The Russian Sukhoi Su-35: handbrake turns in midair

happyuk

Old-Salt

Read about the evoution of the technology here:

Sukhoi Su-35 - Wikipedia

It's not a small plane! It weighs 30 tons. And the pilot can make it look like a kitten playing in the sky.

Fun quote

“I mean, come on,” Stephen Trimble, aviation reporter and editor for Flightglobal’s Americas bureau, tweeted Thursday after seeing footage of the aircraft’s demonstration. “And people actually thought the F-35A display at Paris last month was impressive. This isn’t impressive. It’s unbelievable.”

You can see from the vids that at times it looks as though it is about to get completely out of control, then the pilot brings her back just in the nick of time - it's superb flying and an absolute joy to behold.

Clever computerized fly-by-wire, powerful engines, and thrust vectoring. .The skill of the pilot probably has a lot to do with it, too.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?98901-The-Russian-Sukhoi-Su-35-handbrake-turns-in-midair--&p=1168172&viewfull=1#post1168172
The plane is designed to be unstable in the air... and the computer systems keep it all under control.

Without a computer interface, no pilot could ever fly the thing, even in level flight. But that means it's really easy for it to be flipped into instability within seconds — which is the secret of its supermaneuverabilty perhaps?.
 
A convenient target.
 

happyuk

Old-Salt
Yeah in air combat energy - in form of speed and altitude - is the most important factor, I just thought it was impressive to watch.

Those maneuvers kill must suck all the energy, meaning you are basically a sitting duck. I would imagine they are pretty much useless, except maybe as a last straw in a close air combat when you are out of all other options?
 
An AAM requires several multiples of the target's maximum g, however, because it is (1) faster and requires more g to match or better that target's turning radius and (2) is reacting to the target's movements, which introduces lag.

Thrust-vectored manouevres are a sort of g-shortcut for the target which makes this even more difficult for the missile. The missile can anticipate a 9g turn by the target and adjust course, but suddenly the turning radius is smaller though the target isn't pulling any more g. However the missile has to pile-on the g.
 
Such party tricks are of increasingly limited use. The primary scenarios I could envisage would be if fighting opposition within visual range who lacks a High Off Bore-Sight (HOBS) missile, or as an absolute last ditch 'I'm out of ideas' manoeuvre to trash a missile shot.

In the former case, most NATO nations are now operating with ASRAAM, AIM-9X or IRIS. Plenty of other nations have similar capabilities with weapons such as Python 4 and 5.

In the latter scenario, even in the probably unlikely event that such a manoeuvre works, you'd better hope there's not another missile inbound because you've just used all your energy.

Regards,
MM
 

Maple

LE
The Python 4 is a very impressive bit of kit, one of my bosses was doing his QWI course presentation on it and I helped out with the research. 10 years ago the missile could go around corners and over the shooter's shoulder


The new one's looking fab too


Ask yourself - if all that strange vector-manoeuvring lark is so great why is it not implemented more widely as every man and his dog has trialed it? Great for airshows, in the real world? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
Ask yourself - if all that strange vector-manoeuvring lark is so great why is it not implemented more widely as every man and his dog has trialed it. Great for airshows, in the real world? Not so much.

I would imagine Typhoon could do similar tricks if the pilots were so inclined.
 
I would imagine Typhoon could do similar tricks if the pilots were so inclined.
No it couldn't because it doesn't have TVC. Some partner nations have suggested it but there's not much interest.

Regards,
MM
 
No it couldn't because it doesn't have TVC. Some partner nations have suggested it but there's not much interest.

Regards,
MM

I've seen some interesting performances of planes without TVC. Like a Swiss AF F/A-18 being balanced 'hovering' on its jet thrust by its pilot. Amazing airmanship.
 
I've seen some interesting performances of planes without TVC. Like a Swiss AF F/A-18 being balanced 'hovering' on its jet thrust by its pilot. Amazing airmanship.
You can do that sort of stuff.

However, without TVC, no type could match the rapid pitch and Angle of Attack changes.

Regards,
MM
 
It's a great air show crowd-pleaser manoeuvre, with very little, if any, practical application.
 
I suppose in a dogfight this stuff might be as useful as VIFFing was to Harrier pilots but I wonder whether a better application might be ground attack? Perhaps more in an Afghanistan-type conflict where the enemy AAA capability is limited?
I suppose it depends on whether the aircraft can use its wacky manoevres to stay on target longer or whether they are just induced but random instability?
 
It's a sales pitch to those who,have the cash but no idea of how things work.

One of the people who,works? " along side me" was shown a fantastic, as he put it " Just like Star Wars " system in 2015. He has the purse strings and was sold an out of date second hand system . " Costs $500,000 new Sir from the snake oil man.

Oh yes it is out of warranty, we will sell it as new. Doh, OK. To you only $1 .

Ok , bargain....


Later in the day.

The Gold warranty you "Must" buy is $50,000 a year. For 5 years.

OK.


Shame it's life and support expire's in 2019.

$250,000 for an out of date bit of kit as a tit liked the way it looked.
 
Can't remember which aircraft type was involved, but some years ago a Russian pilot performing similar manouevres at an airshow overcooked it and managed to bang out just before impact. Escaping enemy aircraft is one thing, escaping the ground is another. Or as I saw on a poster in 31 Sqn many years ago "the effectiveness of AAA is 5%, the effectiveness of SAMs is 15%, the effectiveness of the ground is 100%. Which do you fear most?".
No prizes for doing the enemy's job for him.
 

happyuk

Old-Salt
It's a sales pitch to those who,have the cash but no idea of how things work.

One of the people who,works? " along side me" was shown a fantastic, as he put it " Just like Star Wars " system in 2015. He has the purse strings and was sold an out of date second hand system . " Costs $500,000 new Sir from the snake oil man.

Oh yes it is out of warranty, we will sell it as new. Doh, OK. To you only $1 .

Ok , bargain....

Later in the day.

The Gold warranty you "Must" buy is $50,000 a year. For 5 years.

OK.
Shame it's life and support expire's in 2019.

$250,000 for an out of date bit of kit as a tit liked the way it looked.
The Russians demonstrate that you don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to make an amazing fighter jet

There exists an interesting comparison of two jets-and two air shows.

The Paris Air Show was supposed to put to rest the unpatriotic criticisms of Lockheed's "5th generation" gazillion-dollar baby: The majestic F-35. It didn't.

The jet performed mediocre at best. At worst, people were calling it a sack of 5th generation garbage.

"He will start with an afterburner takeoff, almost immediately pointing his nose to the sky and letting the aircraft climb away essentially vertically. This impressive move is unique to the F-22 and the F-35, he said." --
Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn

The F-15 has been doing that in airshow displays since the eighties.

Never believe a snake-oil salesman or an Lockheed Martin PR jockey.

Come to think of it, what's the difference?

That the two planes do different things, is because they come from two different mind sets; the SU 35 is created to be an outstanding aircraft, the F35 is a money making venture.
 
The Russians demonstrate that you don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to make an amazing fighter jet

There exists an interesting comparison of two jets-and two air shows.

The Paris Air Show was supposed to put to rest the unpatriotic criticisms of Lockheed's "5th generation" gazillion-dollar baby: The majestic F-35. It didn't.

The jet performed mediocre at best. At worst, people were calling it a sack of 5th generation garbage.

"He will start with an afterburner takeoff, almost immediately pointing his nose to the sky and letting the aircraft climb away essentially vertically. This impressive move is unique to the F-22 and the F-35, he said." --
Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn

The F-15 has been doing that in airshow displays since the eighties.

Never believe a snake-oil salesman or an Lockheed Martin PR jockey.

Come to think of it, what's the difference?

That the two planes do different things, is because they come from two different mind sets; the SU 35 is created to be an outstanding aircraft, the F35 is a money making venture.
Why do you consider the Su-35 to be 'amazing' and 'outstanding'?

Indeed, why do you consider that an airshow in any way provides a valid environment to assess a combat aircraft?

Regards,
MM
 

Latest Threads

Top