This was originally on Faster, Higher, Stronger, all copyrights and opinions are those of the posters.
Su35 vs F18/F22
From: gregg@hal.com (Greg Guild)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SU-27 SUPER FLANKER??
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:20:39 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <48bbon$9js@news.hal.com>
References:
Reply-To: gregg@hal.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: halpros.hal.com
William,
It's been awhile since I followed up on what I consider one of the finest examples of taking the best of every fine fighter aircraft available and packaging it into the Flanker Family Series. Make no mistake, the Flanker is not "perfect" but you have to admit, it might be the closest thing to sex in the air. Excuse my hot flashes, but the latest in the series, the Su-35 represents what the F-18 could have been. And I am not knocking the F-18. The Marines have found the best all around support aircraft to do what the old F-4 and A-6 use to do. Where it suffers obviously is in it's legs, but what's new, nothing is perfect. The F-15 series is also a nice family but after the Air Force saw what the F-18 could do, they didn't want to be outdone. (You wouldn't need an Air Force) Anyway, I expect to get flamed by the Air Force pukes any moment now, but back to the Flanker.
In article , William.Chan@johnsbar.ship.net (William Chan) writes:
-> FB> Are you talking about the SU-27K, the SU-27IB, the
-> FB> SU-35, or the SU-27M /
-> FB> SU-37 ?
->
->Well I am not too sure what modle it was, it just said that it was the Super ->Flanker. Well I guess that I can check on it. The SU-35 and Su-37 are they also
The model you saw was the Su-35, it is a new "airframe" and I know some guys will disaggree, but this was done to accomodate better fuel capacity and lighten the airframe, if I remember correctly. Most of the research for this model came from the Su-27K, or naval version of the family. If you have any reference, you'll note the IR eyeball has been centered and a refueling probe had been added. Also, found are your'e fifth and sixth wings added for better mobility in carrier landings, as well as those non-assisted catapult launches off the "ski ramp" decks. (We don't need no stinking catapult with these engines, beat all of the speed records by F-15) What Sukhoi also discovered ala the X-31 program is the fantastic point and shoot capabilities those extra wings gave them. Think of it, the Su-35 can already perform the Cobra move, (to basically roll nose up over 110 deg, decellerate and straighten out for a six shot) but now it can roll left or right for a "snap shot" on an opponent banking hard away. With the Helmet targeting equipment found on Russian head gear, the chances of downing boggies is better at closer ranges. (By the way, this test has already been tried successfully, all the bogies were smoked) Not that that would of happened since the the new Radar could of tracked and downed 4 or more aircraft at BVR. IMHO, this aircraft is unmatched at this time, bar none! Biggest problem I believe with this aircraft is the cost. And at this time, I don't think it's in production because of the state of the economy in Russia. Pity, put some Marine or Naval Aviators in this puppy and it becomes the F/A Su-35. One correction, I don't think the Su-35 is fitted for carrier landings, but Sukhoi could'nt pass up the chance to make the ultimate Fighter/Attack aircraft in the world.
->called Flanker by any chance?? So why 6 wings any ways??
->What is so good about it or is it just an experiment!!
->
->William Chan
The only thing this aircraft is missing is the funding and serious buyers friendly to Russia. Hope this was informative enough, mind you, I loved this aircraft since the first satellite photos came out in 1984/85 in Aviation Leak. I will admit to being the first person in the Western Hemisphere to create the first scaled model of this aircraft. It wasn't until I started my scale studies of the airframe that I figured out what Sukhoi did. If you look closely, this aircraft has traits of alot of 70's Western design incorporated into it. And IMHO, only better.
Greg --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Guild 408 379-7000 x1632 gregg@predator.hal.com
Once a Raider Fan, ALWAYS A RAIDER FAN! Hal Computer Systems
From: Chris Douglas
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SU-27 SUPER FLANKER??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:49:22 -0600
Organization: Upstart Denizens of Origin Systems
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <30AB6B92.446B@origin.ea.com>
References: <48bbon$9js@news.hal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardassia.origin.ea.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b1J (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22)
Greg Guild wrote:
[Lots of Sukhoi sucking deleted...]
> IMHO, this aircraft is unmatched at this time, bar none! Biggest problem I believe
> with this aircraft is the cost. And at this time, I don't think it's in production because of the
> state of the economy in Russia. Pity, put some Marine or Naval Aviators in this puppy and it
> becomes the F/A Su-35. One correction, I don't think the Su-35 is fitted for carrier landings, but
> Sukhoi could'nt pass up the chance to make the ultimate Fighter/Attack aircraft in the world.
[...]
>
> Greg --
While the Su-35 does look nice on paper, even if it existed in numbers I would still favor F-14D for air-to-air, if for no other reasons than Phoenix and the presence of Western electronics (I've yet to see or hear much evidence that Russian industry has ever been capable of producing American quality hardware--not the capability of the systems themselves necessarily aren't high, merely that they are potentially quite unreliable. A radar which malfunctions is a hindrance). Su-35 certainly has an edge in a knife fight, but not if its time is consumed dodging Phoenixes and AMRAAMs prior to the merge.
Su-35 certainly outclasses F-15C, but it seems that if Su-35 is ever fielded at all it won't be appreciably sooner than F-22. And there's little question which of those two aircraft is more dangerous.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdouglas@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
The mindless corporate entity for which I work has
no opinions. Those expressed must be my own.
-----------------------------------------------------
From: gregg@hal.com (Greg Guild)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SU-27 SUPER FLANKER??
Date: 17 Nov 1995 18:27:56 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <48ik7c$63g@news.hal.com>
References: <30AB6B92.446B@origin.ea.com>
Reply-To: gregg@hal.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: halpros.hal.com
In article <30AB6B92.446B@origin.ea.com>, Chris Douglas writes:
->[...]
->While the Su-35 does look nice on paper, even if it existed in numbers I would still favor
->F-14D for air-to-air, if for no other reasons than Phoenix and the presence of Western
-> electronics (I've yet to see or hear much evidence that Russian industry has ever been
-> capable of producing American quality hardware--not the capability of the systems
-> themselves necessarily aren't high, merely that they are potentially quite unreliable.
-> A radar which malfunctions is a hindrance). Su-35 certainly has an edge in a knife fight,
-> but not if its time is consumed dodging Phoenixes and AMRAAMs prior to the merge.
->Su-35 certainly outclasses F-15C, but it seems that if Su-35 is ever fielded at all it won't
-> be appreciably sooner than F-22. And there's little question which of those two aircraft
-> is more dangerous.
->
->--
->-----------------------------------------------------
->Chris Douglas - cdouglas@origin.ea.com
Chris,
You have some good points, but I still will consider the the Su-35 more superior in all areas. Consider the factors the Marines and the Navy have come to with the F-18. Today's hot spots do not fully require a single role aircraft but more multi-role. Versatility in numbers compensates for single role applications. You seem to be a versatile individual based on your job title, I'm sure because you have a number of talents, made you the obvious canidate for the position. So holds true for the F-18, and in this thread, I am stating IMHO that this aircraft, the Su-35, is the premier all around Fighter / Attack aircraft. Actually, with its current technolgy base, the F-15E is the closest thing in comparison.But I feel that the Su-35 has the potential to be improved. If other countries such as the U.S. or other NATO alliances could contribute to it's base design , it would be formidable titan. It has room to improve. My admiration for this aircraft actually started with it's design. Incorporating some of the finest Western ideas with the staunch Russian design philosphy ingrained. The Su-35, in concept, is every fighter jocks dream. Quick, agile, tenacious and plenty of hard points to fly CAP or Attack. As a Ground Attack, it has engulfed the F-18 philosophies with the edge being the power to get out quicker. I fully aggree, this is a Russian Design. It is not Western State of the Art, but damn, what a nice try. As for the F-22, I don't think it's a true Multi- role. In today's Military budget constraints, I believe the Air Force will want more versa- tility for thier buck. I know congress would.
Forget for one moment it is a Russian design, imagine MD or Grumman created this bird. You just have to step back alittle and just be in awe of the basic design. As a Product Desig- ner myself, simplicity and functionality have always been first. This aircraft, as well as the Mig-29 have simplified Western Design philosophy and technology into both simple and multifunctional packages. As a designer, you have to admire those attributes.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Guild - gregg@predator.hal.com - Product Design
Fujitzu/HaL WS 300 The only True 64 bit OS / Workstation HaL Computer Systems
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are my opinons only and not the people I work for...but than, that's why they hired me.

Eric Johnson.