Russia to get SU-35 by 2011

F-15 Eagle

New Member
The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said on Wednesday. The Su-35 is an advanced air superiority fighter powered by two AL-37F engines. It combines high maneuverability and the capacity to intercept air targets with ground and sea attack capability using both unguided and guided, including high precision, weapons.
"I think we will start deliveries of the Su-35 to the Russian Air Force in 2010-2011. We are also planning to promote this fighter on our traditional markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America," Mikhail Pogosyan said.
The Sukhoi said the price for the new fighter "will be quite competitive."
"I am certain that we will be able to keep the competitive edge while reducing the price [of the aircraft]," he said.
Pogosyan said the first prototype Su-35 successfully completed flight tests on February 18, and two more aircraft were being prepared for similar tests at an aircraft manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East.
"The tests met our expectations; all systems performed in line with specifications," he said.
According to Pogosyan, the Su-35 is the first step toward the development of the fifth-generation fighter and its electronics allow testing of equipment to be installed on future aircraft.
"The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years. We have walked a third of the road," Pogosyan said, adding that the first prototype of the fifth-generation fighter would be built in the next few years.
Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is planning to export over 40 combat aircraft in 2008, the company head said.
In 2007, Sukhoi exported about 50 Su-30MK2, Su-30MKM and Su-30MKI aircraft in addition to spare parts for aircraft sold earlier to Algeria, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela.
The company said on January 30 that its overall sales in 2007 exceeded 50 billion rubles (over $2 billion).
 

ROCK45

New Member
Su-35 and Russian 5th Generation aircraft

In read this and other articles like it and know that funding and steady funding is needed. The Flanker frame or design is heavy and better use of weight and fuel is needed. Even my country has moved past the teen series and I think Russia needs to do the same but it's costly. I'll quote one part of the article that says ""The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years."how would they know that? Isn't the F-22 program something like 17 or 18 years old? And we had the F-117 program to learn from with over ten years of expensive testing done before that aircraft was basically seen if not more. To catch up to 20 plus years of 5th generation takes a steady flow of funding and the government to hang in there and support it. I think Russia has the minds to do it and the military has the need but can the government maintain the support and drive needed? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile
 

Chrom

New Member
In read this and other articles like it and know that funding and steady funding is needed. The Flanker frame or design is heavy and better use of weight and fuel is needed. Even my country has moved past the teen series and I think Russia needs to do the same but it's costly. I'll quote one part of the article that says ""The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years."how would they know that? Isn't the F-22 program something like 17 or 18 years old? And we had the F-117 program to learn from with over ten years of expensive testing done before that aircraft was basically seen if not more. To catch up to 20 plus years of 5th generation takes a steady flow of funding and the government to hang in there and support it. I think Russia has the minds to do it and the military has the need but can the government maintain the support and drive needed? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile
F-117 is by no way relate to F-22. They have very little in common. So we can safely disregard that. F-22 took 18 years to develop... right. Much too long for any standard. But otherwise i cant see why 5-gen aircraft should take more time to develop than 3th or 4th gen.

Btw, despite this article i'm still pretty sure RuAF will not buy Su-35 in any meaningfull numbers. Ofc it will be formally accepted to service, may be even 10-20 bought due to usual export promouting - any military technic sells much better when it is accepted in host country.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said on Wednesday. The Su-35 is an advanced air superiority fighter powered by two AL-37F engines. It combines high maneuverability and the capacity to intercept air targets with ground and sea attack capability using both unguided and guided, including high precision, weapons.
"I think we will start deliveries of the Su-35 to the Russian Air Force in 2010-2011. We are also planning to promote this fighter on our traditional markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America," Mikhail Pogosyan said.
The Sukhoi said the price for the new fighter "will be quite competitive."
"I am certain that we will be able to keep the competitive edge while reducing the price [of the aircraft]," he said.
Pogosyan said the first prototype Su-35 successfully completed flight tests on February 18, and two more aircraft were being prepared for similar tests at an aircraft manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East.
"The tests met our expectations; all systems performed in line with specifications," he said.
According to Pogosyan, the Su-35 is the first step toward the development of the fifth-generation fighter and its electronics allow testing of equipment to be installed on future aircraft.
"The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years. We have walked a third of the road," Pogosyan said, adding that the first prototype of the fifth-generation fighter would be built in the next few years.
Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is planning to export over 40 combat aircraft in 2008, the company head said.
In 2007, Sukhoi exported about 50 Su-30MK2, Su-30MKM and Su-30MKI aircraft in addition to spare parts for aircraft sold earlier to Algeria, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela.
The company said on January 30 that its overall sales in 2007 exceeded 50 billion rubles (over $2 billion).
Source? Fact is the new Su-35 has nothing to d with the old one, I seriously doubt the "Flanker E" designation is used for this type and the AL-37F never existed and will never exist. The new Su-35 is powered by 2 article 117S engines, previously also refered to as AL-41F1A.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
In read this and other articles like it and know that funding and steady funding is needed. The Flanker frame or design is heavy and better use of weight and fuel is needed. Even my country has moved past the teen series and I think Russia needs to do the same but it's costly. I'll quote one part of the article that says ""The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years."how would they know that? Isn't the F-22 program something like 17 or 18 years old? And we had the F-117 program to learn from with over ten years of expensive testing done before that aircraft was basically seen if not more. To catch up to 20 plus years of 5th generation takes a steady flow of funding and the government to hang in there and support it. I think Russia has the minds to do it and the military has the need but can the government maintain the support and drive needed? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile
The new Su-35 is supposed to weight even less than the Su-27. Fact is the Su-27 is relative light taking its huge size into account. No one can guarantee exact dates, but it is not as Russia hasn't worked on 5th gen fighters before. Experience gained with projects started in the 80s flow into the PAK FA as well. The Su-35 is some kind of test bed and given the fact that PAK FA is unlikely to enter service before late next decade and unlikely to be exported much before 2020 it is just reasonable to develope a transitional fighter like the Su-35 as an interim solution to cover the timeframe until the PAK FA finally arrives.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
The article is not very specific on how many will be produced, though I do see it as a interim fighter until the PAK-FA comes online. I would expect they might build 100 in the best case scenario if funding allows it, in the worst case then probably no more than 20. We shall see.;)
 

ROCK45

New Member
Looking at things

There are a few different ways of looking at this

Chrom
F-117 is by no way relate to F-22. They have very little in common. So we can safely disregard that.
The F-117 is the father of stealth it was the first operational stealth aircraft all the programs came from this. All the special made equipment, billion of dollars in R&D money is what started it. The basic stealth ideas must be common in both. The data used on real missions is shared I'm sure at some levels. I understand the F-22 is very different as well as the F-35, both there roots run deep from the F-117 program I think.

Scorpion82
The new Su-35 is supposed to weight even less than the Su-27.
Source?
How could you know that? Wouldn't it be difficult to know the final weight of a unfinished not produced fighter? One not even built anywhere near it's final stages?

No one can guarantee exact dates,
That's why the dates given mean very little to myself and maybe other written in these articles. The stages of this project meaning the Su-35 production aren't set. For example look at the F-35 you can monitor it's progress a little easier you see it: flying, you see the engines being tested, most of the equipment isn't prototype it's made already, there fifty other smaller things I'm leaving that need to be done before a production runs can start on an aircraft. You can see this up to a point it's different with the Su-35. I think Chrom's right I don't think Russia's own AF is going to buy it. I think a lot of the new upgraded systems and weapons can be worked into the Su-27M1 or what ever Russian latest model is or exported Su-30.

but it is not as Russia hasn't worked on 5th gen fighters before
.
Do you have a source

Experience gained with projects started in the 80s flow into the PAK FA as well.
Russia was still making Su-27/30 Flankers 28 years ago so that experience wasen't on the same level a F-117 or early stages of a F-22, so how helpful could it be really?

The Su-35 is some kind of test bed and given the fact that PAK FA is unlikely to enter service before late next decade and unlikely to be exported much before 2020
This PAK-FA is basically vaporware and not even made so how could it enter service and have possible export dates? Russia just getting super advance Flankers produced so I don't see when this PAK-FA is going to be made.

I saw the articles to like the one where India's going to give Russia what $5 billion dollars to start or something, others may know more details. India can't pick a 4th generation fighter and Russia and India have locked horns before of arms deals so I don't see that happening smoothly do you really? Both would be better off on the own or when more data or project material has been created to then join together to share cost.

That's why I mention it takes steady government funding and support to make 5th generation and/or stealth fighter.

Sorry for the long post
 
Last edited:

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The new Su-35 is supposed to weight even less than the Su-27. Fact is the Su-27 is relative light taking its huge size into account. No one can guarantee exact dates, but it is not as Russia hasn't worked on 5th gen fighters before. Experience gained with projects started in the 80s flow into the PAK FA as well. The Su-35 is some kind of test bed and given the fact that PAK FA is unlikely to enter service before late next decade and unlikely to be exported much before 2020 it is just reasonable to develope a transitional fighter like the Su-35 as an interim solution to cover the timeframe until the PAK FA finally arrives.
I would hope that the Su-35 would weigh less than the Su-27 by using composites. However, I do not agree with the Su-27 is relative light taking it's huge size into account. As compared to what?

The Su-35 is a test bed? transitional fighter? intrim solution?

The Su-35 is just a development of the Su-27/30, so why does it take three years to bring it online?
 

ROCK45

New Member
heavy

Using composites is a very good point Flankers should shed a few tons yes I said tons the fighter is bigger then an F-14.

This is what I mean by making better use of weight and fuel, this really should be in a F-35 thread. I'm trying to make a point that even without the stealth the Flanker designed should go down a path like below. An examples of a different design the Typhoon came out a little late it's design is basically improvement over other jets in it's class it's not stealth but it's a improvement. The Su-35 doesn't seem to leap ahead of the same basic Flanker design. Like I mention I think a lot of the improvements can be worked into the Su-30 current design as upgrades. The below is a good example of how new designs cut weight, increased range, add fuel, without losing agility.


Good reading
I found this

"The common thread running through all of the US service roles is a primary strike optimisation, reflected in the avionics and airframe design of the aircraft. Single service roles have been clearly traded down to achieve commonality. The JSF will not provide the payload-radius of the Navy A-6/A-12A deep strike aircraft [F-35A will have 1.37 times the internal fuel of an F-15C, and with only one engine, less weight and less drag this will equate to about 1.7 times the range of the Eagle], nor will it provide the relative agility advantages of the Air Force F-16A against its original Soviet opponents. [A few paragraphs earlier in the same document Kopp writes; "…The F-16A was like the F-15A aimed at air superiority, but limited by radar to mostly day VFR combat. While exceptionally agile, the 6,800 lb internal fuel capacity severely limited this aircraft. …" The F-35A has 18,480 lb of internal fuel (2.7 times more than an F-16C) and virtually the same T:W as an F-16C Block 60 at 50% fuel, plus far larger wing area and control surfaces. To cheaply assert F-35A will somehow be less agile or less than a stellar A-to-A fighter is ridiculous and irrational-at best. Everything points to F-35A being a far better A-to-A capability than an F-16C ever was, especially when distributed sensors, avionics integration, low-RCS, electronic warfare and network capabilities are included. Also, what good is mere A-to-A agility if you can’t detect your opponent? Agility is of no consequence in that case. As pointed out in the last blog entry, with regard to F/A-18 HUG and MiG-29, agility has very little to do with who will win that A-2-A contest. An opponent generally won’t detect an RAAF F-35, given JORN and Wedgetail, but RAAF F-35A will certainly detect the opponent, regardless of role, orientation, or flight regime in plenty of time to set ambush. That’s why it’s got 360 degree sensors plus integrated A-to-A laser-tracking and ranging of BVR targets, plus sensational A-to-A sensor and avionics integration. That level of integration can be used to auto-cue the autopilot to kinematically defeat an A-to-A missile, plus optimise AESA EW, jamming, laser attack on IR missile seekers, countermeasures release and missile decoy deployment-automatically. That’s why it has so much computer grunt and coding. The A-to-A laser scan and tracker allows a passive launch and guidance of BVR active radar missiles to an active terminal homing phase, thus denying the opponent a warning that an attack is underway until the final few seconds. By the time they hear/look at their RWR and realise it’s an active homing seeker, its already too late. This gear is not for A-to-G Mr. Kopp, the aircraft was built to be a BVR razor, not just to survive, hide and escape from BVR opponents. With 4 x AIM-120C/D, or probable 2 x MBDA Meteor + 2 x AIM-120C/D internal missile load it will take plenty of kills in a BVR role within SEA. Potentially 8 x AIM-120C/D or 8 x MBDA Meteor could be externally carried also.] The aircraft has a more complex and expensive avionic suite than would be required for any of the single service roles, as it rolls all three requirements into one package. The JSF's stealth capabilities are more narrowly optimised than those of the F-117A and F-22A, reflecting the need to survive mobile battlefield and littoral defences rather than penetrating an Integrated Air Defence System in depth." [Someone with a death-wish might consider penetrating an intact IADS, but if you operate F-35A you pickle-off JASSM-ER and return to base as you and your wingman’s 8 x JASSM-ER slam into IADS command centres, radars and comms infrastructure. F-35A will specialise in quickly blinding and collapsing a distributed IADS in hrs-so what’s your beef? By 2018 RAAF will potentially be able to surge ~500 JASSMs and JSOWs on the first day, and ~380 each subsequent day. If in 2012 90% of Day-1 weapons (~100 JASSM and ~80 JSOW) of RAAF hit their targets, what SEA military could absorb it and return precision fires or operate an effective IADS Day-2?]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
At least for the case of USAF roles, the F-35 should not be compared with the F-15, nor the F-16 compared to the F-15.

The F-35A should only be compared to the F-16.

I would hope that next generation aircraft be vast improvements over the previous.

I find the F/A-18 to be quite remarkable as it replaced the F-14, A-6, A-7 and even the EA-6.
 

qwerty223

New Member
I would hope that the Su-35 would weigh less than the Su-27 by using composites. However, I do not agree with the Su-27 is relative light taking it's huge size into account. As compared to what?

The Su-35 is a test bed? transitional fighter? intrim solution?

The Su-35 is just a development of the Su-27/30, so why does it take three years to bring it online?
It is somewhat a further development of the 27/30, but lets take example of MKI, its just a 27 airframe, with minor redesign and maximize the original capacity by replacing updated russian/western source instrument and even adding some of the missing contemporary ones. While 35 on other hand take measure to enhance parameter for every aspect of the design, that takes lot of work. Even the MKI took almost 5 years to integrate those new systems.
 

ROCK45

New Member
Roles

I was using that as a base line to show aircraft improvements over former designs. I don't see the Su35 being so vastly improved over the previous Flanker designs. If the AL-41 or the other engine does work out that would be an improvement but the weight and size should be brought down.

I agree the F/A-18 is remarkable it does everything except drop naval mines.

I think the comparing the F35 to the F-15 is worthy. I think comparing only the F-15 to F-22 and F-16 to F-35 isn't a modern way of thinking. The F-15 is a classic fighter I totally understand that. I maybe wrong but I think the F-35 has a chance on being the modern day F-4 used by all and in all types of missions. Comparing F-15s to F-16s has been going on for years at 16net. I think your looking at this is a classic way and I can respect that. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Thumbs up
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The F-117 is the father of stealth it was the first operational stealth aircraft all the programs came from this.
And here I was thinking that it was the SR-71. You know, the one with RAM and designed from the getgo to reduce its RCS? Thanks for the clarification.

cheers

w
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I agree the F/A-18 is remarkable it does everything except drop naval mines.

I think the comparing the F35 to the F-15 is worthy. I think comparing only the F-15 to F-22 and F-16 to F-35 isn't a modern way of thinking. The F-15 is a classic fighter I totally understand that. I maybe wrong but I think the F-35 has a chance on being the modern day F-4 used by all and in all types of missions. Comparing F-15s to F-16s has been going on for years at 16net. I think your looking at this is a classic way and I can respect that. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Thumbs up
The hi low mix will still be utilized by the USAF, i.e. for the most part F-22A will provide the air cover (just as F-15C does now) and F-35A will do the ground and pound stuff (just as the F-16 block xx does now). That was their design objectives and that is what they'll be doing. Therefore the F-22A is more comperable to the F-15C than the F-35A is to the F-4, the F-35A will never be the USAF's primary air superiority asset (F-4 was), and in turn the multi-role "light" F-35A does indeed have more in common with the F-16 than the F-4 wether your looking at things in a classic way or not. The only real commonality between F-4 & F-35 is the fact is will be used by more than one service.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The hi low mix will still be utilized by the USAF, i.e. for the most part F-22A will provide the air cover (just as F-15C does now) and F-35A will do the ground and pound stuff (just as the F-16 block xx does now). That was their design objectives and that is what they'll be doing. Therefore the F-22A is more comperable to the F-15C than the F-35A is to the F-4, the F-35A will never be the USAF's primary air superiority asset (F-4 was), and in turn the multi-role "light" F-35A does indeed have more in common with the F-16 than the F-4 wether your looking at things in a classic way or not. The only real commonality between F-4 & F-35 is the fact is will be used by more than one service.
Thank you Ozzy. The Hi-Low mix is what the USAF has so:

F-22 replaces the F-15C and F-117

F-35A replaces the F-16
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It is somewhat a further development of the 27/30, but lets take example of MKI, its just a 27 airframe, with minor redesign and maximize the original capacity by replacing updated russian/western source instrument and even adding some of the missing contemporary ones. While 35 on other hand take measure to enhance parameter for every aspect of the design, that takes lot of work. Even the MKI took almost 5 years to integrate those new systems.
Upgrades and updates still should not take so long. Especially if the non-Russian subsystems were already integrated into the Su-30 variants. In fact, time lines should be even shorter as the Russians are working with an airframe they must be intimately familiar with.

I have only seen minor upgrades and improvements and yet no new earth-shattering new technology.

I believe there are other reasons for the delays such as budget, lack of production infrastructure, and even shortage of skilled workers.

It will be a huge challenge for Russia to develop a completely new fighter airframe with new systems (instead of recycling the Su-27/Mig-29 designs). They need to go forward as their European and US counterparts have already done so (Eurofighter, Rafale, F-22, F-35) should Russia expect to maintain a modern airforce and compete in the worldwide fighter aircraft market.
 

ROCK45

New Member
Sr-71

Wooki you are so right maybe saying offspring would have been better.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a1.gif
:)

Ozzy Blizzard - The US Air Forces designed objectives are what you have stated. I have a humble opinion on this but this isn't the correct thread.

Salty Dog your last post nails the topic down very well and Russia's aircraft industry has many hurdlers to get pass. The Su-35 may even fall by the way side like so many Mig-29 new models that never really reached production.

Happy smiles for all
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a1.gif
:)
 
Last edited:

nevidimka

New Member
IIRC scorrectly the SU 35BM is supposed to use the AL 41 derivative. The AL41 is developed for the smaller PAK FA< n hence the engines themselves are smaller in diameter, n possibly lighter. So being fitted with a smaller engine albeit more powerful, will also add to its weight saving.
Also the neck part of its canopy has also been reduced saving weight.
 

qwerty223

New Member
Upgrades and updates still should not take so long. Especially if the non-Russian subsystems were already integrated into the Su-30 variants. In fact, time lines should be even shorter as the Russians are working with an airframe they must be intimately familiar with.

I have only seen minor upgrades and improvements and yet no new earth-shattering new technology.

I believe there are other reasons for the delays such as budget, lack of production infrastructure, and even shortage of skilled workers.

It will be a huge challenge for Russia to develop a completely new fighter airframe with new systems (instead of recycling the Su-27/Mig-29 designs). They need to go forward as their European and US counterparts have already done so (Eurofighter, Rafale, F-22, F-35) should Russia expect to maintain a modern airforce and compete in the worldwide fighter aircraft market.
the BM actually started around 3~ years ago when only the reheat of their econ. And even so, the fully founded Boeing did no get ahead far on refreshing their eagles.
Not to mention the EF, Rafale and Lightning II took more than if not close to a decade to begin their low rate production of incomplete models.
 
Top