Su-35: not as good as we would like?

Probably, it’s worth saying right away: the arguments that will be discussed, they were invented there. And the fact that some of our bloggers and the media picked it up - the author is not responsible for this, because it was not invented by him. The sources of the dope that we are going to talk about are there, beyond the seas.

Aviation Magazines, Naval Aviation News, Drive, National Interest, 1945 - in general, you understand, I hope, where stabilizers grow from. And the fact that we are trying to give our own assessment of this - why not?

Deliberately almost not a word about the Su-57. This aircraft does not exist, but when it appears in kind in combat units and starts to really fight, then we'll talk. So far, this is nothing more than a prototype. This means that the Americans correctly consider the Su-35S the most advanced and dangerous aircraft of the Aerospace Forces. And in which case, it is with this aircraft that you will have to deal in the air, no matter which state. Therefore, the Su-35 is quite understandable attention.

Naturally, the Su-35 is no match for the best, but obsolete F-22 fighter in the world and no less than the best F-35. And in support of this concept, several arguments were invented there, which I would very much like to go through.

Argument #1. Su-35 is a modernization of the Su-27, and therefore with an interference 4+ generation

To deny that the Su-35 had a predecessor is stupid. Yes, the plane was not designed from scratch, like the Raptor, it is. However, if we take into account that the Su-27 was an extremely successful aircraft, then even as its further continuation, the Su-35 is at least a machine no worse.

However, if we are talking about what distinguishes these aircraft, then we get the same list:
- the geometry of the airframe has been changed, moreover, it can be seen with the naked eye;
- if you believe the manufacturer (and why not believe him), then the power set has been changed taking into account the operation of the Su-27;
- the centering of the aircraft is shifted towards the tail;
- increased volume of fuel tanks;
- new engines with variable thrust vector;
- new avionics and radar;
- certain steps to reduce the EOP.

Here, of course, everyone will be able to decide for himself how many pluses should be added to the four, two, three or four, in order to characterize the difference between the aircraft. It is so great that it's hard to talk about modernization.

There is historical example: so the LaGG-3 was “modernized” into La-5. Well, yes, a different wing, a different nose, a different engine, a different cabin, a different set of weapons. Actually, only the tail section remained from the original car, but until now, some "experts" seriously say that the La-5 is a modification of the LaGG-3.

But if so, then yes, the Su-35 is a modification of the Su-27. But, in fact, this is a completely different plane.

Argument #2. The AL-41F1S engines are a modernization of the AL-31F, so they are hardly capable of 4++, and aircraft with such engines do not pose a significant threat.

I don’t know why the brave guys from Military Watch Magazine gave it out, what difference does it make to them in these pluses, I would go a little differently here.

Well, the Su-35 is not the fifth generation. Fourth plus sign. And it has an engine developed from a purely fourth-generation aircraft engine. But let's look at the fifth generation, the Raptor. Did he develop an engine from scratch?

No, the Pratt & Whitney F119 is a very brutal overhaul of the good old Pratt & Whitney F100, which has been stamped by over 7 and still flies the F-15 and F-16 pretty well. And no one in the United States tears their hair and howls about this, that the “fifth generation” of the engine is a modernization of the engine from the seventies of the last century. And we have, too, this is completely normal.

But the fact that our 4+ modernization has an all-angle thrust vector (16% in any plane), and the fifth generation engine from the USA is only vertical - well, this is a question to consider.

As for the AL-41F1S itself, then, of course, it is interesting. I would call it a fat-free version of the AL-41F1, which is supposed to carry the Su-57. AL-41F1 is not the next step from AL-31F at all, but a mixture of AL-31F and AL-41F, where AL-41F is a development for the MiG 1.44 project.

The fact that in numbers our engine is a cut above that of the Pratt and Whitney product - well, there is such a thing. There is both power and thrust vector, that's all.

Yes, the letter “C” in the AL-41F1S is a kind of simplification and reduction in cost, since, unlike the original AL-41F1, the Su-35 engine has an old electromechanical control system and thrust is 500 kgf less.

But the main thing, probably, is that the AL-41F1S is in no way inferior to the “fifth generation” engine from the USA in all respects. And in some ways it excels.

Argument #3. The Irbis radar does not at all meet the requirements of modern times and is not capable of performing tasks in air combat.

A lot has been done here: the Irbis radar cannot interfere, and it will see the Raptor from 20-30 km when it is too late, and in general, the PFAR is not a cake.

Partly yes, the Irbis, of course, is a bit old compared to modern radars with AFAR, but: so far it is the most powerful (20 kW) radar in the world in general. With pros and cons. Of the pluses, the viewing angle is twice as large as that of the AFAR (120 degrees versus 60) due to the electro-hydraulic mechanism for turning the grating, of the minuses - AFARs, of course, see further.

Jamming with the help of AFAR - they have already said, it's a so-so idea. For now, at least. Theoretically, yes, quite a working idea, in practice - not for every aircraft and pilot.

As for the fact that the "Irbis" "will not take" the F-22 and he will shoot him like a duck - it is very doubtful. If we accept that the EPR of the Raptor is somewhere around 0,03 - 0,05 sq.m., then the Irbis can detect such a target from 80-100 km. This is a sufficient distance in order to respond appropriately.

Yes, the Raptor will see the Su-35 from a greater distance, here it will be 120-150 km. And what's the point? Launching missiles from such a distance is senseless and merciless. In addition, the launch of a missile is a process detected by the onboard defense system with all the ensuing consequences. Yes, in fact, our opponents do not yet have missiles capable of operating at ranges of 150 km or more.
So there is such an original parity here: the Raptor will see the Drying earlier, but there is little sense in this, since they do not yet have missiles similar to our R-37M. Su-35 will see a little later, and in the end everything will turn to a trivial fight at a medium distance.

And, by the way, when we talk about medium distances, it is completely optional to shine with a radar and impersonate yourself, the OLS of any aircraft can lead a target in the forward hemisphere of kilometers from 50.

Of course, the fact that Irbis takes its toll at the expense of power is crutches. But AFAR is a completely normal prospect for this aircraft, as one of the options for upcoming upgrades.

Let me jump ahead, because the Sukhoi company and, in particular, the press service of the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur issued information that by 2025 the modification of the Su-35SM will go into part, in which a revolutionary replacement will be made H035 "Irbis" on a certain product "Irbis-E" with AFAR. And a nice bonus would be the installation of additional L-band wing-mounted radars (as I understand it - H036 "Belka" from the PAK FA development), which not only provide a view of the rear hemisphere, but also can additionally work out just for inconspicuous objects in the air.

The L-band is in the 1,0 to 2,0 GHz radio frequency spectrum with wavelengths of 15-30 cm, while most stealth aircraft are designed to avoid X-band radar waves.

So stealth and long-range radar are, of course, a very weighty pair, but the complex decides everything. And here we move on to the next argument, which is even more controversial than the previous ones.

Argument #4. Supermaneuverability is useless in modern air combat. Solves all stealth.

In general, of course, to expect something different from the Americans is simply naive. The concept of application is what to do.

However, stealth and smart radars, as I said, are half the battle. Here it would be nice to have long-range missiles and excellent defense systems.

Stealth is good, but it will not be decided by it, but by the effective launch range. The sooner the rocket is launched, the more likely it is to be discovered and they will either leave or fool the GOS in a variety of ways.

Let's just remember the last air battle between the Indian and Pakistani air forces. Almost five dozen planes hung in the air, launched rockets, so what? And nothing. Until one crazy Indian pilot on the MiG-21 broke the distance and went on the attack, nothing happened. And so the Indian shot down the F-16 and was himself shot down by a pair of cover. But all this happened when the distance passed into the category of small ones.

In general, the fact that a rocket can fly 200 km is not the main thing. Just flying over is one thing, maneuvering, as the target, imagine, can start to evade is another. And any maneuver simply devours fuel, reducing the range of the rocket. Do not forget that any rocket - weaponwhile the engine is running. Then she flies, maneuvers, the GOS works, correcting the course and everything else. And when the fuel is all - and the rocket practically no longer threatens anyone.

And it turns out a very simple alignment: the shorter the distance from the maximum a rocket is launched, the more chances it has to reach the plane. From here, no launches from 200, 150, 100 kilometers. All the same combat distance of 20-50 km, regardless of which missile to shoot - medium or long range.

And here, on the one hand, stealth is good: a seeker with active radar guidance, that is, a mini-radar, can “lose” an inconspicuous aircraft. On the other hand, the ARLGSN is not a single aircraft alive. There are other options with which the approach to care is different.

Supermaneuverability in close air combat is very useful. The ability to “break” the missile’s flight path is useful in itself, plus an actively maneuvering aircraft can simply “wear out” the missile, which will eventually run out of fuel and turn into a blank.

By the way, the Americans themselves were perfectly convinced of this when they clashed in training battles with their super-maneuverable X-31 aircraft and the battle-tested F / A-18. 8 out of 10 battles were for the X-31, in whose arsenal was both the Pugachev Cobra and the Mongoose.

Of course, getting away from a missile that has captured a target is not easy. But the faster the rocket flies again (and they are all from 4M in speed), the more difficult it is for it to maneuver. This is physics that cannot be undone. And here the super-maneuverability of the aircraft can be no less useful than stealth. At least in terms of usefulness, these qualities are comparable.

Argument #5. Su-35S does not have long-range missiles, which means ...

This does not mean anything, no matter what colleagues from Military Watch Magazine and 19fortyfive say. Huge two-stage long-range missiles are good for working with them on such targets as a strategic bomber, AWACS aircraft, air tanker. Shooting them at a maneuverable fighter or fighter-bomber, especially an inconspicuous one, is a so-so idea.

The evil is that the rocket with its frail radar will definitely not see the target from 200+ km, it will need to “shine” the enemy’s radar radar of the aircraft or have (the American version) an AWACS aircraft behind its back. And if the second option is still all right, the A-50 also copes with such a task, then here is the target designation of its radar ... Well, in general, in a chivalrous way: “We deigned to attack you!”.

Initially, such combat missions were not set for the Su-35, the aircraft, being a continuation of the Su-27, was first considered as a “clean” fighter, which should have been able to bring any enemy in the air to the scrap metal collection point.

And for this, the Su-35 had everything: medium-range air-to-air missiles R-27ER1, R-27ET1 and R-27EP1, RVV-SD, and R-73 melee missiles.

However, in 2020, “sighting” launches of the R-37 took place, that is, certain work was carried out in this direction. Moreover, it is the R-37M in the upcoming modification of the Su-35SM that seems to have a reserved place in the armament clip. But this is a separate conversation, however, if we are talking about a certain inferiority of the fighter due to the lack of long-range missiles (more precisely, they say overseas), then it would be worth looking at the nomenclature of the same F-22. And make sure with your own eyes that the Raptor also does not have long-range missiles.

And nothing, no complexes in this regard.

So if there are no long-range missiles in the Su-35S armament range yet, this only means that if there is a need, missiles will appear. The question here is who to use them for. So far, as the practice of the SVO has shown, the most terrible weapon of the Su-35S is the Kh-31P and Kh-58USHE, which very decently thinned out the ranks of the Ukrainian air defense.

Argument #6. Without an aiming container, the Su-35S cannot be considered an effective strike aircraft.

If I were the guys from MWM, I would go and check in real life how bad the Su-35S is, like an attack aircraft.

Let's start with the fact that in addition to the H035 Irbis, the Su-35 has the OLS-35, an optical laser station, developed and manufactured by OAO NPK Precision Instrumentation Systems. And they know how to build devices there, especially laser ones.

OLS-35 has infrared and digital optical cameras included in one optical unit. In addition to them, there is also a laser rangefinder and a target illuminator. The system is mounted in the nose of the Su-35, its auto-tracking zone is +/-90° in azimuth, - 15°/+60° in elevation. An air target the size of an F-15 can be detected at a range of 90 km in the rear hemisphere or from 35 km in the front. The OLS-35 can track four air targets at the same time, without sending any signals that can warn them of exposure.

The only disadvantage of the OLS-35 is that the system does not look good "for itself", that is, in the lower hemisphere. Which is generally logical, since the system is designed primarily to work in the air, and not on the ground. Su-35 is still a fighter.

However, from those distances that are declared by the developer (up to 35 km), the OLS may well track and give target designation to ground targets in “silence mode”. And, let's just say, this distance, in principle, is sufficient for the safe launch of missiles.

But if you look at the work that was carried out in this area, you can also find overhead container OLS, which are designed to work in the lower hemisphere. And these developments have been going on for a long time, the only thing that is still missing is data on the results of the use of OLS-NT, as the container station developed as part of the T-220 project is called.

In general, if it is necessary to re-profil the Su-35S for strikes against ground targets in full, this will not cause any special problems. But it will be surprising, because for this the VSK RF has a Su-34, which will do it much better. Apparently, overseas experts missed this.

Total. Su-35 is not food for the F-22?

Not food. Alas for our fans of the American fighter, but it is. Here is my personal opinion, dispute it as you like, tell us about the modernization of the F-22 ...

I'll tell you one thing: that's how they modernize - then we'll talk. Yes, the phrase is so-so, but nothing else. Well, I don’t see the “King of the Sky” in this plane yet, don’t prove it here.

Yes, the Raptor is simply gorgeous at supersonic in terms of maneuverability. It has excellent overclocking characteristics. But it was paid for by the voracity of the engines, so much so that without two hefty PTBs, the combat radius causes just healthy laughter. And with the PTB somehow all these internal compartments for weapons no longer look, you yourself understand why.

Stealth - yes, very strong and useful. But the frankly castrated defensive complex and the constant troubles with missiles - sorry, somehow not royally. For an aircraft that has been flying for 20 years - well, yes, you can remember the Su-57, but we are not rushing to the first place, it seems.

Today, the alignment on the arms market has changed somewhat, but let's say yesterday everyone gasped in unison from the AFARs. And they bought planes with PFAR, because they were cheaper, and much cheaper.

We are simply presented with this as the fact that the Irbis-PFAR is backwardness, yesterday in comparison with the radar with AFAR, but due to its power, the Irbis can ensure the detection of the enemy at the same distance as AFAR.

Yes, the Irbis product is outdated, but this does not make the aircraft something backward and incapable of fighting the fifth generation on an equal footing. Considering that the Su-35 has a perfected BKO, super-maneuverability and the ability to “hang” longer and further.

In our world, physics is the same for all aircraft, both third and fifth generation. At least until we master antigravity.

Because the demon is with him, with the Raptor. But if we take even the Su-57 and Su-35, what will be the fundamental difference? Yes, nothing! The Su-57 will not be invisible, this is understandable. He will have more radar than the Su-35, but then again, who prevents Belok from being adapted to the 35th? All the same, the same R-77-1 will be launched from a distance of 50 kilometers, and instead of dividing the radar canvas into zones to perform different tasks, it will be easier to use containers with electronic warfare stuffing. An equal opponent, especially if you keep in mind the Raptor's not the most luxurious set of weapons.

And this is not another stupid “cheers-patriotism”, this is a given today. The Su-35 simply showed itself magnificently in the sky of Ukraine, this is recognized (which is important) by the Ukrainians themselves, that everything that they did not fall from the air defense system was shot down by the Su-35. Except for one case, when the idiot failed to dodge the "Shahed", but this is already a clinic, in my opinion.

F-16s will appear - it will be informative if it comes to fights, but I wouldn’t put even ten hryvnias on the Sokol.

Some of the “zakosy” of the Su-35 of the PFAR type are explained very easily: there was an obsolescence of the Air Force fighter fleet, which had not undergone serious modernization since Soviet times. Su-30 upgrades are mainly export options, fortunately, the aircraft was willingly bought by countries that were not “at the front” of aviation construction.

All that can be said about the upgrades is yes, frankly, the already old Su-30 was equipped with the AL-31FP engine with a controlled thrust vector and the Su-30SM turned out. But this is 2012. In 2021, the Su-30SM2 flew, into which everything that was possible from the Su-35 went.

The modernization of the Su-27 into the Su-27M as a whole was not such, since it mainly concerned the expansion of the strike capabilities of the aircraft and the range of weapons, the flight characteristics remained at the same level, and what to modernize the Su-27?

And with the Su-35 it turned out something like the Americans did with the modernization program of the F / A-18E / F program, one to one. That is, as part of the announced modernization, an almost new aircraft was created. The Americans did it. We also.

Economy and speed - yes, it seems that the Su-35 was created in some haste when it dawned that the aircraft was needed yesterday. And therefore, everything that was “on hand” at that time went to him. But the 35th flew, but the work of tomorrow, that is, the Su-57, for some reason frankly stalled.

But this is a topic for a separate discussion, in general, you can put plus signs after the number “4” as much as you like in terms of generation (and this division into generations itself is a very arbitrary matter), but the Su-35 is a very difficult opponent for any aircraft on the other side of the world , including both the F-22 and F-35. At least, its shortcomings in the configuration are leveled, but the field for modernization is such that the Raptor never dreamed of.

In general, against the backdrop of the frankly stuck Su-57, the topic of Su-35S upgrades is very fertile ground, since almost all the developments on the PAK FA topic can be applied on this aircraft.

Comments

[1 z1]

In general, against the background of the frankly stuck Su-57, the topic of Su-35S upgrades is very fertile ground

Do not discuss the topic of modern fighters, but the SU-35 is the horse that is and on which you have to plow.

[marchcat]

All these "their" arguments are unscrupulous competition and nothing else.

[ramzay21]

Unfortunately, a typical uryapatriotic article, although the author sometimes writes normal articles.
Comparing the modernized Su-27 with an aircraft of another generation is seriously for the completely naive. The Su-35 can be compared with the latest upgrades of the F-15; these will be aircraft of the same generation, but they have not been at the forefront of progress for a long time.

Even if we discard the fact that aircraft from NATO countries do not play knights and enjoy such advantages as AWACS aircraft, adequate space reconnaissance, modern broadband communications and data exchange, as well as the presence of many air tankers, which increases the combat radius by several times (suffice it to recall the standard for Americans flying their fighters with tankers across the Atlantic) and assume a one-on-one meeting of the Su-35 and F-22, then according to their characteristics, the F-22 pilot will detect our Su-35 much earlier than our pilot and, accordingly, will launch missiles much earlier and will hold on at a distance at which the pilot of our Su-35 is not able to detect the enemy on the F-22, under such conditions, talking about any chances for our pilot is sabotage and betrayal.

In a normal country, when things were looked at realistically, it never occurred to anyone to talk about the advantages of the MiG-23 over the then new F-16, our country simply created an aircraft capable of withstanding the F-16 on equal terms and even have advantages over it. Now there is a terrible and destructive process of belittling their technology and attributing non-existent advantages to our old technology. What consequences this leads to can be seen in the example of the death of the RRC Moscow or the downed Su-35s.

Instead of fairy tales about obsolete equipment, you need to create a new one that can really fight their equipment on an equal footing, but first you need the whole country from the leadership to ordinary citizens to realize the problem, without this no movement in creating a new one is possible.
Why do something? The VKS has a modernized Su-27, the Navy has cruisers and destroyers, the air defense has S-400s, motorized riflemen have excellent BMP-3s and BTR-82s, tankers have T-72s and T-90s, the airborne troops have BMD-4s, all the strongest in the world, although everything was created 40-50 years ago. And the SVO began and problems began that they are trying to cover up and not highlight and solve this crime against our country and our people.

[Radical]

Respect to you!
Here I was informed that my comment was short. Well, I agree.

[ramzay21]

Respect to you! hi
Here I was informed that my comment was short. Well, I agree. bully

You're welcome I am glad that there are much more of us, sober-minded, flying in the clouds!

[karabas-barabas]

Previously, you would have been called a "fan of all things high", a "weeder" and would have been sent to TV Zvizda to admire the somersaults of the Su-35, from which all the Nats tremble. Caring people have been writing for years about the problems with lagging behind Western manufacturers, that God forbid there will be a war, there won’t be that, there won’t be this, that you can’t bomb like in Syria and Chechnya. PFAR and AFAR are different eras, how can this be compared? And of course, those very F-16 Block 52s are far from trash, which the Su-35 will kill everything, but a high degree of danger if the Ukrainians learn to use their potential. Until the beginning of the NWO, I did not understand this hat-shaking frenzy, all these crazy programs, srach in the forums, but when time, it would seem, had to open its eyes to many things, all the same, articles, disputes, like some kind of Narnia. Now drones, PUBs have begun to move, but all this is not enough and has a high failure rate, especially glide bombs are very raw.

[Comet]

Quote: karabas-barabas

PFAR and AFAR are different eras, how can this be compared?

Very simple. Detection range, the number of targets being tracked (route tracking, tracking on the aisle), the number of targets being fired (precise tracking) ...

[Andybuts]

Before the start of the SVO, I didn’t understand this crazy madness, all these crazy programs, shit in the forums.

and there was such a request from above, it’s probably good for more hamsters to believe that we are now all NATO one left with such a superweapon.

[AdAstra]

You can’t write better, after that you can not write other comments.

[ramzay21]

You can’t write better, after that you can not write other comments. hi

Thank you

[Bad_gr]

In my opinion, quite an objective article. But there are some nuances with which I do not agree.

...But the fact that our 4+ modernization has an all-angle thrust vector (16% in any plane), and the fifth generation engine from the USA is only vertical - well, this is a question to think about .....

What does the American have, that our engine thrust vector changes in one plane (the F-22 is strictly vertical, ours is at an angle) But our Su-35C engines are widely spaced and the engine thrust vector can be discordant. In the F-22, the engines are side by side and do not work in discord: simultaneously up or down simultaneously (synchronously).

F-22

Judging by the design of the aircraft and the materials from which the Su-35S is made, this is a further development of the Su-37, and not the Su-27, where the main material is aluminum alloys (such as duralumin), then the Su-35S has aluminum-lithium alloys + composites, therefore, in terms of the Effective Scattering Area of ​​the Su-35S and Su-27, it differs significantly from each other.
The article talks about the centering of the aircraft, I will add. The static instability of the Su-27 is 5% MAR, for the Su-35S the degree of its static instability has been increased to 20% MAR.

In other words, the Su-35S only looks like the Su-27, but in fact, a completely different aircraft and this aircraft of our time, and not the modernization of something.

[ramzay21]

In other words, the Su-35S only looks like the Su-27, but in fact, a completely different aircraft and this aircraft of our time, and not the modernization of something.

The F-15EX also only looks like the F-15C, and in fact they have many differences, nevertheless, no one began to draw the image of a "new aircraft" holding everyone for fools. So the Su-30, Su-33, Su-35 and Su-37 are just modifications of the Su-27, only those who do not understand who and why invented so many Sus can be led to fairy tales about different aircraft.

[Dmitry Zadorozhniy]

And look at the cross section of the planet? There, not like ten differences, find it. And find 10 similarities. It's like the adherents of Hugo Schmeiser, they run into Mikhail Timofeevich.

[shurshun]

The very fact that this article appeared in an interrogative-justifying format already speaks of the failure of the main "hero" in front of the aircraft of the 5th generation of a potential enemy. And even an attempt to present the Su-27 as an "extremely successful" ancestor of the Su-35 is also unconvincing. I would like to ask the author what he sees as the "extreme success" of the Su-27 and before whom ?! Probably, if only that the T-10 project did not collapse and disappear at all, at the last moment practically copying the aerodynamic layout from the MiG-29.

[Robert Korsunsky_2]

You are absolutely right! Hat-throwing can’t bring anything good! I can add that in the West, work is underway to create missiles for fighters with a launch range of up to 900 km.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Robert Korsunsky_2

I can add that in the West, work is underway to create missiles for fighters with a launch range of up to 900 km.

Are they the ones with the laser engine?

[NG inform]

> the distance at which the pilot of our Su-35 is not able to detect the enemy on the F-22,
It even became interesting - how is it?

[ramzay21]

It even became interesting - how is it?

To understand this, you need to understand what EPR is and how it affects the detection distance of modern radars, as well as to understand at what distance in reality the radar with PFAR Irbis Su-35 will detect a target with EPR F-22 and at what distance the radar with AFAR F- 22 will detect a target with the Su-35 EPR and all this in combat conditions using available countermeasures.
The military of the USSR, as well as the military of the USA, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Korea, Australia and our country, understood and understand this, and therefore ordered the development and production of fifth generation fighters as an urgent need and not as a copy for exhibitions and shows.

[NG inform]

So how does the F-22 detect the Su-35 before the other way around?

[NG inform]

I state: you do not understand the most basic concepts, so you write technical nonsense.

[Good neighbor]

Strange... The article says: "Raptor" will detect further, but its missiles are average. What will he shoot from 200 km??? it will fly up to 50 and fire. And light up like a Christmas tree. But the SU-35 has many times more chances of evading a missile. So your post is empty.

[cold wind]

Tried to read but couldn't...
1. From the point of view of technology, sheer horror is written. The text should be edited from 1 paragraph.
2. Equipment does not fight 1 on 1. People and armies fight. It is important how many tankers, AWACS, electronic warfare aircraft, fighters, the quality of space and ground radio intelligence, the quality of the work of headquarters, engineers and pilots.

[bayard]

Quote from cold wind

1. From the point of view of technology, sheer horror is written.

I'm afraid that "pitch horror" is in your head. The author's article is a reaction to a jingoistic article in an American magazine. These are answers to THEIR theses about the shortcomings of the Su-35S. And the answers are quite reasonable. After all, he did not compare the armies (like the American edition), but objected to his opponents. And he objected quite reasonably.

Quote from cold wind

The text should be edited from 1 paragraph.

Well, get on with it, write your own article with your own edits, objections and additions, expand the topic wider - to the level of comparing the air forces of NATO countries and the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Just when comparing the air forces of different countries, do not forget that in real conditions the air defense factor will be largely determining, and the possibility of strikes against home airfields, and the use of nuclear weapons, because if the NATO Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces really collide in air battles, this will immediately lead to a nuclear escalation and ... a lot will change immediately, and many will immediately not be up to air battles. Do you even understand that any of your arguments can be counter-argued in terms of the development of such a conflict and the entry into the game of new factors that will expand the variability of development to infinity?

Quote from cold wind

It is important how many tankers, AWACS, electronic warfare aircraft,

This is really important. But our heavy fighters have a VERY large combat radius, that is, the fuel supply on board, moreover, in internal tanks. On existing theaters, they simply do not need tankers. And if the PTB is also suspended, then even more so.
AWACS we really have a problem. But here is the placement of the L-band radar in the wings, this is a very interesting solution, because they will work in the range of decimeter range ground-based radars, and this is surveillance secrecy. In addition, hanging containers with bilateral side-looking radars have already gone to the troops, and this is at least some kind of compensation for the small number of AWACS aircraft.
Number ... For our Aerospace Forces, this is also a problem that is already being solved by expanded orders for aircraft and the formation of new air regiments. I think that the existing regiments will also be understaffed with third, and if necessary, with fourth squadrons.
In addition, tests and refinement of a new modification of the Su-35SM with radar, avionics components and possibly OLS from the Su-57 are underway right now. As a result, he will receive an all-angle view of his radar + wing panels of the DM-band radar. Later, I think all combatant Su-35S will be upgraded to the SM level, but for now we are waiting for 2025, when the Su-35SM will begin to enter the combat regiments.
Yes, and the annual production of the Su-57 is now coming out (already on stocks) for 24 aircraft per year. And this is simultaneously with the continuation of the production of Su-35S \ SM, Su-30SM2 for Naval Aviation and Su-34M.
And if, nevertheless, the information about the start of production and purchases of the MiG-35S is confirmed (it’s not clear yet, such information has passed, but the first vehicles will not appear until the end of 2024), then the number of military aircraft of the VKS will seriously increase very soon. I think that at least it will double, and as an optimum it will triple.

Quote from cold wind

quality of space and ground radio intelligence

Now the Russian Federation is deploying its new orbital constellation. moreover, a large number of satellites have long been produced and are waiting in warehouses for their turn to launch. In addition, the Anglo-Saxons have been pushing the Russian Federation and the PRC so hard in recent years towards a military alliance that I would not be surprised if our headquarters already have access to PRC surveillance satellites (and not only). and we, in turn, insure them with our own early warning systems. Do you understand that any problem should be looked at comprehensively ? So joint exercises have become frequent with us.
In general, our combat aviation has one and the main problem - it is simply SMALL.
But this is already being resolved.

[Frettaskyrandi]

Author's article - reaction to a jingoistic article in an American magazine

Such an article does not exist in nature.

[ramzay21]

This is really important. But our heavy fighters have a VERY large combat radius, that is, the fuel supply on board, moreover, in internal tanks

Do you want to say that other laws of physics apply to our aircraft, or are we 50 years ahead of the Americans in engine building?
American F-15EX with a tanker will be able to strike, for example, at 5 thousand km. Which of our fighters will be able to do the same without tankers?

On existing theaters, they simply do not need tankers. And if the PTB is also suspended, then even more so.

It is in Ukraine that tankers are not much needed, and if it is necessary to provide air cover for the garrison of the Hobomai Islands by Su-35 aircraft based in Kamchatka or in the Khabarovsk Territory, how will you increase their combat radius?
You can hang a PTB ONLY instead of weapons, and when the question arises of what to take with you PTB + 1PKR or 3PKR, the question of which tanker or PTB is better will disappear by itself.
Tankers in adequate numbers in a country with such huge distances as ours is a matter of survival for both the Air Force and the country.

AWACS we really have a problem. But here is the placement of the L-band radar in the wings, this is a very interesting solution, because they will work in the range of decimeter range ground-based radars, and this is surveillance secrecy. In addition, hanging containers with bilateral side-looking radars have already gone to the troops, and this is at least some kind of compensation for the small number of AWACS aircraft.

Why reinvent the wheel? We need AWACS in adequate numbers and we need to start making them on the basis of cheaper and more economical aircraft, and the most reasonable thing would be to replace the Il-76 carrier with the Tu-204, which has two PS-90s instead of four as on the Il-76 , especially when you consider that the A-50 was created on the technologies of the 70s and modern electronic technologies can significantly reduce the weight and dimensions of electronics.

Number ... For our Aerospace Forces, this is also a problem that is already being solved by expanded orders for aircraft and the formation of new air regiments. I think that the existing regiments will also be understaffed with third, and if necessary, with fourth squadrons.
In addition, right now, tests and fine-tuning of a new modification of the Su-35SM with radar, avionics components and possibly OLS from the Su-57 are underway

The number of aircraft should be raised not with heavy Su-35s, but with lighter and cheaper MiG-35s, re-equipping with them, first of all, air regiments that now have MiG-29s.
The release of the Su-35 should be stopped, completely replacing it with the release of the Su-57 and re-equipping with the Su-57 air regiments covering the bases of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, the border with Finland and the Baltic states, as well as the border of Belarus, Chukotka, Kamchatka, the Far East and the Kuril Islands.
At the same time, it is necessary to increase the production of Su-30SM2 and Su-34M in the interests of naval aviation, recreating from them MRA air divisions for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet and MRA air regiments for the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet

[uncle Vlad]

The Americans praise their eroplane, which was scrapped. It makes no sense to praise the Penguin, especially after the Tu-160 dumped from it at supersonic. All theoretical calculations after that do not make any sense, since the meaning of the fighter has been lost. You can even coat a fighter with a young giraffe's shit, for better gliding in the air stream, the best radar, etc., etc. but if a bomber of a potential enemy left you, then the fighter is crap.

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

Do you want to say that other laws of physics apply to our aircraft, or are we 50 years ahead of the Americans in engine building?

I didn’t say this, but the AL-41F-1S engines, with approximately the same / close characteristics, with the F-22 engine, are noticeably more economical. And the base AL-41F1 (created for the MiG-1.44) generally beats its American counterpart in all positions.

Quote: ramzay21

American F-15EX with a tanker will be able to strike, for example, at 5 thousand km. Which of our fighters will be able to do the same without tankers?

And how many refuelings will he have? And if they are hindered - with refueling? But the F-15EX is a really good aircraft. They really need to be built.
I did not say that we are better off without tankers. I wrote that the large combat radius of our heavy fighters partly compensates for the lack of classic tankers.
But there are also non-classical ways. Have you heard about them?
So, for example, some of the old Su-24Ms can be retrained as tankers for the Su-35S, Su-30SM and Su-34. Similar refueling was practiced in the USSR Air Force, this procedure was often shown at parades and air shows in the 90s and 00s. We have at least one and a half hundred of these aircraft, each air regiment can be attached to a squadron of such ersatz tankers.

Quote: ramzay21

It is in Ukraine that tankers are not much needed, but if it is necessary to provide air cover for Su-35 aircraft based in Kamchatka

It has its own airfields, and if necessary, reinforcements can be transferred there and work from the local airfield network.

Quote: ramzay21

or in the Khabarovsk Territory

And they have their own airfields.
Or are you going to drive a fighter from the Moscow region to intercept in the Khabarovsk Territory?

Quote: ramzay21

garrison of the Hobomai Islands, how will you increase their combat radius?

There is a runway on Iturup, on which they are constantly on duty from a pair to a Su-35S link. But if it gets very hot, you will have to drive from Sakhalin or Primorye. But here - what Geography, such decisions. Deploying a full-fledged island air base right next to the Japanese ... is not very far-sighted. But to have an airfield there with an on-duty pair / link, air defense systems, a DBK and an on-duty ship in the operational zone is very useful.

Quote: ramzay21

You can hang a PTB ONLY instead of weapons, and when the question arises of what to take with you PTB + 1PKR or 3PKR, the question of which tanker or PTB is better will disappear by itself.

The Su-27\30SM\35S\34M has a total of 12 (TWELVE) hardpoints. If, in a SPECIAL need (and this will be extremely rare), you need to pick up a pair of PTBs, 10 hardpoints will always remain. To fly over the sea, they can (for example) pick up 2 RVV MD, 4 RVV SD, 2 X-31, 2 X-35.
And try to say that this is not enough. At the same time, the combat radius of the Su-35S with two large PTBs will be about 2000-2500 km. PTB.

Quote: ramzay21

Tankers in adequate numbers in a country with such huge distances as ours is a matter of survival for both the Air Force and the country.

That is why in 2015 the Ministry of Defense announced plans to order 50 Il-78MD90A tankers, 50 AWACS A-100 aircraft, and to purchase 100 pcs. Il-76MD90A.
Good plans ?
Now let's look at the implementation. It’s just that the Moscow Region refused to revise the purchase prices in the direction of their adequacy and compliance with construction costs, refused to make advance payments, but forced them to take commercial loans, and later heaped fines. The plant simply dynamized this program, did not hire the proper number of workers, did not train personnel, pulled with change. For they had to build each plane at a loss. Debts grew. The Knight of Malta rejoiced quietly.

Quote: ramzay21

We need AWACS aircraft in adequate numbers

Need . The Soviet Union built 50 A-50s (it did not build all of them, but managed to build more than 30 units) and planned to purchase from 50 to 100 units only for the Air Force. Yak-44 (deck AWACS). The last one didn't even take off.
Well, as under the Knight, everything was built with us, I already wrote. I will only add that out of the order of 30 pcs. There are about 50 A-6s in service now. A-50U and 3 pcs. A-50. Since 2008, there has been a program to upgrade the A-50 to the A-50U, but its pace was no more than 1 aircraft in 2 (TWO) years. At the same time, contracts were concluded separately for each aircraft, so that the contractor could not even order components and upgrade kits ahead of time before signing the next contract.
As a result, having about 2008 - 17 A-20s in service in 50, only 9 have survived to this day, and only 6 of them. underwent modernization.
Come up with a name for it yourself.

Quote: ramzay21

The number of aviation needs to be raised not with heavy Su-35s, but with lighter and cheaper MiG-35s

The number must be raised by the maximum load of ALL available NEAs. MiG-29s were produced, and two NEAs were preparing to build the MiG-35S, the lines were ready, but the Ministry of Defense refused the order. Then ordered for some reason 6 pcs. ... apparently hoping that foreign clients will fly into this looking with orders ... they didn’t. They saw that the RF Ministry of Defense was refusing to order such aircraft, and they also refused. Believing that there was some kind of flaw in the plane. So if they start production now, it will take at least a year just to recruit / return workers again, prepare production lines, conclude contracts with suppliers. Well, the actual construction cycle of such an aircraft from laying to delivery is at least a year, and the first ones will be completely slower - until the technical process is debugged again. So if they go to the troops, then not earlier than the end of next year. The design capacity of both lines is 36 aircraft per year. So, working hard, but not expanding production, up to 10 regimental sets can be built in 10 years. And no one will order this model in larger quantities - in 0 the Su-10 should be ready.
But for the allies it would not hurt to build such. For Iran and North Korea, for Syria and Egypt, for Venezuela and Cuba, for South Africa and Algeria, for Brazil and Argentina, for Mexico and Bolivia, for Nicaragua and Belarus. If the head is on the shoulders, and the allies have money, the allies must be strengthened.

Quote: ramzay21

The release of the Su-35 must be stopped, completely replacing it with the release of the Su-57

Wrong decision. Su-57 is a new crude machine that has not been mastered by the troops. It is better to keep half of the park in general in the Far East. But the Su-35S has already shown itself from the best side, there are already more than 100 of them in the troops. , therefore, construction in the new modification of the Su-35SM must be continued, bringing the total number to 200 - 240 units.
Why so many?
Because it is economically, technically and organizationally justified to keep a fleet of the same type of machines numbering at least 200 pieces. Then the cost of their development, the creation of a proper stock of spare parts and repair kits, maintenance infrastructure, training of flight and technical personnel, planned repairs and upgrades will be justified. Therefore, since the aircraft was put into service, it is necessary to purchase at least 200 pieces. This is justified for the Su-35S / SM, and for the Su-30SM (with subsequent upgrade to SM2), the Su-34 / 34M and of course the Su-57.
So the main heavy fighters in the VKS will be the Su-35SM and Su-57M, the main MA fighter will be the Su-30SM2, and the main attack aircraft of the VKS will be the Su-34M \ M2.

Quote: ramzay21

MiG-35, re-equipping with them, first of all, the air regiments that now have the MiG-29.

For a long time we have not had a single regiment on the MiG-29, except for the carrier-based aviation regiment from the Kuznetsov air wing. So there is no one to rearm with light fighters. But it is necessary to revive at least 5 - 6 air regiments on light vehicles and arm them with the MiG-35S, if their production does become a reality.
With the advent of the Su-75, it would not hurt to revive about 10 more air regiments on these machines. And re-equip the regiments with the MiG-35S, for the sake of uniformity and unification. And sell their (regiments) MiG-35S to the allies, because the plane is good and will last a long time.
This is how I see the development of our combat fighter aviation.
I have already written quite a lot about the revival of the MPA, I will not repeat myself. But maintaining and bringing the number of attack aircraft to at least 500-600 vehicles is highly desirable. Stormtroopers are the workhorses of any war.

[Ryazan87]

But it is necessary to revive at least 5 - 6 air regiments on light vehicles and arm them with the MiG-35S, if their production does become a reality.

For what? True, it's interesting.
The MiG-35 is very conditionally "light".

But the preservation and bringing the number of attack aircraft to at least 500 - 600 vehicles,

500 attack aircraft? And what should it be (what kind of aircraft? As I understand it, you mean manned attack aircraft? Not helicopters and UAVs.

[bayard]

Quote: Ryazanets87

For what? True, it's interesting.

Then , what is necessary in the shortest possible time to increase the number of combat aircraft in 2-3 times . And this should be done not only at the expense of heavy combat vehicles. And the capabilities of heavy fighters are often excessive, and their operation costs at least 1,5 times more. And also because we are idle / idle as many as TWO aircraft manufacturing plants that produced MiGs. And these two plants should make their worthy contribution to our Victory. They are capable of building 36 fighters a year without much effort in peacetime, and much more in conditions of military conflict and the mobilization of all production capacities.

Quote: Ryazanets87

The MiG-35 is very conditionally "light".

To date, the concept of "light" has already been somewhat blurred. So at first they tried to classify the F-35 as "light", and the latest modifications of the F-18.
With a ferry range of 3000 km. , combat radius 1300 km. and a full combat load of 6500 kg. , he is already quite "average". But it is 1,5 times cheaper to operate, it has an AFAR radar, a very good resource of engines that no longer smoke black. It can have both a single and a double cabin, it is more compact and can be used as a deck one, because the MiG-29K \ KUB glider is taken as the basis.
But most importantly, two NEAs producing MiG-35S can and should join the NEAs producing SU combat vehicles. Just because they are, they can, and the plane is really good.
And it will be seriously cheaper than the new Su-35SM (with AFAR and L-band radar blades in the leading edges of the wings). The previous comparison in price with the Su-30SM was incorrect - according to the avionics, the MiG-35S was much more modern and perfect, its radar is better, its noise immunity and stealth are higher. But the price of the Su-30SM and MiG-35S were really about the same ... But then they didn’t take into account one more factor - the Su-30SM was developed on the basis of the Su-30MKI, the development of which was paid for by India, and the MiG-35S was developed by the MiG Design Bureau on its own initiative ... that is, the cost of development fell on the cost of purchased cars, at least the first batches.
Now it doesn’t matter, planes are needed, their price is normal, there are production capacities, and the state has money. In 10 years, until the Su-75 takes off and is finished, the plant can build from 300 to 500 MiG-35S, some of which are for the allies.

Quote: Ryazanets87

500 attack aircraft? And what should it be (what kind of aircraft? As I understand it, you mean manned attack aircraft? Not helicopters and UAVs.

I mean the need to resume production of an updated version of the Su-25 (of course, capable of using both high-precision weapons and UPAB). Lukashenka also wants this and even asked to help him organize such production in Belarus at one of the aircraft repair plants. He claims that he found understanding in this, because in Belarus, in fact, only the final assembly of such aircraft can be organized. We need cooperation. This is complicated by the fact that such aircraft were not built in the Russian Federation, the plant was in Tbilisi. Only sparks were made in Ulan-Ude ... but it seems that even the equipment was not preserved there. But such an aircraft is needed and needed (in production) yesterday. For we started the NWO with less than 200 attack aircraft in service, and we also suffered losses. For the whole year and a half they have been working for wear and tear (this is what they are intended for) making up to 5-6 sorties per day. Resource running out. Need a replacement.
As an alternative to restarting the production of the Su-25, a new modification of the Yak-130 with more powerful engines is proposed. In principle, due to more powerful engines and the rejection of a co-pilot in the cockpit (single-seat), you can install additional avionics, a small AFAR radar, OLS, and at least slightly book the cockpit ... Still, the Su-25 will be better. For it was created as an attack aircraft! It has a narrow fuselage but a very well armored cockpit and all vital organs. It is extremely tenacious, reliable, unpretentious in operation and has a very short inter-flight period during intensive combat work. It can be operated from unpaved lanes and highways ... In short, an ideal attack aircraft. At the same time, it is VERY thrust-armed, maneuverable (in training maneuver battles, the MiG-29 often twisted) and very hardworking. All these advantages will outweigh any doubts about the need to reincarnate the production of this attack aircraft.
And the Yak-130 ... it can become that support and temporary replacement / compensation until new full-fledged attack aircraft fill the regiments of Army Aviation.

Quote: Ryazanets87

500 attack aircraft?

Why are you so surprised by this number? The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation had about 200 such machines at the beginning of the NWO, and looking at how tightly they work and how they are not enough everywhere, not to mention the fact that they are needed in all parts of our Endless Motherland. If the number of combat aviation will be increased by 2-3 times, then the number of attack aircraft will be brought to such a figure that surprised you in the most natural way.

[Ryazan87]

Then , what is necessary in the shortest possible time to increase the number of combat aircraft in 2-3 times . And this should be done not only at the expense of heavy combat vehicles. And the capabilities of heavy fighters are often excessive, and their operation costs at least 1,5 times more

It would be possible to agree with this if the MiG-35 was really light and cheap. This is not the case, as you write about further. This is, in fact, a "underweight" fighter.

And also because we are idle / idle as many as TWO aircraft manufacturing plants that produced MiGs.

There are serious doubts about the preservation of their competencies to start the mass production of a relatively new machine (simple is by no means harmless). Meanwhile, this is the main argument that you bring in favor of the release of the MiG-35. In any case, for the needs of the current conflict, this decision is in any case too late.

But it is 1,5 times cheaper to operate

The start of operation within the framework of the VKS of an additional mass-produced type of fighter casts doubt on this undertaking from the point of view of economy.

the plant can build from 300 to 500 MiG-35S, some of which are for the Allies.

Those. 10 years (until the mid-2030s) to mass-produce a deliberately obsolete aircraft, spending huge money simply because we can + want to inflate the number of VKS. Yes, and allies .. kghm, Belarusians, if only they sell it, they have a small country, in principle, it will do.

But such an aircraft is needed and needed (in production) yesterday

Yesterday, perhaps, a specialized manned attack aircraft was needed. However, you yourself described the difficulties with the revival of its production.
It is necessary to develop attack drones en masse. This is the future. And faster, by the way, will be. I have already said everything about the Yak-130. It is impossible to recognize such a measure otherwise than as a gesture of despair.

The RF Armed Forces had about 200 such machines at the beginning of the SVO, and looking at how tightly they work

Looking at how tightly they work (since the cabriolet after the first weeks of the war), it became extremely clear that our Air Force is lagging behind in drones and guided weapons.
500 specialized Su-25s - fear God. We already had enough of a separate front-line bomber (another nonsense).

[ramzay21]

For what? True, it's interesting.
The MiG-35 is very conditionally "light".

Then that it is the MiG-35 class aircraft in all countries of the world that are the basis of fighter aviation and perform most of the tasks, and the Su-35 class aircraft are designed to gain air supremacy, and if, for a number of reasons, including lack of money, our Air Force armed only with heavy fighters, this does not mean at all that it is good and right.
The basis of the Air Force should be precisely the MiG-35 class aircraft, they themselves and their operation are almost two times cheaper and in the vast majority of cases will be able to perform the same task as the Su-35, while the Air Force will have TWO aircraft for about the same money as and ONE, with a comparable combat radius and combat load.

[ramzay21]

I didn’t say this, but the AL-41F-1S engines, with approximately the same / close characteristics, with the F-22 engine, are noticeably more economical. And the base AL-41F1 (created for the MiG-1.44) generally beats its American counterpart in all positions.

Our aircraft engine building has ALWAYS been inferior to the American one and the AL-41F1 engine is significantly inferior to the American F-22 engine, simply because it is able to pull the F-22 in supersonic without afterburner even on flat nozzles, and our AL-41F1 is not, and that is why we are developing the second stage engine Americans don't need it. At the same time, in terms of combat radius, the F-22 is at least as good as the Su-57, not to mention the Su-35.

And how many refuelings will he have?

And what difference does it make how many times they refuel? They fly across the Atlantic with a bunch of refueling, this has long been the norm for them.

And if they are hindered - with refueling?

Who can stop them from refueling at a distance of 300-400 km from the zone of action? First you need to detect it, and for this you need AWACS aircraft, which are almost non-existent. But even if there is even an A-50U, in order to detect not only the F-22, even a tanker, the AWACS aircraft must approach 100-150 km to the combat aviation coverage area, and this is suicide.

But the F-15EX is a really good aircraft. They really need to be built.

As well as the Su-35SM, although the troops already have a pair of F-15EX. And the Su-35S correspond to the F-15E1, of which they have more than our Su-35S.

So, for example, some of the old Su-24Ms can be retrained as tankers for the Su-35S, Su-30SM and Su-34.

Of course it is possible. But how many planes and how many times can one such tanker refuel? And how many pilots and technicians would it take to maintain such a fleet of stupid tankers?
We need normal tanker aircraft and they could have been built long ago on the basis of the Il-96-400 on the barely breathing VASO, which could easily enter the production of 10 aircraft a year and cover all the needs for tankers in the last 20 fat years.

It has its own airfields, and if necessary, reinforcements can be transferred there and work from the local airfield network.

If you read carefully, you would see that the question was what forces to cover the Habomai Islands and not Kamchatka or the Khabarovsk Territory.
AGAIN. WITH WHAT FORCES AND FROM WHAT AIRDOMS CAN YOU COVER OUR GARRISON ON THE HABOMAI ISLANDS? Two aircraft on Iturup is nothing, given the number of modern aircraft the Japanese have.

There is a runway on Iturup, on which they are constantly on duty from a pair to a Su-35S link

There should be at least THREE airfields with a normal runway on Iturup and the same number on Kunashir, plus at least two more on the more northern islands and one on the island of Shikotan.

But if it gets very hot, you will have to drive from Sakhalin or Primorye

And where will they land for refueling and replenishment of ammunition? Under the current conditions, aviation will not be able to operate even with one lane within a radius of 300 km, the path to which is easily blocked by a pair of destroyers without tankers, this is simply a fact. In the conditions of the undeveloped airfield network and the lack of roads suitable for the construction of temporary airfields, tankers are also needed in large quantities.

Need . The Soviet Union built 50 A-50s (it did not build all of them, but managed to build more than 30 units) and planned to purchase from 50 to 100 units only for the Air Force. Yak-44 (deck AWACS).

I agree with this.

The number must be raised by the maximum load of ALL available NEAs. MiG-29s were produced, and two NEAs were preparing to build the MiG-35S, the lines were ready, but the Ministry of Defense refused the order.

The military-industrial complex should do what the army NEEDS and not what the military-industrial complex can produce. We need other people in the leadership of the army and the military-industrial complex.
Light fighters should become the basis of fighter aviation. And the attraction of unprecedented generosity with the construction of ONLY expensive heavy fighters is wrecking.

Wrong decision. Su-57 is a new crude machine that has not been mastered by the troops. It is better to keep half of the park in general in the Far East. But the Su-35S has already shown itself from the best side

This is the only adequate solution against the existing threats in the form of a large number of F-35s appearing along our borders. We have ONLY ONE aircraft capable of withstanding the F-35, we still have no other aircraft. Therefore, the military-industrial complex and the airborne forces should work together to bring the Su-57 to perfection as quickly as possible, while simultaneously supplying them to combat units and mastering them. Under the USSR, the new MiG-29 and Su-27 were quickly mastered, and if the current command of the Aerospace Forces is not able to organize this, then they do not occupy their place and they must be driven.

Because it is economically, technically and organizationally justified to keep a fleet of the same type of machines numbering at least 200 pieces. Then the cost of their development, the creation of a proper stock of spare parts and repair kits, maintenance infrastructure, training of flight and technical personnel, planned repairs and upgrades will be justified. Therefore, since the aircraft was put into service, it is necessary to purchase at least 200 pieces. This is justified for the Su-35S / SM, and for the Su-30SM (with subsequent upgrade to SM2), the Su-34 / 34M and of course the Su-57.

The Su 35 is already outdated and it is a crime to produce obsolete equipment with the ability to produce another generation of aircraft. Yes, the Su-30SM2 and Su-34 are needed, but the Su-35 is no longer there. The plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur should concentrate ALL efforts on the production of the Su-57.
Also, the Sukhoi Design Bureau should develop a two-seat version of the Su-57 to replace the Su-30SM2 and launch it at the plant in Irkutsk to replace the MiG-31 and Su-30 of different versions. The total order for single and double modifications of the Su-57 should be at least 400-500 pieces, and I am sure that the military-industrial complex and the airborne forces will cope with this task within their strength.

At the same time, to increase the production of the MiG-35, at the same time creating a replacement for it based on one Su-57 engine.
The MiG-35 and its replacement of the fifth generation should become the basis of our Air Force, they need at least 800-1000. They will be reinforced by 400-500 Su-57s. The Su-34M should gradually go into the MRA, and if they have their own tankers, they will be able to attack targets at a distance of even 5 km, becoming the long arm of the fleet.

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

Our aircraft engine building was ALWAYS inferior to the American

Not always . By the beginning / mid-80s, we reached parity in terms of engines. And if the resource did not hold out in some way, then they already surpassed their classmates in traction, but in terms of economy they were not inferior.

Quote: ramzay21

AL-41F1 is significantly inferior to the American F-22 engine

Very, very little. And it is superior in terms of economy.
But the AL-41F1 (created for the MiG-1.44 and the father of the AL-41F-1S) was superior in all respects. AL-41F-1S was made on its basis, but to fit into the T-10 airframe.

Quote: ramzay21

because it is able to pull the F-22 in supersonic without afterburner even on flat nozzles, and our AL-41F1 is not

Two AL-41F-1S also pull both the Su-35S and the Su-57 in non-afterburning supersonic. It’s just that Americans with numbers, as always (and they have VERY often done this, since the 60s) lied for the sake of advertising and hype, and ours modestly told it like it is. Therefore, ours without afterburner gives out 1,5 M, and the F-22 ... well, maybe a little more, because the non-afterburning maximum of its engines is really higher than ours, although not by much. But the maximum speed of the Su-57 is HIGHER than that of the F-22, and noticeably. And this is the aerodynamics of the airframe.
And the F-22 eats at a non-afterburning maximum, like our AL-41F-1S at a small afterburner. The price of high afterburner traction.

Quote: ramzay21

And how many refuelings will he have?

And what difference does it make how many times they refuel? They fly across the Atlantic with a bunch of refueling, this has long been the norm for them.

Big difference . Refueling in the air, even for an experienced pilot, requires special attention and stress ... emotional. On a long flight, when the pilot is already tired in his cramped cockpit, several refueling cycles are even more exhausting. And this is in peacetime.
And if he is so exhausted even before pushing with the enemy or reaching the goal? But he still has to get out in the same circus back. and this is pressing ... So the fewer refuelings, the fresher the pilot will fly to the goal of his mission.

Quote: ramzay21

Who can stop them from refueling at a distance of 300-400 km from the zone of action?

Yes, few people. Although the same MiG-31 with R-37M missiles with a range of 300 - 400 km. Already someone, and he himself will find a hefty tanker at such a distance.
Tankers are generally a very unmasking factor. It is possible to "fight" with the Papuans for "300 - 400 km." from the battlefield calmly refuel. and from a strong enemy it can fly.
And if a fighter can still evade the R-37M with energetic maneuvers, then where is the tanker?

Quote: ramzay21

But the F-15EX is a really good aircraft. They really need to be built.

As well as the Su-35SM, although the troops already have a pair of F-15EX. And the Su-35S correspond to the F-15E1, of which they have more than our Su-35S.

By 2025, the Su-35SM is already promised to be transferred to the troops, the tests are ending. As for who corresponds to whom, the question is complex. The American does not have DM radars in the wing edges for covert surveillance of even subtle targets, there are no all-aspect AFAR canvases, only in the nose. I don’t know how it will be implemented on the Su-35SM, but they definitely promised to cover his ass. But judging by the name of the radar itself ... most likely the AFAR canvas is installed on the Irbis rotary structure ... which provides a 240-degree view , so that, together with the rear curtain, an almost all-round view is provided. Does the F-15X have this? I doubt .
And the Su-35S with the usual (but VERY powerful) Irbis has a view of 240 degrees along the course. And this is a huge advantage over any 4+ generation aircraft, and over the F-22 too he can't do that

[ramzay21]

Not always . By the beginning / mid-80s, we reached parity in terms of engines. And if the resource did not hold out in some way, then they already surpassed their classmates in traction, but in terms of economy they were not inferior.

If it were as you say, then the MiG-29 would be single-engine, like the MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21 and MiG-23. But alas, the characteristics of the engine and, above all, insufficient traction did not allow reaching characteristics similar to the F-16, which is why the MiG-29 was made twin-engine.

Very, very little. And it is superior in terms of economy.

You yourself wrote here that a flat nozzle reduces thrust by 15%, and the F-22 engine, however, even with a flat nozzle fully ensures compliance with the characteristics of the fifth generation, at least they do not plan any second stage engines.
But the Su-57 needs a different engine, because the existing one does not provide the necessary characteristics, and even our Defense Ministry recognizes this, which is why they are developing the engine of the second stage.
What makes you think that the American engine is less economical if the characteristics of our and the American engine are still classified?

Two AL-41F-1S also pull both the Su-35S and the Su-57 in non-afterburning supersonic. It’s just that Americans with numbers, as always (and they have VERY often done this, since the 60s) lied for the sake of advertising and hype, and ours modestly told it like it is.

We've been learning from each other for the past 30 years, and unfortunately our advertisers have outdone the Americans by learning to pass off fiction as reality.
But the Americans learned from the Soviets to underestimate the characteristics and the SVO showed well what is fiction and what is reality.

Big difference . Refueling in the air, even for an experienced pilot, requires special attention and stress ... emotional. On a long flight, when the pilot is already tired in his cramped cockpit, several refueling cycles are even more exhausting. And this is in peacetime.

In other words, are you saying that American pilots can fly and perform tasks with a bunch of refueling, but our pilots can't? Or maybe the whole point is not in the pilots, but in the thoughtfulness of all the flight processes they have and the competent organization of these processes, which significantly reduces the load on the crew?
Maybe if you start learning, including from them, and actively adopt best practices, our fighters will be able to operate in the same way with a bunch of refueling and not refer to difficulties?

Yes, few people. lol At least the same MiG-31 with R-37M missiles with a range of 300 - 400 km. Already someone, and he himself will find a hefty tanker at such a distance.
Tankers are generally a very unmasking factor

Again. To start shooting down the same tanker, you first need to detect it, but how did the SVO show us with the detection of targets in reality, when not only the Su-24s fly freely in the front line, columns of tanks walk a hundred kilometers from the front line during the day and no one is there attacks. So your statement about the ability to detect a tanker 300 km from the line of contact does not correspond to reality.
Then, in combat conditions, the tanker will hang at minimum heights and cover itself, and even if we assume that our air reconnaissance will reach some adequate level, in order to detect a tanker operating at an altitude of thousands of meters at a distance of 300 km from the line of contact, our AWACS aircraft needs to approach at a distance of one hundred km, which will immediately make it an object of attack by the enemy, and even such a large target as a tanker at an altitude of a kilometer at distances of 600 km (300 km to the LBS + 300 km from the LBS to the tanker will not be able to detect even a single AWACS in the world due to laws of physics.

It would be even more stupid to send a MiG-31 with an EPR like that of the same tanker to a real interception, which itself will quickly turn into a game

The American does not have DM radars in the wing edges for covert surveillance of even subtle targets, there are no all-aspect AFAR canvases, only in the nose.

Who told you this game? In terms of avionics, we lag behind the Americans much more than in terms of engines they have AFAR on all aircraft for a long time, and we pass it off as an achievement.
All-aspect radar, and built-in antenna sheets over the entire plane of the aircraft is one of the norms of the fifth generation, and the F-22 became the first aircraft in the world to reach the norms of the fifth generation more than 20 years ago.

And the Su-35S with the usual (but VERY powerful) Irbis has a view of 240 degrees along the course. And this is a huge advantage over any aircraft of the 4+ generation, and even before the F-22 request, it can’t do that

Where do you get this game from? The avionics of all two hundred F-22s have all-round visibility, this is the main parameter of the 5th generation aircraft.
PFAR Irbis is the level of the 90s of the last century and, of course, it will detect the Soviet MiG-29 much earlier, but not the F-22, and even more so the F-35. And if in such conditions the Soviet MiG-29 will always be a game for the Su-35, in the same way our Su-35, with any upgrades, will be a game for the F-22 and F-35, this is simply a fact. To confront the F-22 and F-35, our Air Force needs the Su-57 and no Su-35 will replace it, to argue the opposite is a crime that will lead to huge losses of pilots and aircraft in the event of hostilities.

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

So, for example, some of the old Su-24Ms can be retrained as tankers for the Su-35S, Su-30SM and Su-34.

Of course it is possible. But how many planes and how many times can one such tanker refuel?

One Su-24M will be able to refuel one Su-30SM\35S\34M. Refuel well. It was foreseen from the very beginning - so as not to drive tankers - they picked up a PTB with an exhaust refueling device, two more large PTBs under the wing roots, internal tanks up to the neck and - on the way.
Well, we don’t have tankers now, and they will be for tactical aviation, not soon - first of all, they will provide long-range ones. On the other hand, our fighter and especially tactical-bomber aviation have long been able to refuel themselves in the air themselves. And the Su-30SM can refuel a colleague, and the Su-34. The Su-35S is not needed - it even has enough fuel, it will not be enough - it will take two PTBs for a flight.
Su-24Ms are now being decommissioned. but they still have some resource. Therefore, there is nothing easier than to second a Su-24M squadron to each air regiment in need, as tankers. And use how much resource is enough. And there the Il-78MD90A will arrive in time.

Quote: ramzay21

build on the basis of IL-96-400

These do not exist in nature. One for 5-6 years of picking was collected like, but it has never taken off yet. Forget. There is no such thing and never will be.
But the IL-78MD90A already exists and will be. If they give money to Ulyanovsk, they decide on prices and advance payments, the order will be reinforced by the Ministry of Defense, they will start building the Il-76MD90A, and they will reach a normal pace.
and before that there was only She - Imitation.

Quote: ramzay21

VASO, which could easily enter the production of 10 aircraft per year

He had never built so much in a year. In the late Soviet years, 4 aircraft per year were built there. Well, they didn’t overclock, and the power didn’t correspond to more. And now there is no one to build there.

Quote: ramzay21

the question was what forces to cover the Habomai islands and not Kamchatka or the Khabarovsk Territory.

Caring for such a remote and problematic ... mini / micro archipelago is, of course, commendable. But how do you imagine the conflict over these islands in general?
Angry Japanese fishermen will sail there?
And will they fly kites?
Or will Japanese missiles and aircraft fly in and take everything out in one gate with the very first blow (air defense, fighters on the runway, DBK, garrison barracks)?
Are you proposing to keep a grouping there equal to the forces of the entire Japanese aviation and navy?
Or is it still better to treat the DISEASE, and not its consequence?
The consequence is a possible Japanese attack on our islands with superior forces. But the Disease is revanchist Japan itself. That's what needs to be treated. And for this, we have EVERYTHING you need on the Far East. Even a division of carriers of "Poseidons" has been formed, from which "one tablet" will generally be enough. Or a volley of three or four Bulavas directly from the Kamchatka pier.
And that’s it.
Even together with the American bases on these islands.
And why did you compose here ... three or four air regiments only on these islands ?? Yes, their construction (airfields +) and operation (on the ISLANDS !!) will become more expensive than a nuclear aircraft carrier. Both the cost and the cost of operation.
It is enough to keep moderate garrisons on the islands, DBK, air defense and a couple of fighters at the airfield. There, and so for half a year the weather is not flying. And the issues of the Japanese Illness should be solved by other, more effective and even radical methods.

Quote: ramzay21

But if it gets very hot, you will have to drive from Sakhalin or Primorye

And where will they land for refueling and replenishment of ammunition?

And return to their airfields in Primorye and Sakhalin. After all, they don’t turn turns to the last drop there, but strike at ships and targets on the Japanese (and if it’s already too late, then on ours) islands. And cover fighters - cover them.
and - home.
What did you think? Pushing around on the islets like Nanai boys?
Now, if infrastructure, fish processing plants, a titanium metallurgical plant were built on these islands (there one of the islands is generally all made of titanium ... its compounds, of course), tourist bases, and something else important. That's when ... YES. Then it was possible to set up capital bases there and keep a squadron under steam on them.

Quote: ramzay21

The military-industrial complex should do what the army NEEDS and not what the military-industrial complex can produce.

And if the Army (which was Ma-scarlet before the SVO) has such a leadership that does not itself know what it needs?
They didn’t finish at the academies, they didn’t serve in the Army, how they began to shave their beards - immediately to the bosses ... Orrel. And the Knight.

Quote: ramzay21

And the attraction of unprecedented generosity with the construction of ONLY expensive heavy fighters is wrecking.

Of course sabotage.
But since the authorities decided to build a Small Army, in which there should be very few planes ... It’s probably better that they bought only heavy ones (here, apparently, the General Staff thought up ... well, the Sukhovites fussed). If there were exactly the same number of aircraft now, but it would be the MiG-29 and MiG-35 ... I would probably choose what is.

Quote: ramzay21

The military-industrial complex and the airborne forces should work together to bring the Su-57 to perfection as quickly as possible, while supplying them to combat units and mastering them.

"Product-30" - a raw engine with an unfinished resource. It is categorically impossible to mass-produce it. So you have to drive with AL-41F-1S. The engine is good, the resource is excellent, the traction is sufficient, the performance characteristics and maneuverability are the best. What else is needed for happiness and mass production? Since the "Belka" is now being installed on the Su-35S, then everything is definitely fine with it.
It was decided to increase the production of Su-57 to 24 units. per year, and in general, they are all already on the stocks. But it is risky to aim for more - the technical process must be debugged and mastered by the staff, and the increase in production should occur smoothly. So that the quality of training of new personnel meets the requirements of technical processes. It's still not sharpening shell shells.

Quote: ramzay21

if the current command of the Aerospace Forces is not able to organize this, then they do not occupy their place and they must be driven out.

The VKS command can only give recommendations and formulate a request. The decision is made by the head of the MO.

Quote: ramzay21

drive.

Well, that's what we tried this summer. And who kicked who?

Quote: ramzay21

The Su 35 is already outdated and it is a crime to produce obsolete equipment with the ability to produce another generation of aircraft.

Well, the release of the Su-35SM is being prepared. This is essentially a Su-57 in the fuselage of a Su-35. Good decision . Now another hundred or one and a half such SMs are to be built, and those that are modernized with C into SMs, and there will be Happiness.
And the Su-57 really needs to be built up.

Quote: ramzay21

Yes, Su-30SM2 and Su-34 are needed

I think that the Su-30SM should not be upgraded to the level of the Su-35S, but immediately to the level of the Su-35SM, that would be more correct. And what was updated in the Su-34M ... I hope they updated it well. The park should be brought up to at least 240 pcs. , and only for videoconferencing.

Quote: ramzay21

Su-34M should gradually go into the MRA

And who will be left instead of them?
For the MRA, a special modification is needed - with specifics, and the crews need to be trained from the cadet's bench, and it would not hurt to improve the characteristics of the Su-34M2.
But it is best to make a special attack aircraft for the MRA based on the enlarged Su-57 glider with pilots landing like the Su-34. Take-off weight up to 85 tons, two R-579V-300 engines (13 \ 000 kg.s.), two anti-ship missiles in the armament compartment, in two other compartments in the wing root influxes - two RVV SD each. But until such a one appears, build the Su-22M000 with AL-34F-2S for the MRA, as carriers of the GZ and other anti-ship weapons.

[ramzay21]

One Su-24M will be able to refuel one Su-30SM\35S\34M. Refuel well. This was provided for from the very beginning - so as not to drive tankers - I picked up a PTB with an exhaust refueling device, two more large PTBs under the wing roots, internal tanks up to the neck and - on the way

This was true for the 80s, and then not always and not from a good life. Yes, a certain number of small tankers are needed, but this is not the basis. The basis should be a tanker that can provide at least four aerial refueling for four pairs of Su-57, Su-30SM2, Su-34M and Su-35 aircraft.

These do not exist in nature. One for 5-6 years of picking was collected like, but it has never taken off yet. Forget. There is no such thing and never will be.

Il-96-400T is more than 10 years old and they fly. This Il-96-400M has not yet taken off, but it is not so different as not to take off.

He had never built so much in a year. In the late Soviet years, 4 aircraft per year were built there. smile Well, they did not accelerate, and the power did not correspond to more. And now there is no one to build there.

VASO built 12 Il-86 aircraft a year without problems, and the Il-96-400M is essentially an upgrade of the Il-86 with exactly the same fuselage and airframe. VASO is quite capable of building 10 Il-96-400M aircraft per year or more, but firm orders for the coming decades and competent management of the country's aviation industry are needed.
So the fact that the IL-96-400M does not yet carry passengers and is not a replacement for the IL-78 is because there is no solution from above, there are all the possibilities for this.
And by the way, more than a dozen IL-96-300s in storage, which had not worked out even half of their resource, were good candidates for conversion into tankers. If they had been modernized, our VKS would have had ten more tankers at much lower costs.

[RUSa]

Dear, why do you write ONLY comments? Why don't you write an article or a series of articles on our and enemy aviation? Where would you be able to calmly and thoroughly convey your position to everyone.

And then you constantly "shit" in the comments with other participants under different posts ...

[Garris199]

Stormtroopers are the workhorses of past wars. Isn’t it noticeable that the maximum they are capable of and the SVO is to launch NARs from a pitched position? The role of fire support for infantry from the air is clearly shifting to attack and reconnaissance UAVs and loitering ammunition. But MFIs and front-line bombers can operate KAB and PAB quite normally. You can safely forget about attack aircraft and not expose pilots to air defense fire, but it is better to retrain as IBA or UAV operators.

[76SSSR]

Quote: ramzay21

The release of the Su-35 must be stopped, completely replacing it with the release of the Su-57

For what? The Su-57 should replace the already outdated Su-27 fleet. As for the Su-35, it is quite a competitive machine for today. Or does NATO already fly exclusively on the 5th generation?

[Fisherman]

I totally upvote you! Ramsay understandably drowns for his Yankees, but the texture says something else:
1) All these 4+++, 5-, etc. are very conditional, this is an Anglo-Saxon notion, each country sets performance characteristics for its aircraft according to the concept of their application, so the rating is how to compare a cross-rover with a jeep - each car fits its own taiga.
2) The "invisibility" of the F-22 crashes at the first transition to supersonic in the form of damage to the coating, and it must be constantly changed even during simple flights, which is impossible in conditions of constant combat contact - the war will exhaust all the airfield resources of extremely difficult to maintain equipment in a week . Volumes have already been written about this.
3) The F-22, invented almost from scratch, has collected so many errors that the terrible quality in operation is still covered only by the number of vehicles, but in combat use it will be a geometric progression of the destruction of the F-22 fleet.
4) R-37 from a long distance just fell a few relaxed dill when they returned to their bases. So ultra-range does not have an advantage only with the full tension of aviation and air control. But the Medium battle will remain the king of aviation ... it's like artillery at the front always knocks out missiles in price / quantity.
5) Our theater of operations implies ground bases and our powerful air defense, so the Yankees can shove all their flying tankers into the Pacific Ocean, here they are only fat targets along with DLRO. In an "adult" war, there will be no AWACS or satellites, and here it’s just the super-maneuverability and experience of pilots - the King of VICTORY in the air, and even air defense - in general, our strong point and the Yankees will have to chew snot on their "island" in an adult scenario, without gps / gprs all from the Army - a set of darkness of the people with weapons in the Tien Shan mountains with a broken navigator on hand and without space communication.
Well, etc., and this is so for people who know - even more than I posted.

[Passing]

Quote: Fisherman

super-maneuverability and experience of pilots - King of VICTORY in the air

Supermaneuverability and, accordingly, UVT, as one of the elements that provide it, are far from paramount for the effectiveness of air combat, their importance is artificially dogmatized and mythologized in the mass consciousness of Russians. Because of this, the majority simply do not know what exactly the essence of super-maneuverability is, and attribute to it qualities that are never characteristic of it. Supermaneuverability is simply the ability to operate at supercritical angles of attack. This is not the ability to evade / run away from an aircraft / missile, this is not the ability to “go into the tail” with a turn (as in a movie about the Second World War), it is, simply, the ability to deviate the nose of the aircraft in any direction relative to the current flight path, and generally maintain controllability outside depending on the air flow. All. This ability may give (or may not give, depending on the available energy of the opponent's aircraft and one's own) an advantage only in the "dog dump". Unless, it is extremely doubtful, purely theoretically, the "bell" can be useful for other distances.
The main battle distance (as most experts say) is medium distances, and such things as situational awareness from external sources, the range of one’s own detection (both oneself and the enemy), maximum speed, current thrust-to-weight ratio, max steady-state overload are important here.
And by the way, it is the last two points that are more important in close combat than super-maneuverability, and only when they have conditional parity with the opponent, only then this very super-maneuverability will play a decisive role. And by the way, it is the last three points that make it possible to "get away" from an attacking missile, forcing it to waste its energy on maneuvers, and not at all super-maneuverability and cross-sectional nozzles (as the author of the article claims). No super-duper super-maneuverable aircraft with a max g-force of 9g, even in dreams, can "dodge" point-blank (like Neo in the Matrix) a rocket with a max g-force of 100g.

[Comet]

Quote: Passing by

Supermaneuverability is simply the ability to operate at supercritical angles of attack.

Quote: Passing by

and generally maintain controllability regardless of the air flow

This is true. Controllability and stability at supercritical angles of attack.

Quote: Passing by

It's not the ability to dodge/run away from an airplane/missile,

And you can dodge, especially with the use of fired countermeasures.

Quote: Passing by

this is not the ability to turn into the tail (as in a movie about the Second World War),

This is a way to be the first to take position for the use of weapons.

Quote: Passing by

max speed, current thrust-to-weight ratio, max steady-state overload.
And by the way, it is the last two points that are more important in close combat than super-maneuverability,

The last two points are important when arming with non-perspective URVV BVB. With all-aspect URWV, the maximum angular rate of turn is important. Therefore, the Mirage 2000 is a very dangerous opponent in the BVB for any conventional fighter. And super-maneuverability significantly reduces the time it takes to take up a position for the use of weapons, which is equivalent to an increase in the angular velocity of a turn. And on the "guns" super-maneuverability gives a significant advantage.

Quote: Passing by

No super-duper super-maneuverable aircraft with a max g-force of 9g, even in dreams, can "dodge" point-blank (like Neo in the Matrix) a rocket with a max g-force of 100g.

1. The aircraft just needs to be in one impulse volume, for example, in the case of ARGSN missiles, with chaff.
2. It must be understood that if a rocket has a normal overload of 100, then it will be very good if its longitudinal overload is 50. This means that in 1 s the rocket will lose more than 490 m / s of speed. Or, in terms of guidance methods, the aircraft's equivalent g-force would be far from 9.

[the most important]

Quote: bayard

In addition, tests and refinement of a new modification of the Su-35SM are underway right now.

And what do you think about the fact that it would not be bad to transfer all aircraft of the Su family to engines of the second stage from the Su-57 undergoing testing?

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Yes, even if the current one is riveted massively, it’s still many times better than losing planes over your territory

[bayard]

Quote: the most important

And what do you think about the fact that it would not be bad to transfer all aircraft of the Su family to engines of the second stage from the Su-57 undergoing testing?

This engine simply does not yet exist - as a product ready for launch into a series. So far, they have not been able to get an acceptable resource on it. And this is not surprising when you have supercritical temperatures on your shoulder blades. There is materials science, and cooling modes ... and common sense - to what extent it's all worth playing. Here the Lyulkovites raised the bar for themselves that "we will make an engine in the dimension of AL-31F and a thrust of 20 tons" and ... became hostages of their ambitions. Thrust at 19,5 t.s. they did get it - at the stand ... but the resource turned out to be completely unacceptable. lowered the bar to 18 t.s. ... but this did not allow (perhaps so far, but I would not flatter myself) to get an acceptable resource. and professional pride does not allow them to lower the thrust even lower.
But in vain.
If you lower the maximum thrust to 17, and even 16,5 t.s. , it will still be 2 - 2,5 t.s. more than the AL-41F-1S, which means that the Su-57 will receive good supersonic speed on non-afterburner thrust. He still has it, but it is something of the order of 1,5 M. With new engines there will be 1,7 - 1,8 M or about 2000 km / h. This is more than enough, and this glider simply doesn’t need more, it will already be the MOST thrust-armed aircraft of our time, the most aerodynamically perfect glider, with the largest weapons compartment (plus two more small ones) ... with an all-angle radar, providing all-round visibility with four AFAR canvases and two more canvases in the DM range in the leading edges of the wings.
What else do you need for happiness? If all this works properly, it will, by definition, be the Best Aircraft of Modernity. It's conceptually better. For him, each of the parameters beats a similar indicator for opponents.
The best is always the enemy of the good. No need to torture the "Product-30" further in these modes, lower the temperature and achieve a resource at the level of AL-41F-1S (4000 flight hours). And launch the plane in the widest series. Not some obscure 76 pcs. , but not less than 300 - 400 pcs. to replace all Su-27SM \ SM3. Then another series of no less number for Naval Aviation, but already in a two-seat configuration.
If you stop hitting the wall with your forehead and moderate your ambitions in time, everything will work out well and on time.

Quote: the most important

it would be nice to transfer all aircraft of the Su family to engines of the second stage

I would transfer to such Su-34M2 engines with an enlarged airframe and an increased range - for Naval Aviation, as an MRA aircraft and a GZ anti-ship missile carrier.
Such an engine simply will not fit into the engine nacelles of the Su-35S and Su-30SM, and completely different air intakes will be needed. But the Su-34M2 glider will still have to be heavily redone - enlarge / lengthen, increase the wing area. This is how I would put these engines, and even the keels would have collapsed to reduce the EPR.
The rest of the descendants of the Su-27 in a new look will serve for a long time, but with the AL-41F-1S engines, this will be more than enough for them.
But on the Su-75 - yes.

[Vladimir Yurievich]

Quote: bayard

Yes, and the annual production of the Su-57 is now coming out (already on stocks) for 24 aircraft per year. And this is simultaneously with the continuation of the production of Su-35S \ SM, Su-30SM2 for Naval Aviation and Su-34M.
And if, nevertheless, the information about the start of production and purchases of the MiG-35S is confirmed (it’s not clear yet, such information has passed, but the first vehicles will not appear until the end of 2024), then the number of military aircraft of the VKS will seriously increase very soon. I think that at least it will double, and as an optimum it will triple.

Yes, you, comrade, are an optimist, and what a one! Well, of course, now everyone in the country is aware of everything, and right there all the shortcomings will disappear forever, and all the advantages will immediately multiply and new ones will appear!
I don’t want to upset you, but even if we imagine that your extremely optimistic and unfounded forecasts suddenly came true, then to ensure air supremacy over the known territory of the current conflict, this will still be redundant, but in general, this “triple amount” will be approximately three times less than that of the United States and more than four times less than that of NATO. And this is not the main sadness ... Where will you "very soon" find twice (three times) as many well-trained pilots? Remember how many flight schools we have left. Too many different things need to be done in the country for the situation in the HQS to change as dramatically as you would like to imagine.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir Yurievich

Too many different things need to be done in the country for the situation in the HQS to change as dramatically as you would like to imagine.

So am I about it. Or do you think that it is possible to triple the size of the military aviation of the Aerospace Forces in a couple of years? But since orders for combat aircraft have been increased many times, it means that the enrollment of cadets in flight schools will be increased by a multiple.
Is it (such a school) one?
Moreover, there is a reason to open / revive a couple more of the same.
besides, the poaching of young pilots from Civil Aviation is already underway. Or maybe soon volunteer pilots will also be drawn to us and there will be enough for all the planes.

[MSN]

Or maybe soon volunteer pilots will also come to us and there will be enough for all the planes.

"Ostap was carried away. He felt a surge of new strength and chess ideas."
Residents of Moscow, constrained by the housing crisis, will rush to your magnificent city. The capital automatically moves to Vasyuki. The government is coming here. Vasyuki is renamed New Moscow, Moscow - Old Vasyuki. Leningraders and Kharkovites are gnashing their teeth, but they can’t do anything. New Moscow is becoming the most elegant center of Europe, and soon the whole world.

[bayard]

Quote: MSN

"Ostap was carried away. He felt a surge of new strength and chess ideas."

And now we’re simply opening messages about batches of combat aircraft transferred this year, reports from manufacturing plants, as well as a statement from the Ministry of Defense on the formation of 9 new regiments of the Aerospace Forces.
You can also pay attention to the increasing intensity of the use of UPAB with UMPC and other means of destruction by combat aircraft. War is always and at all times the engine of progress.

Quote: MSN

Kharkiv residents grind their teeth

Take care of your teeth, dentists are expensive these days.

[MSN]

War is always and at all times the engine of progress.

Tell Germany about this somewhere in 1918

[bayard]

Let the experience of Germany in 1918 be studied by its spiritual successors.

[vlad575nso]

because they will work in the range of ground-based decimeter radars, and this is the secrecy of observation

Did you come up with this yourself or did you print a prepared text? Radar reconnaissance means identify radars, not only by range, this is not a secret.

[Xenofont]

For all the usefulness of the attempt to obtain an integral assessment of the Su-35, it is necessary, all the same, to pay more attention to the accuracy of describing the technical capabilities of the products. The Author's phrase struck me: "And when the fuel is all - and the rocket practically no longer threatens anyone." Touche! All solid-propellant rockets travel most of the way by inertia, and only some of them are corrected by gas-dynamic rudders.

[IVZ]

Su-35 is a modernization of the Su-27, and therefore with an interference 4+ generation

I never understood these arguments. The result of the work is important. not the way to get there. In the end, the modernization potential is one of the most important characteristics of any technology and evidence of the correct choice of the concept during development. Sometimes, apart from stating the fact of the existence of a prototype and thoughtful remarks about obsolescence (try to get an explanation of what was meant), there is nothing to present to the critics. From my point of view, the aircraft must fly, have decent avionics and weapons, and be adapted for mass production at hour H. And fashionable stealth will be in demand until the next step in improving detection tools.

[bayard]

Quote: IVZ

From my point of view, the aircraft must fly, have decent avionics and weapons, and be adapted for mass production per hour

In our case, the main problem is precisely the small number of combat aviation of the RF Armed Forces, which is extremely insufficient in the face of confrontation between the United States and the NATO bloc. And those cuts in the aircraft industry that occurred several years ago, when such a ... "strange" decision was made to curtail purchases, and that "We have had enough" voiced by the "Grandmaster" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. then they wanted to remove the Su-34 from production, and the purchases of the Su-35S and Su-30SM were reduced to a critical level ... But then the aircraft manufacturers had just reached the normal pace of building combat aircraft. Now go and bite your elbows from your own stupidity, but orders for the purchase of combat aircraft have finally been expanded and a decision has been made to deploy new air regiments.

[Reader 2013]

How unconvincing the article sounds
.......................................

[ism_ek]

It makes sense to discuss all this if the main enemy of the Su-35 is now air defense. The aircraft is powerless against modern air defense.
Anti-radar missiles fly in the wrong direction and can only hit equipment from the 60s of the last century.
Supermaneuverability allows you to get away from a maximum of one missile. If there are two or three missiles, then it is impossible to get away from them.
Well, the radar .... The Su-35 cannot detect modern enemy air defense systems because of the interference they exhibit.
This is not only our problem. American anti-radar missiles are also not effective.

[KCA]

Do you have evidence that the Kh-31P / PD are not effective? Share that HAARM is slag, at least those modifications that supply it to / from it is known, and their downed carcasses have been shown more than once, but I have never heard about X-31 that they are about anything

[ism_ek]

X-31P on the streets of Kyiv. Lost purpose

[KCA]

It’s interesting how it lay down without detonation of the warhead and fuel, and didn’t even catch fire, at Army 2023 the shadow storm was shown in the form of shreds, and here half of the rocket is straight, well, about the fact that in case of loss of the target, the rocket self-destructs, and there for half a year to collect the debris you do not know? Oh, I forgot, the X-31 flies at speeds above 3MAX, if it just falls, the pit will be 3 meters deep and what will be left there?

[ism_ek]

Quote: KCA

I wonder how it lay down without detonation of the warhead and fuel,

Where did you see the warhead in the photo? It is logical to assume that the rocket self-destructed in the air and fell

Quote: KCA

at Army 2023, the shadow storm was shown in the form of shreds, and here half of the rocket is straight,

Well, these are different missiles. A cruise missile is essentially a huge thin-walled tank of kerosene. A solid rocket is much stronger.

[KCA]

The start of the Challenger shows how much stronger the turbojet engine will start to explode, everything will explode, and solid fuel is the first thing

[DIM (a)]

this is only a power unit, where is the warhead, fighting compartment and hardware compartment?

[Eug]

I wonder what pressure is in the hydraulic drives of the Su-35? If the centering is shifted back, i.e. the degree of static instability is increased, it would be logical to switch to 350 (if, of course, technologically possible). The same question is about the Su-57.

[Luminman]

Quote: Eug

I wonder what pressure is in the hydraulic drives of the Su-35? ... it would be logical to switch to 350

A pressure of 250 MPa is quite enough for the hydraulic system of any aircraft. Control pre-flight pressure testing - 60 MPa. During routine maintenance in the TEC, of ​​course, they are pressed with more pressure. I think that a pressure of 350 MPa is excessive, and for the Su-35 this pressure is even more than enough ...

[anclevalico]

You, for an hour, do not confuse MPa and kgf / cm.kv? 250 MPa, this is 2500 kgf / cm.sq. Why such pressure?
This is a critical decrease in reliability and a potential source of fire in the event of even the slightest damage.

[Luminman]

Quote: anclevalico

You, for an hour, do not confuse MPa and kgf / cm.kv?

I confuse. After he retired, he worked part-time in the gas industry, and there everything is in MPa, only the values ​​​​are one or two zeros lower. Of course, 250 kgf/cm2...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: anclevalico

This is a critical decrease in reliability and a potential source of fire in the event of even the slightest damage.

If I'm not confused, then the working fluid in the Su-27 hydraulic system is kerosene and there is make-up from the aircraft's fuel system. That is, as long as there is fuel in the aircraft tanks, the hydraulic control system of the aircraft should work. In the Su-35S, aircraft control is duplicated four times (I can hardly imagine how it looks in kind).
PS
And the high-pressure hydraulic system in aircraft control, in the Sukhoi Design Bureau, was worked out for the T-4 (Sotka) aircraft. And I came across information that went to the fighters of this design bureau.

[Zufei]

Quote: Bad_gr

If I'm not mistaken, then the working fluid in the hydraulic system of the Su-27 is kerosene and there is make-up from the fuel system of the aircraft.

You are confusing. Airframe working fluid - AMG-10.
The fuel is used in the engine FK nozzle control system.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Luminman

Of course, 250 kgf/cm2...

No, 280 kgf/cm2.

The aircraft hydraulic system consists of two independent closed-type hydraulic systems (first and second) with working pressure 280 kgf/cm2 and driven by each from its own engine. The sources of energy in each hydraulic system are plunger pumps of variable capacity NP-112, mounted on remote boxes of units.
The first and second hydraulic systems in parallel provide the operation of the steering actuators of the stabilizer, front horizontal tail, rudders, ailerons, flaps and deflected socks.
First hydraulic system in addition, it provides: release and retraction of the landing gear, opening and closing of the landing gear doors; left air intake wedge control; cleaning and release of protective grids of air intakes; front landing gear strut control; braking of the wheels of the main landing gear (starting and emergency); extension and retraction of the boom of the in-flight refueling system; power supply of RLPK hydraulic units; the operation of the limiters of the stroke of the handle on the roll and the stroke of the pedals.
Second hydraulic system provides: the main braking of the wheels of the main landing gear; cleaning and release of the brake shield; wedge control of the right air intake.

[Amateur]

Why make excuses at all? The planes did not engage in combat with each other. Theoretical "measuring with pipka" is generally "sleight of hand and no fraud", because you can always come up with a criterion that unconditionally proves the superiority of one over the other.
Do you want an example? Please.
"Humpbacked Zaporozhets", which has 4 wheels, 1 steering wheel and 3 passenger seats (+ 1 driver's seat), is much better than the "Rolls-Royce Phantom", which has the same 4 wheels, 1 steering wheel and 3 + 1 seats, at the cost of delivering passengers (regardless of their number !!!, which is an outstanding achievement of the local auto industry) is significantly superior to the English, obsolete due to excessive consumption of gasoline, the car.

[solar]

which is an outstanding achievement of the local auto industry

two auto industries. Italian in the form of the Fiat 600, which became the basis, and the Soviet one, which modified the Fiat to suit local conditions. At the same time, the legendary hump was formed to fit the engine into the compartment.

[mz]

Quote from solar

two auto industries. Italian in the form of the Fiat 600, which became the basis, and the Soviet one, which modified the Fiat to suit local conditions. At the same time, the legendary hump was formed to fit the engine into the compartment.

In addition to the close design, only the type of rear suspension matches there. In this case, Soviet engineers did not finalize the Italian project, but made a completely new car similar to the Fiat-600.

[KCA]

They assembled licensed copies of FIATs in Poland, Renault in Romania, the USSR had their own cars, based on, but their own

[Feodor13]

Thanks to the author!

The maneuverability of the Su-35 implies the inclusion in the arsenal of a wide range of tactics - to evade missiles.
I believe that this is one of the key subjects for the training of our pilots.
These tactics (and there are probably at least ten of them) are "de facto": an additional complex of advanced weapons.
On the contrary, the "Lightning", not having such maneuverability, have more "poor" pilots in tactical training.

Of course, you can also come up with some tactics for their stealth (of course they exist),
but there will be much fewer of them than tactics when evading. And they will be much simpler (like "flying in bad weather").
Also, evasion training isn't just about more advanced fliers,
these are pilots making very quick decisions.

Here, American journalists can, when compared .. well, so .. sit down in a puddle.
In other words, the paradigm of the most advanced aircraft technology (which they are trying to operate),
may not always play a positive role in the confrontation.
It is clear that the level of perfection of technology is the main dominant in confrontations,
but it is apparently still too early to miss the properties of a person, even without an analysis of the integrated use of air defense, air force, and videoconferencing.

Perhaps there is still a decent reserve in the man-machine system,
and I think it is precisely the maneuverability that brings this potential to a maximum.
Those. Su-35: 4++ aircraft, and 4+ pilots,
and the F-35 can even be like this: 5 for the aircraft, and 3+ for the pilot.

[Doccor18]

Today, the alignment on the arms market has changed somewhat, but let's say yesterday everyone gasped in unison from the AFARs. And they bought planes with PFAR, because they were cheaper, and much cheaper.

Who bought?
All modern foreign fighters of developed countries have AFAR ...

[savage3000]

That's for sure??? All afar have? Exactly exactly?

[Frettaskyrandi]

Probably, it’s worth saying right away: the arguments that will be discussed, they were invented there. And the fact that some of our bloggers and the media picked it up - the author is not responsible for this, because it was not invented by him. The sources of the dope that we are going to talk about are there, beyond the seas.

There, beyond the seas, of course, there are a lot of all sorts of "sources", but in this case the whole controversy was invented by the author himself, and very clumsily at that.

Argument #1. Su-35 is a modernization of the Su-27, and therefore with an interference 4+ generation

What the author is trying to refute here is not clear, this is how the aircraft manufacturer is positioned by the leading manufacturing enterprise of the Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company, Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu. A. Gagarin, until 2013 - Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Association named after . Yu. A. Gagarina, KnAAPO.
We open the manufacturer's website - https://web.archive.org/web/20180603154308/http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/
We read.

The Su-35 is a deep modernization of the Su-27 in order to significantly increase the effectiveness of its combat use against air, ground and sea targets.

Argument #2. The AL-41F1S engines are a modernization of the AL-31F, so they are hardly capable of 4++, and aircraft with such engines do not pose a significant threat.

We open the Military Watch Magazine mentioned by the author - https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/su35-vs-su27-ten-top-improvements, an article dated August 3 this year.

The AL-41F-1S turbojet engine with afterburner is at the heart of what made the Su-35 a fighter far superior to the original Su-27....Engine performance is among the highest in the world for pre-fifth generation fighters, and its service life and maintenance requirements are greatly improved compared to the AL-31, which was already an industry leader in its time. With a thrust of 142,2 kN, the engine is 16 percent more powerful than its predecessor, allowing the Su-35 to maintain some of the most competitive flight performance in the world even under very heavy loads.

And what is there to refute?

Argument #3. The Irbis radar does not at all meet the requirements of modern times and is not capable of performing tasks in air combat.

Air Force Technology - https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

The Irbis-E multi-mode X-band phased array radar was supplied by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Engineering (NIIP), located in Zhukovsky. Irbis-E is a high-performance radar designed for the Su-35 aircraft.

The radar can detect stealth and stealth aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles with a radar cross section of 0,01 m² at a distance of up to 90 km. Radar modes include air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-sea, mapping, beam Doppler, and synthetic aperture radar modes. It can detect and track up to 30 aerial targets with a radar cross-sectional area (RCS) of 3 m² at a range of 400 km in tracking mode while scanning.

The rest of the arguments are exactly the same.
Who is interested, you can also read here - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-su-35-fighter-the-only-thing-you-need-know-21624.
The article starts like this

The Su-35 may be the best jet-age dogfighter ever made.

The Su-35 may be the best jet age fighter ever built.

[Revolver]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

The Su-35 may be the best jet-age dogfighter ever made.

The Su-35 may be the best jet age fighter ever built.

Your translation is not entirely correct, dogfighter is translated not in general as a "fighter", but as a fighter for a "dog dump", where, if not everything, then a lot is decided by maneuverability. The Western concept of a fighter is that a "dog dump" is an extreme and completely atypical way to use a fighter, and normally the fighter himself noticed the enemy from afar, or received target designation from an AWACS aircraft, launched a rocket, and left. And the enemy will remain in confusion until the end, where he raked from. That is why the F-35 is considered suitable for the role of gaining air supremacy, although it does not shine at all in the "dog dump", from the word "completely".
And, by the way, the head of the UkroVVS recently complained specifically about the use of the Su-35 according to the Western concept: while their MiG-29 is just taking off and about the air situation, the Su-35 is already taking it for escort.

[solar]

That is why the F-35 is considered suitable for the role of gaining air supremacy, although it does not shine at all in the "dog dump", from the word "completely".

Why would the F-35 with its AN / AAQ-37 and AAQ-40 get into a dogfight? It will fight beyond visual range without any dogfight, taking advantage of high situational awareness.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

Why would the F-35 with its AN / AAQ-37 and AAQ-40 get into a dogfight? It will fight beyond visual range without any dogfight, taking advantage of high situational awareness.

Phantom pilots hide understanding grins in their mustaches.
Then everyone also dreamed of long-range air combat, when the targets were just marks on the radar indicators. But in fact it turned out that in real conditions the target capture range is far from the passport one (especially on the MV), the capture failure is a regular occurrence ... and the pilots again have to climb into the BVB.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

Then everyone also dreamed of long-range air combat, when the targets were just marks on the radar indicators. And in fact, it turned out

Yes, for the 60s the idea turned out to be too optimistic. It was brought only in the 80s. The development of American fighters makes it clear where their tactics are heading over the past 50 years.

What are you thinking, right? Where can you compete with me, With me, with Balda himself? What an adversary they sent! Wait a minute my little brother

For fun, they send half a wing of fighters from the 80s without AWACS. Eternal flight, brothers.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Yes, for the 60s the idea turned out to be too optimistic. It was brought only in the 80s.

It’s just that in the 80s the next generation of air-to-air missiles appeared (RKTU-trajectory correction + ARL-guidance in the final section) - and the situation of the early 60s repeated itself, when the sword overtook the shield.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

the situation of the early 60s was repeated, when the sword overtook the shield.

Tactics overtook technique. There was AWACS before, but it was not so easy to work according to the light / damage scheme.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from solar

Why would the F-35 with its AN / AAQ-37 and AAQ-40 get into a dogfight?

Eghkm ... Do you seriously think that the recommended equipment makes it possible to work out the URVV outside the BVB distances? :)))

[savage3000]

The author is a rare graphomaniac who is not at all in the subject. It's funny to read, given what he writes.

[Rvlad]

This article is some kind of "verbal diarrhea", complete schizophrenia of the brain. I won’t even look through the article of this “clown” anymore. What's happening on this site? Why are such opuses published? Why is it impossible to publish, if not a deep, but competent article, review, etc.? Who is it for?

[solar]

Competent authors who were once on VO almost completely "washed out" from the site, only a few remained. Therefore, it is hardly worth expecting the appearance of competent articles now.

[Rosemary]

Quote from solar

Competent authors who were once on VO almost completely "washed out" from the site, only a few remained. Therefore, it is hardly worth expecting the appearance of competent articles now.

And competent commentators also "washed out" - and comments on VO were often more interesting than articles.

[solar]

I think these things are related. It seems that VO is gradually changing its target audience - competent authors are not needed for a new audience. And competent commentators do not need articles by illiterate authors.

[Revolver]

Quote: RVlad

This article is some kind of "verbal diarrhea", complete schizophrenia of the brain. I won’t even look through the article of this “clown” anymore. What's happening on this site? Why are such opuses published? Why is it impossible to publish, if not a deep, but competent article, review, etc.? Who is it for?

Well, what do you want? The professor is banned. Atalef is banned. Your humble 3 warnings for asterisks ********* and dots ..................., which some too zealous moderators considered to be profanity. And the cheer-patriot known to everyone here, who is regularly banned for inciting, for some reason is allowed to resurrect under new nicknames, and what is characteristic - in a matter of days he is promoted to the generals of sofa troops, i.e. it is obvious that his approach is in demand here.

[Mooh]

Only 3? What little things. I have 9. And, according to the administration, my comment does not carry a semantic load. What a blessing that I got out of this concentration camp a long time ago, and I wish you the same.

[savage3000]

I completely agree. The author has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Who missed his article?

[Revolver]

any missile is a weapon as long as its engine is running.

EMNIP, about half the radius of the affected area (about 30 km, who wants to be more precise - look for yourself) 5V27D missiles of the S-125 complex flew by inertia, with completely exhausted fuel. And at the same time, they could easily maneuver themselves, because no one canceled aerodynamics.

[Comet]

Quote: Nagan

EMNIP, about half the radius of the affected area (about 30 km, who wants to be more precise - look for yourself) 5V27D missiles of the S-125 complex flew by inertia, with completely exhausted fuel. And at the same time, they could easily maneuver themselves, because no one canceled aerodynamics.

EMNIP, during combat launches against maneuvering targets in this half of the affected area, none of these missiles hit the target.

[solar]

This is for single launches. With pairs, the result is noticeably different.

[Comet]

Quote from solar

This is for single launches. With pairs, the result is noticeably different.

Single launches are not performed in this zone. Never hit.

[Vladimir80]

Su-35: not as good as we would like

The answer to the question is in the results of the "lunar mission" and in the products of AvtoVAZ

[Igor K_2]

But long-range air-to-air missiles are needed, specifically for working on AWACS and U.

[Maks1995]

IMHO.
The author took some strange little-known Internet media, which have been intensively pushed through lately as "Western ekperds", and argues something with them.
Moreover, "some of our bloggers and the media picked it up .." - not a single example.

it turns out - this is a fight with windmills.

The real data of the aircraft is still classified, so what's the point of arguing? I could at least give open data on the detection range, turning radius, afterburner time, etc., but ... this is not there either ...

[Vasya Vasiliev_3]

On May 13, 2023, one Su-35 was shot down in the village of Suretsky Muravey (Bryansk region), being part of an air group with a Su-34 fighter-bomber and two Mi-8 helicopters of the Russian Aerospace Forces (the rest of the aircraft were also allegedly shot down; all crew members died). Who shot down is not clear

[Kojote21]

They were shot down from Nasams-2, SAM. Aim-120 Amraam missiles.

[Vasya Vasiliev_3]

Where infa. Give me a link please?

[savage3000]

Aim 120 cannot damage the titanium cockpit so that they die instantly

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Undermining the ammunition load of a loaded Su-34 will give even more.

[savage3000]

And the su-35? Yes, and the ammunition load is unrealistic to undermine.

[spirit]

fifth generation from the US only vertical - well, that's a question to ponder.

I didn’t read further. Since the author is not aware that this was done specifically for the sake of stealth. We are trying to make such on the unmanned "Hunter") Write to them in the design bureau, let them think it over

[TermNachTer]

To the above, you can also add that the "raptor" is slowly starting to be written off - they are out of service life, and for some reason they don't want to upgrade the airplane for a quarter of a lard)))

[solar]

They are developing a new one instead.

[Dedok]

here I want to add a fly in the ointment: compare the research funding that NASA has for the Air Force and "our" TsAGI - if it still exists
Again, what is the money spent on?
hence the prospect of development and future Technical Specifications for the fighter, namely the "future"
and if we remember that apart from "galoshes" we cannot do anything and we will buy EVERYTHING, then ......
here is the whole paragraph

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The trouble is when a humanitarian tries to talk about aviation.
There is no time, therefore only one thesis.

Argument #4. Supermaneuverability is useless in modern air combat. Stealth solves everything.

Super-maneuverability is needed, it allows you to evade anti-aircraft missiles in the middle and far zones. Moreover, the option is being considered when the evasion will be performed not by the pilot, but in automatic mode.
As for stealth, it exists only in two cases, when using Doppler radars from the early seventies, or when the aircraft is stationary in the parking lot.
In flight, in front of the aircraft, there is a layer of compressed air, around which is electrified and ionized. And modern radars see all this as perfectly as the human eye sees an air bubble in glass.
In fact, all this fuss with the stealth of aircraft is just a marketing ploy to increase sales.

[solar]

Super-maneuverability is needed, it allows you to evade anti-aircraft missiles in the middle and far zones.

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by the overload capacity. For modern aircraft - 7,5-9,5G, depending on the design, suspended weapons, equipment, etc.
Supermaneuverability can only be used at low speeds, when the aerodynamic flight controls have reduced efficiency. At speeds typical for real combat use, they are already quite effective. At such speeds, the use of super-maneuverability is impossible, since this leads to high overloads on the pilot and aircraft.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by the overload capacity. For modern aircraft - 7,5-9,5G, depending on the design, suspended weapons, equipment, etc.
Supermaneuverability can only be used at low speeds, when the aerodynamic flight controls have reduced efficiency. At speeds typical for real combat use, they are already quite effective. At such speeds, the use of super-maneuverability is impossible, since this leads to high overloads on the pilot and aircraft.

Overload is a consequence. Everything is known in comparison, the aircraft has a large area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbbearing surfaces and a lower speed than anti-aircraft missiles. Therefore, at certain distances, the chance to evade is high, the main thing is to react in time. That's why we need automation.

[solar]

Permissible overload is a natural limitation on the use of super-maneuverability at real speeds for the combat use of aviation.

the aircraft has a large area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbbearing surfaces and a lower speed than anti-aircraft missiles. Therefore, at certain distances, the chance to evade is high, the main thing is to react in time.

And no one claims otherwise. Only in a real battle, super-maneuverability for this is almost impossible to use due to overload restrictions.
And so everything is written correctly.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

And no one claims otherwise. Only in a real battle, super-maneuverability for this is almost impossible to use due to overload restrictions.
And so everything is written correctly.

You don't tell this to anyone else. Anti-missile maneuver has been known since the last millennium and more than once allowed to avoid defeat.
The question is to complete it on time, which is why automation is needed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from solar

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by the overload capacity. For modern aircraft - 7,5- 9,5G

Really? That's right you were told

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

The trouble is when a humanitarian tries to talk about aviation.

You would at least wonder why, in this case, the 4th generation aircraft are not equal in maneuverability.

Quote from solar

Supermaneuverability can only be used at low speeds,

:))) And now take the trouble to study what super-maneuverability is. Hint: for this you would do well to understand first what supercritical angles of attack are.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

As can be seen from the minuses, at least two people do not understand what super-maneuverability is :))))))

[solar]

Really? That's right you were told
Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
The trouble is when a humanitarian tries to talk about aviation.

Do you have a technical background? What I wrote above is a well-known common truth.

due to the use of a special aerodynamic scheme based on the widespread use of vortex aerodynamics, and engines with a controlled / deflected thrust vector, stability was achieved at supercritical angles of attack, which makes it possible to perform such unique maneuvers as the Cobra, Chakra Frolova, Kolokol and others. These maneuvers require a highly skilled pilot and must be performed at relatively low speeds, up to about 500 km/h, due to airframe strength limitations, therefore, in real combat conditions, their use with a high probability can lead to defeat in battle. In addition, modern short-range air combat missiles and helmet-mounted target designation systems make it possible to attack a vigorously maneuvering enemy in any hemisphere without resorting to a sharp decrease in flight speed and reaching supercritical angles of attack, which inevitably leads to an even greater and rapid decrease in flight speed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from solar

What I wrote above is a well-known common truth.

I understand that getting into the wiki is easier than dealing with the materiel :)))

Quote from solar

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by the overload capacity. For modern aircraft - 7,5- 9,5G

Maneuverability is determined by three types of overloads, including available normal, maximum thrust and available longitudinal. And they, in turn, depend on many things, including the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft, etc., which is why, with the same pilot overload, the radius of the steady turn for different aircraft will be different.
Tellingly, all of the above makes little sense in a discussion of supermaneuverability, because the latter is the ability to maintain control at supercritical angles of attack.

Quote from solar

These maneuvers require a highly skilled pilot and must be performed at relatively low speeds, up to about 500 km/h.

To make it clearer, here is a simple example. You are flying in an airliner, at a speed of 900 km per hour. You need to go to the bathroom. You get up from your chair, and at that moment you are flying at a speed of 900 km/h facing forward. You turn around as the toilet is at the rear of the plane. After the turn, you fly at a speed of 900 km / h, but no longer facing, but with your back forward. And no overloads have smeared you.
But at the same time, the liner flew nose first at a speed of 900 km / h, and it flies. It cannot turn around sharply and fly tail first, as you did - it will fall apart. A super-maneuverable fighter can. And it will fly tail first, gradually losing speed and energy. The overload (as well as the loss of speed) will be determined here by the thrust that the pilot will give to the engines after the turn.

Quote from solar

In addition, modern close air combat missiles and helmet-mounted target designation systems make it possible to attack a vigorously maneuvering enemy in any hemisphere.

Well, if you pretend to know the nuances, then you should know that they don’t give it.
Simply put, the radar of an aircraft does not work at all for 360 degrees. and no helmet-mounted sight can change this. And the probability of hitting a target with an URVV with an IR seeker directly depends on whether it was possible to issue a control center to the missile according to the radar data. Well, the OLS is still, but it is also not all-perspective
And super-maneuverability always remains a means of anti-missile maneuver from the IR seeker, because the latter cannot determine the range to the target (unlike ARGSN) and is guided by a change in angular velocity. Supermaneuverability as a means of a sharp change in this speed will have the right to life for a very long time.

[Comet]

Quote from solar

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by the overload capacity.

angular speed. Of two aircraft with the same overload, the more maneuverable is the aircraft in which this overload is achieved at a lower speed. Or, at the same speed, more overload.

Quote from solar

Supermaneuverability can only be used at low speeds, when the aerodynamic flight controls have reduced efficiency.

The effectiveness of aerodynamic "elements" of control does not depend on speed, but on the velocity head.

Quote from solar

At speeds typical for real combat use, they are already quite effective.

This is for the real combat use of an aircraft that does not have super-maneuverability.

Quote from solar

At such speeds, the use of super-maneuverability is impossible, since this leads to high overloads on the pilot and aircraft.

This is a very common mistake - imposing on a super-maneuverable aircraft the maneuvering of a non-super-maneuverable aircraft.

[solar]

Do you have any alternative physics? Formula linking square the speed of the aircraft, the turning radius and the resulting acceleration, is given in the school course. And no play on words - you can call it terminology if you like - this formula is not canceled. The higher the square of the speed, the smaller the turning radius, the greater the resulting acceleration and, accordingly, the overload. And it should not exceed the allowable value even for a super-maneuverable aircraft, or even not for a super-maneuverable one. Super maneuverability only makes it possible to ensure the full use of the aircraft in terms of overload capacity at low speeds (oh yes, the speed head will be correct, I agree, only other things being equal, this will be speed).

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from solar

Do you have any alternative physics?

Your opponent has the right physics.

Quote from solar

The formula relating the square of the aircraft speed, the turning radius and the resulting acceleration is given in the school course

This implies a priori, for example, equal frontal resistance, which is not true for different fighters. The school reasonably simplifies the question, but school formulas are not suitable for assessing the maneuverability of fighters

[Comet]

Quote from solar

Do you have any alternative physics? The formula relating the square of the aircraft speed, the turning radius and the resulting acceleration is given in the school course. And no play on words - you can call it terminology if you like - this formula is not canceled. The higher the square of the speed, the smaller the turning radius, the greater the resulting acceleration and, accordingly, the overload.

You don't know how to use known formulas. In a steady circular motion, there are four parameters: centripetal acceleration (overload), speed, angular velocity, radius. Knowing any two of the four, you can determine the remaining two. There was no radius in my post. My post had angular velocity, speed and g-force, but no radius. This is a different formula - overload is directly proportional to the product of speed and angular velocity. It follows that the angular velocity can be increased either by increasing the overload while maintaining the speed, or by decreasing the speed while maintaining the overload. For maneuvering, the second option is preferable.

Quote from solar

Super maneuverability only allows you to ensure the full use of the aircraft in terms of overload capacity at low speeds (oh yes, the speed head will be correct, I agree, only other things being equal, this will be the speed)

With increasing altitude, the velocity head decreases, and the available overload decreases during normal maneuvering.

[Zaurbek]

The modernization of the T-10x is overdue. The place of 1 local Su35 will be taken by Su57. And "a workhorse in the form of a 2-seater 4 +++ heavy fighter is needed. The replacement of both the Su34 and MiG31 is looming. And we need a universal carrier aircraft" of everything and a lot and far" of the Su30 type with turbojet engines and avionics and brains of the 5th generation.

[Alexey RA]

There is a historical example: so the LaGG-3 was “modernized” into La-5. Well, yes, a different wing, a different nose, a different engine, a different cabin, a different set of weapons.

Hehehehe ... just for the La-5, for the first six months, the wing and nose were absolutely identical to the LaGG-3. For there was no time to manufacture new technological equipment - and the M-82 was attached to the cropped nose of the LaGG-3. And the difference in the midsection between the "star" and the narrow nose was reduced by the "light skin" mounted on top of the standard LaGG-3 fuselage.
Airframe changes went, EMNIP, only with La-5F.

[Nikodim]

I would like to know about the actual equipment of the Su-35 with R-77 missiles (an analogue of AMRAAM with ARGSN). The Americans with their AIM-120 - and this is their main missile in air combat - is all right

[Alexey RA]

Quote: NIkodim

I would like to know about the actual equipment of the Su-35 with R-77 missiles (an analogue of AMRAAM with ARGSN). The Americans with their AIM-120 - and this is their main missile in air combat - is all right

Judging by the official video in the article "The Ministry of Defense showed footage of the combat work of the Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters as part of the SVO" dated 22.07.2022/77/XNUMX, our AMRAAMs are already in use: the lattice rudders of three R-XNUMXs are clearly visible on the video: one on the ventral node and two on the nodes under the air intakes.

[Hexenmeister]

Judging by the official video ... the lattice rudders of three R-77s are clearly visible on the video

And on another similar video on the HUD, I saw a rocket from the "cartoon", but everyone began to discuss "in which circle" the planes are shot down, and did not pay attention to it at all

[Glagol1]

At one time, a reasonable decision was made when it became clear that the Su-57 would take a long time to finish, and expensive, to order two batches of 48 pieces each Su-35. And as a result, we have a modern car at an average price. Which cleaned the ukronebo well. There will be export prospects for another 10 years. We need to negotiate with Iran. At least 24 pcs.

[BAI]

The Su-35 is a modification of the Su-27. But, in fact, this is a completely different plane.

At the expense of modifications - here it is more appropriate to recall the Tu-22 and Tu-22M

[AdAstra]

In vain the author is so, a view from the outside, albeit a very biased one, when you discard all the husks, it can be very useful at times.

[osp]

The author does not know the history of the appearance of this fighter.
And most importantly, the transitional link that was put into mass production in the 90s.
But the military refused him - either there was no money, or he didn’t like him.
No foreign contracts were signed for him.

We are talking about the Su-35. He is Su-27M. He is the T-10M.
It was developed simultaneously with the shipborne Su-33 and outwardly the machines turned out to be similar.
He had a different radar, H011M. The one they put on the Su-30SM now.

Compared to the conventional Su-27, the capabilities of the Su-35 have increased by a head - the whole range
weapons and a modern radar at that time.

But they managed to release about a dozen cars and that's it. Several are maintained in Zhukovsky as LL.

After the closure of this program, the development of the Su-35S that everyone knows now began.
But it does not come from the Su-27, but from this transitional aircraft.
Removed PGO. Put other engines. Updated avionics.
And the nose of both variants of the Su-35 is the same - it is not the same as that of the Su-27 and Su-30.

[Hexenmeister]

He had a different radar, H011M. The one they put on the Su-30SM now

A little more complicated, the N-011 was standing there, and then in 1997 (sort of) the N-011M went for testing, which already had a phased array, and it went to the Su-30MKI to India, and then, after another upgrade, it already ended up on Su-30SM. "Bars" on Russian planes is different than on Indian ones.

[Comet]

Quote from osp

And most importantly, the transitional link that was put into mass production in the 90s.
But the military refused him - either there was no money, or he didn’t like him.

He didn't like it.

[Shamil88]

The only negative in the Su-35 is that there are catastrophically few of them for a country like Russia, there would be 400-500 of them. so that they could be on duty around the clock, Ukrainian aviation would have ended long ago. The ancient S-24s are still flying and strike missiles across the Crimea calmly, with the help of NATO, Ukrainians see that the sky is free and raise their planes, I am silent about AWACS, nothing shines there in the foreseeable future

[George Sviridov]

Su-35 best of Ze bzhst! Will click f-16 like nuts.

[spektr9]

I read this propaganda and immediately think Skomorokhov, who else could write such nonsense and how to water

I can imagine how he would praise the i-16 if they were in service -
The I16, unlike the F-22 and F-35, is really a real stealth aircraft, because it is made entirely of composite materials and, moreover, three times smaller than foreign fighters. It is also an extremely economical aircraft in everything, both in terms of fuel consumption and in terms of construction, instead of one F-35, you can assemble 10 and-16 ... For the i-16, the poor !!!

[purple]

Skomorokhov is an ordinary ipsoshnik, with a game for a long time ... there was his project, about the Colorado cockroach, where did it go? ... serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine now ...

[savage3000]

Yes, buffoons are a noble graphomaniac. Moreover, the materiel does not teach. His afar is more powerful than the pfar, and the movement of the su-35 is better than that of the f-22 and many other fantasies.

[KCA]

If the Su-35SM is gno, judging by the comments, why, all of a sudden, when they take off in Syria, the F-35s immediately sit down and complain that they have been tailed?

[savage3000]

Because you are a couch expert who has read the domestic yellow press. You probably believe that the sailors of the doealda cook crap, all the electronics went out and he drowned. So?

[Petio]

The Su-35 has a long-range missile and it is used in the SVO-.R-37M zone. There were a large number of photos and videos from its use. Even a video from the ILS where rockets were launched from a range of about 100 km. MiG-31 also use them.

[ZeeD]

The Su-35 simply showed itself magnificently in the sky of Ukraine, this is recognized (which is important) by the Ukrainians themselves, that everything that they did not fall from the air defense system was shot down by the Su-35. Except for one case when the idiot failed to dodge the "Shahed"

And that's not true!
MiG-31 shot down at least 1 aircraft.
It seems that the Su-30SM did not leave without "frags".

[Knell wardenheart]

Fighter-type technology has long passed the period when a pure increase in performance characteristics was decisive to a large extent. So in BB2 it was decided to increase the armor or caliber of the gun, in BB1 it was decided to increase the caliber of artillery and the rate of fire of machine guns. At the moment, the characteristics of fighters are limited by the physical parameters of maneuvering available to human equipment and the airframe, speeds, taking into account the energy intensity of the fuel and the available volumes for it, armament, taking into account free space after (or at the cost of) the above factors. There is no reason to believe that at this stage of technology in the foreseeable future, some RADICAL breakthrough in areas that can make significant adjustments to these equations of interdependencies that can squeeze out a SIGNIFICANT qualitative advantage.
Actually, for this, in many respects, all these sophistications with slave drones, clean stealth and other things.
Moments in the style of "hull to hull" are a glorious past in which the French knights beat the English, and defeated the strength of the armor or some vile tricks of the schools.

At the moment, although it cannot be said that the products are "about the same in terms of characteristics", it can be said that a certain "total sum of advantages" of their characteristics is approximately equal.
The shortcomings of radars can (and should) be covered by a flying target designation radar, shortcomings in speed - an increase in operational readiness, shortcomings in the range of missiles - the presence of a ground echelon with a "long arm" - after all, all these batches with batogs, in which case, will not be above the surface of Mars, but above one way or another otherwise ANYONE's territory. Ours or the enemy.

And, taking into account the performance characteristics of OTHER modern means, one way or another, we (or our enemy), in view of this, will face not SPECIFIC products, but a COMPLEX in real conditions.
It is not at all necessary that, as part of this complex, some fighters will be more dangerous for others than, for example, air defense.
If we look from this concept, then yes, the American model HAS ADVANTAGES.
Because at the cost of some things necessary for a purely fighter, they increase the overall protection from OTHER means, such as the same air defense. That is, survival increases within the complex model, and not in a deeply spherical duel situation.
From the point of view, for example, of the fact that somewhere above the territory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or gray zones, let's imagine, they will fumble "stealth" and impose battles on our aircraft - it will be much more inconvenient for ours than if we fumbled with our "non-stealth" over the territory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine looking for enemy aircraft.
However, if we imagine that we could saturate the frontline zone and gray zones by other means - this picture will also change, and it is not at all necessary that at some point the tools that ensure the survival of "stealth" will continue to work just as well.

I summarize - the performance characteristics no longer differ so radically, now the Complex of means and Conditions that give or take Advantages from certain devices decide. The advantages are different (that's why they are advantages), not all of them in this conflict model can be on our side, but it is also possible to impose such conditions in which they will not be on the side of the enemy.
Modern warfare is not the Olympic Games.

[PVOshnik]

Argument #5. Su-35S does not have long-range missiles, which means ...

But after all, the Su-35 is already using the R-37 with might and main during the NWO. There were photos and videos in the FB channel. Or does Roman take a word from foreign publications?

[Fangaro]

Probably, it’s worth saying right away: the arguments that will be discussed, they were invented there. And the fact that some of our bloggers and the media picked it up - the author is not responsible for this, because it was not invented by him. The sources of the dope that we are going to talk about are there, beyond the seas.

And the author spreads what he invented there among the fragile Russian minds.

There is no Su-57 ... Hmm ...
Write to the President, Minister of Defense and Head of the RF IC that there is no Su-57.
Might show up sooner.

For an aircraft that has been flying for 20 years - well, yes, you can remember the Su-57, but we are not rushing to the first place, it seems.

Exactly! Write to the President, the Minister of Defense and the Head of the RF IC.

... yesterday everyone gasped in unison from the AFARs. And they bought planes with PFAR ...

Author! You did not explain why AFAR is better, but PFAR is cheaper. And what does the first letter mean? Active and Passive?

Because the demon is with him, with the Raptor. But if we take even the Su-57 and Su-35, what will be the fundamental difference?

So there is no Su-57. You yourself wrote this earlier.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

TC is the master of the title, I have already learned to determine it by the title of the articles.

[Meaning of life_]

Quote from osp

The author does not know the history of the appearance of this fighter.
And most importantly, the transitional link that was put into mass production in the 90s.
But the military refused him - either there was no money, or he didn’t like him.
No foreign contracts were signed for him.

We are talking about the Su-35. He is Su-27M. He is the T-10M.
It was developed simultaneously with the shipborne Su-33 and outwardly the machines turned out to be similar.
He had a different radar, H011M. The one they put on the Su-30SM now.

Compared to the conventional Su-27, the capabilities of the Su-35 have increased by a head - the whole range
weapons and a modern radar at that time.

But they managed to release about a dozen cars and that's it. Several are maintained in Zhukovsky as LL.

After the closure of this program, the development of the Su-35S that everyone knows now began.
But it does not come from the Su-27, but from this transitional aircraft.
Removed PGO. Put other engines. Updated avionics.
And the nose of both variants of the Su-35 is the same - it is not the same as that of the Su-27 and Su-30.

By the way, the rejection of the "elytra" (PGO) had a negative impact on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The Su-27M had a maximum allowable overload of +10, while the Su-35 had +9, just like the simple Su-27. Even in the Su-27M, the pilot's seat was reclined by 30 degrees, which makes it easier to endure overloads. How the seat is on the Su-35, I don’t know.

[Comet]

Quote: Meaning of Life_

By the way, the rejection of the "elytra" (PGO) had a negative impact on the maneuverability of the aircraft.

PGO was a forced measure to compensate for the large weight of the avionics in the nose of the aircraft. After reducing the weight of the avionics, the PGO was abandoned.

Quote: Meaning of Life_

The Su-27M had a maximum allowable overload of +10, while the Su-35 had +9, just like the simple Su-27.

This is about something different. Su-35S is more maneuverable than Su-27M

[Hexenmeister]

PGO was a forced measure to compensate for the large weight of the avionics in the nose of the aircraft.

A very controversial statement, initially the T-10M should have had the H-011, which was with a slot antenna, it was clearly lighter than the Bars (N-011M) and Irbis that appeared later with headlamps.

[Comet]

Quote: Hexenmeister

PGO was a forced measure to compensate for the large weight of the avionics in the nose of the aircraft.

A very controversial statement, initially the T-10M should have had the H-011, which was with a slot antenna, it was clearly lighter than the Bars (N-011M) and Irbis that appeared later with headlamps.

SCHAR is lighter than PFAR, but everything else was heavier.

[Hexenmeister]

Quote: Comet

SCHAR is lighter than PFAR, but everything else was heavier.

What is the rest of the avionics? There are only radars and OLS in the nose, so it turns out that in the process of development one radar was replaced by a heavier one, and the PGO was still on the original version, that is, with a "light" radar. In addition, the PGO was also put on the marine version, and there the radar did not change at all, as the old H-001 was, it remained.

[Comet]

Quote: Hexenmeister

What is the rest of the avionics? Only radar and OLS are in the nose, so it turns out that in the process of development one radar was replaced by a heavier one,

What does "radar only" mean? The radars of the Su-37 and Su-35 are completely different in terms of element base. A radar is not only an antenna, but a transmitting device, a receiving device, a computer, cooling ... Another avionics in the outside compartment with cooling. And all this avionics is ahead of the aerodynamic focus. The avionics on the Su-35 has less weight than on the Su-37M.

[Hexenmeister]

The radar components of the Su-37 and Su-35 are completely different.

You are confusing it with the Su-35S! On what was previously called the serial indexes Su-35 and Su-37, and these were two copies of experimental aircraft, stood the essentially “non-existent” N-011, and then on one of these sides they put the N-011M for testing Phased array, and this radar “went” to India on the Su-30MKI.

This is not only an antenna, but a transmitting device, a receiving device, a computer, cooling...

So this set is called radar!!!

[Comet]

Quote: Hexenmeister

In addition, the PGO was also put on the marine version, and there the radar did not change at all, as the old H-001 was, it remained.

No, on the marine version, the radar became heavier, and the aircraft itself became heavier, and the requirements for the airborne storage system increased. Not only the PGO had to be installed, but also the wing mechanization had to be changed.

[Hexenmeister]

No, on the naval version the radar became heavier

Why the fright? N-001 remained as it stood.

[Meaning of life_]

PGO was a forced measure to compensate for the large weight of the avionics in the nose of the aircraft.

Yes, initially they were installed on the Su-27M to compensate for the heavy weight of the H011 Bars radar (instead of the H001 Sword on the Su-27), and then it turned out that they significantly improve maneuverability.

Su-35S is more maneuverable than Su-27M

Wherever I read, the Su-27M has a maximum overload of +10, and the Su-35 has +9. Despite the swivel motor.
Maybe they abandoned the elytra in vain?

[Comet]

Quote: Meaning of Life_

Wherever I read, the Su-27M has a maximum overload of +10, and the Su-35 has +9. Despite the swivel motor.
Maybe they abandoned the elytra in vain?

Everything you read is correct. But these "maximum overloads" by different methods. For the Su-35, overload with the declared airframe resource. But the Su-27M was not accepted into service. EMNIP, thrust limit at 1000 m for the Su-27SK and half of normal refueling, two R-27s and two R-73s - 10.5.

[Comet]

Quote: Comet

EMNIP, thrust limit at 1000 m for Su-27SK and half of normal refueling, two R-27s and two R-73s - 10.5.

The correction is at 3000 m.

[Meaning of life_]

Thanks a lot for the clarification. I didn't even know there could be bugs like that. I, as a "couch expert" usually stupidly look at the declared figures. Although in real life you need to understand a bunch of information behind each figure - under what conditions and by what measurement method it was obtained.
Although ... on the other hand, it turns out that that English-language source (I don’t remember where I copied it from) is mistaken, endowing the Su-27M with increased maneuverability compared to the Su-27?

[Meaning of life_]

It turns out that I took this from the English-language Wikipedia, where they refer to Yefim Gordon. I don't know how much he can be trusted.

[savage3000]

Skomorokhov, what are you writing at all? What are you by profession? What do you know about everything you write about????

It's a kindergarten!

"""The fact that in numbers our engine is a cut above the Pratt and Whitney product - well, there is such a thing. There is both power and thrust vector, that's it."""

Skomorokhov, ay! The raptor engine is better than the al-41, unfortunately. Even after 20 years. Have you seen these numbers?

"" "AFARs, of course, see further." ""

Skomorokhov, did you read at least something about modern radars before engaging in graphomania ??? In no way does the "activity" of the radar give it an advantage in range over the PFAR. At least read something.

Is the Irbis obsolete compared to the Afar? Why is this interesting! Or maybe you're just not in the subject at all?

In general, the article is another graphomaniac quirk of Skomorokhov. He didn’t even teach materiel before writing.

Do not read this nonsense.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

This is a real wall of text that I honestly try to read and not wake up the neighbors with shouts of what?! and homeric laughter.
So far, I have overcome a little more than half of argument 3, but the number of blunders is already enough for a separate article.

[km-21]

The Su-35 is indeed a modification of the Su-27. There is no need to prove the opposite, everyone understands that the situation in Russia did not allow to re-equip aviation for the fifth generation, as the Americans did. Nevertheless, the plane is quite a working one, and if there is no nuclear war, then it will still fly (as its peers in the USA and NATO do).

[Comet]

Quote: km-21

Su-35 is really a modification of the Su-27

What is "modification"?

[Unaltered]

Thank you for the article. It was interesting.

[aiden]

Such nonsense can only be born in a stupid head

[Kaufman]

Not bad, not bad overall. However, if we compare the number of SU-35s with F-35s, then it is depressingly small, the ability of our industry to produce new aircraft is also not comparable with the American industry. And I think this is the most important factor.
Even if each Sushka destroys three enemy fighters before being shot down, which of course seems unlikely, they will still be overwhelmed with the number and ability to quickly reproduce new ones.
The same for trained pilots

[Mekey Iptyshev]

Is the Su-35 good or not compared to American or other fighters of a potential enemy. It does not matter. It will remain the main fighter of the Russian Aerospace Forces for many years to come. Especially after the news, which says that the engine for the SU-57 has jambs and work is underway to eliminate them.

[Alex priest]

The fifth generation is fundamentally different machines. The Su-35 has an analogue to counter which it was created - F-15 EX

[facktor]

What will it discover? And what will be on the display of the Su-35 PFAR from the switched on AFAR F-22 at this moment? Why is it always forgotten that invisible people are blind until they try to see something, but then they begin to glow like very bright objects.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

You are right, when the F35 radar is turned on, the Su-22 learns about the attack, but the F 22 will be able to attack the Su-35 at a long distance, and that one will only be able to attack it from 30km-50km.
In addition, the F22 can receive target designation from an avax or from another F22, and then the maneuvering Su-35 will come under attack from an unexpected side

[Armen Sologyan]

You can compare Our equipment with that of the adversary until you are blue in the face, but my opinion is constant, namely, Our military equipment is the best and they know how to use it with professionalism. The fact that Our technology is better is an axiom for me! I always maintain my opinion.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

Are you writing this from Elbrus?

[air wolf]

Why spend money on a Su-57 when you can upgrade a Su-35 to a Su-37, let’s say, I think with new technologies and materials it will be soon, but you can dream up so much...

[rocket757]

IF YOU DO NOT CHECK, YOU WILL NOT KNOW!!!
And so, if you think about it... why is no one eager to check, because obviously many people want to know, to be convinced???
Why don't they fly??? But who will give it to them???
Another very small aspect, the answer to the question “Why don’t they fly?”... they fly and shoot down the enemy not only planes, but something else, which we have, in many variants and of the most advanced class, of the best quality!

[Nuriban Constantino]

I'm not an aircraft designer from porn films, but, as far as I know, the Su-35 is better than the F-22 and F-35:
- The Su-35 was designed to defeat the F-22, which was developed in 2010 using 2000s technology, while the F-22 was developed in the 90s, using 80s technology.
-The F-35 is supposed to be better than the 22, but it is still a pig and is supposed, at least on paper, to be inferior.
-Su-35, in addition to the fact that they are a modernization of the Su-27 using technology from 2000, also have a stealth design and stealth technology; plasma (as I said, I'm not an aeronautical engineer from the movie purno).
-In modern warfare, Moderna aircraft fly with their active radars turned off, leaving their detection only to their optical sensors and passive radars. Until the Su-35's anti-detection systems are turned off and radar waves do not fall on it, it will not be detected.
I mean like the combat aircraft enthusiast that I am.
The best thing is that the designers always try to do their best and not rely on themselves, as is the case with the F-35, which is a piece of junk that falls on its own, built to sell and ready-made.

[75 Sergey]

Well, I don’t agree with the author on some things, even though the further you see, the more time it takes to assess the target, build an attack, and plan.
In general, I don’t understand why one would hide rockets inside an airplane - flaps, extra mechanisms, etc., why not make them recessed, in a special nest in the shape of a rocket and so on, or at worst, just cover this thing with a disposable cap? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Viktor Sergeev]

Well, not as good as the Death Star.