Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-15, Sukhoi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F-15, Sukhoi

    As an airframe, a bomb carrier, NOT as to who has better pilots or avionics, electronics, whatever, which aircraft is better in what areas and why: the F-15, or the Su-27? I can't sleep. I know there's a similar thread, however, it was more of a "which is better". I'm curious about performance, the avionics/electronics thing is, from what I read, heated.

    If this thread shouldn't exist, I'd gladly delete it. Unless that's something only a moderator can do, in that case, delete away

  • #2
    Originally posted by spittle8
    As an airframe, a bomb carrier, NOT as to who has better pilots or avionics, electronics, whatever, which aircraft is better in what areas and why: the F-15, or the Su-27? I can't sleep. I know there's a similar thread, however, it was more of a "which is better". I'm curious about performance, the avionics/electronics thing is, from what I read, heated.

    If this thread shouldn't exist, I'd gladly delete it. Unless that's something only a moderator can do, in that case, delete away

    I'm pretty sure the F15 has lower wing-loading. Hence, my guess is that as an air-frame, it's a better bomb carrier.

    Comment


    • #3
      Having better tanking support, better avionics, waaaaaay more experience and a heavier payload... probably the F-15E.
      HD Ready?

      Comment


      • #4
        No links, no sources, but I have a cousin working as an engineer at boeing and he tells me that the f-15 is superior to the sukhoi aerodynamically.

        What he tells me this means is that while the sukhoi is alot more unstable while flying and has a better turning radius, it also means there is alot less room for pilot error. The F-15 is a much more "forgiving" plane.

        I wouldn't know..he just told me that..LoL

        Does this sound about right to the all knowing all seeing highsea? LoL

        Comment


        • #5
          please don't diss highsea(if you we're) he actually works in the industry and knows a hell ofa lot more than us.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by urmomma158
            please don't diss highsea(if you we're) he actually works in the industry and knows a hell ofa lot more than us.
            How was that disrespectful?

            Comment


            • #7
              It wasn't IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, I wasn't going to post on this thread- it's not like we need another Flanker vs. F-15 thread...

                urmomma- I didn't take YF's question as disrespectful.

                Imo the Flanker is more advanced aerodynamically than the Eagles. There's a reason no one is designing fighters with positive stability these days. See the F-22.

                The Flankers are reported to have some handling characteristics that no other negative stability airframe has ever exhibited- that is the ability to recover from spins and severe displacements with no pilot input. This is something that no one has ever been able to accomplish before or since. I have no real way to verify if this is really true, but interviews with the chief of Sukhoi make the claim. If it's really true, it's a remarkable achievement. Physics says it doesn't work that way, but aerodynamics is as much art as science.

                nutter- I have the SU-35 wingload as 423.4 kg/m2 and the Eagle as 438.8 kg/m2 in A2A combat configuration (4 x AIM120 or R-77 + 2 x AIM9 or R-73 + 7000kg internal fuel for the F-15E and 6700kg internal fuel for the SU-35).

                Payload for each is equivalent at ~8,000 kg, more for the F-15 with CFT's.

                We can argue and compare configurations all day, but I don't see a clear advantage for either one on that count.

                Sukhoi really hit a home run with the Flanker series, I don't think anyone disputes that. Where they lose the edge is in avionics, engines, and weapons. If they can get these areas up to western standards, the Flanker will be a very serious AC to contend with for any AF.

                There are some other areas where Sukhoi could improve- I'm not sure if they are still using kaplon wiring harnesses, for example. The engines still have short service lifes compared to GE or Pratt, and spares are hard to come by.

                But the potential is certainly there- the Flankers are a terrific design. Lol. I wish it was ours... ;)

                BTW, the MiG-29 has many of the design qualities that the Flankers have, it's just saddled with a crappy engine, lousy pilot interface, and substandard avionics. If these areas were to be corrected in the MiG-29, it would also be an excellent fighter.

                Russians are very good at designing aircraft, they just need some technology advances to make them competitive with their western counterparts.
                "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                Comment


                • #9
                  Highsea, that was a nice post..

                  To add my 2 bits:


                  Where they lose the edge is in avionics, engines, and weapons. If they can get these areas up to western standards, the Flanker will be a very serious AC to contend with for any AF.
                  I dont see where the avionics are really bad vis a vis their western contemporaries...imho, they are improving every other day...the latest Su-35 for eg is to have a multiprocessor (rated at the usual Gigaflops) Mission comp, running info across a series of fibreoptics databuses on three huge LCDs...that apart, the huge volume in a Flankers nose allows them to put in a massive radar...which again are seeing substantial improvements..the Zhuk MSE in a PLAN MK3 is a comparator to an APG-73...substantial A2G modes, A2A modes, etc.

                  The MKI also runs the usual 1553 DB with dual Mission comps, Display Processors, all basically using western equivalent COTS chips...the PESA radar is also being improved...while true LPI may not exist (as on the APG-77 arguably), the newer Irbis is definitely a threat to any system out there and is to be part of much more sensor fusion..

                  IMHO, the basic thing is that today Russia and a host of countries have access to COTS products and a reasonably well established pool of design engineers who use these COTS products to come up with excellent Single board computers, DSP boards etc which really "drive" the performance of their respective systems..

                  That apart, theres extensive intercountry colloboration...the MKI has the Rafael Litening...which again uses Carl Zeiss optics.

                  The LCA's Open Architecture Computer is probably next on Indias MKI's, that uses a Power PC 7400.

                  The displays on the Indian MKIs are from Sextant Avionique, to be replaced by Indian ones made locally by an entrepreneur with performance to be better specc'ed than the SA ones..(picture in picture mode etc)..

                  But in the meanwhile the Russians have got up to speed in terms of displays too...they rely on Japanese LCDisplays and integrate it inhouse..not bad at all..

                  Check out:
                  http://www.irkut.com/common//img/upl...cators_eng.pdf

                  Furthermore, the Flankers all have inbuilt IRST - a decent plus in air combat...these are being upgraded as well...apparently UOMZ is tying up with Sagem to improve them even further...

                  And in terms of radars, like I stated before, Russian radars are fairly competitive...take the Zhuk ME series for instance...started out with the "Zhuk"...became the "Zhuk M"...now the export version is the Zhuk ME...but its a pretty capable radar and fairly competitive against the APG-68 series...

                  COTS technologies have allowed Phazatron to keep updating it...today its A2G resolution is 3*3 from 5*5 barely a couple of years back, and apparently for the Indian contract, they aim to get it to the 1 Sq Mtr level...

                  The key thing where the west has a "lead" is in C3I and networking...the datalink on the MKI is comparable to the Low volume Link-16 terminal...bandwidth is just enough to share tracks and merge for A2A not share huge files of A2G targets etc...but even here, given that the IAF is inducting the Phalcon, there might be Israeli inputs to the system & Rafael/ Tadirans high bandwidth datalinks may replace it..

                  Lastly, engines...the current AL-31 FPs on Indian Flankers are quite sufficient to get the job done...but then again, the Russians are now offering AL-41 derivatives for the newer Su-27 BM or Su-35...I have the details somewhere, but thats a pretty substantial increase in power & performance..

                  And another thing...lets say IFR...in Indian MKIs we have the UK's buddy refuelling system (the same being chosen for the Eurocanards), and the il-78 MK tankers have an Israeli system..

                  What Sukhoi is doing is excellent marketing strategy....you can pick and choose your avionics from anywhere, and provided you pay for it, they'll integrate it for you...and even so, these fighters come out decently priced..

                  Take the MKM...Thales now provides the jamming gear (on Indian MKIs its the Elta 8222...same as used by the IDFAF's F-15 "Raam"'s) as well as the Electro-optics pod which is a replacement for the Litening on the MKI..

                  http://www.iai.co.il/Default.aspx?do...en&res=0&pos=0

                  (on the MKIs)

                  http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWeb...ProductId=1304

                  (MAWS for the MKI- MAWS 300)

                  http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWeb...ProductId=1305

                  (MSWS for the MKM)


                  And if tomorrow a customer is nitpicky, Sukhoi will integrate Python4's and Dash HMCS on the aircraft too...EADS was offering Micas for the MKIs...and apparently the Sagem GPS guided range of PGMs is being evaluated for the MKIs..

                  http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...ticle=08225p05

                  18/21/2005 10:07:14 PM

                  France and India are discussing the integration of modular air-to-surface weapons on the Indian air force's Sukhoi Su-30MKI and MiG-29 fighter aircraft.

                  Sagem Defense and Security, part of the Safran Group, is discussing an agreement with India covering the Armament Air-Sol-Modulaire (AASM) range of precision-guided weapons now in development for the French air force.

                  A Sagem official says the company has been in talks with India for a "few months" concerning a possible AASM purchase. The French company already provides some avionics systems for India's Su-30MKIs.

                  Were a deal to be struck, it would not be the first time for India to integrate a foreign weapon on its Su-30MKI. New Delhi has already selected a version of the Israeli Rafael Popeye medium-range air-to-surface missile. Indian interest in the AASM also underscores a gap in Russia's own weapons inventory, which has no comparable system.
                  For Indian Navy MiG-29K's, Irkut/MiG have the Topsight HMD...the simulators which come for the service package/ training package...are from Avior Germany, and are state of the art, ones using the latest in laser projection technology..

                  http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/inde...ang=2&fid=2986

                  IMHO, the key thing is to look at the complete aircraft...these Flankers are no longer just tied to Russia...you can pick and choose the best systems from across the world onto them....and that apart, even Russian avionics have improved by leaps and bounds & are quite comparable to what the world is fielding today in terms of operational capability..even if we can say that an AESA is lighter than a PESA etc., its still a moot point if a 600 kg Irbis equals (say) a 63 V(3) which is a third of the weight in terms of range etc or even outranges it..
                  Last edited by Archer; 29 Aug 06,, 23:56.
                  Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yep,

                    Original specifications for the F-15 required that the aircraft be capable of withstanding electromagnetic pulse such that it could continue to deliver it's own nuclear ordinance, even in the presence of a close by (relatively speaking) nuclear blast.

                    To meet that requirement, the aircraft had to have mechanical flight controls as backup. No mechanical flight control system (at least none I've seen) are capable of handling the emmense closed loop feedback control necessary to keep an unstable platform flying stable. Hence, the F-15 had to be a stable platform, and hence does not have the same level of inherent aerodynamic performance.

                    On the bright side, we do have better avionics, engines, and weapons, AND if there's ever a flame deluge it's good to know that while all those nukes are raining down on us, our F-15's won't all fall out of the sky, hehe.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by urmomma158
                      please don't diss highsea(if you we're) he actually works in the industry and knows a hell ofa lot more than us.
                      I wasn't.

                      Highsea seems to be the resident expert when it comes to aviation and numerous guys including Sniper asked him questions that they did not know the answer to.

                      i just just trying to be funny with the "all seeing, all knowing" comment. :)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        @highsea....

                        In other words, my cousin , the engineer, is as full of sh*t a s achristams turkey..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by YellowFever
                          I wasn't.

                          Highsea seems to be the resident expert when it comes to aviation and numerous guys including Sniper asked him questions that they did not know the answer to.
                          Yeah, guys, please do not ever confuse me for an expert wrt aviation issues. I am merely a well-connected and very interested enthusiast who can usually get his questions answered by experts.

                          I'm nothing more than that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Where the F-15 or any US system really scores in practical terms is the amount of weaponry available...from AMRAAMs to Aim-9X, to JDAMs and multiple cheap GPS guided all weather munitions...

                            This backed up by superb avionics - all mostly sourced from within the US itself..

                            This is an amazing achievement by itself.
                            Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by YellowFever
                              @highsea....

                              In other words, my cousin , the engineer, is as full of sh*t a s achristams turkey..
                              Lol. I didn't say that. There are lots of different kinds of engineers, all get to see some things and not others. Nobody really get to see the whole picture.

                              F-15 is still the best in class overall, imo. But there are things that the Flankers do better. Not a surprise, when you consider that every AC ever built is a compromise by nature and design.

                              Archer- what you say is true, the capability to integrate western avionics is there. So far, we have only seen it done once and fielded (MKI). I have no doubt we will be seeing more of this in the future.

                              You know about reliability issues with the Saturn engines, so I don't need to expound on that. They do the job, as long as they are available for service, and the maintenance items aren't on backorder...

                              Much of that western avionics tech is subject to export controls, so it's not necessarily available to anyone. E.g, just because India got Phalcon doesn't mean Venezuela can get it, etc. And there a certain sensitivity that comes with sharing info with Russian manufacturers (DASH, Python, datalinks, etc)

                              COTS is great, but it still has to be militarized.

                              So the capability to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it will be done.

                              Btw, No PESA radar will ever have even a fraction of the reliability of AESA. Those tubes have to be replaced constantly. Our AESA antennas have MTBF's in years, and are LRU's. 20 minutes out and in...

                              The US does not sit idly by while the ROW catches up, we are developing our next generation avionics as well, and the platforms to field them.

                              I do look at the complete aircraft. As I said, the Russians know how to design airplanes very well, but their own avionics and engines are still technologically backwards in comparison. You can get western avionics like India did, which helps, but it still doesn't bring the whole package up to western standards.

                              India knows this as well as anyone else- just compare the readiness ratios of your Mirages to your MiG-29's.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X