Russia to get SU-35 by 2011

Chrom

New Member
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
Ya, i dont think F-22 have much in common with F-117 regarding to stealth technologies. The coat and material used is certainly completely different. F-22 aerodinamics, avionic, electronic and weapon have 100 times more in common with F-15 than F-117.

The designing philisophy is also completely different. F-117 is stealth aircraft, completely relied on stealth - otherwise it is pretty much crap. F-22, contrary, is very good aircraft even without stealth.
 

ROCK45

New Member
F-117

Calling the F-117 crap is a little harsh the aircraft served very well for a long period of time with only one shot down. From different reports NATO was using the same routes and most likely just flew over or close to a older SAM site. It was shot down by a missile so it's not like fifty farmers laid on there backs and just blindly fired AK-47s up in the air and got lucky, I realize that. It was tracked long enough for a missile to launch fly a short distance and score a hit. Using the same route most likely help putting the SAM or SAMs in the right spot. Many sorties were flown before with little success of hitting one nor in the Gulf War I, it dropped a lot of bombs for crap. No aircraft maker could produce one now and it what 20 years old? Makes you think how good the F-22 is and future F-35. I agree the F-117 shouldn't have been called a fighter maybe A-117 or B-117, or what ever but the aircraft never gets any love just because it not sexy looking fighter. One day were read about all the unreleased areas it's flown over flying over and never seen on any radar nets. Regarding to stealth technologies I don't know enough about them nor do I think it would be released to the public what common factors they might share.

Back to the subject what would you cut in Russia's armed forces to better finance there aircraft industry? From your profile your not Russian but you seem to know a lot about Russian arms. In general areas are there wasteful programs, poor use of resources, aide to other, etc. In my country if I could change something it would be the money going out in aide. I'm not talking about Israel or Egypt per say but to the other 20 or 30 countries my government signs over money to. I was reading on a Russian news site in English that Russia's President was saying changes need to be made, Russia's own air force needs more modern fighters. Maybe the sub fleet? You know more about Russia then I do what would you like to see happen?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile
 

Chrom

New Member
Calling the F-117 crap is a little harsh the aircraft served very well for a long period of time with only one shot down. From different reports NATO was using the same routes and most likely just flew over or close to a older SAM site. It was shot down by a missile so it's not like fifty farmers laid on there backs and just blindly fired AK-47s up in the air and got lucky, I realize that. It was tracked long enough for a missile to launch fly a short distance and score a hit. Using the same route most likely help putting the SAM or SAMs in the right spot. Many sorties were flown before with little success of hitting one nor in the Gulf War I, it dropped a lot of bombs for crap. No aircraft maker could produce one now and it what 20 years old? Makes you think how good the F-22 is and future F-35. I agree the F-117 shouldn't have been called a fighter maybe A-117 or B-117, or what ever but the aircraft never gets any love just because it not sexy looking fighter. One day were read about all the unreleased areas it's flown over flying over and never seen on any radar nets. Regarding to stealth technologies I don't know enough about them nor do I think it would be released to the public what common factors they might share.
I will not argue if F-117 as whole crap or not. This is completely different matter. Reread what i wrote. I said F-117 without stealth is crap. And i dont think anyone would argue that. Without stealth F-117 is greatly inferior to any contemporary aircraft, being 20x times more expensive on top of that.

Back to the subject what would you cut in Russia's armed forces to better finance there aircraft industry? From your profile your not Russian but you seem to know a lot about Russian arms. In general areas are there wasteful programs, poor use of resources, aide to other, etc. In my country if I could change something it would be the money going out in aide. I'm not talking about Israel or Egypt per say but to the other 20 or 30 countries my government signs over money to. I was reading on a Russian news site in English that Russia's President was saying changes need to be made, Russia's own air force needs more modern fighters. Maybe the sub fleet? You know more about Russia then I do what would you like to see happen?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile
Nothing can be cut really. But a lot could be added. Every, every military branch is underfunded. Thats said - there is a huge corruption within russian military, and this is generally THE main, single most important problem.

If russian army will manage to somehow get corruption under control... then russian army will have a chance to become respected and competent force, just like in USSR times.

But aside of corruption... i think russian goverment got priorities right. Strategic forces are most important - that means mobile ICBM's and sub fleet. Good survivalance and communication is second - means space and radar technology. Everything else is secondary and, right now, dont recive much money. Not PAK-FA, not T-95 - these projects recive actually pretty low funding. But SSBN's, ICBM's, EW radars and satellites - these get lion share of funds.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I will not argue if F-117 as whole crap or not. This is completely different matter. Reread what i wrote. I said F-117 without stealth is crap. And i dont think anyone would argue that. Without stealth F-117 is greatly inferior to any contemporary aircraft, being 20x times more expensive on top of that.

Nothing can be cut really. But a lot could be added. Every, every military branch is underfunded. Thats said - there is a huge corruption within russian military, and this is generally THE main, single most important problem.

If russian army will manage to somehow get corruption under control... then russian army will have a chance to become respected and competent force, just like in USSR times.

But aside of corruption... i think russian goverment got priorities right. Strategic forces are most important - that means mobile ICBM's and sub fleet. Good survivalance and communication is second - means space and radar technology. Everything else is secondary and, right now, dont recive much money. Not PAK-FA, not T-95 - these projects recive actually pretty low funding. But SSBN's, ICBM's, EW radars and satellites - these get lion share of funds.
You seem to be placing the blame on Russia's shortcomings with the government and the military. Granted, they are the end users and the source of funding, however, what about private (and public) industry? educational institutions? acquisition process? etc. These are factors which drive defense industries in the western world. Without infrastructure, skilled workers and technicians, RDT&E programs and so forth, you can not remain competitive in today's world. I have no doubt there are some brilliant designers and engineers in Russia, but unless they are operating in a proper business model with proper resources and management, I doubt their projects will get further than the drafting table. Blaming the government and military is obvious, but the problems go much deeper.

So as the Su-35 goes online throughout Russian air wings, they are are not getting any leap in new technology as the F-22 brings to the USAF. Just some upgrades to the Su-27 airframe and not much better than already delivered in the customer Su-30/33 series.
 

Chrom

New Member
You seem to be placing the blame on Russia's shortcomings with the government and the military. Granted, they are the end users and the source of funding, however, what about private (and public) industry? educational institutions? acquisition process? etc. These are factors which drive defense industries in the western world. Without infrastructure, skilled workers and technicians, RDT&E programs and so forth, you can not remain competitive in today's world. I have no doubt there are some brilliant designers and engineers in Russia, but unless they are operating in a proper business model with proper resources and management, I doubt their projects will get further than the drafting table. Blaming the government and military is obvious, but the problems go much deeper.
As you undoubtly know, government and military folks are not coming to Russia from Mars. They are peoples just like everyone in Russia. As such, they share all common current russians problems. I.e. corruption, lies, incompetence, etc. The other side of such proposition is what private sector industry ALSO share exactly same problems - i.e. they are corrupt, incompetent, etc. I would even go as far i agreeing - private sector is much worse.

If it somehow appears what i blame ONLY russian government or military on russian problems - it is wrong. Whole russian society is plagued by the same problems. But government also carries much large share of responsibility for situation with procurement - after all it is they natural job to ensure flawless aquision, lack of corruption, etc.

So as the Su-35 goes online throughout Russian air wings, they are are not getting any leap in new technology as the F-22 brings to the USAF. Just some upgrades to the Su-27 airframe and not much better than already delivered in the customer Su-30/33 series.
Exactly. Thats why russian military do not plan to aquire Su-35 or T-90 in higher numbers. Money is spend on development, upgrading, training and purchasing really modern equipment - like f.e. BMP-3, BMPT, Su-34, SSBN's. etc.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
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.
The whole idea of the hi-Low mix is starting to fade away into the past, since the F-35 can't be called a light fighter anymore(Its weighs 60,000lbs, more than the F-15 which weighs around 58,000lbs) and its not cheap like the F-16 ether costing a total of $1 trillion.

It is safe to compair the F-15 with the F-35. Lets face it the F-35 has more internal fuel, less drag and has a bigger weapons payload. The F-35 outclasses the F-15 is every catagory.

The hi-Low mix is out-dated cold war thinking in my opinion.

There is no such thing as a air superiority fighter only aicraft or a strike aircraft only anymore, today fighters can do everything. F-16s and F-18s can achieve air superiority just like F-15s can and F-15s can do ground attack just like F-16s and F-18s do. A-10s can even carry AIM-9s for self defense.
 
Last edited:

Scorpion82

New Member
Wasn't this thread about the Su-35? Back to topic, I want to get some things straight.

Development of the new Su-35 began back in 2003 under Sukhoi internal designation T-10BM. The aircraft is built by Knaapo in Komsomolsk on Amur and it is planned to built 3 production representive prototypes for the test flight programme. The first prototype designated Su-35-1 (board number 901) was completed early August 2007, before being airfraighted to Zhukowski were the type was presented in the static display of the MAKS airshow. First flight was conducted on 18th February 2008 and the other 2 flying prototypes should join the test programme later in 2008. In addition it is said that a fourth prototype will be built acting as static airframe for fatigue and structural testing. Some sub components of the new Su-35 were tested aboard other Su-27 testbeds prior installation on the Su-35-1. The new article 117S engines were tested on the Su-27M pre-production model T-10M-10 (no.710), while the integrated flight control system KSU-35 was tested with the T-10M-8 (708). In addition the Su-30MK2 (no.503) demonstration aircraft was used for testing the new Irbis radar.

According Sukhoi production of the new aircraft will begin in 2009/2010 at the Knaapo plant. Russian officials confirmed that the RuAF will buy an unspecified numbers of the type within the state arms procurement program 2007-2015. Deliveries are said to begin in 2011 and the RuAF will receive a version customised to its needs and designated Su-27SM2. The aircraft will fill the gap until the PAK FA is available from late next decade earliest.
As an export version for the PAK FA will need even longer Sukhoi hopes to sell up to 300 Su-35 until 2020. Potential customers include Venuzuela and Brazil, though Sukhoi has also proposed the type to China and wants to sell the type on traditional markets in the middle east, south east asia, africa and south america.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32
This is an article about the old Su-35 (Su-27M/T-10M) and not even a good one. I suggest we keep on topic with the new Su-35 about which the thread is.
Well there is a link to the new SU-35BM on the old Su-35 article but for some reason it has the same URL, just go to it and click were it says Big Modernization in the first paragraph, thats the one I was trying to give you.

I don't know why you say its not a good one, I don't go around and say people's sources are not good, Globalsecurity is a good source for military information and its the only good one about the SU-35, unless you want to go on Wikipeadia.
 

Scorpion82

New Member

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
Found it. The one about the Su-35BM is better researched. The data/information on globalsecurity for the various Flankers are obviously wrong in many ways. But nothing to blame it took me many years to figure out the various details and what appeared to be misinformation and the like.

For more information about the new Su-35 check the following links:
http://www.sukhoi.org/files/su_news_29-08-07_eng.pdf
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/News/maks2007/35_eng.zip
Cool sources those are much better , the only question now is how many is Russia going to build for their air force? I will guess somewhere around 120 but I don't know.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
Cool sources those are much better , the only question now is how many is Russia going to build for their air force? I will guess somewhere around 120 but I don't know.
Well the number hasn't been disclosed, but as the procurement is stated to be within the states armament programme 2007-2015 and first aircraft won't be delivered before 2011 and given the fact that according official sources about 116 new aircraft will be procured by that time, I don't think they will buy much of them at all. Russias economy is bettering, but still not in the best condition and that even more applies to the Russian military itself. I think this also depends on when the PAK FA becomes finally available. But I would not even wonder if this isn't going to happen, wouldn't be the first time in Russia.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
Well the number hasn't been disclosed, but as the procurement is stated to be within the states armament programme 2007-2015 and first aircraft won't be delivered before 2011 and given the fact that according official sources about 116 new aircraft will be procured by that time, I don't think they will buy much of them at all. Russias economy is bettering, but still not in the best condition and that even more applies to the Russian military itself. I think this also depends on when the PAK FA becomes finally available. But I would not even wonder if this isn't going to happen, wouldn't be the first time in Russia.
Well 116 aircraft is not bad, it still can't compete with the F-22 and F-35 but its still better than using 15-20 year old Su-27s.

Its weapons payload includes up to 12 AAMs which is comparable the the F/A-18 Super Hornet that has 14 and the F-35 which carries 10-12.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
Well 116 aircraft is not bad, it still can't compete with the F-22 and F-35 but its still better than using 15-20 year old Su-27s.

Its weapons payload includes up to 12 AAMs which is comparable the the F/A-18 Super Hornet that has 14 and the F-35 which carries 10-12.
This 116 aircraft include all new aircraft procured by the RuAF, don't misunderstand that as the RuAF geting 116 Su-35, that's not the case. The Su-35 are part of the 116 aircraft which include at least 58 Su-34 or more and other types.
 

Chrom

New Member
I thought the su-35 was just an export version of su-27
No. It is new, upgraded version of Su-27 with fairly large changes in airframe and completely new avionic set. It is export version in the sense what its development is mainly geared towards export costumers. RuAF do not plan (and never wanted) to acquire Su-35. Small quantities (12-20 likely) will be surely bought by RuAF for testing and marketing purposes - but thats all.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I thought the su-35 was just an export version of su-27
Its a heavilly upgraded SU-27 intended for domestic and export users. Its basicaly a totaly different beast, with a whole new avionic suite, includeing a hybrid IBRIS-E PESA radar in the 20kw peak power range, new engines, less weight, more fuel & significantly reduced RCS. Basically it would eat a baseline Su-27, its far more capable.
 
Top