Su-35S: News

GarryB wrote:In which case they would not drop them which means a higher drag penalty.

I think they can be dropped can't they? In any case the use and discarding of EFTs is wasteful and forces the planes relying on them to dedicate their most capable suspension points to fuel rather than payload, effectively turning very nice looking payload capabilities in way less stellar figures in actual missions. With Flankers 8 t payload is the actual amount of weapons they can carry in real missions and that makes a big difference.

Isos wrote:You can found the consumption of the engines on the web and calculate it depending what fuel tank you take

But fuel isn't the only issue. I read somewhere that Rafale is more limited by the oil for its system during long flight than fuel.

You can't just refuel a plane and fly it 24/7. At one moment you will have other issues that will oblige you to land.

And like in cars no oil can destroy the engine.

P.S: my 4000km number seems to high. Like LMFS wrote its more 3600.

Calculating real consumption rates is difficult because you need aerodynamic values of the plane, propulsion parameters depending on altitude and speed and top top of it, those values are variable depending on weight (TO value and fuel consumption), even if the drag profile due to jettisoning EFT or weapons is not considered, but I agree there are other issues, only Tsavo thinks planes can fly eternally by being refuelled. The range figure is official, I took it from KnAAZ's Su-35 booklet.

I think they can be dropped can't they?

Yes, of course, but normally in peace time they don't drop them because of the danger to people on the ground and of course the cost of recovering them and reshaping them and refurbishing them for reuse is high, so normally in peace time they don't drop them.

Su-25s often land with external fuel tanks attached.

In any case the use and discarding of EFTs is wasteful and forces the planes relying on them to dedicate their most capable suspension points to fuel rather than payload, effectively turning very nice looking payload capabilities in way less stellar figures in actual missions. With Flankers 8 t payload is the actual amount of weapons they can carry in real missions and that makes a big difference.

I would say the only time a Flanker would carry external fuel tanks is for ferrying... flying from one airfield to another in a transfer and they would not drop their tanks.

For an operational mission they would more likely not waste a weapon pylon and would more likely use inflight refuelling to get the extra range or endurance.

BTW nice photo... does anyone know what that thing in on the centreline rear weapon pylon between the two engines?

The wingtips have jammer pods, and then R-73 AAMs and then R-77 AAMs and the Kh-35 anti ship/land attack missile, then on the engine naccelle it looks like KAB-250LG bombs... the front wings are not the right shape to be Kh-38s...

owais.usmani wrote:

Great pic. Can someone identify the unknown to me weapons? I see wingtip jamming pods, R-73/74. R-77-1 or AD? the newer longer range which I barely identified with the tapered end and I have no idea what the red ones are? And are they red because they're inert used for testing?

See my post above... last paragraph.

Red weapons are loose shape only models of the weapon for aerodynamic testing... they are likely weighted, but do not have rocket or jet motors nor have operational electronics or seekers fitted.

The Kh-35s seem to have black and white markers on them used in camera footage of them to allow estimates of size and direction can be made.

With a correctly weighted model you could use such a weapon for testing airflow and release conditions to see if it falls clear when released, or if it flys up or sideways into other ordinance on release.

It is turbojet powered so it is normally dropped and then its engine is started and its wings deploy.

It looks like the new model Kh-35U.

owais.usmani wrote:

In reality why would you have such a loadout?

Both A2G and anti-ship missiles?

Observe how he does not talk about the Su-57, which does not indulge in the same kind of predictable layout and could hardly be considered inferior in the aero department to the Su-35, actually the feedback of the pilots is the opposite. There are some aspects of the stealth design that are indeed good for aero, like internal bays or the fuselage chines, which can create lift at positive AoA. Another aspect is the supercruising requirements, present in the 5G but much less in the Flanker. But of course LO design is an additional restriction in the already very restrictive field of aircraft design, so of course he has a point IMHO.

LMFS wrote:Observe how he does not talk about the Su-57, which does not indulge in the same kind of predictable layout and could hardly be considered inferior in the aero department to the Su-35, actually the feedback of the pilots is the opposite. There are some aspects of the stealth design that are indeed good for aero, like internal bays or the fuselage chines, which can create lift at positive AoA. Another aspect is the supercruising requirements, present in the 5G but much less in the Flanker. But of course LO design is an additional restriction in the already very restrictive field of aircraft design, so of course he has a point IMHO.

There's not much indication that the Su-57 sacrifices any aspect of its aerodynamics for stealth unlike just about every other stealth design out there. On the contrary, it could very well be the opposite - the Su-57 could be even better than the supposedly second-to-none in the aerodynamics department Su-35. Its simple really - the Russians know something the rest of the world doesn't. Ufimstev couldn't have only worked on PTD, in all likelihood he and his collaborators would have worked on many other related developments which have never made it out of the Soviet Union. This difference in theoretical background knowledge would have substantial implications most prominent of which is a more harmonious melding of stealth and aerodynamics of Russian designs (as well as the high stakes gamble that the Russians have placed on echeloned, netted AD against trillions of dollars worth of stealth).

The midwing strakes looked too long to me to be Kh-38, plus the fact that the Kh-38 has nose mounted fins on the actual missile, I would expect the red coloured dummy would have those nose mounted strakes there too.:




(centre missile from Vitalys excellent site.)


The KAB-250LG has more complex tail surfaces but being a simplified red dummy model they might not go to the effort of accurately modelling that, but the mid body strakes look a better match to the weapon on the aircraft.



Also from Vitalys excellent site...)
Of course I might also be wrong.

Southern regiment

The latest Su-35S will equip the squadron of the 31st Fighter Aviation Regiment in Millerovo, Rostov Region, sources in the defense department told Izvestia. Pilot training for them has already begun. Previously, there were no aircraft of this type in the Southern Military District (YuVO). Now the air regiment is armed with Su-30SM fighters.



https://x2mwth3k7475ygasenjtev34ea-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-iz-ru.translate.goog/1158724/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/aviapolku-pribylo-iug-rossii-i-kavkaz-ukrepiat-istrebiteliami-su-35

lyle6 wrote:There's not much indication that the Su-57 sacrifices any aspect of its aerodynamics for stealth unlike just about every other stealth design out there. On the contrary, it could very well be the opposite - the Su-57 could be even better than the supposedly second-to-none in the aerodynamics department Su-35. Its simple really - the Russians know something the rest of the world doesn't. Ufimstev couldn't have only worked on PTD, in all likelihood he and his collaborators would have worked on many other related developments which have never made it out of the Soviet Union. This difference in theoretical background knowledge would have substantial implications most prominent of which is a more harmonious melding of stealth and aerodynamics of Russian designs (as well as the high stakes gamble that the Russians have placed on echeloned, netted AD against trillions of dollars worth of stealth).

It indeed seems superior. Way bigger lifting surface with smaller linear dimensions, more efficient lift augmentation with LEVCONS + LERX vs big LERX only in the Su-35, no external weapons needed, supercruising design, faster acceleration, superior trimming possibilities, STOL operation. It indeed seems to be a way more efficient design, more flexible and with substantially less drag

Backman wrote:Yeah he probably excluded the su 57 and the YF-23 in the opening lineup because they are true blend wings. I suspect an episode about blend wings will be coming.

Well to be fair all those planes have substantial contributions of the body to lift. But with their boxy layouts they don't get the best use of the space for weapon bays, and in terms of surface controls they are very average, only the J-20 is at least different, not saying it is better. As discussed before, the PAK-FA is a way less predictable, higher risk design that not every country is willing or ready to tackle.

IMHO the wing fins are too short.

You might be right but I don't think it is obvious.

The fins on the Kh-38 are more like the fins on the Kh-35 which are folded on the wing but when extended they look like the fins of the Kh-38 because both are intended to be carried internally, but length wise there is a clear difference with the two different missiles on this aircraft.

It is not a huge big deal, the Su-35 is pretty much cleared to carry any new weapons they might develop...

The su-35, being the most aerodynamically efficient  4++
gen  jet, is certain to be able to supercruise if the eurocanards, with primitive 3rd gen tier aerodynamics and crappy drag inducing canards can supercruise  too, and by supercruise  I mean achieving Mach 1.2-1.3 without afterburner, with some missile load and in level  flight.

Any claims to the contrary can be considered to be part of western propaganda(which main focal point is that russians are too "primitive" to figure out supercruise)

LMFS wrote:

BTW, just for those who might not know but those are clearly a pair of Egyptian EAF Su-35S testing or pilot training pre-delivery as evidenced by the camo color & pattern.

What is the monster missile on the left?

KAB-1500Kr... a 1.5 ton bomb (3,000lbs) with TV guidance... comes in two versions... Pr and OD...

KAB-1500Kr-Pr is the penetrator model and KAB-1500KR-OD is the thermobaric version.

To big for lighter fighters it is carried by Su-24s and Su-27/30/35 and also Su-34s and I would expect Tu-22M3M too.

That looks like an air dropped bomb with some kind of guidance kit.

The Russians don't really do guidance kits... their guided bombs and rockets are generally custom made to a point.

I know I'm a little late on this aspect here, but maybe some of you can help me out without going out of your way too much.  Maybe @LMFS or @Gary or anyone else whom I would consider very knowledgeable about this could tell me how effective is the wing-leading edge L-band ASEA on the Su-35S.  

Is it an 8-brick AESA radar?  Does it have its own cooling system since I would think that is a very important aspect for it since all the friction on the leading edge flaps and wings would greatly affect it, especially if Egypt has ordered 30 fighters and the heat in Egypt is unimaginable in mid-summer.

In that case, is it limited to higher altitudes where the air is less denser and cooler creating more optimal uses? Is it limited to certain lower speeds because of cooling?  Or is it capable of being used at any time and altitude?

How affective is the range?  I'm hearing numbers like 200km and others at 100 to 150?
Any other great advantages it has that really gives the Su-35 a worthy advantage that I might've missed?

Any other information on that would be greatly appreciated.  Thx, gentlemen.