This is a discussion on mirage2000 out of iaf race for mrca within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; MKI's airframe is not as strong as the airframe for MK2 and su-34.
Empty 32,020 lb (17,700 kg)
Typical Load ...
MKI's airframe is not as strong as the airframe for MK2 and su-34.
Empty 32,020 lb (17,700 kg)
Typical Load (Su-30M) 52,910 lb (24,000 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 56,590 lb (25,670 kg)
Max Takeoff (Su-30M) 73,855 lb (33,500 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 74,955 lb (34,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity 20,725 lb (9,400 kg)
33.5 - 9.4 - 17.7 = 24.1 - 17.7 = 6.4
using maximum fuel, you get 6400 KG for payload.
also, I don't think MKI's can handle as much payload as su-34, because its airframe is not as strong as su-34 or mkk2 for that matter.
Also, you have to remember that 9400 KG of fuel on a flanker doesn't go as far as 8000 kG of fuel on a typhoon, since typhoon is probably 60% of a flanker's weight. So, if typhoon does load 3 external tank, I would think it's operation range would not be any less than that of a flanker.
As for typhoon vs Rafale, I think it's generally been mentionned that typhoon's turn rates figures are very good. It supposedly even exceeded F-22's rates at high speeds. I'd imagine it would be more manuverable than Rafale. Especially since typhoon was developed with more air superiority in mind than Rafale. Also, the range on typhoon's radar scans much farther, although it is easier to be jammed than RBE2. typhoon > Rafale in A2A, Rafale >> typhoon in A2G
As for Mig-29 to Mig-35, you can upgrade old Mig-29s to SMT standards, by it would not be upgradable to Mig-35, because you most likely need airframe change to handle the TVC nozzle.
MKI's airframe is not as strong as the airframe for MK2 and su-34.
Empty 32,020 lb (17,700 kg)
Typical Load (Su-30M) 52,910 lb (24,000 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 56,590 lb (25,670 kg)
Max Takeoff (Su-30M) 73,855 lb (33,500 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 74,955 lb (34,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity 20,725 lb (9,400 kg)
33.5 - 9.4 - 17.7 = 24.1 - 17.7 = 6.4
using maximum fuel, you get 6400 KG for payload.
i believe the definion of max payload is max external load that the plane can carry( defn doesnt talk about how much fuel is it carrying.. does it)?
(ps. is MK2 delivered to china ?)
Quote:
also, I don't think MKI's can handle as much payload as su-34, because its airframe is not as strong as su-34 or mkk2 for that matter.
all the
Quote:
Also, you have to remember that 9400 KG of fuel on a flanker doesn't go as far as 8000 kG of fuel on a typhoon, since typhoon is probably 60% of a flanker's weight. So, if typhoon does load 3 external tank, I would think it's operation range would not be any less than that of a flanker.
but typhoon carries only 4000 kg internal fuel. its unfair to compare range for one plane with all external fuel tanks possible on it and other with only internal fuel. the figures i showed you just showed how much more fuel as % of total max load varies between the planes. ( taking into account to a good extent the weight difference between the planes).
it would be better to compare the ranges in various roles instead..
like each one carry full load of A2A weapons. and then comparing the ranges.
or in A2G role and then compare it..
Quote:
As for typhoon vs Rafale, I think it's generally been mentionned that typhoon's turn rates figures are very good. It supposedly even exceeded F-22's rates at high speeds. I'd imagine it would be more manuverable than Rafale. Especially since typhoon was developed with more air superiority in mind than Rafale. Also, the range on typhoon's radar scans much farther, although it is easier to be jammed than RBE2. typhoon > Rafale in A2A, Rafale >> typhoon in A2G
can u give some figures to support it .
like roll rates.. pitch AoA etc..
and range specifications for the radars u are considerably..
typhoon doenst have anything significant done on it in A2G. while rafale has.
there have been reports of claims by various manufacturers for theri product better than others..( like EF as best RCS after F22). or for french ( rafalse better rcs than EF2000).. the list is endless... lets not get deviated by such things.
Quote:
As for Mig-29 to Mig-35, you can upgrade old Mig-29s to SMT standards, by it would not be upgradable to Mig-35, because you most likely need airframe change to handle the TVC nozzle.
wasnt there are talk of reduced RCS on mig35.. ?that was the attraction point for me .. if its the same plane then we are better of getting zhuk and putting it on LCA.. sour job will be done.
i believe the definion of max payload is max external load that the plane can carry( defn doesnt talk about how much fuel is it carrying.. does it)?
(ps. is MK2 delivered to china ?)
well, I calculated it like this, one of the J-10 payload estimation figure used:
empty weight 9,750kg, max TO weight 19,277kg, internal fuel 4,500kg, external load 4,500kg
If you notice, that's pretty much max - weight - internal fuel - pilot mass?
If you do load maximum fuel into mki, it's max payload would be around 6400 kg (including mass of two pilots).
Yeah, mkk2 was delivered to China. That's where I got the improved airframe from. Apparently, the airframe was much hardened compared to mkk. Even so, I don't think mk2 has 8000 KG payload. I would say su-34 is the only flanker with genuinely a 8000 KG payload. But that's fine, it's the only fighter-bomber flanker.
Quote:
but typhoon carries only 4000 kg internal fuel. its unfair to compare range for one plane with all external fuel tanks possible on it and other with only internal fuel. the figures i showed you just showed how much more fuel as % of total max load varies between the planes. ( taking into account to a good extent the weight difference between the planes).
it would be better to compare the ranges in various roles instead..
like each one carry full load of A2A weapons. and then comparing the ranges.
or in A2G role and then compare it..
yep, you are right. I'm just trying to show that you can get equivalent operation range out of a typhoon or rafale if you add a few external tanks. Obviously, that would mean reduced payload.
So, if we put a 1500 L external tank on typhoon, that would give it similar range to a flanker.
5500KG/9400KG = 58.5%
10tonne/17.7 tonne = 56.5%
comparable here, so let's just use this, then the payload for mki would be around 6400 KG for mki and about 21 - 10 - 5.5 = 5.5 tonne for typhoon. So, about 900 KG less, but the difference isn't that extreme and the operating radius would be similar in this scenario.
Quote:
can u give some figures to support it .
like roll rates.. pitch AoA etc..
and range specifications for the radars u are considerably..
typhoon doenst have anything significant done on it in A2G. while rafale has.
there have been reports of claims by various manufacturers for theri product better than others..( like EF as best RCS after F22). or for french ( rafalse better rcs than EF2000).. the list is endless... lets not get deviated by such things.
yeah, i'm not even going to comment on RCS, since they both claim to have the best RCS after F-22. The radar on typhoon supposedly has a range of 185 KM vs 100 KM for RBE2. As for the turn rate, I don't have the figures. I often use this: http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...hter/tech.html
"In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons."
I think in Singapore trials, typhoon was the only fighter out of typhoon, Rafale and F-15 to take down 3 F-16s by itself.
I don't think this should be that surprising. When you are developing a fighter for air superiority and another fighter for more multirole, then the fighter developed for air superiority should be better at A2A task than the other fighter (assuming that they are at a similar level in the technical aspect)
Quote:
wasnt there are talk of reduced RCS on mig35.. ?that was the attraction point for me .. if its the same plane then we are better of getting zhuk and putting it on LCA.. sour job will be done.
I thought it was more about putting RAM on Mig-35? You can do that on existing Mig-29s. I guess that's another upgrade you can apply.
well, I calculated it like this, one of the J-10 payload estimation figure used:
empty weight 9,750kg, max TO weight 19,277kg, internal fuel 4,500kg, external load 4,500kg
If you notice, that's pretty much max - weight - internal fuel - pilot mass?
If you do load maximum fuel into mki, it's max payload would be around 6400 kg (including mass of two pilots).
Yeah, mkk2 was delivered to China. That's where I got the improved airframe from. Apparently, the airframe was much hardened compared to mkk. Even so, I don't think mk2 has 8000 KG payload. I would say su-34 is the only flanker with genuinely a 8000 KG payload. But that's fine, it's the only fighter-bomber flanker.
yep, you are right. I'm just trying to show that you can get equivalent operation range out of a typhoon or rafale if you add a few external tanks. Obviously, that would mean reduced payload.
So, if we put a 1500 L external tank on typhoon, that would give it similar range to a flanker.
5500KG/9400KG = 58.5%
10tonne/17.7 tonne = 56.5%
comparable here, so let's just use this, then the payload for mki would be around 6400 KG for mki and about 21 - 10 - 5.5 = 5.5 tonne for typhoon. So, about 900 KG less, but the difference isn't that extreme and the operating radius would be similar in this scenario.
1. actually if we look at various configurations for EF2000 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...urofighter.htm
contains some configurations in pics at the end of the page.
there are only three possible fuel tanks( at least from the figures).
one 1000 l tank
and two 1500 l tank.
so of course we cant put only one 1500 l tank.
so the configuration you are considering is not possible
2. whats the specific gravity of the fuel used. ( for instance for MKI its 0.78).
for the time being if i take same figure(i dont think thats right but can still give an approximate idea).
the fuel in 1000 l tank is 780 kgs.
i.e. total 4780 kg.
so ratios are
4780/10000 = 0.478
9400/17700 = 0.531
whats left.
6400 kg on flanker
and 5800 kg on ef2000.
IMP: i havent taking into consideration how the payload is reduced by putting the fuel tank.(just did a simple weight subtraction.). since each pylon has its own weight specifications.
some websites mention internal fuel load as 5600l for ef2000( which will translate to much lower fuel specific gravity.
theres another reason why su30MKi is more imp for india.. because of plans for air launched land attack brahmos. the missile will weigh more than 2500 kg. and surely cannot be carried even on wings of SU30MKI right now( and so plans for eventual strengthening to increase the no MKI can carry to 3).
i dont think Ef2000 can not carry even a single one in its present form.
then we havent taken into consideration the effect of fuel tank on EF2000's A2A performance.
Quote:
yeah, i'm not even going to comment on RCS, since they both claim to have the best RCS after F-22. The radar on typhoon supposedly has a range of 185 KM vs 100 KM for RBE2. As for the turn rate, I don't have the figures. I often use this: http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...hter/tech.html
"In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons."
I think in Singapore trials, typhoon was the only fighter out of typhoon, Rafale and F-15 to take down 3 F-16s by itself.
I don't think this should be that surprising. When you are developing a fighter for air superiority and another fighter for more multirole, then the fighter developed for air superiority should be better at A2A task than the other fighter (assuming that they are at a similar level in the technical aspect)
I thought it was more about putting RAM on Mig-35? You can do that on existing Mig-29s. I guess that's another upgrade you can apply.
1. actually if we look at various configurations for EF2000 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...urofighter.htm
contains some configurations in pics at the end of the page.
there are only three possible fuel tanks( at least from the figures).
one 1000 l tank
and two 1500 l tank.
so of course we cant put only one 1500 l tank.
so the configuration you are considering is not possible
2. whats the specific gravity of the fuel used. ( for instance for MKI its 0.78).
for the time being if i take same figure(i dont think thats right but can still give an approximate idea).
the fuel in 1000 l tank is 780 kgs.
i.e. total 4780 kg.
so ratios are
4780/10000 = 0.478
9400/17700 = 0.531
whats left.
6400 kg on flanker
and 5800 kg on ef2000.
IMP: i havent taking into consideration how the payload is reduced by putting the fuel tank.(just did a simple weight subtraction.). since each pylon has its own weight specifications.
some websites mention internal fuel load as 5600l for ef2000( which will translate to much lower fuel specific gravity.
theres another reason why su30MKi is more imp for india.. because of plans for air launched land attack brahmos. the missile will weigh more than 2500 kg. and surely cannot be carried even on wings of SU30MKI right now( and so plans for eventual strengthening to increase the no MKI can carry to 3).
i dont think Ef2000 can not carry even a single one in its present form.
then we havent taken into consideration the effect of fuel tank on EF2000's A2A performance.
thanks for the info dude
Interesting, I forgot that 1000L of gas is not 1000KG. Darn, keep on thinking about it in the water terms. I guess 2 1500L tanks then?
That would be around 780 * 1.5 * 2 = 780 * 3 = 2340.
Anywhere, there is a lot of considerations here, you are right.
As for Brahmos, I had no idea it's that heavy. I guess that's going to be a problem with every Russian missile. I thought Klub was supposed to be light too, but then that was only compared to Moskit. hehehe, the Russians certainly do have a habit of making everything bigger.
As for EF-2000's performance with the tanks, I don't think it's that big of a problem. Any fighter that carries a lot of fuel will no longer manuver as well as it manuvers when it has no fuel left. For example, flankers manuver like pigs until they are down to 1/3 of their fuel.
Interesting, I forgot that 1000L of gas is not 1000KG. Darn, keep on thinking about it in the water terms. I guess 2 1500L tanks then?
That would be around 780 * 1.5 * 2 = 780 * 3 = 2340.
Anywhere, there is a lot of considerations here, you are right.
As for Brahmos, I had no idea it's that heavy. I guess that's going to be a problem with every Russian missile. I thought Klub was supposed to be light too, but then that was only compared to Moskit. hehehe, the Russians certainly do have a habit of making everything bigger.
current weight is 3000kgs. will come down for A2G or A2S version as solid fuel boosters will no longer be needed. dunno how much lighter can it be made but is that too much of a weight for M3 300km range missile.i mean most of the weight is surely fuel here.
Quote:
As for EF-2000's performance with the tanks, I don't think it's that big of a problem. Any fighter that carries a lot of fuel will no longer manuver as well as it manuvers when it has no fuel left. For example, flankers manuver like pigs until they are down to 1/3 of their fuel.
wasnt the flanker flown in an airshow with 7000kgs of external load?..
At least with the internal fuel no extra drag is generated. Then it even has TVC to provide better manouverability.
But then these planes are optimised for better manouverability in different speed ranges ..( su30 in low speed) and ef2000( a delta design in M0.9 +)
it wont be a good idea to compare.
current weight is 3000kgs. will come down for A2G or A2S version as solid fuel boosters will no longer be needed. dunno how much lighter can it be made but is that too much of a weight for M3 300km range missile.i mean most of the weight is surely fuel here.
wasnt the flanker flown in an airshow with 7000kgs of external load?..
At least with the internal fuel no extra drag is generated. Then it even has TVC to provide better manouverability.
But then these planes are optimised for better manouverability in different speed ranges ..( su30 in low speed) and ef2000( a delta design in M0.9 +)
it wont be a good idea to compare.
the weight of air launched brahmos is expected to be about 2500 kilos and the brahmos should be able to carry 3 of them along with 2 short ranged air to air missiles.
the weight of air launched brahmos is expected to be about 2500 kilos and the brahmos should be able to carry 3 of them along with 2 short ranged air to air missiles.
no current MKI cannot carry 3 of them. as wings arent strong nough to carry a 2.5T missile on a single pylon. there are plans to strengthen the wings in newer planes to facilitate the same.
no current MKI cannot carry 3 of them. as wings arent strong nough to carry a 2.5T missile on a single pylon. there are plans to strengthen the wings in newer planes to facilitate the same.
interesting, what about under the fuelsage? Have you guys ever considered kh-59mk? That has a 285 km range, but it is subsonic. And it's weight is probably 1000KG. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
Another long range subsonic AShM would be the SLAM-ER, which is 630 KG and has a range of around 280 KM I think.
I wasn't really comparing the manuverability of mki and ef-2000. I was simply saying that even really manuverable fighters move like pigs when they are fully loaded. Well other than F-22, but that's because it's engine thrust is ridiculous.
thats why current MKI's will be able to carry 1 brahmos only
Quote:
Have you guys ever considered kh-59mk? That has a 285 km range, but it is subsonic. And it's weight is probably 1000KG. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
Another long range subsonic AShM would be the SLAM-ER, which is 630 KG and has a range of around 280 KM I think.
thats because the harpoon carries 215 pounds of high explosive ..
while brahmos carries 300kgs of explosive.
secondly at higher speeds the air resistance is much higher..
even the tech is different . one is turbojet and other is ramjet.. i m surely dont know how to well compare these two. but the parameters are quite different in the case of these two.
about kh59M
Kh-59/AS-13 Kh-59M/AS-18
Length 5.37m 5.69m
Core Diameter 0.38m 0.38m
Wingspan 1.26m 1.30m
Launch Weight 760kg 930kg
Warhead 148kg HE 320kg HE; or
280kg submunitions
Propulsion Solid rocket Solid rocket + RDK-300 turbofan
Max Speed 1,000km/h 1,050km/h
Max Range 50km 115km
Guidance Inertial + TV command Inertial + TV command
again here in this case fuel used is different.
and range is quite smaller. i couldnt find the specifications for KH59MK except a statement stating that it has longer range..
Quote:
Originally Posted by from link
The Kh-59MK is an anti-ship variant with increased range. Its ARGS-59 active radar seeker has a maximum detection range of 25km against a 5,000m2 RCS targets and 15km against a 300m2 RCS targets.
its range is stated to be higher.. but i dunno about the weight and payload.. do you have some more details about the missile
Quote:
I wasn't really comparing the manuverability of mki and ef-2000. I was simply saying that even really manuverable fighters move like pigs when they are fully loaded. Well other than F-22, but that's because it's engine thrust is ridiculous.
interesting, what about under the fuelsage? Have you guys ever considered kh-59mk? That has a 285 km range, but it is subsonic. And it's weight is probably 1000KG. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
Another long range subsonic AShM would be the SLAM-ER, which is 630 KG and has a range of around 280 KM I think.
I wasn't really comparing the manuverability of mki and ef-2000. I was simply saying that even really manuverable fighters move like pigs when they are fully loaded. Well other than F-22, but that's because it's engine thrust is ridiculous.
india recently selected the israeli cruise missile the popeye/crystal maze.
and are realy considering acquiring a longer ranged casom,the rfp's have been sent to mbda(storm shadow),germany(taurus),usa(agm130e grand slam) and uk(pegasus).
these are intended to supplement the brahmos,these missiles have longer range but are subsonic.
I think if you are looking at the F18E/F then the F15E should be considered. The 18 can do both missions but neither one good. Where as the 15 is better than th 18 at both.
I think if you are looking at the F18E/F then the F15E should be considered. The 18 can do both missions but neither one good. Where as the 15 is better than th 18 at both.
the f15 was not offered to india.
and as far as the f18 or the f16 are considered ,they have very little to no chance of winning the indian deal,unless the us govt pulls all diplomatic and political stops in the marketing of these two aircrafts.
i would consider a combo of rafale(now that the mirage2000-5 is out of the race) and mig35 or a combo of ef2000 and mig35 to be selected for the 126mrca deal.
india has an aircraft(su-30 mki)more or less similiar to the f15 in performance and capability.
.. if its the same plane then we are better of getting zhuk and putting it on LCA.. sour job will be done.
