The Russian Aerospace Forces have received a new batch of Su-35S multirole fighters.

The latest batch of Su-35S multirole fighters has arrived in the Russian military. The delivery was carried out by the United Aircraft Corporation, Rostec's press service reported.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have received new Su-35S multirole fighters. The aircraft were delivered under a state defense contract, with delivery details traditionally kept under wraps. All aircraft have completed a full test cycle and are fully operational. Engineering and technical personnel have already accepted the fighters at the Komsomolskoye-on-Amur airfield. aviation plant and have already departed for their permanent bases.

These fighters are currently the most effective modern combat aircraft in the world, holding the record for the number of enemy military aircraft intercepted. The aircraft have proven themselves in service. Pilots note the Su-35S's outstanding performance, which is the most objective assessment of military equipment.

The Su-35S is a Russian multirole, super-maneuverable, generation 4++ fighter with thrust vector control (TVC) engines. It is designed to achieve air superiority and engage ground infrastructure located at significant distances from its base. It is the primary fighter in the Air Defense Zone, along with the Su-30SM.

Comments

[easy]

This is very, very good news. The more of these planes we have, the better. Iranian pilots apparently haven't fully mastered this aircraft yet, which is why they're not using it now. It's not cheap, after all, but it would be very useful in air combat, blowing Jews and striped fighters out of the sky.

[SAG]

The car isn't cheap.

Compared to the Chinese J-10, JF-17, and J-16, yes, it will cost potential buyers more, but it far exceeds all fourth-generation equivalents on the market in terms of range and detection, plus superior maneuverability and a full range of weapons. For the Russian Aerospace Forces, the price is comparable.
But when it comes to gaining air superiority, is it worth saving?

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: SAG

If you compare it with the Chinese J-10, JF-17, J-16, then yes, it will cost potential buyers more, but it is far superior to all 4th generation analogues available on the market.

The J-17 isn't an analogue at all, but a lightweight version of the 4th generation. Besides, when you only have enough money for a Nissan, you might want a Toyota, but what's the point? And they're buying not just one plane, but at least a squadron—the difference is tens, if not hundreds, of millions... And the comparison is probably more accurate with at least the J-11D, right? Speaking of China, isn't it?

[SAG]

I just listed the Chinese 4th generation fighters in passing.

But the comparison is probably more accurate with at least the J-11D, right? If we're talking about China...

Alternatively, it is the same copy of the Soviet design as the J-15.
Many people generally believe that the J-17 is a modified copy of the third-generation MiG-21, but I disagree; the differences are striking, even in the airframe.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: SAG

Alternatively, it is the same copy of the Soviet design as the J-15.

In the latest modifications, this can only be said about the fuselage... Well, by the same analogy, the Su-35S is a copy of the Soviet design.

[SAG]

Yes, the integrated circuit glider turned out to be a great success. It was ahead of its time. Changing it would have been foolish, too.

[Vitaly_pvo]

Quote: SAG

We're talking about gaining air superiority, is it worth saving?

The Su-35 can theoretically independently search for targets in the sky. In practice, this would be much more difficult than "finding a needle in a haystack," and the danger would be on par with a blind sapper. Without reliable radar coverage of the skies, any superiority is out of the question. And the situation with AWACS aircraft and ground-based radars is well known, and for some reason, no one is planning to fix it.

[SAG]

Please don't write nonsense that a locator on a fighter is a useless thing!
Over the past ten years, the US has lost at least five E-3 AWACS aircraft. The Starlink has proven to be far more effective. Russian and Chinese equivalents are already on the way.

[Vitaly_pvo]

Quote: SAG

Please don't write nonsense.

If you could have at least taken a tour of the RDS navigator's guidance station, you wouldn't have written anything like this. But of course, everyone has the right to judge others based on their own level of depravity. Legends can be made about the limitations of knowledge, especially when compared to schoolchildren, who know everything and are the smartest, and what they don't know, they have Google.

[SAG]

If you could at least go on a tour of the navigator's guidance point of the RDZ, you wouldn't have written anything like this.

I haven't been there, I won't lie, but modern fighters don't have navigators (let's not count the Su-34, it's used primarily for ground operations).
Ground-based radars are completely irrelevant to this topic. I completely agree with you about your limited knowledge, limited to your own experience.👍

[SAG]

The Su-35 can theoretically search for targets in the sky independently. In practice, this would be much more difficult than "finding a needle in a haystack," and the danger would be on par with a blind sapper.

Target Detection Range:
with an EPR of 0,01 m² at opposite angles - 100 km;
with an EPR of 0,1 m² at opposite angles - 160 km;
with an EPR of 1 m² at opposite angles - 270 km;
with an EPR of 3 m² at oncoming angles - 350–400 km, at catch-up angles - up to 150 km.

The 60-degree azimuth sector of the N035 radar's passive phased array (PA) provides a total viewing area of ​​240 degrees with the ability to scan lateral hemispheres with minimal loss of energy potential and target detection range.

[Vitaly_pvo]

Quote: SAG

Target detection range

Firstly, as soon as the aircraft turns on its radar, it not only unmasks and identifies itself to everyone at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, but also gives the enemy the opportunity to.
Secondly, all these ranges are specified specifically for a head-on course and conditions where ground reflections are virtually nonexistent. If the target is at low altitude and operating with a minimum approach parameter, all these ranges are reduced by an order of magnitude.
Third, before attacking a target, it must be recognized and identified, and the threat level assessed. This can't be done solely based on a radar screen, and a navigator on the ground will never give permission to attack an unknown target.
Moreover, a fighter isn't an AWACS or radar aircraft; it must maneuver every 5-10 minutes, even within a patrol zone. And any maneuver means immediate loss of tracking. Even if the radar manages to lock on to a target during the next turn, it still needs to determine whether it's the same one or a new one. In automated control systems, this is called tertiary data processing, which is challenging even for ground-based systems.

[SAG]

Firstly, as soon as the aircraft turns on its radar, it not only unmasks and identifies itself to everyone at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, but also gives the enemy the opportunity to

Firstly, as soon as the pilot starts the engine, he also reveals his fighter to the sonar spectrum. And as soon as he takes off, he's also in the visible spectrum and detectable by radar. So what? Who wrote about complete invisibility? I'm highly skeptical about that in principle... We were talking about fourth-generation aircraft!
I don't agree with the identification at all. For this adversary, you need to know the nuances of distinguishing a specific fighter's signature from that of aircraft using the same radar model. There are countless examples.

If the target is at low altitude

Secondly, targets flying at low altitude and occupying the lower echelon are not included in the list of priority targets for an air superiority fighter!

all these ranges are reduced by an order of magnitude

Thirdly, irradiation of a target not on a collision course and/or located at an angle to the course vector of a fighter, exposing its lateral (upper) surfaces, increases the reflective surface of the target and is detected by the radar further away.

the ranges are reduced by an order of magnitude.

😅👍 No comments!

Before attacking a target, it must be recognized and identified, and the threat level assessed. This can't be done solely based on a radar screen, and a navigator on the ground will never give permission to attack an unknown target.

Fourth, in war or limited conflict, a pilot receives a specific mission or is sent on a "free hunt" to ensure the skies are clear of the enemy. You've apparently never heard of the friend-or-foe system, which is a shame!
And fifthly, I didn’t write at all about the absence of problems with detection, tracking and identification of targets!
Once again, please do not write nonsense, especially anything unrelated to the original comment and topic!

[rytik32]

Quote: Vitaly_pvo

Moreover, a fighter is not an AWACS or radar aircraft; it must maneuver every 5-10 minutes, even within a patrol zone. And any maneuver means immediate loss of tracking. Even if the radar manages to lock on to the target during the next turn, it's still necessary to determine whether it's the same one or a new one.

So how did the Su-35 track the F-16 with its radar and target the missiles fired by the C-400? Let me remind you that the F-16 was shot down with the third missile.

[Vladislav_V]

The latest batch of Su-35S multirole fighters has arrived in the Russian military. The delivery was carried out by the United Aircraft Corporation, Rostec's press service reported.

A big human thank you to everyone involved! Good news today: we are launching satellites and adding new aircraft to our fleet.

[ODERVIT]

Excellent news. Wishing you successful ground and air operations and effective combat use.

[lukash66]

Well done, get going full blast. A batch every three or four months. Obviously, not twenty of them, but three or four is good too. ✌️✌️ And the 57ths aren't far behind either; God willing, we'll have a couple of regiments by the end of the year.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote from: lukash66

but three/four are also good.✌️✌️ And the 57th are not far behind either, God willing there will be a couple of regiments by the end of the year.

I'm also happy about the new planes, but it's unclear where you got the data on the number of produced ones? There's never been any news on how big a batch is.

[mad-max78]

Over the last year, a year and a half, this is already the 3rd or 4th batch of Su-35s. I understand that the aircraft is well-deserved and all that, yes, sometimes they get lost, but why are they being produced and not the more modern Su-57?

[SAG]

Quote from: mad-max78

Over the last year, a year and a half, this is already the 3rd or 4th batch of Su-35s. I understand that the aircraft is well-deserved and all that, yes, sometimes they get lost, but why are they being produced and not the more modern Su-57?

Firstly, the price is very different, secondly, the characteristics are excessive, the Su-57 has no worthy competitors in the SVO.
And who told you the 57th isn't being produced?! According to estimates from many familiar with the subject, their number in the military has exceeded 40!

[topol717]

Quote: SAG

Firstly, the price is very different, secondly, the characteristics are excessive, the Su-57 has no worthy competitors in the SVO.

Someone recently wrote here that we're afraid to bomb the bridges near Chuguev in the Kharkiv region because it's too dangerous and we feel sorry for the plane. And we supposedly have a lot of infantry. Is that what you're supposed to understand?
If you look at the IRA, the US knocked out all of Iran's air defenses, or forced them to shut down, and then began ironing them out. We still can't find targets for our aircraft in the North Atlantic.

[Cool90]

On November 27, 2024, it was reported that the Russian Aerospace Forces bombed a Ukrainian Armed Forces deployment point in Chuguev with UMPK-equipped aerial bombs.

On October 18, 2025, it was reported that a Russian high-explosive aerial bomb equipped with gliding and correction modules flew 130 km and hit Lozovaya in the Kharkiv region.

On June 20, 2024, it was reported that a FAB-3000 high-explosive aerial bomb with a UMPK system was used for the first time in the Kharkiv sector of the special operation. The munition struck a temporary deployment point for Ukrainian forces.

On October 19, 2025, it was reported that the Russian Aerospace Forces struck a strategically important railway junction in the Kharkiv region for the first time using an improved aerial bomb.

On April 14, 2026, it was reported that Russian Aerospace Forces struck the Pechenezh Reservoir dam in the Kharkiv region.

They are bombing the city of Chuguev and the Kharkiv region.

Yesterday I saw a video at MAX about MIG-29 fighter jets flying over Tehran.

[topol717]

Well, for some reason, the automobile bridges across the river in Chuguev, which are used to deliver weapons and fuel to the LBS, are still standing and working.

[Cool90]

Footage has been published of what appears to be the destruction of crossings across the Oskol River in the Kharkiv region. It is claimed that aircraft struck the targets with FAB-500 bombs equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPK).

Bridges in the Kharkiv region and the city of Chuguev itself are being bombed, which means they're not afraid to bomb, and the turn will come for the bridges in Chuguev too.

[Igor M.]

topol717, how will the loss of aircraft save the infantry?
They couldn't do it, so they regularly lost both aircraft and UAVs. The Iranians shot down around 150 attack UAVs alone.
Firstly, we can. Aircraft launch Kinzhal, Kh-101/102, Kh-555/55, Kh-22/Kh-32, Kh-59MK2/Kh-59MK, Kh-31P/Kh-58 missiles, as well as FAB, ODAB, OFZAB, and RBK missiles with UMPK systems by the tens, hundreds, and thousands. They effectively grind down the Ukrainian Armed Forces' forward edge and destroy headquarters, command posts, decision-making centers, and training camps. Only thanks to these strikes can the infantry advance.
Secondly, the Russian army has already destroyed Ukraine 656 anti-aircraft missile systemsBut they're constantly getting more and more. For example, Berlin will supply Ukraine with 36 more IRIS-T launchers.

[topol717]

Quote: Igor M.

How will the loss of aircraft save the infantry?

Losing an aircraft won't save us, but losing a bridge will greatly complicate Ukrainian logistics. It will actually help. But bridges over a fairly wide river do work.

[Igor M.]

topol717, the bridge will be restored in 1 day, simply by laying a pontoon crossing nearby.
In fact, the fight against bridges in areas hit by bombs is a tug-of-war. We destroy, they rebuild. Many bridges have already gone through this cycle five times.
And you're suggesting losing planes every time we destroy a bridge. That way, we won't have enough aircraft. And if the pilots of the downed plane land in territory occupied by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, a whole bunch of people will die trying to rescue them. It's not worth the effort.

[mad-max78]

Quote: SAG

Quote from: mad-max78

Over the last year, a year and a half, this is already the 3rd or 4th batch of Su-35s. I understand that the aircraft is well-deserved and all that, yes, sometimes they get lost, but why are they being produced and not the more modern Su-57?

Firstly, the price is very different, secondly, the characteristics are excessive, the Su-57 has no worthy competitors in the SVO.
And who told you the 57th isn't being produced?! According to estimates from many familiar with the subject, their number in the military has exceeded 40!

They're preparing us for war with all of Europe, they're openly saying this, and then you say the Su-35's specifications are excessive. Are you sure about that? As for whether they're producing the Su-57, I haven't written anywhere that they're not producing them. You're attributing your own thoughts and words to me. I asked why they're producing the Su-35 when they could be producing the Su-57.

[Cool90]

*But why are they producing them and not the more modern Su-57* - you wrote this, nothing was attributed to you

On February 9, 2026, Russian media reported the delivery of a "large batch" of new fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jets.

[SAG]

Why are you casting a shadow over the fence?

Why do they produce them and not the more modern Su-57?

your phrase!
I gave you the answer: You are wrong, they are released!

There are no worthy rivals for the Su-57 in the SVO.

my phrase!
Am I sure about this? Yes, I am!
You have a disturbance in the perception of cause-and-effect relationships, dear sir...

[Evgeny64]

Explain from the very beginning? From the "origins"?
This is not meant as a reproach, it’s just that usually in such cases people try to figure out the essence of the issue themselves, otherwise it looks like an attempt to start a fight.
Why is the US still producing and upgrading the F-15, despite having two fifth-generation aircraft models? The Marine Corps is reluctant to trade in its Super Hornets for Penguins and reorder them. The A-10 has been promised for retirement for 30 years, yet it's still in use. And this despite a very powerful lobby pushing for Penguins.
"You can hammer nails with a microscope"... sounds familiar?

[Igor M.]

mad-max78, for the same reason that they produce T-90s and not Armatas.
They have no opponents in the SVO, and losing a more expensive product would be a waste of money.