Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E

[Kunal Biswas]

Dedicated SU-35 thread..

Keep up posting here..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Thread open keep posting.. !

 

[p2prada]

Re: A frequent statement Super Sukhoi SU-30MKI will be better than SU-

yes sir, but there can be slight performance difference. so one can fill that gap with very good software

In the end, does it really matter. I mean the processing power difference between aircraft.

Computers on aircraft are designed to provide more than required capability. So it won't matter if Rafale's MDPU is 10% faster than Su-35's computer or viceversa.

My point throughout this exercise was to inform that Su-35 has a similar avionics structure as the F-22 or F-35 as compared to older 4th gen models. Meaning it won't matter if Rafale's MDPU is a bit faster or more advanced as long as the core architecture is similar vs F-16 where the architecture is not similar.

Anyway, not many people know it, but MKI also has IMA architecture with PowerQUICC III based engine and PowerPC cores. Some say the system is built on a 5 core architecture, some say more. Upgraded MKI may see a transition from QUICC to a more advanced engine.

Disinformation cannot be ruled out either.

 

[t_co]

Re: A frequent statement Super Sukhoi SU-30MKI will be better than SU-

In the end, does it really matter. I mean the processing power difference between aircraft.

Computers on aircraft are designed to provide more than required capability. So it won't matter if Rafale's MDPU is 10% faster than Su-35's computer or viceversa.

My point throughout this exercise was to inform that Su-35 has a similar avionics structure as the F-22 or F-35 as compared to older 4th gen models. Meaning it won't matter if Rafale's MDPU is a bit faster or more advanced as long as the core architecture is similar vs F-16 where the architecture is not similar.

Anyway, not many people know it, but MKI also has IMA architecture with PowerQUICC III based engine and PowerPC cores. Some say the system is built on a 5 core architecture, some say more. Upgraded MKI may see a transition from QUICC to a more advanced engine.

Disinformation cannot be ruled out either.

How easy is it to swap out or upgrade the software and electronics hardware of an airplane, especially its avionics and in-built AEW suite? I would imagine it would be the easiest part of the airframe to upgrade, but perhaps there are some hidden issues which may arise?

 

[arya]

well frankly speaking su 30 mki cant stand against su35

 

[santosh_g]

Re: A frequent statement Super Sukhoi SU-30MKI will be better than SU-

How easy is it to swap out or upgrade the software and electronics hardware of an airplane, especially its avionics and in-built AEW suite? I would imagine it would be the easiest part of the airframe to upgrade, but perhaps there are some hidden issues which may arise?

Unless until you have a major change in software , software up gradation is easier compared to hardware up gradation. Now days no one uses discrete components and wires for hardware. they are properly soldered on a circuit board. so hardware up gradation literally means building complete PCB again and installing in aircraft Building PCB involves testing for functionality and some R&D. in one sentence you can update software frequently but upgrading electronics if tedious process so usually electronics up gradation done to aircrafts probably once in decade(may be more than that).

 

[p2prada]

Re: A frequent statement Super Sukhoi SU-30MKI will be better than SU-

How easy is it to swap out or upgrade the software and electronics hardware of an airplane, especially its avionics and in-built AEW suite? I would imagine it would be the easiest part of the airframe to upgrade, but perhaps there are some hidden issues which may arise?

MKI in particular was built as an open architecture aircraft, the reason why we could incorporate foreign components including EW systems.

On older aircraft it is very difficult. For eg: Mig-29UPG and Mirage-2000"UPG" where most of the aircraft needed to be stripped bare bone and reworked from scratch. Not so on MKI because it is designed as a plug and play system, not so with other older Flankers. Rafale F1 also moved from distributed architecture to IMA based on MDPU on F2.

Mirage-2000 will be upgraded from a distributed architecture to the Rafale MDPU based IMA.

 

[TrueSpirit]

SU-35S

The Basics in a simple (jargon-free) language.

 

[gadeshi]

Hi guys.

I see you breaking the spears about to buy or not to buy Su-35S for IAF :cool2:

My modest oppinion is NO.

Major upgrade will bring MKI close to Su-35 in avionics and this is enough to smash out chinees with their MKK with primitive N001MVE radars and simplified avionics suites.

The most avionics will be incorporated in MKI with no swet, but radar and engines won't.
Irbis-E demands rather more power to work than Bars wants. Irbis can drain 5KWt of power to turn it to radiation only. Plus mission computers and the other radar-supporting stuff... Only 117S or Al-31F-M2/M3 with powerfull gearboxes can feed it.

So, MKI will need 117S engine.
But, 117S has larger diameter low pressure compressor than conventional Al-31F. This will require to develop a new air intake to feed the air-hungry engine. Su-35S has reworked intakes and engine naccels interiors to house 117S. If these works will be done by Sukhoi or HAL then you will have radars and engines both.

Su-35 differs from Su-30MKI not only in engine naccels and intakes. It has several AD improvements to get higher supersonic performance than any conventional Flanker has. It means more speed with less fuel consumption. Also it has hardly reworked internal force structure which allows it to contain larger electronic suite and 2 or 3 (exact data is unknown) additional tons of fuel comparable to conventional Flanker. And of course a new force structure consists of 25% less parts, has lighter weight and gives Su-35 airframe a 6000 hours of active lifetime.
Also Su-35 has all-digital 4-channel FBW control system instead of 2-channel analog-digital one on all the other Flankers including MKI (except for Su-34). This control system incorporates all the control surfaces and thrust vectoring into one solid control structure. And it has allowed the Sukhoi to phase out the canards which were temporary forced measure to compensate higher nose weight on avionics capacity growth. How can HAL incorporate the new control system? I don't even know.

However, if they will change only avionics and engines, it will be enough to face any enemy in the region without the need to buy Su-35S.

PS: Could you please give me an advice about how to post images here?
When I had tried to upload one I had found an empty div without file upload form and it seems like the users cannot add links to images at all?

 

[TrueSpirit]

Hi guys.

I see you breaking the spears about to buy or not to buy Su-35S for IAF :cool2:

My modest oppinion is NO.

Major upgrade will bring MKI close to Su-35 in avionics and this is enough to smash out chinees with their MKK with primitive N001MVE radars and simplified avionics suites.

The most avionics will be incorporated in MKI with no swet, but radar and engines won't.
Irbis-E demands rather more power to work than Bars wants. Irbis can drain 5KWt of power to turn it to radiation only. Plus mission computers and the other radar-supporting stuff... Only 117S or Al-31F-M2/M3 with powerfull gearboxes can feed it.

So, MKI will need 117S engine.
But, 117S has larger diameter low pressure compressor than conventional Al-31F. This will require to develop a new air intake to feed the air-hungry engine. Su-35S has reworked intakes and engine naccels interiors to house 117S. If these works will be done by Sukhoi or HAL then you will have radars and engines both.

Su-35 differs from Su-30MKI not only in engine naccels and intakes. It has several AD improvements to get higher supersonic performance than any conventional Flanker has. It means more speed with less fuel consumption. Also it has hardly reworked internal force structure which allows it to contain larger electronic suite and 2 or 3 (exact data is unknown) additional tons of fuel comparable to conventional Flanker. And of course a new force structure consists of 25% less parts, has lighter weight and gives Su-35 airframe a 6000 hours of active lifetime.
Also Su-35 has all-digital 4-channel FBW control system instead of 2-channel analog-digital one on all the other Flankers including MKI (except for Su-34). This control system incorporates all the control surfaces and thrust vectoring into one solid control structure. And it has allowed the Sukhoi to phase out the canards which were temporary forced measure to compensate higher nose weight on avionics capacity growth. How can HAL incorporate the new control system? I don't even know.

However, if they will change only avionics and engines, it will be enough to face any enemy in the region without the need to buy Su-35S.

PS: Could you please give me an advice about how to post images here?
When I had tried to upload one I had found an empty div without file upload form and it seems like the users cannot add links to images at all?

Ok, let me be honest. I did not even bother to read your response, to the end. Got to go, now. Anyhow, I do agree to your judgement for multiple reasons.

But, being from Ukraine, why would you argue in favour of India buying yet another Russian platform (your arch-rival in defence market), in the first place ? It is obvious that you would try to field all sorts of arguments against it, ain't it so ?

Just a friendly query.

 

[gadeshi]

Yes I am from Ukraine.

But Ukraine is not a rival to Russia on the defence market in any way. Just because it cannot be it. If you are interested, I can talk to you about the situation and living in Ukraine but this is an offtopic for this theme.

We, average Ukrainians, love Russia and lying our hopes on it to reunite the great Union of slavian countries sometime in the future.
So I won't agitate to buy something else from Ukraine instead of Su-35S from Russia (what can we offer???).

I just talk about my oppinion and give some technical data which I can dig in the Russian Internet and the other open sources.
So you can read it or not, it is in your hands

PS: I would rather agitate India to buy Su-34 as it is a unique deep-strike asset which can do the things noone other in Indian AF can do. It can be a great asset to Indian SFC or maritime / SEAD / DEAD units. Su-35S is a great fighter but you have Su-30MKI which can be overhauled to face any enemy even if it would be worth than Su-35 in performance.
I will be glad to see Su-35S in your units but I see no reasons to buy it.

 

[p2prada]

So, MKI will need 117S engine.
But, 117S has larger diameter low pressure compressor than conventional Al-31F. This will require to develop a new air intake to feed the air-hungry engine. Su-35S has reworked intakes and engine naccels interiors to house 117S. If these works will be done by Sukhoi or HAL then you will have radars and engines both.

According to Sukhoi the 117S can be fitted on any Flanker with minor changes.

And it has allowed the Sukhoi to phase out the canards which were temporary forced measure to compensate higher nose weight on avionics capacity growth. How can HAL incorporate the new control system? I don't even know.

That's not the reason for the canards. If you read Yefim Gordon's book on Flankers you will notice that he mentions VVS does not provide enough time for pilots to train in using canards and that's the reason why only MKI has canards.

That higher nose weight reason was made up on forums.

 

[gadeshi]

According to Sukhoi the 117S can be fitted on any Flanker with minor changes.



That's not the reason for the canards. If you read Yefim Gordon's book on Flankers you will notice that he mentions VVS does not provide enough time for pilots to train in using canards and that's the reason why only MKI has canards.

That higher nose weight reason was made up on forums.

ORLY?

Then why canards are on Su-33 and Su-27M prototypes and completely disappeared from Su-35? VVS has enough time and material to train pilots from year 2008 and then.
And Su-35 has rather better manouver performance than MKI without canards... Why?

BTW, Gordons books are not an authority on Flankers theme (and many others to) in Russia and CIS because of weak fact materials and many politics and empty water in them. Many soviet pilots and technicians call him Efim Gandon (Efim the Condom) for his books "quality".

This book is an authority (it is written by actual Su-27 design participators): Su-27 Fighter - The birth of the legend.
It's written by Pavel Plunskiy, Vladimir Antonov, Vladimir Zenkin, Nikolay Gordiukov and Igor Bretetdinov - actual and former Sukhoi DB members. It is a great detailed 2-vollumed book.

All the Su-27 development is truly described there as well as unreleased projects and researches.
All the info about canards is from there and from SibNIIA / TsAGI researchers as well.

This forum doesn't allow to post links. The other case I would share the links on it.

 

[gadeshi]

Ones more about the book:
ISBN: Vollume1 - 5-901668-13-8; Vollume 2 - 978-5-901668-27-6

I don't know if it is in English, sorry.

 

[p2prada]

ORLY?

Then why canards are on Su-33 and Su-27M prototypes and completely disappeared from Su-35?

The Su-27K's canards reduced approach speeds. Even N-LCA has LEVCONS for that effect. Su-27M and Su-27M2 were independent developments following different timelines, one in the 80s and the other in the 2000s.

I would definitely say the Su-35's FBW software is more advanced compared to other Flankers for only one big reason, and that's the removal of the brakes. SH saw a very similar change.

VVS has enough time and material to train pilots from year 2008 and then.

How much, 100 hours, 150 hours? I remember it was less than 100 hours at the beginning of the century.

MKI pilots do upwards of 200 hours.

And Su-35 has rather better manouver performance than MKI without canards... Why?

I am sure it has more to do with a better engine and FCS than the removal of canards. Add canards on the Su-35 it would probably do even better that a Su-35 without canards. But I suppose there would be a greater increase in RCS which may not be desirable.

We can determine the use of canards through two reasons. One, Su-35 does not have canards, perhaps Sukhoi considers the RCS advantage is greater than a more maneuverable Su-35. Two, Su-34 has canards even though a lot of the development of both aircraft was conducted in parallel.

Yes, there may be unwanted oscillations due to the heavy radar, maybe a shift in CoG but saying the canards are only meant to avoid the oscillations don't make sense at all. Other Flankers with canards did not really have heavier radars than Bars either, like your examples of Su-27M and Su-27K. They had lighter radars than Irbis-E.

Let's also not forget that Irbis-E is said to be "significantly" lighter than Bars.

This book is an authority (it is written by actual Su-27 design participators): Su-27 Fighter - The birth of the legend.
It's written by Pavel Plunskiy, Vladimir Antonov, Vladimir Zenkin, Nikolay Gordiukov and Igor Bretetdinov - actual and former Sukhoi DB members. It is a great detailed 2-vollumed book.

Language is the problem.

What's interesting is the concept of a weapons pod for Su-27. We might see it in the Super Sukhoi upgrade.

As for Yefim Gordon. His info is significantly less technical and hence of lesser interest to more professional readers.

This forum doesn't allow to post links. The other case I would share the links on it.

I think you have to cross some post counts. Anti-spam feature.

 

[gadeshi]

Canards are a a feature for unexperienced ones - Guys from SibNIIA say.
Canards are the killer feature for chineese PS artists which don't understand what is it.

BTW, Bill Sweetman and the other western specs say that the better place for canards is an enemy planes airframe I think they have the point. And all the russian AD specs are agreed.

About the LEVCONs... They are not the thing you think about This is cutting-edge AD feature to create and sustain controllable wortex system. It is to make flow process controllable. It has no lifting or stearing purpose. Just vortex control.

VVS has enough time and material to train pilots from year 2008 and then.
How much, 100 hours, 150 hours? I remember it was less than 100 hours at the beginning of the century.

MKI pilots do upwards of 200 hours.

My congratulations to your pilots, but what correlation between flight hours and canards?
Canards are not explicitly controllable feature, it is controllable by automatic FBW system alongside with the others. So, pilots don't have to train using it, just train manouvers. But thrust vectoring is the feature to use which requires a lot of additional training untill Su-35 is born. And TW was exactly the feature Indian pilots has successfully mastered. MKI has no automatic integration of TW into joint control system. MKIs TW needs to be controlled manually and separately from the plane itself.
However it is a part of automated system since Su-35 avoiding pilots from additional hassle.

We can determine the use of canards through two reasons. One, Su-35 does not have canards, perhaps Sukhoi considers the RCS advantage is greater than a more maneuverable Su-35. Two, Su-34 has canards even though a lot of the development of both aircraft was conducted in parallel.

Su-34 has canards to compensate LA tremor and turbulence impact to allow it to save fuel by reducing balancing losses in LA flight.
And yes, Su-35 has no canards because it has different mass distribution, sophisticated control system hardware and software, and closely integrated TW. And also canards absence reduces supersonic drag and reduces RCS.

Add canards on the Su-35 it would probably do even better that a Su-35 without canards

No, sir Canards were removed after Su-37 (No.701) spare testing. Su-37 has TW and canards both. But tests had convinced Sukhoi engineers in the fact that the canarda are non-needed feature when you have the right FBW FCS and integrated TW.

Why to cary a trunk that doesn't offer any good any more?

PS: However, I agree - planes with canards look awesome But real life is real life

 

[Austin]

MKI has TVC integrated into FBW much like Su-35 or other variant of Su-30 that uses TVC.

MKI and others have canard because as the designer said the nose got heavy due to BARS so they had to add canard else the nose had the tendency to pitch up , IRBIS weight is less than half of BARS so they didnt had to add canard to it.

According to Mikhail Pogosyn interview at Paris , Su-35 is better than all 4th gen fighter Aviation EXplorer: Михаил Погосян: Новый российский лайнер лучше "Боингов" и "Эрбасов"

Yesterday, I, along with all watched the flight of the Su-35 and together with all cheered from the balcony. They say that this is one of the strongest fighters and that it is superior fighter of the fifth generation, that is an American. But still, what are the prospects for further development?

- I think the Su-35 is just superior to all versions of the fourth-generation aircraft. A number of his maneuvering characteristics can be seen in the cabin. Capabilities of the aircraft are not only based on his excellent aerodynamics, but also on the unique complex avionics and weapons capabilities. It is also important that this is not the last development. Since parallel with the Su-35 evolved work on the aircraft of the fifth generation, which also takes its place. Both of these complex will complement each other and improve the effectiveness of the group and air forces of both our country and the countries that use Russian technology.

 

[H.A.]

Check out this amazing video.....wonder the G forces encountered by the pilot....

 

[gadeshi]

Austin
Su-30 has TVC separate from the other FBW and is controlled by the special knuppel on engine control grip.
This is the words of Igor Votintsev (Sukhoi test pilot) in Military Parade journal in year 1999.

Donno, maybe MKI of the recent blocks (Mk2 for example) have their TVC integrated, but it wasn't done originally.
Mk2 may have this while Su-30SM Russian AF variant has it integrated for sure. SM is modified and upgraded version of MKM for Malaisia. Russians dosen't accept MKI because of Israeli parts in it.

Removing canards and their mechanical and hydraulical assets has saved about 750-800kgs of empty weight

And I agree with the other post statements, yes.

 

[Austin]

There are two model for TVC stand alone and integrated , so if you disengage TVC it can work in stand alone mode too else its integrated in FBW for MKI. May be the pilot was explaining the stand alone mode ...only test pilots do that if they want to try to do some manouvere.