Su-35S: News

http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/su-35/1st_ser_su-35_trials.wbp

Su-35 pictures from KNAAPO.

Thanks for the link Medo... I notice there is a link there to download all the pics as a zip file... very handy.

There are interesting new sensors in front of cockpit, behind cockpit end under cockpit. Maybe something like DAS in F-35 or Spectra in Rafale?

It is quite hard to tell... can clearly see the inflight refuelling probe retracted of course.

Would prefer better angles and higher resolution shots before I speculated there was a DAS like system.

After the Mig-35 was revealed to have such a system I think Sukhoi probably decided straight away that the Su-35 needed one too.

Hostile radar range cut on Su-35s

Russian stealth researchers have developed materials and techniques that can reduce the head-on radar cross-section (RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter by an order of magnitude, halving the range at which hostile radars can detect it. The research group - working with Sukhoi, but based at the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow - has performed more than 100 hours of testing on a reduced-RCS Su-35 and has also experimented with the use of plasmas - ionized gases - to reduce RCS.

US and European aircraft manufacturers have used specially developed materials to reduce the RCS of basically non-stealthy aircraft for many years. Notable examples include the Have Glass and Have Glass II modifications to the F-16. However, Russian work in this area was undisclosed until ITAE researchers presented a paper to a conference on stealth in London in late October 2003, which was organized by the International Quality and Productivity Centre.

According to the ITAE presentation, Russian researchers have developed mathematical tools that can calculate scattering from complex configurations, such as an Su-35 carrying a full external missile load, by breaking them down into small facets and adding the effects of edge waves and surface currents. The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.

"A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200ºC. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets


The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22 m3 vacuum chamber.

ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.

ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards and treating or shrouding other components. One of these is to design a radome that can be switched from RF-transparent to RF-reflective. The interior of the radome would be coated with a cadmium sulphide or cadmium selenide thin-film semiconductor material which changes conductivity when illuminated with visible or ultra-violet light.

However, the problem of making such a film has not been solved.

A second technique that is also described in Western literature is to place a frequency selective surface screen in front of the antenna. This is a foil-like metal screen etched with small apertures which allow RF energy to pass within a narrow waveband, corresponding to the radar's own operating frequency. This reduces RCS, according to ITAE, but at the expense of radar performance.

However, ITAE has flight-tested a more exotic technology: the use of a low-temperature plasma screen in front of the radar antenna. The screen hardware is mounted in front of the antenna and is transparent to the radar when switched off.

When activated, the screen absorbs some incoming radar energy and reflects the rest in safe directions over all RF bands lower than the frequency of the plasma cloud. It switches on and off in tens of microseconds, according to ITAE.

In principle, this is the same as the 'plasma stealth system that was reportedly developed by the Keldysh Scientific Research Center (also part of the Academy) in 1999.

At the time, it was claimed that the system, using a 100kg generator, could reduce the RCS of any aircraft by two orders of magnitude, or 20dB. ITAE has not attempted to develop a whole-aircraft system, but researchers expressed the view that it would be difficult to apply except to a high-altitude, low-airspeed aircraft because the airstream would dissipate the plasma faster than it could be generated.

The ITAE paper also gave some indications of the direction of stealth technology for future aircraft. Test facilities include large compact indoor RCS ranges for large-scale models and outdoor ground-level ranges with short pylons that can be used to test full-size aircraft (rather than the models used for US pylon tests).

In future designs, one emphasis is on large, complex skin panels, reducing the number of gaps and mechanical fasteners in the skin.

Source: INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JANUARY 01, 2004

First more clear picture of OEIS on serial Su-35. It is something similar to DAS in F-35. Anyway, Su-35 will be very effective fighter plane.

nice photo,
i think DAS is little bigger ?

su-35 can face anything in the west except Raptor..

Unless they start making more F-22s I suspect F-22s will not be for export ever... which should mean we will never find out how an F-22 goes against a Su-35.

The problem is getting real data, but your models clearly show that no one RCS figure can be used to represent an object as complicated as an aircraft let alone a missile.

Su-35BM has some serious problems... not only is the defence suite not up to par, but now the engines are burning out as was on PAK FA. Remember the second Su-35BM prototype crashed because of engine troubles. 117S needs a serious recheck.

It is pretty unlikely for two engines to fail at once, and the PAK FAs engine didn't fail, it flamed out. If it had happened in flight then there are procedures to restart the engine that if followed would probably have worked so it is very unlikely to "cost a plane".

Having said that they do need to get to the bottom of the problem, whether it is with the fuel management system or something else.

Often such problems only reveal themselves with normal and not so normal use.

BTW the complaints about the Su-35 seemed to centre around the fact that the self defence suite was not as good as the equivelent US suite fitted to US aircraft.
It wasn't even stated that the suite was bad or didn't work.

It said delays in Su-35 programme due to inability to develop sufficient defensive aids. The engine flare out was caused by failure of FADEC fuel flow control.

Lets not over react... the plane aborted a takeoff as a safety precaution... in a combat mission he probably would have taken off anyway (using a bit more runway) and restarted the stalled engine in the air an performed and interception.
The engines and control systems are prototypes and still well in the development phase so it is perfectly normal for there to be problems surfacing.

The relatively sedate flight routine and the fact that they didn't use the thrust vectoring at all suggests they were playing it safe.

Regarding the incident itself it actually reminded me of the F-111s party trick of dumping fuel our of the fuel dumping valve and then lighting up the AB to ignite the fuel and make a pretty, long, orange flame. In this case however the extra fuel seems to have been dumped into the engine rather than a fuel dump valve.

It would be interested to see how will situation unfold given Su-35 will soon get its angry rival in a form of Super 30 being codeveloped with India.

By my opinion Super 30 is what Su-35 needed to be. Stealth/AESA/stronger engines and with its export variant Su-35.

Now you have situation where Su-35 does not have buyers and ran in some development problems with Russia buying more and more of Su-30 variants and at the same time its export rival with more desirable toys (inner compartment for missiles, more stealth gadgets and holy grail of aviation AESA radar) ....

Im not sure how will it impact Su-35 sales but my opinion is that with those gadgets functional Super 30 would be much easier to advertise and sale.

You don't seem to know much about the Su-35 which for a start has a redesigned airframe. The potential upgrades on the Su-30 would be as a result of the Su-35 not the other way around.

The Russian military are buying "Su-30MKI like" Su-30s because they are fully developed and mature and ready for production not because they are better.

Once the Su-35 is ready for full rate production the only reason to buy more Su-30s is for gap fillers because they are cheaper despite being less capable.

There are plenty of countries wanting Su-35s... the reason they are not getting them right now is the same reason the same countries are not getting S-400s... they aren't quite ready yet, and when they are the Russian AF has first dibs.

Until Russia is mass producing AESAs and the technology matures there is little advantage to adding AESAs to a "numbers aircraft", PESAs have many of the same benefits and few of the same drawbacks of AESAs, and considering the planes are gap fillers till the PAK FA gets into full production and gradually starts replacing Flankers in service there is no great rush.

Lets put it in perspective... the vast majority of Flankers in Russian service right now are 1980s standard Su-27s that don't even have PESAs, they have old Cassegrain radar antennas.
And just having a PESA has never been seen as a problem for the Mig-31s in service...

The press service of Sukhoi has released a report on the Su-35S in which it says the aircraft has met and in some cases exceeded the designers specifications. They are confident it will be superior in many aspects to all other gen 4 and 4+ fighters (Rafale, EF-2000, upgraded F-15's and so on) and that it will be able to hold it's ground and counter the F-22 and F-35.

The 2 prototypes and Su-35S-1 started state integration tests at the 929th Flight Tests Centre on 15th of August 2011.

Source:

Su-35 superior to the assigned specification - Sukhoi
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20110919/439878811.html

Excellent...

http://vz.ru/news/2011/12/2/543387.html

The second serial Su-35S take off in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. I hope there will soon be photos of it.

Keep an eye here:

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/news/index.wbp

They will likely release photos first...

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircrafts/combat/su-35/2nd_ser_su-35.wbp

Photos of the first flight of the second serial Su-35. It seems it have modified tail stinger comparing to the first one with additional sensors.

Russia’s 3rd Su-35S fighter starts test flights

Russia's Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer started test flights of its third series-produced Su-35S Flanker-E multirole fighter on Tuesday, the company said.

The aircraft took off from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur airfield in Russia's Far East, spending more than two hours in the air testing propulsion and control systems.

The Su-35 Flanker-E superiority fighter is powered by two 117S engines with thrust vectoring. It can effectively engage several air targets simultaneously using both guided and unguided missiles and weapon systems.

The aircraft has been touted as "4++ generation using fifth-generation technology."

After the tests are completed, the Su-35 will be transferred to the Russian Defense Ministry.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120117/170806054.html

KRATOS1133, I was reading on another forum that Algeria had found some components in its Su-30MKIs that were made in Israel and that there was (amateur) speculation that they will get rid of them and black list Sukhoi because of it.

Have you come across anything like that?

It was a site where pro west fanbois are strong.

Of course there was a Su-30 with no Israeli or French equipment... it was the Su-30MKK... and now there is the Su-35 (see I am on topic)...

Would there be a chance that Algeria will go for Su-35s in the future?


Obviously right now Sukhoi will be scrambling to get them into Russian AF service, and I would suspect the new Space and Air Defence Forces will want to upgrade their interceptors too... a combination of upgraded Mig-31BMs, Su-30Ms, and perhaps Su-35s.