Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E

[gadeshi]

Recent news from Burget have confirmed the rumors about OAK and China contract for Su-35SK delieveries after Year 2015.
There are no data about the quantity and quality of the future Su-35 batch for China. Different sources talk about 24-48 machines. However it is clear that Su-35SK will have simplified avionics and Irbis-E radar.
It is known that 1m2 target detection range will remain the same - about 400km, but lock-on range will be reduced from about 275km to only 80-90km which is far enough for all the Chineese missiles but is insufficient to use RVV BD (R-37) and new Article 810 LR missiles which launch range is over 350km.
Long range missiles will be possibly never sold to China.

 

[Shirman]

Some clips from the Paris Air Show '13.........
Sukhoi Su-35 Paris Air Show 2013 | Сухой Су-35 на парижском авиасалоне 2013 - YouTube

i wanna ask that this black paint on su-35 is some (RAM RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL) paint or standard camo paint ???? it does look cool though.........:thumb:

 

[gadeshi]

It is standard protective paint.

Actually, there are no "RAM Paint" in the world at all

The cool paint you can see on F-22/35 is so called TopCoat - dielectric paint that laminarizes electromagnetic properties of the different plane parts made from different materials to avoid radiation bursts on those different materials borders. Also topcoat contains nano-dispersed quartzit marbles to reduce IR signature. That's why F-22/35 have some "glass-flickering" surfaces.

Actual RAMs are inside the planes body covering plates (in special problem places only like wing and intakes forward edges / intake walls) as a special reticular-structured tissue (google on XAct Mat to know more).

Russians have their own construction-embeddable RAMs and a unique nano-dispersed ferromagnetic fillers which can be added to polymer matrix of the composite carbon and aramid based panels and force elements. This info you can find in Russian patents DB (without detailed description for well known reason) and in the news about the new composites.

What about the dark gray paint on modern Russian crafts, it is strongly criticized for many practical reasons by pilots and specialists both.
Also all the air enthusiasts and professionals call it Baklazhan (an Eggplant) for its colour.

 

[gadeshi]

We all enthusiasts and professionals love these camo schemes (rather traditional for Soviet and Russian heavy fighters):

This camo is rather more optimal for high-altitude air-superiority fighters.

 

[SajeevJino]

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

Sir if you Passed 25 Posts you can Post Links

 

[gadeshi]

Sir if you Passed 25 Posts you can Post Links

Thanks, SajeevJino!

 

[p2prada]

Canards are a a feature for unexperienced ones - Guys from SibNIIA say.

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.

I hardly doubt that's true, or else Boeing wouldn't have released concept pictures of their 6th gen fighter with canards.

I am not saying they are going for it, but this is what they have released in reply to USN's RFI.

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.

Hmm, that's not what our designers for N-LCA say. N-LCA's LEVCONS are designed for lift during take off and lower approach speeds during landing. Chines or LERX would do what you say, LEVCONS are proper control surfaces.

My congratulations to your pilots, but what correlation between flight hours and canards?

Canards+TVC allow greater maneuverability. However you will have to allow your pilots to fly a lot more than usual so that they can learn to use it to its full capability.

Meaning there is no point in having pilots fly 100-150 hours and expect them to handle the aircraft well. No point having the capability if you can't use it. Meaning, the aircraft may do 30 degree ITR, with canards and TVC if may do 35deg. So the pilot may need more time to get to 35 deg and keep the aircraft stable in the condition.

Currency hours matter a lot.

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.

All moving parts on MKI is part of the FBW. Sukhoi and IAF wouldn't be claiming greater lift and lesser fuel consumption during regular flight if TVC wasn't part of FBW. Manual mode is different.

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.

You see, MKI hasn't been designed only for air superiority roles like Su-35BM. MKI will also need canards for low altitude flight when conducting strike roles. It is one of our DPSA (deep penetration) aircraft as well.

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.

It depends on what they required from Su-37 during those particular tests.

Russians dosen't accept MKI because of Israeli parts in it.

Actually, the only "fixed" Israeli tech on MKI is the MFDs and HUD. The INS is French. Russia can replace those parts with Russian tech.

EW is Indian though, the upgrade will see AESA based EW systems like Spectra.

What's interesting is VVS has decided to use Indian computers instead of their own.

 

[p2prada]

It is known that 1m2 target detection range will remain the same - about 400km, but lock-on range will be reduced from about 275km to only 80-90km which is far enough for all the Chineese missiles but is insufficient to use RVV BD (R-37) and new Article 810 LR missiles which launch range is over 350km.

Interesting. Are you sure this is from an official source?

One would think back and wonder what the Chinese are really expecting from a squadron of BMs. It is different if they are buying 6 to 12 squadrons, but one or two squads, fishy?

 

[cobra commando]

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains 'Supermaneuverability'


Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains 'Supermaneuverability'

 

[lookieloo]

BTW, Bill Sweetman and the other western specs say that the better place for canards is an enemy planes airframe

Strange given his hard-on for the Gripen all these years.

 

[gadeshi]

Interesting. Are you sure this is from an official source?

Yes, ths info has been stated in the official Russia-1 TV channel report from Burget Airshow.
There is a video with fragment of IRBIS airborn testing where we can see an official params: 400km detection and 275km lock-on range.
An official NIIP website says the same.

However, in that official Burget report we can hear about 80-100km lock-on range. So, we can make a proper considerations.
USSR/Russia has never sold a weapons with the same capabilities as for internal use. It allways was some simplified / degraded versions.
There were two variants of complectation: Variant A for Warsow pact countries and closest allies (including India, yes) and Variant B for the others.
Variant A was almost the same as for Soviet VVS, but had different IFF and a little simpler avionics (not allways).
Variant B was major simplified, including IFF, radar, armament and even different more inferior engine.
The brightest examples are MiG-23M for Soviet VVS, MF (A) for allies and MS (B) - for arabian world.

China became a potential foe for USSR after territorial claims and assaults on Soviet border posts on Damansky peninsular and the other Amur river islands.
Russians will never forget this and despite the lucrative solutions will sell allways simplified variants of any weaponry. And LRAAMs are almost the first candidates to avoid from being contracted.

One would think back and wonder what the Chinese are really expecting from a squadron of BMs. It is different if they are buying 6 to 12 squadrons, but one or two squads, fishy?

You are looking at the core of the things, my friend

Chineese are screwing little copy-pasters. They seek an ability to buy less and copy more having a hope to copy-paste and produce the copies instead of buying quality products. They have almost no their own technologies in electronics, they cannot make their own engines, they cannot make a quality radar software (and any other combat or FBW software as well).

No offence, but indian science and engineering schools are very young and often cannot do the things that US, Russians or Europeans can do.
But what is the right thing in your people - you are honest and fair partners. If you want products - you buy and use them. If you want technologies - you go and seek collaborative partnership for effective mutual lucrative development.

That's why Indians get the best things can be bought on the market and best partnerships ever, but Chinees have done all the things to make world best sellers to avoid deals or sell them simplified stuff.

 

[gadeshi]

I hardly doubt that's true, or else Boeing wouldn't have released concept pictures of their 6th gen fighter with canards.

@p2prada you are argue for canards like a child for his lovely candy
Just accept it. Canards are excessive feature. They encrease subsonic and supersonic drag, largely encrease RCS and empty weight, demand additional hydraulical powers and FCS algorythms. All the modern designers avoid to use it without a strong need.

As for Boeing 6G concept... I would suggest you to review all the concepts for LM and Boeing for 5G and compare them to the final look of F-22/23/35 These concepts are just fancy pictures, no more else.

I think we will see final look of G6 fighter over 15 years to come. Just wait and you will see that it will be completely different from the thing on picture you have posted.

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada you are argue for canards like a child for his lovely candy
Just accept it. Canards are excessive feature. They encrease subsonic and supersonic drag, largely encrease RCS and empty weight, demand additional hydraulical powers and FCS algorythms. All the modern designers avoid to use it without a strong need.

I would agree only if we are talking about the Flanker. But I wouldn't put it at the same level as what was required from other designs, like the Eurocanards. If you look at sustained turn rate specs for the Eurocanards, they exceed MKI. I don't know if they match or exceed Su-35, but definitely MKI.

But I agree with the rest about effects on drag and RCS.

In the end it is a design solution. If the Europeans think they can match Flanker specs without canards and exceed it with canards, then it makes sense to go for it since their engine tech is first class and the aircraft they have built are of the light and medium class, for which the engines deliver enough power. Regardless of the extra drag and RCS, the Eurocanards have better performance specs than most other birds while maintaining negative dB RCS values.

Meaning Rafale and EF are like MKI with the 117S engines. Huge difference there.

As for Boeing 6G concept... I would suggest you to review all the concepts for LM and Boeing for 5G and compare them to the final look of F-22/23/35 These concepts are just fancy pictures, no more else.

I think we will see final look of G6 fighter over 15 years to come. Just wait and you will see that it will be completely different from the thing on picture you have posted.

Of course, it is too early to tell. Just pointing out that even an experienced company like Boeing sees canards as a design option and isn't just an "amateur" option.

 

[p2prada]

Chineese are screwing little copy-pasters. They seek an ability to buy less and copy more having a hope to copy-paste and produce the copies instead of buying quality products.

Chinese members on this forum and I had discussed regarding the use of just 24 Su-35s. In the end it came down to engines. I claimed that Su-35 could potentially be used for adding capability to a toothless PLAAF until J-20 is ready the next decade. So the numbers may increase later on. Even India started with 50 MKIs and moved up to 140 in the initial stages. This opinion stemmed from the fact that the 117S engine was offered to China, hence there is little or no need to copy paste the engine design through a Su-35 purchase.

However one member was of the opinion that a Su-35 purchase is necessary in order to purchase the 117S engines. He also mentioned that the J-20 is currently running on Russian AL-31 and will progressively move to 117S before their own engine is ready. So a 24 aircraft order may eventually be followed up by more orders for 117S engines for J-20 and/or any other 5th gen project that may be in the works.

They have almost no their own technologies in electronics, they cannot make their own engines, they cannot make a quality radar software (and any other combat or FBW software as well).

When it comes to radar, the Chinese claim the opposite. I think they have developed AESAs for the J-10B and J-16. I don't know how good the software is, but I doubt they will be getting any from Russia. As for FBW, I have no idea where they stand.

No offence, but indian science and engineering schools are very young and often cannot do the things that US, Russians or Europeans can do.

No offence taken. I have the same opinion.

It is better for us to go the JV route like Brahmos and FGFA. Far more efficient compared to stealing.

 

[gadeshi]

Chinese will not get any 5-th gen fighters for at least 30 years to come.

The reasons are simple:
1 - They have no engines for them. They even don't understand how to develop them. Modern engine is not a rocket science. It is quantum mechanics Engines require some exotic and very sensitive technologies and sciences which are not trivial and are capt behind the 7 locks by any engine developer.
They are:
- Gas dynamics and temperature/flow measurment and calculations methodics (they are complete fundamental and usual physical theories in the gas dynamics and solid body physics fields);
- Physics and Chemistry (actual quantum physics) of exotic heat-resistant materials and their alloys. Also the technological lines to produce those materials and make engine details from them. Many of those materials are impossible according to traditional chemistry (like Titanium Alluminide and Rhenium/Ruthenium Titanium alloys).
- Physics, Chemistry and technologies to produce single-crystalled engine parts with complex form and structure (only those materials can resist 1900K and giant pressure / drag after turbin). Chineese try to use usual poly-crystal titanium alloys and fail - their turbin blades melt like childrens plastilin
- Physics, Chemistry and technologies to produce heat-resistant ceramic coatings for engine parts and technologies to make them stick to those parts. Nowadays target for Russian and American techs is full-ceramic turbin blades and combustion chamber armored with monocrystallic bi-metal strings (just like iron-armored concrete).

China has launched a tremendous national program for engine development 2 months ago. The main goal for this program is to learn to design and produce existing (4++) engines in 30 years to come (to Year 2035)

2 - They have no radars and NO AESA
- AESA radars require to produce integrative monolithic UHF schemes based on vertical-integrated nano-sized structures of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) or the other similar entities. This tech requires to be able to produce nano-sized rare-exotic elements mono-crystallic constructions and then cover them with specially oriented covers made of the exotic metals and alloys. Those covers are connected to each other in specific way or through electrical channels in the core construct. Those covers are 2-3 atoms thick
This is real quantum mechanics to calculate and design (and then produce) those chips. They are completely different than usual computer chips. GP computer technologies will not help here.

- AESA radars require you to know radio-physics and electro-dynamics to calculate and design an antennae. This is hell-of a complex work. You will keep in mind electro-magnetic compliance of the 1500+ closely packed TRMs, their cooling, shielding, sidelobes reducing and optimizations and many other things Chineese cannot do because you cannot learn about it just disassembling the foreign radar.

- AESA radars require state-of-the-art software to control electronic scanning, generate and process PNS (pseudo-noise signals) sequences, select the targets through jamming, amplify it and so on. You cannot develop such a software without complete understanding of your hardware on fundamental physical level.
BTW, chinese developers are dumb bug-producers. They can good work using open well-documented SDKs, but cannod do a step on their own.
Copy-paste an iPhone (just assemble it from existing parts like original one) and airborn radar are completely different jobs.

We all have seen Chineese photos of J-10B with the thing claimed to be AESA radar. However, there were no evedence that that rig was any in the flight. It much resembles a full-sized mockup. Its antennae has Dm-wave IFF fairings on the main canvas, which is hell-of-uneffective and were removed by all the radar producers and reinstalled to the oher places (remember PAK FA L-band AESA in the wing edges which are IFF antennaes).

We also have seen a poor photo of Chinese made TRM. However, we don't know what is this for. Is it for fighter radar, or for another one (there is a big difference) and is it a mass-produced one or just a prototype? What is its quality? Questions only.

BTW, only 2 countries in the world can efficiently produce their own TRMs. It is USA and Russia.
The point is that Americans have calculated that you have a reason to produce your own TRM only when their price is lower than $100 in 1000-pieces parties. According to Yuriy Beliy (chief designer and director of NIIP), Americans (Texas Instruments) make them at a price of $85 a piece and Russians (Istok JSC) produces them for $70 a piece due to low defect rates.
Europeans and Israeli has tried to produce their own TRMs but they have them at a price $1000 a piece They treat recent price shortage to $750 a piece as a great victory So, all the worlds radar manufacturers use American (TI) imported TRMs including Thales (RBe-2), Selex (Galileo) and Elta. Only Russians use their own. Chinese have no their own electronic industry. All they have are foreighn-owned factories to produce GP processors using foreign technologies. It is almost only in Shengeng Free Economy Zone. No vertical-integrated nano-structures even close. What AESA are they talking about???

3 - They have no reliable technologies to design and produce valid composite materials. If you will look at J-20 you will see that it is completely made from aluminium and covered with "stealth-looking" coating resembling automotive 3D-Carbon film covers

4 - They cannot design and calculate a valid airframe - they can only compile popular stealth-looking design patterns in hope that this will work someway.
It resembles a cargo-cult Their science and engineering school is too young to make 5 gen for now. They even cannot make 4 gen without foreign assistance.
The bright example is J-15. They had purchased T-10-3 (Su-33 early prototype) from Ukraine and copy-pasted it bolt-to-bolt. They have not even seen and eliminated its childrens illnesses which were eliminated on serial-built Su-33.

If I will count what Chinese lack to build true 5-gen, it will take dosen of pages, so if you are interested, we can discuss it later.

 

[gadeshi]

 

[Austin]

Interview with Sergei Bogdan

"Боевая авиация в порядке, дело за гражданской" / АвиаПорт.Дайджест

The main advantages of the Su-35 can not be demonstrated at the air show, for obvious reasons, because its main advantages - it's combat effectiveness. And here it is possible to give specific figures: combat effectiveness by 40 percent, he is superior to all other aircraft of the 4th generation, and the number of parameters is able to surpass 10 percent of the planes of the 5th generation.

 

[gadeshi]

This is what I'm talking about engines (sorry, it is in Russian):

 

[gadeshi]

 

[p2prada]

Chinese will not get any 5-th gen fighters for at least 30 years to come.

If you are interested,, I would like to call @shiphone @J20! and @iceburg to the debate. They might be able to prove you wrong in some aspects. I say this because a lot of current Chinese developments are lost due to the language barrier.

We all have seen Chineese photos of J-10B with the thing claimed to be AESA radar. However, there were no evedence that that rig was any in the flight. It much resembles a full-sized mockup. Its antennae has Dm-wave IFF fairings on the main canvas, which is hell-of-uneffective and were removed by all the radar producers and reinstalled to the oher places (remember PAK FA L-band AESA in the wing edges which are IFF antennaes).

It is officially confirmed that it was a PESA and lost the contract to equip the J-10B. It seems a rival AESA radar was chosen.

Europeans and Israeli has tried to produce their own TRMs but they have them at a price $1000 a piece They treat recent price shortage to $750 a piece as a great victory So, all the worlds radar manufacturers use American (TI) imported TRMs including Thales (RBe-2), Selex (Galileo) and Elta. Only Russians use their own.

Are you saying that the French radar carries American T/R modules. Last I heard, it was only for prototypes and operational ones are made by the French without an American ITAR. It is of interest to IAF that the French modules are ITAR free.

Thales's RBE2 AESA radar successfully completes new series of tests

At the end of 2006, Thales completed its first active phased array, comprising some 1,000 gallium-arsenide T/R modules manufactured by European firm United Monolithic Semiconductors (UMS).

If I will count what Chinese lack to build true 5-gen, it will take dosen of pages, so if you are interested, we can discuss it later.

Of course, whenever you have time, let's see how it goes.


@Yusuf @LurkerBaba

In case this thread starts into a debate, it would be nice if you can create a new thread with gadeshi's post 535 as the OP.