Su-35 Mixed Info

Series production and customer deliveries of the Su-35 are due to start in 2009. The fighter is already part of Russia’s National Arms Procurement Program, which calls for supplies of Su-35s to the Russian air force through 2015.

Original Link

So, yes, the Su-35 is indeed going to be purchased for the RuAF until PAK-FA moves in. The article has a lot of information on the Su-35's hardware, a lot more specific than a lot of places. In particular, they've got a long section on the Irbis E's capabilities, so read up.

“The Su-35 is a fourth-plus-plus generation aircraft employing many technologies of the fifth generation,” Pogosyan maintained. “This aircraft is superior to all other foreign fourth-generation fighters. The Su-35 will outperform foreign counterparts and will dominate the world market between 2009 and 2015,” he declared.

This is one claim I find slightly dubious, but worth investigating. How do you think the Su-35 now stacks up to competing aircraft? The Eurofighter Typhoon? The Rafale? The Gripen? The controversial F-18E/F Super Fries? I'm of the opinion that the Su-35 stacks up pretty well with the above, and is quite possibly superior to a few. I find that the Gripen and Rafale aren't quite in the same league being as they're, oh, relatively tiny. Which isn't to say that they're bad aircraft, merely that they're not the same idea. The Super Fries and the Eurofighter Typhoon might give it a run, however.

One thing I've yet to find out is how effective the Khibiny-M ECM suites on the wingtips are. Yes, they're pretty darn good. But how effective is "good"?

Insert discussion below.




Edit: Forgot link completely.

[edit on 12/1/2007 by Darkpr0]

In terms of airframe performance I'm sure the Su-35 can match anything the west has except for the LO of the F-22. Then it comes down to systems weapons and tactics and endless looping arguments

Things that beat the Su-35:

F-22, F-35. And that's about it.

Shattered OUT...

I am sure it will perform well at air-shows and give those who buy it a reassuring sense of security. However, facts about its capabilities are still unconfirmed, so comparison is difficult.

Regards

reply to post by waynos


So are we saying the the Typhoon would be given a run for its money? I think possibly but its hard to tell sometimes what exactly the Russians will end up producing or what version will roll off the line. Personally I think the Typhoon would be a worthy foe of any Su-35

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Things that convincingly beat the Su-35:

F-22 And that's about it.

Shattered OUT...

I would make the above amendment (the Rafale, EFT & F-35 will all more or less break even IMO).


I do not share the same appreciation for the F-35 that a lot of people seem to.

Originally posted by kilcoo316



I do not share the same appreciation for the F-35 that a lot of people seem to.

What appreciation? Most opinions I've seen (especially here) of the F-35 are fairly negative, which I find a bit puzzling considering the very early stage of flight testing the aircraft is currently at. It's true capabilities are far from being known at this point. And as they become known, much of that information will remain classified for some time.
Comparisons are better based on facts than speculation.

reply to post by Casino2112


A number of people have flushed out a number of key points they think are of concern. Especially with the RAAF issues of replacement of F-111's which i think are valid concerns but your right the jury for me still hasn't given a final verdict on the F-35.

And it in comparision and a Russian Generals comments though more informed then my own in experince are still much to early though I think is reflective that the Russian Airforce takes the threat seriously

reply to post by Canada_EH


In terms of airframe performance yes, I think it will. Notice I said match, not beat.

Clearly the LO performance of the F-22 is on a different level to anything that any Flanker deriviative can match so that5s why I excepted that, LO mind.

Sukhoi know how to make a high performance airframe that can sling itself around the sky as good as anybody, its all the important stuff that goes into it that we don't know about however.

And as for the F-35, with one flying prototype and no demonstrated capability of any kind, how can anyone declare it a match for anything yet?

[edit on 3-12-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
And as for the F-35, with one flying prototype and no demonstrated capability of any kind, how can anyone declare it a match for anything yet?

My dear Waynos, take the above comment and apply it to the Su-35 in question. Few prototypes, new systems, few tests, no published certifiable results, Russian information only (manufacturer and military) coupled with fan boy enthusiasts a subjective analyses does not make.

So, inversely, with that in mind how can anyone proclaim time after time what the capabilities of the F-35 will be and or how inferior it will be to today's current generation of threats? While the current generation systems are supposed to somehow to be superior (even though they have not "proven" anything) to the next generation ones, ah, logic, I digress. Furthermore, as if that was not enough, some of us have an absolute and intimae knowledge of how exactly the F-35 (role) will be used in the next 30-50 years, even what kind of weapons load it will carry.

Anyway, personally, this reminds me of the Raptor, everyone doubted how maneuverable this jet would be, how fast it would be, how stealthy, and how capable. I can still recall, we should buy more F-15's etc… the Su-XX is this, Typhoon that etc… Yet as time to IOC drew near and more information was released some people had to swallow a lot of it back and accept the truth, it's unmatched. If I was a betting man, I'd wager a significant amount the same thing will happen with the F-35. Not only will it be the second best A2A/A2G fighter platform when it reaches IOC (in terms of killing the enemy and surviving its defenses) but it's other general capabilities will also surprise people. Such as its avionics, stealth characteristics, the realization that it too has marginal/moderate supercruise capably, and the information on how maneuverable it is. I realize that currently my words wont change opinion and are meaningless but mark em. Besides the Rhino the Lighting II has to be one of the most underrated and unappreciated fighters out there, at it has not even hit LRIP!

The above is my opinion solely, thanks for your time.

Actually, in regards to the F-22, I don't recall anyone putting it down, they merely compared it to the YF-23 and argued which would have been the better choice.

Same could be applied to the F-35 as what you did to the Su-35. But that too is my sole opinion.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Actually, in regards to the F-22, I don't recall anyone putting it down.

Did you overlook, the fixed inlet flop, the RAM pealing flop, the Su-3/47 maneuverability flop, the BVR only flop, the most expensive ever blah flop, the technical problems flop, etc… And those are only the ones discussed here on ATS, just do a search for F-22 Raptor. I wont even mention the many incorrect online articles which came out before it reached IOC, and some "experts" continue to doubt it. If they're willing to bash the Raptor then I have no hope for the F-35.

Russia arn`t going to publish anything remotely useful about there latest and greatest toy are they - just as the `real` info on the raptor cannot be found anywhere (state secrets and all that) the same can be said of the new flankers - the indians allready know how good the NO11 BARS is (in there opinion) - and won`t use it in active mode when flying off against another airforce , because they want to keep the edge.


and amazing as the raptor is - there will only be 178 of them and with the present on going grounding of the F15 fleet - there isn`t enough to cover conus air defence and the USAF have to contract out to canada!


scrap the eagle - there broken now and but another few hundred raptors please....

reply to post by WestPoint23

My dear Waynos, take the above comment and apply it to the Su-35 in question. Few prototypes, new systems, few tests, no published certifiable results, Russian information only (manufacturer and military) coupled with fan boy enthusiasts a subjective analyses does not make.

But that is exactly what I did say, didn't I? We already know how agile the Flanker airframe can be, its everything else we are guessing at.

Regarding the F-35, the requirement it was designed for was a strike requirement, all the way through from project definition to flight test its primary role is a strike aircraft, albeit a survivable one, not a fighter in the F-22 or Typhoon sense. In fact every source I have read states that it is required to have an A2A capability equal to the F-16 . This is where my expectation for the plane comes from, given that capability costs money and no airframer will spend money on capability that has not been asked for, as it will never get it back.

Now if this is wrong, so be it, but for me that is not a recipe for the worlds 2nd best air superiority fighter. Should be good enough to replace the "super" Hornet though.


I do accept though the the F-35 is really three different planes and that the F-35B is clearly the least capable as a bomb truck and little more, while the F-35C is an altogether different and greatly more capable carrier fighter (despite my little dig above).

Also,

While the current generation systems are supposed to somehow to be superior

No, at least not by me. Systems get updated, for instance compare a Harrier Mk1 to a Harrier Mk 9. There is no reason to suppose that the Typhoon that is current with the F-35A/C wont be just as advanced, after all the T3 standard is still under development as well, you know.

Which is why I made the point in my first post that we don't know enough about what goes inside these snazzy airframes to really make the call.

Question; What about the F-35 would make it more agile in a dogfight than the Typhoon?

[edit on 4-12-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
In terms of airframe performance I'm sure the Su-35 can match anything the west has except for the LO of the F-22. Then it comes down to systems weapons and tactics and endless looping arguments

Waynos, I would like to say, in terms of airframe, Eurofighter will go ahead of Su-35 in supersonic combat. The aerodynamec shape of Typhoon looks like more adapt to high speed air-counter, whereas Su-35 still is a fighter which is good at subsonic dogfight.

Originally posted by emile
Waynos, I would like to say, in terms of airframe, Eurofighter will go ahead of Su-35 in supersonic combat. The aerodynamec shape of Typhoon looks like more adapt to high speed air-counter, whereas Su-35 still is a fighter which is good at subsonic dogfight.

(I just typed out a whole post and my 'net reset and refused to post it. Lost forever, so if I seem a bit overconcise, it's because I'm too lazy to redo the entire post.)

Actually several sources say that the Su-35 is capable of supercruise. I blame this on the engines. The Typhoon's EJ200 engines put out 60 kN dry, 90 afterburning, but the Su-35's AL-41-F1A engines can do about 145 kN (this may or may not be dry, I don't know), and the engines it'll be getting shortly do 160 kN. So, massive though the Flanker is, I would be completely unsurprised to see it supercruise. I mean, a pair of 160 kN jets (might be dry, too. Afterburning should be impressive)? This thing's got a better rear end than Paris Hilton.

Hey, look, another great Su-35 article. Great pictures in here, take a look!

Su-35 Magazine Article