looks like an air dropped bomb with some kind of guidance kit.