GunshipDemocracy wrote:and comparing Su-57 with Yak38 of Harrier (cheers to GarryB
) is?
Yeah, more or less the same level of unfairness. As said, without the endless billions thrown at it and the awesome F-135 the F-35B is simply inconceivable. You need to level technologies involved.
Su-33 takes 5,7oo kg of fuel (vs F-35(6,045 kg) in normal regime for a reason - too heavy and poor performance to start and land. This 9400kg is max unlikely used with full load (which is less then F-35 anyway)
? Where do you take this from? Different missions call for different loads, that is all. Payload of Su-33 in your own data is the same as F-35B. But given it is an A2A aircraft this is hardly an issue.
MTOW of Su-33 is clearly stated (33.000 kg), if you want to suspect, the undefined "60.000 lb class" of the F-35B should be the first place to look at. Refusing to provide MTOW of a plane is a way to hide overweight problems.
it is possible canards also frame and landing gear has to be reworked. The you got very expensive fighter (Su-35 + 30-40%) again with reduced both fuel and payload. Do you think STOBAR costs nothing? Of why Su-33 with 2x 125kN engines have only 6500kgs max and 5700 fuel?
The dance of the data... do not invent the 5700 kg fuel please.
That a reinforced structure and couple of features adds a +40% extra cost to a plane while an additional propulsion system only adds a 1% to the F-35 as you submit sounds simply ridiculous to me. F-35C has other role and is significantly bigger than the baseline model, apart from being a naval fighter, which severely distorts the comparison.
STOBAR starting from CTOL has a cost, but I do not see the reason for it being so big, apart from the effects of building so few of them as in Su-33. Do you think a especially developed STOVL fighter, built in very limited numbers and with the special propulsion system would be cheaper than a STOBAR plane developed from a CTOL Russian plane with robust undercarriage?? And what about the several billions in STOVL development? If you add that to the 50(?) units you will procure the result is appalling (100 million development costs for 5 billion development and 50 units) For reference, total cost of development of Su-57 was about 10 billion IIRC
Does it make sense to use specialized air-superiority fighter as multi-role/attack one?
If you conceive now a naval fighter in Russia it would be multirole with high probability, but the T-10 platform is perfectly apt, even the Su-35 can do that. The Su-57 is multirole by definition. Even when the function of the carrier is AD, it doesn't make sense to limit a modern aircraft in that way, especially with a platform so capable as the Sukhois. It is the F-35 that has a serious limitation in that regard, for evident reasons of size and design.
no need to manipulation A is land version Compare Su-33 and Su-35 perhaps? consider B and C. So B is one ton lighter.
Su-33 and Su-35 are in different technological levels.
C and B have different roles, as said above. Baseline for the B version is the A, limited to 7 g, without cannon, 2.4 ton less fuel, 1.5 ton heavier etc. etc. C version has bigger range, bigger wing and is meant for more demanding requirements as attack plane the B version cannot compete with.
Endless money is thrown because it was designed CTOL unnecessary and CATOBAR too and stealth on top of it.
In fact I submit the only accomplished version of the F-35 is the STOVL. It is a breakthrough compared to the Harrier while the A and C versions are rather retrograde in many aspects. The whole program was shaped to get and optimized STOVL plane IMHO.
Compare 6,5tons Su-33 vs 8tons of Su-35 or better copare both:
You assume the Su-33 is a navalized Su-35 which it is clearly not.
MiG-29k F-35B (VSTOL)
payload - 5,500 kgs [/b] 6800 kgs
combat radius 850km 930km
top speed 22000 km/h 1930 km/h
range 1500km 1700km
length 17,3 m 15,4m
wingspan 12m 10,7m
Still using wrong data even when I pointed out previously... fine. BTW MiG-35 with new design and same empty weight as MiG-29K has 2000 km range, even when MiG-29 is not a especially accomplished design in that regard (was not the requirement as point defence fighter). Consider in turn that MiG-29 was designed for older engines so it needed a disciplined aero and low cross-sectional area. With a 5G engine it could either have bigger cross section as the F-35 for more fuel or simply crush it (even more than the current MiG-29) in the kinematic aspects. If your AD fighter is a turkey compared to the enemy's 4G then you are engaging in buying expensive an fancy STVOL toys that will be shot down from the sky.
BTW, feeling tempted to research deeper on real STOVL capacities of F-35B now, after so many outlandish claims like STOVL operation with 6800 kg payload and full fuel... For instance, max thrust in STVOL mode is 40.500 lb, so it will make an extra short TO with 60.000 weight right? Will research a bit and let you know what I find but this definitely makes no sense.
Please note that MiG cannot start from KUZ w/o ski jump and land vertically on short strip w/o arrested landing?!
I noticed, it is a STOBAR fighter... it is good the K has all the necessary equipment. QE also has ski jump even when conceived for the F-35B
there is no CTOL on CV/Ns
on carriers you got F-18/Rafale/F-35 (all on STOBAR) and in pair with 1900 speed, so nope it is not less effective.
I meant the speed limit of the F-35 is way too low. And since US uses their planes for colonial wars they will of course find CTOL opponents. Or 2.2 M Su-33s...
Actually for strange reason they say somewhere 1,6 Ma on altitude but everywhere is 1200mph (which is ~1940km/h or 1,6Ma bt on sea level.
Thus until I have no test results let me please stick to 1200miles/h
I suspect this is incorrect and comes from laziness to check speed of sound at altitude, but stand to be corrected. I know no plane that reaches max speed at low altitude. And the F-35's aero is especially difficult in supersonic flight.
True but its all we got, in such case how one can assume that Su or MiG data are correct?
Fair enough, I suspect we are not given very good data either. But at least if you put some data on Wiki you should know how to make a sum...
on 5400kgs or 9400kgs with no payload because this is relevant too. BTW Su-33 is 2x bigger and 10000 kgs heavier not perfect comparison to me.
MTOW of Su-33 is stated 33 ton, than means max fuel + 5 ton payload. That would be a whole f*cking lot of AAMs!
Su-33 is not that much heavier than F-35, or rather the F-35B is no light fighter at all.
Empty weight 14.7 vs 18.4 ton
MTOW 27.2 vs 33 ton
Su-33 is not twice bigger!! But it is a honest heavy fighter instead a overweight light fighter turned bomb truck like the F-35. And given it has a very good wing fold it can be packed as densely as the F-35 while being much cheaper.
hmm and does it matter why? it always significantly expensive. In case of F-35 is 50-50 between VSTOL and CATOBAR so here series is fairly long. In Sukhoi case is should be relatively even more expensive.
Wiki says Su-27 - 30mlns $ Su-33 50mln $. 70% more per unit then.
Have to research this, honestly does not make sense to me. Additionally, I does not work the same in terms of unit costs if you plan the STOVL version from the beginning like in F-35 or develop the STOBAR afterwards like the Su33
yet still is ~50% longer. BTW so you want to fold Su-57 wings with internal weapon bays? or base on 60 years old airframe? good luck with both!
Su-33 is 35% longer than F-35. F-35B is 45% wider than Su-33
What do weapons bays have to do with wing fold?
I want to see what type of AWACS especially 4 units fits there first. If ti goes to Arctic where you fit air-wing under deck?!
Besides you need to buy 1 CV + 1 LHD to have a complet. This looks 2x more expensive to me.
No idea what kind of storage and hangar capacity is planed in that light carrier but I would expect Artic conditions should have been considered (Northern fleet being the main one in RuN)
They are going conventional. That means a LHD with STOVL still will not replace the CV (no AWACS there for instance). Discussion is whether STOVL will replace STOBAR fighters aboard the carrier. And that would make no sense to many here, once you plan a full flying deck with arresting gear, sky jump and even catapults from what we read from Russian sources (development of EMALS also confirmed several times)
But why do you suggest only extreme solutions exist? either no LHAs or only mammoth sized CVNs ? US plans to use LHA as light carriers for specific missions too. Earlier in this or previous thread I've quoted US military doc about strategy where LHA were to be used as light sea control whips.
No, you are suggesting STOVL is superior since it takes off faster. Which would imply CVNs are a lesser solution...
I agree LHAs and CVs have different roles and can coexist
For rich country as US co-existence of heavy CVNs and LHAs is possible and IMHO desirable. For Russia very expensive option and never matches US sea power projection anyway.
But I think this is what they plan. Of course in much smaller numbers and probably smaller displacement for the carriers.
Not sure abut F-35B but Yak-141 without ski-jump required 120m take off strip in STOL regime, Yak-43 160m. MiG-29k - 260m , Su-57 350m (O'd presum with max thrust,half fuel and little weapons). With smaller fighters and shorter start strips you can have more on deck and using shorter lanes start them faster. Perhaps some also can start vertically but this was not my point.
Modern STOBAR fighters reach those TO values fully loaded with ski jump, so where is the need for the STOVL?
Agreed. VSTOL uses V seldom in specific situations but using this is sea conditions can be priceless. Those 150 or even 60m of ship length does make difference. Size does count and so do fighter requirements.
F-35 was to be a stealthy attack fighter I hope Russian will be less stealthy but more maneuverable fighter and perhaps faster.
BTW according to wiki LHD Wasp (40ktons) can have upto 20 F-35Bs
Control of the VTO requires calmed seas and scarce ship movement in the F-35B, so the use in sea conditions is very limited to start with. Runs of STOVL and STOBAR are similar. Lift through aerofoil is more efficient than by pure thrust. And the highest the T/W ratio gets, the shorter the runs and more comfortably fighters can take off, even on dry settings from the long runs. So no big difference for TO. Landing can be different, but STOVL will normally perform rolling landing too in practical application. Don't know exactly how much deck this takes.
Really? I cant believe it!
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
GunshipDemocracy
