hkmarine55
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2012
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
Should INDIA rethink on MMRCA when Chinese buy SU-35
This is not another x VS z thread.I like to put it in a most imformative way.MMRCA itself a decade old requirment.The time when Pakistan is India's biggest threat but times had passed away.Its 2013 and India will recive its first MMRCA fighter jet on 2016 or so.Its confirmed that chinese want to buy Su-35 Which is a Large Stealth fighter with great range and Upgrades which comes closer to PakFa in Avionics and Fute weapons like RVV-BD.Su-35 strong radar allows it to lock on at much greater distance and guide even faster missiles launched from faster more energy platform. by using RVV-BD early Flanker pilot will know what kind of evasive/electronic measures Rafale is going to deploy to defeat that missile.
Rafale platform neither have the engine power nor capacity to carry such pods. It could carry some but it will have to sacrifice ET/Meteor capacity.
Here is my claim that Su-35 is far superior to RAFALE
Rafale
For comparison, the combat capabilities of the Su-35 and Rafale choose a configuration with a range equal to:
10,460 kg (equipment) + 100 kg (pilot) + 4700 kg (fuel) + 370 kg (2 Meteor) + 672 kg (6 MICA) + 4125 kg (3 EFT, 5295 kg of fuel) = 20 427 kg, the total weight of fuel 4700 kg + 5295 kg = 9995 kg.
The radius range of 1155 km, the range of 3300 km. Fuel consumption of 3 kg / km
RCS in this configuration.
RCS min. = 2.8 sq.m., on the pendants 3 PTB + 2 Meteor + 6 MICA = 11 points.
RCS = (2.8 m + 11 m) * 0.5 = 6.9 sq.m.
Su-35
combat load
4 RVV-MD, 4 x 106 kg = 424 kg. 4 P-72 x 49 kg = 196 kg.
6 RVV-SD, 6 x 190 kg = 1140 kg. AKU-170E 6 x 61 kg = 366 kg.
2 RVV-BD, 2 x 510 kg = 1020 kg. AKU-58AE 2 x 186 kg = 372 kg.
424 kg + 196 kg + 1140 kg + 366 kg + 1020 kg + 372 kg = 3518 kg
4 RVV-MD, 4 x 106 kg = 424 kg. 4 P-72 x 49 kg = 196 kg.
4 RVV-SD, 4 x 190 kg = 760 kg. AKU-170E 4 x 61 kg = 244 kg.
4 RVV-BD, 4 x 510 kg = 2040 kg. AKU-58AE 4 x 186 kg = 744 kg. distance of 200 km / 300 km, warhead. 60 kg.
424 kg + 196 kg + 760 kg + 244 kg + 2040 kg + 744 kg = 4408 kg
Take-off weight in this configuration
17,550 (blank) + 100 kg (pilot) + 11500 kg (fuel) + 4408 kg (load) = 33,558 kg
Flight distance in this configuration with a load of 3300 km.
RCS in this configuration.
RCS min. = 2.5 sq.m.
RCS = (2.5 m + 12 m) * 0.5 = 7.25 sq.m.
Whats with the Meteor vs. RVV-BD really? Meteor is not even in service, and yet to be intagrated to Rafale. Same goes for RVV-BD and Su-35. Current loadout of Rafale is MIRA IR/AR and Su-35 carries R-27T/TE/R/RE/P/AE and R-77.
R-77 in terms of weight, size, range, seeker etc etc, is equivalent to MICA AR. R-27RE and R-27AE outranges both by a quite margin. Then we have MICA IR, which is roughly matched by R-27T, and outranged by R-27TE. WHEN Meteor is finally integrated on Rafale, its range will easily be matched by R-27RE and R-27AE missiles.
As for a payload's effects on Su-35, I agree with JSR and Sens on this one. For whatever reasons, Su-35 can reach M2.2 with 2x R-27RE 2xR-77 and 2xR-73 missiles and Rafale can not. Reason -like Kovy stated- is the variable intake ramps on Su-35, but the reason is irrelevant here. VG inlets increase inlet pressure, that increases dynamic T/W at supersonic speeds, and that has positive effect on supersonic acceleration, climb and turning performance. Rafale doesn't have them, and its engines will be generating less than a third of their advertised thrust at high supersonic speeds. With equivalent 6 missile payload, Rafale will likely struggle to climb or accelerate or sustain a turn at anywhere above M1.5, but Su-35 wont.
How much performance degradation would occur if R-27 missiles (350kg 23cm diameter) were to be replaced by R-37 (600kg, 38cm diameter)? 500kg increase on a fighter that weight 25+ tons at NTOW? or a 0.1125 m2 increase of frontal area on a fighter that has a wingspan of 15,3 meters? My answer would be: quite negligable.
Comparing Meteor with R-37 (or RVV-BD) is non-sense IMHO. Despite the Ramjet engine, Meteor is rated at 100+ km range and R-37 missile is rated at 400km. Obviously latter is bigger and more draggy, just as AIM-120 is more draggy than AIM-9.
Irbis/R-37 combination will outrange RBE-2/Meteor combination irrelevant of the miniature RCS differences on a two non-stealthy fighters. For the sake of argument, lets assume for a second Su-35/Irbis combo is inferior to RBE-2/Rafale, and assume EW on Su-35 could not detect the LPI mode of RBE-2. What would happen? As soon as RBE-2 enters STT it will have to give up LPI mode and focus on target to get vector data, and be detected to EW on Su-35. If that happens 90km, Meteor would barely reach Su-35 and most likely be evaded, but 90 km is likely to be within NEZ of R-37. If Rafale pilot waits to force Su-35 into NEZ, it would be detected by Irbis and Rafale would be already R-37's NEZ.
This is not another x VS z thread.I like to put it in a most imformative way.MMRCA itself a decade old requirment.The time when Pakistan is India's biggest threat but times had passed away.Its 2013 and India will recive its first MMRCA fighter jet on 2016 or so.Its confirmed that chinese want to buy Su-35 Which is a Large Stealth fighter with great range and Upgrades which comes closer to PakFa in Avionics and Fute weapons like RVV-BD.Su-35 strong radar allows it to lock on at much greater distance and guide even faster missiles launched from faster more energy platform. by using RVV-BD early Flanker pilot will know what kind of evasive/electronic measures Rafale is going to deploy to defeat that missile.
Rafale platform neither have the engine power nor capacity to carry such pods. It could carry some but it will have to sacrifice ET/Meteor capacity.
Here is my claim that Su-35 is far superior to RAFALE
Rafale
For comparison, the combat capabilities of the Su-35 and Rafale choose a configuration with a range equal to:
10,460 kg (equipment) + 100 kg (pilot) + 4700 kg (fuel) + 370 kg (2 Meteor) + 672 kg (6 MICA) + 4125 kg (3 EFT, 5295 kg of fuel) = 20 427 kg, the total weight of fuel 4700 kg + 5295 kg = 9995 kg.
The radius range of 1155 km, the range of 3300 km. Fuel consumption of 3 kg / km
RCS in this configuration.
RCS min. = 2.8 sq.m., on the pendants 3 PTB + 2 Meteor + 6 MICA = 11 points.
RCS = (2.8 m + 11 m) * 0.5 = 6.9 sq.m.
Su-35
combat load
4 RVV-MD, 4 x 106 kg = 424 kg. 4 P-72 x 49 kg = 196 kg.
6 RVV-SD, 6 x 190 kg = 1140 kg. AKU-170E 6 x 61 kg = 366 kg.
2 RVV-BD, 2 x 510 kg = 1020 kg. AKU-58AE 2 x 186 kg = 372 kg.
424 kg + 196 kg + 1140 kg + 366 kg + 1020 kg + 372 kg = 3518 kg
4 RVV-MD, 4 x 106 kg = 424 kg. 4 P-72 x 49 kg = 196 kg.
4 RVV-SD, 4 x 190 kg = 760 kg. AKU-170E 4 x 61 kg = 244 kg.
4 RVV-BD, 4 x 510 kg = 2040 kg. AKU-58AE 4 x 186 kg = 744 kg. distance of 200 km / 300 km, warhead. 60 kg.
424 kg + 196 kg + 760 kg + 244 kg + 2040 kg + 744 kg = 4408 kg
Take-off weight in this configuration
17,550 (blank) + 100 kg (pilot) + 11500 kg (fuel) + 4408 kg (load) = 33,558 kg
Flight distance in this configuration with a load of 3300 km.
RCS in this configuration.
RCS min. = 2.5 sq.m.
RCS = (2.5 m + 12 m) * 0.5 = 7.25 sq.m.
Whats with the Meteor vs. RVV-BD really? Meteor is not even in service, and yet to be intagrated to Rafale. Same goes for RVV-BD and Su-35. Current loadout of Rafale is MIRA IR/AR and Su-35 carries R-27T/TE/R/RE/P/AE and R-77.
R-77 in terms of weight, size, range, seeker etc etc, is equivalent to MICA AR. R-27RE and R-27AE outranges both by a quite margin. Then we have MICA IR, which is roughly matched by R-27T, and outranged by R-27TE. WHEN Meteor is finally integrated on Rafale, its range will easily be matched by R-27RE and R-27AE missiles.
As for a payload's effects on Su-35, I agree with JSR and Sens on this one. For whatever reasons, Su-35 can reach M2.2 with 2x R-27RE 2xR-77 and 2xR-73 missiles and Rafale can not. Reason -like Kovy stated- is the variable intake ramps on Su-35, but the reason is irrelevant here. VG inlets increase inlet pressure, that increases dynamic T/W at supersonic speeds, and that has positive effect on supersonic acceleration, climb and turning performance. Rafale doesn't have them, and its engines will be generating less than a third of their advertised thrust at high supersonic speeds. With equivalent 6 missile payload, Rafale will likely struggle to climb or accelerate or sustain a turn at anywhere above M1.5, but Su-35 wont.
How much performance degradation would occur if R-27 missiles (350kg 23cm diameter) were to be replaced by R-37 (600kg, 38cm diameter)? 500kg increase on a fighter that weight 25+ tons at NTOW? or a 0.1125 m2 increase of frontal area on a fighter that has a wingspan of 15,3 meters? My answer would be: quite negligable.
Comparing Meteor with R-37 (or RVV-BD) is non-sense IMHO. Despite the Ramjet engine, Meteor is rated at 100+ km range and R-37 missile is rated at 400km. Obviously latter is bigger and more draggy, just as AIM-120 is more draggy than AIM-9.
Irbis/R-37 combination will outrange RBE-2/Meteor combination irrelevant of the miniature RCS differences on a two non-stealthy fighters. For the sake of argument, lets assume for a second Su-35/Irbis combo is inferior to RBE-2/Rafale, and assume EW on Su-35 could not detect the LPI mode of RBE-2. What would happen? As soon as RBE-2 enters STT it will have to give up LPI mode and focus on target to get vector data, and be detected to EW on Su-35. If that happens 90km, Meteor would barely reach Su-35 and most likely be evaded, but 90 km is likely to be within NEZ of R-37. If Rafale pilot waits to force Su-35 into NEZ, it would be detected by Irbis and Rafale would be already R-37's NEZ.
