Really? I cant believe it!Actually at the end finally Ican say second that mate
neither do I, neither do I
LMFS wrote: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.GunshipDemocracy wrote:and comparing Su-57 with Yak38 of Harrier (cheers to GarryB ) is?
true, that's why with current level of tech IMHO VSTOL with good performance is possible. Of course Russians can fck it bu making stealth bomb truck or make things right and fouce on light fighter like LMFS
Su-33 Russian iwki
? 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.
f-35 Wiki/f35.com/naval technology.
No payload of F-35B is 6,800 s 6,500 of Su-33
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.
perhaps yes perhaps no
The dance of the data... do not invent the 5700 kg fuel please.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?
ou're right! Russin wiki - main mode of fillinf (fuel) -5350kg
I added 350kg then real sorry
Масса топлива: 9400 кг
основной вариант заправки: 5350 кг
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 why VSTOL should be built in limited number? Russia has no light fighter now... apart from pre-retirement MiG 29 derivatives.
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
and 12 ordered? this gives 834 mlns per unit right? looks to me like 4x cheaper
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.Does it make sense to use specialized air-superiority fighter as multi-role/attack one?
if you build 80ktons or bigger ships + more LHD and can affors why not? apparently cheaper option is to have light fighter for land and naval and smaller fleet.
C and B have different roles, as said above.
they any comparison makes no sense to me. Either we compare VSTOL with navalized fighter or none.
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.Endless money is thrown because it was designed CTOL unnecessary and CATOBAR too and stealth on top of it.
with less payload and less stealth would be far better plan tho
You assume the Su-33 is a navalized Su-35 which it is clearly not.Compare 6,5tons Su-33 vs 8tons of Su-35 or better copare both:
Still using wrong data even when I pointed out previously... fine. [/quote]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
you mean speed? sorry but 1200 mile/hr was everywhere. So you can be wrong as well...
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).
but you were mentioning MiG-29k now MiG-35 ? OK, fighter which is produced in whooping 6 pieces and has no navalized version even planned?
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-35BPlease note that MiG cannot start from KUZ w/o ski jump and land vertically on short strip w/o arrested landing?!
good so they can use max payloads. And can have 50 on board unlike 24-30 on Kuz.
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...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.
So Russia with 20 -24 ship-borne fighters STOBAR is going to attack major power on land? or I missed the point? Su-33 woul deven see rockets comming not ot mention F-35. So why do you need advantage of short dash on after burners?
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.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
and how often Su-33 goes with supersonic? not to mention its radius then
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...True but its all we got, in such case how one can assume that Su or MiG data are correct?
blame US system of education not 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!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.
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
So actually F-35B difference between empty/MTOW is 12500 and Su-33 14600
whoa 4 tons heavier and only 2 tons more useful load?
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.
unless you can cut aiftrame in half then yup (15 vs 22 is like 50% longer)
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 Su33hmm 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.
S-33 needed different engines, redesigned frame, avionics, landing gear surface... for 36 pieces?
Su-33 is 35% longer than F-35. F-35B is 45% wider than Su-33yet 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!
What do weapons bays have to do with wing fold?
how far form wingtip you can go no to damage structural integrity?
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)
When you see one official EMALS info keep me posted please. AWACS doesnt have to be plane you know. It is functionality It is like you say - Russia needs tens of destroyers and hundreds of tomahawk cells. But instead gone for defensive distributed firepower with tens of small ships.
No, you are suggesting STOVL is superior since it takes off faster. Which would imply CVNs are a lesser solution...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.
I agree LHAs and CVs have different roles and can coexist
No, all I was saying is that currently Russia would be better off with universal ship that combines 3roles LHD/ASW/CV. This is more cost effective especially if you have VSTOL fighters.
I still cannot imagine though what application can have 100ktons carrier stuffed with Su-57 in 2050s?! will be CVNs still in use then?
Modern STOBAR fighters reach those TO values fully loaded with ski jump, so where is the need for the STOVL?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.
STOL with ski jump gets you 20-30ktons smaller ship size?
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.
Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?