It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Su-27 Smart Design

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
The 27 as we know is a front line fighter. i found some advantage of Su-27 design:

- It was taken from F-15, made the development cost cheaper.

- The 27 design as if it has no fuselage. The fuselage is pretty much to the "neck" and "back bone" in order to get easier maintainance.

- The 27 design is better in case to do some enhancement. We could see it from the other fighters such like 30, 33, 32, 35, 37, and another Su-XX.

- The bow head and nose cone of the 27 helps the pilot to get the conciousness in extreme g forces.

-Its powerful design (swept back wings, slender body, and in some Su-XX the tri-plane config.) comes out with some strange new manuever like Pugachevs Cobra, ect.

I thought if it could be simpler than now, just like Raptor or F-35, the 27 families will be lower cost, easier to maintain, less human power to built, and stealthier maybe.

[edit on 9/21/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]




posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
-How does the shape of the nose cone reduce G-forces? Source?
-The F-15 series has enhancements too, just not as obvious.
-The cobra has little use in high speed combat when turn rates become the same due to G forces.
-Yes its cheap now, but no more are being made, it is being replaced by the PAK FA. A huge selling point on the F-22 and F-35 is the fact that they are easier to maintain than anything previous. Yes it takes less human power to build, but since no more are being built I fail to see how this is relevant.

And to top it off, there is just no way that the SU-27 is stealthier than the Raptor. Stealth was not even a consideration in its design. It has tons of right angles, and no RAM. That claim is just...wrong. The F-22 was built from the ground up as a stealth aircraft, its probably got 1/100th the signature of the SU.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Aside from some very basic similarities (two engines, twin vertical tails), the Su-27 doesn't have much in common with the F-15.

How do you get the idea that the design of the Su-27 was "taken from" the F-15??



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Su-27 was made anti F-15, it wasn't "taken from F-15".



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corvx
Su-27 was made anti F-15, it wasn't "taken from F-15".


Close...It was made to match or exceed it. It wasnt a direct countermeasure, because the Russians didnt know the actual specs of the machine. The F-15C is roughly equivalent overall to an Su-30 in terms of capability.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I took it from www.sukhoi.org
read it



Design work on a 4th-generation fighter, later known as the Su-27, began at the Design Bureau of P.O. Sukhoi on the designers' initiative under the supervision of O.S. Samoilovich at the end of 1969. The new plane was required to provide effective engagement of the F-15 fighter being developed in the USA under the FX programme from 1966, the Soviet fighter being positioned, the same as its foreign rival, as an "air-superiority" aircraft. In contrast to the USSR's previous efforts to "catch up" with the Americans, Soviet aircraft designers decided this time to produce an aeroplane in no way inferior, and even superior, to "the adversary". To achieve this objective, the Design Bureau put quite a few challenging ideas into the configuration under development right from the start, such as placing the engines widely spaced in two nacelles under the fuselage body, and placing the vertical tail unit in between the wings and horizontal tail unit.



At the initial stage, the Design Bureau produced a great number of alternative configuration concepts, including the one based on a conventional solution, with an integral body, modelled on the F-15; but interestingly enough, however, at the end of the day, it was the new concept of airframe configuration that the subsequent design efforts were based upon. Another important feature of the new fighter was to be implementation of the concept of longitudinal static instability, with balancing achieved through use of an electronic distance control system (EDCS). Introduction of this innovation promised a substantial decrease in losses for balancing and a dramatic improvement in the plane’s manoeuvrability in dogfighting.



" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


[edit on 9/21/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
You know it's funny because the source you bolded may say that it was modeled on the F-15, but it also makes a contradicting statement to that. It does in fact say:


...but interestingly enough, however, at the end of the day, it was the new concept of airframe configuration that the subsequent design efforts were based upon.


The first source never states that the Su-27 was based on the F-15, merely that the Soviets answered the American F-15 with their Su-27.

So the successful production version wasn't really so much based on the F-15 as it was on the original T-10 prototype. They took the strong points from the T-10 and incorporated them into the Su-27 because the original design (that had been based on the F-15) was simply plagued with a laundry list of problems.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   


World aviation today cannot be conceived of without the Su-27, a legendary aircraft. The Su-27 which formed the basic platform that has spawned countless derivatives has became the core of Russia’s combat aviation and Russian arms exports today. The Su-27 is seen as a befitting response by Sukhoi to the challenge of the West - the U.S. F-15 air superiority fighter.

In the fall of 1969, Pavel Sukhoi, head of the Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau, launched the T-10 project at his own initiative. The designers faced a most challenging task of developing an aircraft that would surpass the U.S. fighter which had overall technological superiority.

On 20-May-1977, famous test pilot Vladimir Ilyushin took the Sukhoi T-10-1 for its first flight from the test center Zhukovski. However, before the aircraft could be put into series production it had to be drastically redesigned. There were very serious reasons for that - the designers of onboard equipment and missiles exceeded weight limits. The redesign work was headed by a design team woven around Mikhail Simonov. (See Mikahil Simonov Interview)
A comparison of the original design (in black) with the production Su-27

The original Su-27 design was rejected

The Design Bureau and cooperating enterprises were set the task to find bold, unorthodox solutions in the project, and to improve every component of the plane, its onboard equipment and armament.

The Su-27 for the first time incorporated solutions proposed for integrated supersonic designs in the 1950s by brilliant aircraft designer and scientist Robert Bartini (1897-1974). Pavel Sukhoi used Bartini’s ideas in the T-10 design. This is why the Su-27’s load-bearing airframe features high lift, low drag, air flow down-suction throughout the wingspan, and shock-free air flow in the area blending wing and it is leading-edge root extensions. The Su-27 is the world’s only fighter in which leading-edge root extensions reduce, rather than increase, drag. These solutions, combined with perfect design and minimal structural weight, provided much space for fuel and equipment, ensuring an exceptional flight range on internal fuel.

The Su-27 markedly enhanced the Soviet Air Force’s combat potential. NATO immediately saw the difference. In the previous years, the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft often flew into Soviet airspace over the Kola Peninsula to check readiness of the Soviet Air Defense. The Su-27, with its high flight performance and perfect multichannel avionics system, sharply changed the situation, intercepting SR-71 aircraft in Soviet airspace.

The F-16 fighter is considered by many as an american aerodynamic standard. However, this effort was clearly eclipsed by the remarkable qualities of the Su-27.

The real triumph for the Su-27 came in 1989 when it made its first public appearance at the world’s largest air show Le Bourget near Paris. It was here that the now famous 'Cobra' maneuver was premiered in the West. The pilot at the controls was Victor Pugachev - hence the Cobra is often called the 'Pugachev Cobra'.

source

Notice the text in bold..


Two important points, SR-71 DID overfly Soviet Airspace and the Su-27 intercepted the SR-71?!

deserves some more looking into..

(edit to add link)



[edit on 22-9-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
The design concept that was based on the F-15 was the first MiG 29, NOT the one that was built, or the Su 27, a larger one that was a direct rival to the Su-27 that is know as the 'MiG 29 Large'. The MiG 29 that was built was a separate concept called the 'MiG 29 Small'.

Both the Su 27 and the MiG 29 small were based on the same aerodynamic research carried out at TsAGI to find the most efficient wing and layout possible for an agile fighter (on then current technology of course) and are aimed at performance, not easy maintenance.

Here are a couple of images of the MiG 29 Large design, the Su 27 was completely separate.







[edit on 22-9-2007 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Daedalus, source?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Ahh yes apologies:

Source



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Alright! The 27 was not taken from F-15. I just see that at least its development made easier then.

about the nosecone, it is the same as if you in-clined the seat some degrees, at least it helps.

about the wing, the fixed wing create an agile manuever, i agree with that, but still improve that the maintainance get easier and of course easy tooling in fabrication. However it's simpler than F-15.

I don't mean assuming on something but, let we see the fact! i think Russia wants to make better airplane of course! so they learned the F-15 then came out with better solution in design. that's one of the easiest way for someone to get better but cheaper.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
about the nosecone, it is the same as if you in-clined the seat some degrees, at least it helps.


Possibly, but not directly. The bow head does not change the orientation of the seat at all. What it does, however, is give the Nav Officer visibility in the 2-seat version (which in my opinion isso much better looking of an aircraft). In the single-seater, the allocated space might have been used to tilt the seat back, I'm not sure. It is proven that leaning it back does actually help relieve G-force effects. This was shown on the Su-47 Berkut, and the seat had a 60 degree tilt to it. Pilots said it was uncomfortable but effective.



I don't mean assuming on something but, let we see the fact! i think Russia wants to make better airplane of course! so they learned the F-15 then came out with better solution in design. that's one of the easiest way for someone to get better but cheaper.


Careful with that argument, a few've been using that to support PAK-FA. The debates sparked from that turn into debacles, and we're never entirely sure who wins.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 


No way f-15C is equivalent to Su-30. dream on. forgot about exercise between Indian air force and USA?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander

- The bow head and nose cone of the 27 helps the pilot to get the conciousness in extreme g forces.


How does this work???



-Its powerful design (swept back wings, slender body, and in some Su-XX the tri-plane config.) comes out with some strange new manuever like Pugachevs Cobra, ect.


Air to air combat at close quarters is about conservation of energy. E-bleeding manouevres like the cobra make you a target and are of no real value at all in a dogfight. Sure it may work occaisionally as a last resort tactic but nine times out of ten a wary opponent will kill you if you try this kind of thing.



I thought if it could be simpler than now, just like Raptor or F-35, the 27 families will be lower cost, easier to maintain, less human power to built, and stealthier maybe.



This is the beauty of the Russian approach to logistics. The concept of having a buffer that allows development to continue in the face of high attrition. This factor is one that every opponent to Russian arms has failed to address in the past and paid the price for. The classic example is the technical superiority of the Luftwaffe circa 1941. Despite outstanding successes by the Germans the outdated designs used by the VVS were sufficient to hold the line until better hardware could make it's way to the front. A critical point which many Americans here, for all their flag waving, seem to have missed.

History shows us that strategic air superiority does absolutely nothing to impede an enemy's production capability. Despite a round the clock pounding from the RAF and USAAF the Germans were able to de-centralise their industry and actually INCREASE production. If either side has an Achillies heel in this confrontation then it is in fuel supplies and not technology and production. Sensible planners on both sides should be looking at this rather than spouting propaganda about how 'superior' their gear is.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyBlonde
 



"Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics."

-Omar Bradley





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join