Military Review

Russian Air Force began to develop the newest Su-35С fighter

51
Russian Air Force began to develop the newest Su-35С fighter



The first group of pilots of one of the units of the Air Force began to master the newest multi-purpose super-maneuverable fighter Su-35С. This was announced today by the representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for the Air Force, Colonel Igor Klimov.

"The first group of pilots of the Russian Air Force launched the newest Su-35С fighter at the central officer courses of the State Center for Training of Aviation Personnel and Military Tests of the RF Ministry of Defense. These are the most trained pilots who have previously mastered several types of fighters, each of which has more than a thousand hours flying time", - told Klimov.

According to him, during the retraining, officers study the aerodynamics and design of the aircraft and engine, its operation, aviation and electronic equipment, aircraft armament and sighting and navigation system. Particular attention is paid to the study of new equipment, in particular, the KSU-35 integrated control system, a power plant consisting of two new engines with increased thrust and nozzles with a controlled thrust vector, as well as a radar control system with a phased antenna array, ITAR-TASS reports.

Su-35C - deeply modernized super-maneuverable multi-functional fighter of the 4 ++ generation. Fifth generation technologies ensure its superiority over fighters of a similar class. The aircraft significantly surpasses its counterparts in service with their technical characteristics and has a more sophisticated on-board equipment complex. Thus, the characteristics of the Su-35С exceed the characteristics of all the tactical European fighters of the 4 and 4 + type “Rafale” and “Typhoon”, modernized American fighters like F-15, F-16 and F-18 and will successfully counteract fifth-generation fighters, for example , F-35 and F-22A.
Originator:
http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=124067&cid=24
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 5 December 2013 06: 30
    +5
    Great car with great features.
    I would like more of them to enter the active units, we will sleep more calmly when our Motherland is covered with such machines from the sky.
    1. Civil
      Civil 5 December 2013 06: 48
      +6
      How am I not indifferent to the su-35s! Fly no problem!
    2. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 5 December 2013 09: 06
      +5
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Great car with great features.

      Totally agree with you!
  2. avant-garde
    avant-garde 5 December 2013 06: 30
    +2
    will successfully counter fifth-generation fighters, for example, the F-35 and F-22A.- Well, we hope we don’t see this
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alex 241
      Alex 241 5 December 2013 06: 40
      +9
      .........................................................
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 5 December 2013 06: 47
        +5
        Quote: Alex 241
        .........................

        Sanya, hi.
        hi
        I want to ask everyone:
        Su-35С for our Aviation, is it like T-90ms or T-72Б3 for tankers?
        How many flyers does he like?

        I ask without jokes, just by way of examples more clearly.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 5 December 2013 07: 09
          +7
          Hi Lesh, of course T-90.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 5 December 2013 07: 17
            +3
            Quote: Alex 241
            Of course T-90.

            Well, if like T-90ms for us, then sincere wishes for GOOD LUCK Su-35С to the combat units.
            Fly and scare your flight adversary.
            drinks
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 5 December 2013 07: 24
              +4
              Lesh, well, you have more of these "toys" so that the likely "friends" would not relax! laughing
            2. PLO
              PLO 5 December 2013 08: 40
              +1
              Su-35С for our Aviation, is it like T-90ms or T-72Б3 for tankers?

              Well then, the Su-72SM is acting as T-3B27 in the Air Force
              winked
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 5 December 2013 09: 51
            +3
            Quote: Alex 241
            Hi Lesh, of course T-90.

            Why, when it comes to tanks, everyone is proud that our tanks are the lightest, and in rebuke to the same Abrams and Merkava with Leopard, their mass is high, although high mass is determined mainly by the mass of armor, which is very important for the tank. And when they talk about airplanes, the fact that our fighters, and specifically the Su-35S are the heaviest in the world, is somehow omitted.
            Thus, the characteristics of the Su-35S surpass the characteristics of all tactical European fighters of the 4 and 4 + generations of the Rafale and Typhoon types, the modernized American fighters of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 types and will successfully counter the fifth generation fighters, for example , F-35 and F-22A.

            To compare Rafal and Typhoon with the Su-35S, this is how to compare the T-34 and the Royal Tiger.
            The difference is almost twice! By weight, only the Raptor can compare with the Su-35C.
            So why is the high mass of the Su-35S not noticed by everyone who compares aircraft?
            1. PLO
              PLO 5 December 2013 10: 12
              +2
              specifically, the Su-35S is the heaviest in the world.

              folly

              those. F-15 and F-22 light fighters?


              Why, when it comes to tanks, everyone is proud that our tanks are the lightest, and in rebuke to the same Abrams and Merkava with Leopard, their weight is high, although high weight is determined mainly by the mass of armor, which is very important for the tank

              their high mass is due to the large reserved volume.
              and the mass of armor to maintain the same level of protection when increasing the tank increases exponentially
              1. iwind
                iwind 5 December 2013 11: 54
                +2
                Well, actually it’s really very heavy
                Su approximately 19000 kg
                F-15 12700 kg
                Only F-22 19700 kg
                I am more confused that
                Su 35 with an empty weight of 19000 kg
                The fuel has a mass of 11.000 kg and a maximum take-off weight of 34500 kg.
                That is, the battle load accounts for 4500. Which is very small.
                Here, either do not add fuel or underweight weapons.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 5 December 2013 12: 21
                  +4
                  that’s the point.
                  an internal heavy fuel tank for 11 tons of fuel gives the Su-35 a huge advantage because it does not need to suspend the PTB at the expense of aerodynamics and weapons
                  the balance of 4500kg is more than enough, the Su-35S is not a bomber
                  you can figure it out yourself: the mass of R-77 missiles is 175 kg, he can take 10 of them, another 2500 kg will remain


                  for comparison, the F-22's internal fuel tank holds only 9 tons of fuel,

                  the same F-15s never fly without 3 PTBs, so you shouldn’t talk about the lightweight F-15,
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 5 December 2013 12: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: olp
                    the same F-15s never fly without 3 PTBs, so you shouldn’t talk about the lightweight F-15,

                    Although in general I agree, but that never is too strong.
                    Why carry so much fuel with you? I think it would be more useful to add internal compartments.
                    And about the F-22, 9 tons - 1000 km of combat radius is enough for him, there will still be 8 tons of combat load. This is enough in the trailer.
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 5 December 2013 13: 16
                      +2
                      Although in general I agree, but that never is too strong.

                      Well, it can fly without them, of course, but as far as I read in real military operations without the PTB, the F-15s did not fly


                      Why carry so much fuel with you? I think it would be more useful to add internal compartments.

                      no one just carries fuel with him, the flight duration for a modern fighter is a very important characteristic
                      for example, remember which freak was blinded from F-16 with its conformal tanks

                      and the MiG-29SMT also ceased to be a model of grace)



                      And about the F-22, 9 tons - 1000 km of combat radius is enough for him, there will still be 8 tons of combat load. This is enough in the trailer.

                      empty? or with weapons (what)?
                      and 8 tons are not placed in the internal compartment of the weapon
                      1. iwind
                        iwind 5 December 2013 13: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: olp

                        empty? or with weapons (what)?
                        and 8 tons are not placed in the internal compartment of the weapon

                        With what armed combat the radius of F-22 is considered, unfortunately there is no access to such information wink
                        I mean, with full tanks, he can still take on another 8 tons of weapons, which gives flexibility in choosing the range of applicable weapons.
                        Which one? it will already be from the task that he will receive.
                        But since this is a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, most likely it will not be loaded with all 8.8 tons.
                        When fully loaded, of course, dress up to use an external mount.
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 5 December 2013 13: 53
                        +1
                        With what armed combat do you consider the radius of F-22, unfortunately there is no access to such information wink

                        in fact of the matter
                        but without this information, the semantic load of the given data (1000 km) is zero
                        and when suspended on pylons, the F-22 loses a considerable part of its advantages
                      3. iwind
                        iwind 5 December 2013 14: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        With what armed combat do you consider the radius of F-22, unfortunately there is no access to such information wink

                        in fact of the matter
                        but without this information, the semantic load of the given data (1000 km) is zero
                        and when suspended on pylons, the F-22 loses a considerable part of its advantages

                        This plus or minus applies to all aircraft, all the same, this is already secret data and it is better not to disclose it.
                        But purely arithmetic, we have 9 tons of fuel, which is not enough in the trailer, I think you can fly 700-1000 kilometers and return or refuel on the way back. and 8.8 tone payload.
                      4. PLO
                        PLO 5 December 2013 14: 15
                        +1
                        This plus or minus applies to all aircraft, all the same, this is already secret data and it is better not to disclose it.

                        it’s not a disclosure, but the fact that it’s stupid to use such data


                        But purely arithmetic, we have 9 tons of fuel, which is not enough in the trailer, I think you can fly 700-1000 kilometers and return or refuel on the way back. and 8.8 tone payload.

                        purely arithmetically with a full internal tank and maximum combat load, he is unlikely to fly away at 500 km to return
                      5. VAF
                        VAF 5 December 2013 14: 27
                        +4
                        Quote: iwind
                        But purely arithmetic, we have 9 tons of fuel, which is not enough in the trailer, I think you can fly 700-1000 kilometers and return or refuel on the way back. and 8.8 tone combat


                        Here "purely arithmetically" will not work, because. fly this flight at the most advantageous flight mode (minimum specific fuel consumption and ceiling).
                        But to fight is a flight along a variable profile with conducting a 3-5 minute battle, with 15 minutes of using the engine's MFR.
                        And in the end we get the radius of action 0.4-0.45 from Range
                        So consider it. Drying without PTB is obtained in the region of 800-1000 km (we do not take into account the temperature and the specific BC in the base).
                        so here we wipe the adversary’s nose. but only if we work by air or by sea.nu or on stationary objects. but in all other cases .. supostat takes QUALITY wassat
                2. iwind
                  iwind 5 December 2013 14: 05
                  +1
                  At the expense of the hippo f-16. But then he and the drummer, carry a lot further, the others will maneuver angry
                  But with such a load, flying is already an achievement.
                3. PLO
                  PLO 5 December 2013 14: 12
                  +1
                  At the expense of the hippo f-16. But then he and the drummer, carry a lot further, the other angry will maneuver
                  But with such a load, flying is already an achievement.

                  those. 2nd UAB and 2nd short-range RVV is a lot?
                4. iwind
                  iwind 5 December 2013 14: 20
                  +2
                  Quote: olp
                  At the expense of the hippo f-16. But then he and the drummer, carry a lot further, the other angry will maneuver
                  But with such a load, flying is already an achievement.

                  those. 2nd UAB and 2nd short-range RVV is a lot?

                  I'm talking about PTB and containers. This is just the first photo from the PTB.
                  No need to find fault like that already. crying smile
                  Ps Time Limit on "idleness" I’m finished today, most likely I won’t be able to continue the dialogue with you, I need to work. sad
                5. PLO
                  PLO 5 December 2013 14: 27
                  +2
                  Yes, I’m not picking on purpose, it's just that everything is interconnected hi
                  if it is necessary "further", then he needs to hang the PTB garland and carry off "a lot" of the combat load, and vice versa
                  Only internal or conformal TB can solve the problem.
    4. Nayhas
      Nayhas 5 December 2013 13: 35
      +1
      Quote: iwind
      I am more confused that
      Su 35 with an empty weight of 19000 kg
      The fuel has a mass of 11.000 kg and a maximum take-off weight of 34500 kg.
      That is, the battle load accounts for 4500. Which is very small.
      Here, either do not add fuel or underweight weapons.

      It's all in terms. What is the maximum take-off weight?
      "Maximum take-off weight (maximum take-off weight) is the maximum mass of an aircraft at which it can take off in compliance with all flight safety rules."
      Those. it is necessary to sacrifice something, either fuel or load. Then refueling in the air comes to the rescue. For American pilots, this is a routine operation, especially since they have enough air tankers, our pilots generally do not know how to refuel (in fighter jets), therefore they probably make a large internal fuel supply. The type of refueling is no less important. For Americans, land aviation has refueling tanks with a fuel rod-neck system, the rod is rigid and not difficult to control, the operator working hydraulically starts the rod into the neck, so the process of refueling in the air is relatively simple, it is enough for the pilot to take the required position in the air relative to the tanker and wait , the fueling neck on American fighter jets is usually located behind the cockpit and spilling part of the fuel when uncoupling does not affect aircraft control. We use a hose-cone system. The hose is flexible and impossible to control, so the pilot himself has to aim the receiving rod at the cone, when disengaged, the remaining fuel flows out of the hose directly to the cockpit, because the receiving bar is located on the left front of the cab. In fairness, US naval aircraft are also refueled through a hose cone.
    5. VAF
      VAF 5 December 2013 14: 15
      +4
      Quote: iwind
      Su 35 with an empty weight of 19000 kg


      I dare to correct, the empty weight is 17. The weight of the fuel is 600.
      Otherwise, Oleg painted everything below. Weights BC .. for the eyes.
      But not one adversary can "boast" of such a supply of fuel.
      He needs a PTB in order to get there. Where Drying can go, and a PTB is a frontal resistance. Increased consumption. Restrictions on overloads, when maintaining a BS, PTB are reset (and how to go home), that's why they come up with comforts, and this is natural degrades aerodynamics and performance, unless you install high-torque motors.
      So everything pulls immediately +! drinks
  3. VAF
    VAF 5 December 2013 12: 36
    +2
    Quote: olp
    folly

    those. F-15 and F-22 light fighters?


    Oleg is not "stupid" in that, but in the fact that Eagle and Raptor are already fighters, while the Su-35S is still being tested and, as is customary in our country, is "accepted for trial operation."
    Those. aircraft (glider) and engines with supporting systems (fuel automation, power system, KSU) yes, but everything else .... recourse

    But for the SHOW just right .. like the MiG-29OVT ... look ... the heart stops, but then what ????
    1. PLO
      PLO 5 December 2013 12: 52
      +1
      Hello, Sergey.

      taken into trial operation

      Well, unfortunately this is a common misfortune, on the other hand, trial operation is also another stage.
      the same Su-34 also waited 3 years in trial operation for adoption

      and so we will wait and rejoice when the Su-35 will be adopted fellow
  • VAF
    VAF 5 December 2013 12: 31
    +2
    Quote: Alex 241
    Of course T-90.


    Sanya, but he didn’t notice everything in us ... that has no analogues in the world is always a killer .. either missile defense, then aircraft carriers, then raptors.
    I just want to ask, and what "killers" have already appeared or the old fashioned way .. R-73M and a gun ??? bully
    But will Khryapa come to such a range? wink
    1. Don
      Don 5 December 2013 14: 11
      +2
      Quote: vaf
      I just want to ask, and what "killers" have already appeared or the old fashioned way .. R-73M and a gun ???

      And why do not you take into account the killers in the person of R-27 and RVV-AE?
      1. VAF
        VAF 5 December 2013 14: 20
        +3
        Quote: Don
        And why do not you take into account the killers in the person of R-27 and RVV-AE?


        Well, the R-27 (all) is the same as if it’s a little old .... RVV-AE and SD .... heard .. but have not yet seen. Only in weight-gabaoit mock-ups.

        And so, in reality, the R-27 can be 90-100 km and .. "pulnut" (really with what? With the Irbis or OLS) - that is the question bully
        1. Don
          Don 5 December 2013 15: 30
          +1
          Quote: vaf
          Well, R-27 (all) is the same as if old

          Quote: vaf
          And so, in reality, the R-27 can be 90-100 km and .. "pulnut" (really with what? With the Irbis or OLS) - that is the question

          Well, I would not say that it is very old. Adopted in 1987, for example, the AIM-120 AMRAAM in 1991. But still a medium-range missile.
          Quote: vaf
          RVV-AE and SD .... heard .. but have not yet seen. Only in weight-gabaoit mock-ups.

          But this does not mean that it is not. Back in 1994, they adopted it, for 20 years I think a certain amount was released.
          1. VAF
            VAF 5 December 2013 15: 38
            +2
            Quote: Don
            for example, AIM-120 AMRAAM in 1991.


            So yes, +! drinks But they already have 120, which is D, "flies" 180 km, but the 27th? crying This is it.
            We rather 73M will fly like t-s soon laughing

            Quote: Don
            Back in 1994, they adopted it, for 20 years I think a certain amount was released.


            Here is an honest word ... soldier I have not seen a single "live" anywhere except for Kursk, and so ... some models request and .. "promises" request
  • VAF
    VAF 5 December 2013 12: 28
    +5
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Su-35С for our Aviation, is it like T-90ms or T-72Б3 for tankers?


    Alexey, let me "stick in" too, in order to at least slightly lower the "joyful approvals"
    By the way, I put the minus article for .... "quote": "The characteristics of the Su-35S are superior to those of all European tactical fighters of the 4 and 4 + generation of the Rafale and Typhoon types

    They taught that the most important thing for us is how the plane flies to the SHOW, but how and what it shoots and shoots ... it doesn’t care at all ... cast iron for everyone and that's enough.

    Yes, in his speech, VGK says, unfortunately, there are problems and the Su-35C .. is delayed and will be on trial until 2015.
    If only someone would think ... her urry and that's it ... we’ll tear everyone.

    Quote: Aleks tv
    How many flyers does he like?


    Lipetsk will master completely, with military use, then it will be possible to talk, but for now ... wait, sir.

    Quote: Aleks tv
    just by examples more clearly.


    Alexei, if the T-72 upgraded is the T-90ms, then yes the Su-35S is the upgraded Su-27M soldier
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 5 December 2013 14: 55
      +1
      Quote: vaf
      Lipetsk will master completely, with military use, then it will be possible to talk, but for now ... wait, sir.

      Clear.
      Thank you Sergey.
      wait, sir.
  • PLO
    PLO 5 December 2013 08: 38
    0
    hello Alexander!
    and 09 red is already a combat aircraft built in 2013?
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 5 December 2013 07: 27
    +3
    Click on the whole trigger drinks 1 - Button for disabling the automatic control system (ACS). Also under the pilot's little finger is the lever for temporarily deactivating the ACS: moving on autopilot, the pilot presses the lever and manually performs a maneuver, after which the ACS continues to steer the aircraft along a new course.
    2 - Four-position mode switch of the BWC to select the combat and navigation modes of the onboard equipment.
    3 - Bring button to the horizon. In case of loss of orientation in space, including during poor health after overloading, the pilot can press this button so that the plane automatically returns to straight-line movement with zero roll and pitch.
    4 - Shooting button for cannon armament. Rockets are launched with a trigger.
    5 - Switch "Maneuver-trajectory control" puts the aircraft in super maneuverability mode.
    6 - Joystick (joystick) control marker is responsible for the position of the cursor on the screen.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 5 December 2013 08: 04
      10
      A bit of aviation humor laughing
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 5 December 2013 08: 08
        +1
        Ha ha .......... !!! laughing laughing laughing
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 5 December 2013 08: 26
          +6
          .................................................. ..................
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 5 December 2013 08: 32
            +4
            Hi Lesh, it’s not funny anymore! An airplane with more than 50 people on board made an emergency landing at the Chelyabinsk airport. This is reported by the State Ministry of Emergencies in the Chelyabinsk region.

            Passenger Superjet, flying from Magnitogorsk to Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport, landed at about 07.00 Moscow time in the village of Balandino. At the time of the incident, there were 48 passengers and 5 crew members on the plane.

            The causes of the accident are not reported. No one was hurt as a result of the incident.
            1. Dezot
              Dezot 5 December 2013 12: 42
              +1
              It seems they wrote that the chassis sensor worked
            2. VAF
              VAF 5 December 2013 13: 32
              +5
              Quote: Alex 241
              The causes of the accident are not reported.


              Sanya, the reason is not cleaning the left main rack .. came to Chelyabinsk. Ran out of fuel and sat down ... as the representatives of the GSS say. This is all right with them .. think about it .. complicated conditions for piloting wassat
              I can’t rzhu ... how else to whitewash my Super-Bobby ... and if I hadn’t taken the lock .. then how ???
              And about the emergency landing in Khabarovsk, they are generally silent - there is a depressurization of the cabin (flight from Blagoveshchensk).
              Now the Attic, an ardent defender of Super-Bobik with a pearl, "this is our completely .." Russian "plane, rush in and start pouring water on the rusty mill again!
      2. Dezot
        Dezot 5 December 2013 12: 40
        0
        Thanks, laughed laughing
  • stalker
    stalker 5 December 2013 09: 35
    +1
    great news!
  • evgenii67
    evgenii67 5 December 2013 09: 46
    +2
    Great plane! On-board 06 was at the MAKS-2013 exhibition and of course I could not help but take a picture against the backdrop of this handsome man!
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 5 December 2013 09: 48
    +7
    Powerful plane, you can’t say anything. Although for example I like his other painting more.
    1. Civil
      Civil 5 December 2013 14: 41
      0
      Rare raskaraskara
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 5 December 2013 09: 50
    +2
    The coloring is good.
  • Leshka
    Leshka 5 December 2013 19: 12
    0
    calm weather them good
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 5 December 2013 19: 50
      0
      Yes, they’re actually all-weather laughing
  • alone
    alone 5 December 2013 19: 52
    +1
    The plane is certainly very good. There would be more pilots who could control the plane.
  • twviewer
    twviewer 7 December 2013 05: 41
    0
    still flexible SU and unlimited standardized nomenclature of weapons.