SAP 2018-2027 - Arms Procurement

T-90As, Su-30SMs, Grigorovich class, Buyan/Buyan-M class, Karakurt class, Mi-8M variants, Iskander-Ms, Buk-M1-2s/M2s/M3s, Mi-28Ns, Su-34s, BTR-82As, BMP-3s, BMD-4Ms/BTR-MDMs, Pantsir-S1s, GAZ Tigrs, Bastion-Ps, Yak-130s, Su-35Ss, Improved Kilos

T-90 : from the 90s. They plan more upgraded t-72 and t-80. They also have t-14 which won't replace any of them even if they expressed a need of 2300 t-14.

Su-30SM: less capable su-35. Bought them because india ordered hundreds of MKI version so that producing is cheaper. They had nothing better at the time and its full of western tech.

Grigorovitch : Bought them because india ordered them too so they learned how to produce them fast. They have better and not so more expensive Gorshkov in the catalogue but still buy less capable grigorovitch because they can't produce gorshkovs fast enough.

Buyan: simple missile boat. Nothing extraordinary to produce. They can't even use antiship missiles by themselves ...

Karakurt: new but still a simple missile boat of less than 1000t with a vls and a pantsir.

Mi-8M: improved version of soviet Mi-8. But it does the work so no need to replace them actually.

Iskander: soviet design. They only produce them. Still nothing new apart some new missile based on Kalibr family.  

Buk: improved soviet system.

Mi-28Ns, Su-34s, BTR-82As, BMP-3s, BMD-4Ms/BTR-MDMs : soviet systems.


Pantsir-S1: say thanks to the arabs. Without their money they would have a Tunguska- M instead.


GAZ Tigrs: they copied western analogues. And it's just an armoured car.

Improved kilo : improved soviet system. They also have new russian design like Amour family but still buy the soviet design.

Su-35Ss: improved su-27. Based on soviet work. Full of russian components but still buy su-30 with western components.

Isos wrote:T-90 : from the 90s. They plan more upgraded t-72 and t-80. They also have t-14 which won't replace any of them even if they expressed a need of 2300 t-14.

They bought a lot of them in the last 15 years too. They stopped procuring them when the T-14 came onto the scene - but the T-14 is not ready yet; it went through factory trials, then battallion service. Now it's getting ready for divisional/brigade service and more kinks are going to be worked out, and doctrinal use on it written, officers and crews will train with it, logistical demands will be analyzed. These things take time, and its production rate won't be fast either. Hence the stop-gap of modernizing older tanks.

Su-30SM: less capable su-35. Bought them because india ordered hundreds of MKI version so that producing is cheaper. They had nothing better at the time.and its dull of western tech.

As you mentioned it comes from the Su-30MKI, which itself was ultimately derived from the Su-30 - a twin-seat long-range interceptor that the Soviets developed on the basis of the Su-27.
So you can tell that this whole family diverged way back when from the baseline Su-27, which was ultimately developed into the Su-35S - and these two platforms fulfill different roles.

Grigorovitch : Bought them because india ordered them too so they learned how to produce them fast. They have better and not so more expensive Gorshkov in the catalogue but still buy less capable grigorovitch.

Sure, economies of scale are always a big advantage - but as for the Gorshkov they simply had too many kinks to work out, and still do - so what should they have done?
The Grigorovich is a proven reliable platform, and your arguments here are rather besides the point. It's still new hardware, that has been procured in numbers - and not just some upgrade to existing ships.

Buyan: simple missile boat. Nothing extraordinary to produce. They can't even use antiship missiles by themselves ...

Again that's besides the point. It's still a new vessel, and one that was needed. And even a missile corvette is still more complicated and expensive than even the most glitzy and advanced armoured vehicle.
Considering that they have their own radars and fire control systems - I would honestly be surprised if they can't use Kalibrs or Onixes by themselves. Whether at maximum range is of course a different question.

Mi-8M: improved version of soviet Mi-8. But it does the work so no need to replace them actually.

Again, it's not an upgrade, but newly produced equipment, straight from the factory.

Iskander: soviet design. They only produce them. Still nothing new apart some new missile based on Kalibr family.  

Buk: improved soviet system.

Mi-28Ns, Su-34s, BTR-82As, BMP-3s, BMD-4Ms/BTR-MDMs : soviet systems.

What are we arguing about? That Russia hasn't produced and procured any items of military hardware in numbers over the past 15 years, or that it hasn't procured any all-new post-Soviet designs in numbers over the past 15 years? The 2nd premise is still false, but I thought we were arguing the 1st one.

And the current iterations of all of these were definately not developed in the Soviet era besides.

Pantsir-S1: say thanks to the arabs. Without their money they would have a Tunguska- M instead.

Thank you Arabs.

Yet the point still stands that Pantsir-S1s have been procured in numbers

GAZ Tigrs: they copied western analogues. And it's just an armoured car.

It's a modular light vehicle family that is being employed for light armoured personal transport, anti-tank roles, command & control, NBC reconnaisance, MRAP roles and air-defence.
I'd say that's significant, as are its numbers in the Russian Army.

Improved kilo : improved soviet system. They also have new russian design like Amour family but still buy the soviet design.

Amur is AFAIK an export-orientated sub that they offered up. Don't think it went any further
They have the Lada, but they've been re-ordering its layout and working out its problems for the last 10 years. Only now is it basically ready for serial production.

Su-35Ss: improved su-27. Based on soviet work. Full of russian components but still buy su-30 with western components.

Yeah yeah, nice, an improved Soviet system. So is the T-90MS. So is the S-400. So is the same A-100
And what? It's a massive improvement over what they had before, is it not?

Yeah yeah, nice, an improved Soviet system. So is the T-90MS. So is the S-400. So is the same A-100
And what? It's a massive improvement over what they had before, is it not?

If they keep buying older stuff they won't be able to buy newer ones. When they will its gonna be outdated. More t-90 and bmp-3 means less armata plateforms. And once they manage to start full serial priduction of those new ones they will be outdated.


Yasen is for exemple outdated while they bought only one. They had to improve it but still they hace the husky on paper beig designed. So now they will buy more yasen-M and won't have money for new husky. They should stop buying those "fill the gap" systems like t-90, yasen, su-35, grigorovich and put more money on armata, husky and su57.

Isos wrote:Yasen is for exemple outdated while they bought only one. They had to improve it but still they hace the husky on paper beig designed. So now they will buy more yasen-M and won't have money for new husky. They should stop buying those "fill the gap" systems like t-90, yasen, su-35, grigorovich and put more money on armata, husky and su57.

No, that's actually the problem. In the Russian Navy at any rate; that's where you can see the end results of such a policy. The Army, Air Force and Strategic Missile Forces avoided it.

They should buy more of what they have available to buy now, rather than waiting for the next pie-in-the-sky piece of tech and then spending another 10 years with tinkering it further and adding on more on more stuff; and eventually having to modernize it again because it has taken too long to get into production

Actually one does not preclude the other; but there has to be a balance though.

That's why the latest news about the procurement of more Yasen-Ms, Ivan Grens and the Ladas as they are now (minus AIP) - is very much good news for the Russian Navy.
T-90s, Yasens, Su-35s & Grigoroviches are not really stop-gaps. They are top-of-the-line in terms of what Russia can procure right now at this very minute and employ in their formations with no delay.
They should stop procuring them only when its clear that their replacements are tested and ready, or close to it. No-one's saying that they have to be procured in large numbers though, if there is a replacement in the works. That's how they can control costs and ensure enough funds for next-gen systems.

And like any military they have to be ready now, not in 5 years time. Hence the stop-gaps - by which I mean the upgrades and modernizations. Those are also good things. Serial production of the T-14 is now on the horizon so they've stopped buying T-90s. However they haven't stopped upgrading the older T-90s, nor the T-80s and T-72s. If they do stop upgrading them then their capabilities will start to fall until they get the T-14 in in numbers - which is an unacceptable situation. The goal of the Russian military is to continue rising in power.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Isos wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:I think they'll order more A-100s, as its a more capable & user friendly system. Upgrading more to much inferior A-50U may not be worth it, otherwise why invest in the A-100? So, time will tell!

They have invested in su-57 and mig-35 too and orders are very low no matter what poeple here will say about "plans". But not just that. They order older planes with modernizations to do what su-57 is design to do. With armata its the same issue for the army.

Money is what limits Russian army. They are not soviet union anymore to replace lot of hardwares by brand new ones in couple of years.

A-50 will stay for another decade for sure.

You once again show excessive lack of knowledge.

Su-57 isn't ready yet.  Type 30 engines are not finished.  And there is constant works on Armata - working on new active protection system, adjustments for cannon, etc.

If you keep up with this, you will understand that Russia cannot really wait for these as it will take some few more time.  While a huge portion of the airforce is obselete.

But why do I bother wasting my time explaining this?  It is rather basic info.

15 years that they develop new things but still didn't buy anything new in bug numbers but upgrade lot of old hardware. S-400 being an exeption.

Take a look at history and you will maybe understand (but I doubt it).

Sukhoi T-10 series took a long time till they started to come out. Su-34 took over a decade even if the design isn't new. That is how Russia operates. Even China isn't going balls to the walls in heavy orders of unproven designs.

Especially since Engine isn't completed. Oh boy, lets just order hundreds of over priced Su-35's since not all components are completed yet....

Sukhoi T-10 series took a long time till they started to come out. Su-34 took over a decade even if the design isn't new. That is how Russia operates. Even China isn't going balls to the walls in heavy orders of unproven designs

10 years like you say. Su-57, no more t-50, has been flying since 2009 so it should enter in service in 2019. Su-35s engine can fit very well inside and be switched gor izd 30 once ready. But they keeps buying su-30 which will make numbers of su-57 ordered lower than expected. Just like t-14 and older tanks.

They should buy more of what they have available to buy now, rather than waiting for the next pie-in-the-sky piece of tech and then spending another 10 years with tinkering it further and adding on more on more stuff; and eventually having to modernize it again because it has taken too long to get into production

Gorshkov is available. Ok for yasen they don't have anything other yet. But husky fmaily is worth waiting and speed up the design since it will unify ssn ssgn and maybe ssbn.

Man you are thick headed.

T-10 took more than 10 years. Plus, early Su-27's were meh.  Gorshkov JUST completed trials of Redut.  Pak Fa flew in 2009. When did N036 and Type 30?

Yeah.

You lack so much knowledge on this yet you think you sound smart asking stupid questions?

If you were in any position of MoD you would have been fired within first year.

"Let's order shell of planes with experimental equipment and weapons in either low rate production or not even production at all and one test unit!" Yeah, no.

You remind me of Vann. I know that is really insulting but you do. I am assuming you think flashy new, untested, unverified and in low rate production without full gear even ready yet, should be ordered en mass.  Why? Do you think perception is key to success? No. We have seen how rushing things is not a good idea. Su-35 prior development has gone on since the 90's. Su-34 was 32 back in the 80's.  Su-30SM is indeed an offshoot of MKI but that too was rushed and caused a lot of headache and deaths for Indian airforce and subsequently enough for Russia. Su-30 was a byproduct of the 80's.  We are all seeing this stuff now. 20 - 30 years later.  Why? Cause they are proven, effective and much needed hardware. Hardware that is common amongst planes in production for a long time. Much like T-72B3 being based off of the T-72B which proved itself effective but given T-90A(S) upgrades).  Gorshkov is a ship that was and is testing state of the art gear all around. It was not working as intended. So what? Order more of the same ship and mass produce something not working?

What you and Vann suggest, would end up costing lives of soldiers.  Maybe you are not a religious man, but would you want the death of people on your hands because you thought "we need this jet en mass even if untested/unverified" and then something goes wrong cause "oops, we didn't test it enough and not everything was ready for full rate production"?

Some have clearly not developed shit in their lives (not talking about anyone but about a general trend so nobody take offence) and think there is some kind of magic wand to get a new product or technology to work flawlessly from the start. Well, it is not like that. Real world is a bitch and will show every single weak spot on a new design through completely crazy constellations of failure modes no one can think of during development. So you need low rate production and long term operation, at best in real world conditions, before you know if the new system is improving things or it is actually a new and expensive burden. Haste is unnecessary while good, consistent work is crucial.

Mi-28Ns, Su-34s, BTR-82As, BMP-3s, BMD-4Ms/BTR-MDMs : soviet systems.

Soviet concepts... the Soviets didn't have the thermal sights to create Mi-28Ns... all they really could make were Mi-28As which were pretty basic daylight fair weather only aircraft...

The first BMP-3s had an electronics and sensor box mounted on top of the main armament because there was not room inside the turret... later models had much much better optics and systems and it was all internal and multifunction and integrated into standard and new sights...

BTR and BMD were based on soviet designs but are radically upgraded from the originals to vastly improve performance in almost all areas... firepower, mobility, protection, sensors, communications systems.

Improved kilo : improved soviet system. They also have new russian design like Amour family but still buy the soviet design.

The Amur class is also known as the Lada class and now that they have the problems sorted out they are going to build a few of those...

GAZ Tigrs: they copied western analogues. And it's just an armoured car.

First of all, they had armoured cars in the 1920s so who copied who in that regard? They had armoured cars and armoured trains at about the same time as the west did...

And a BRDM-2 is also just an armoured car, yet it was never equipped with a 30mm cannon in an unmanned turret AFAIK... and the ATGM equipped BRDM-2 vehicles never had anything as potent as Kornet-EM... so pretty much an all round step up there isn't it?

If they keep buying older stuff they won't be able to buy newer ones. When they will its gonna be outdated. More t-90 and bmp-3 means less armata plateforms. And once they manage to start full serial priduction of those new ones they will be outdated.

If they don't keep the older stuff up to date, which they often do by adapting equipment and systems developed for newer platforms to the older vehicles, then they will have a few new bits of kit together with a majority of incompatible older gear that is a generation inferior.

By upgrading the T-90 with new thermal sights developed for Armata, they increase production of the new sights while getting more operational experience with the new thermals, maintaining and operating... they simplify logistics if they all use the same or similar equipment, and they improve the capabilities of their forces more rapidly.

Without upgrades to optics and communications the Armata tanks will have excellent views of the battlefield, but the T-90s operating with them wont.

Equally retrofitting the T-90 with the same gun able to fire the same ammo means all the tanks can use all the available ammo that has been supplied, which also simplifies things.

Yasen is for exemple outdated while they bought only one. They had to improve it but still they hace the husky on paper beig designed.

When they designed the first Su-27 they found the performance was not what they expected so rather than just blinding putting it into mass production and hope they could fix the problem later with upgrades, they redesigned it and corrected its problems before putting it into production.

They had trouble with the avionics and radar so they produced a lot of airframes that sat and waited for contents to be produced to fill them, so even when they got the design right there were still problems.

The Husky is an SSK, Yasen-M will be built and according to Trump it will be beautiful...

So now they will buy more yasen-M and won't have money for new husky.

They are producing Yasen-M and Lada-M so Husky can wait.... and its design will benefit from the wait as new concepts and technology is further developed and experience is gained on current new systems and designs...

They should stop buying those "fill the gap" systems like t-90, yasen, su-35, grigorovich and put more money on armata, husky and su57.

Su-57, Husky, and Armata are not totally ready for full serial production right now... there is still development work and testing including operational testing to be done... in the mean time the T-90 and Su-35 etc are in production so it is easier to keep on producing them because they actually are top quality products anyway.

You sound like the Germans during WWII... they demanded Tigers and Panthers when they met T-34s and KV-1s, but they stopped production of the panzer IVs to achieve that because they could mass produce the panzer IVs... they made a total of perhaps 6,000 panthers which simple was never enough, and they made less than 1,500 Tiger Is... compared with the number of T-34s, not to mention Shermans produced it was simply never going to work...

If they had kept the Panzer IV in production they might not have made as many Panthers or Tigers, but they would have tanks to fight with...

10 years like you say. Su-57, no more t-50, has been flying since 2009 so it should enter in service in 2019.

10 years to modify the Su-27 into the two seat side by side Su-34... you should add at least 50% for a brand new from the ground roots up stealthy new generation fighter.

The Euro fighter had prototypes in the late 1980s... it might get full multirole capabilities soon...

Su-35s engine can fit very well inside and be switched gor izd 30 once ready. But they keeps buying su-30 which will make numbers of su-57 ordered lower than expected. Just like t-14 and older tanks.

If you view the aircraft as tools... the Su-57 is a jiggsaw cutting tool, that can also drill holes or you can attach a sanding attachment... but it is bloody expensive.

The Su-30 is a hammer drill and is actually simpler and cheaper than the expensive Su-57 so it is often easier and quicker and cheaper to use it.

When you buy that brand new do everything tool you don't just throw out all your old tools... they cost money and still do the job... and some still might actually do a better job than the new expensive tool.

Some have clearly not developed shit in their lives (not talking about anyone but about a general trend so nobody take offence) and think there is some kind of magic wand to get a new product or technology to work flawlessly from the start. Well, it is not like that. Real world is a bitch and will show every single weak spot on a new design through completely crazy constellations of failure modes no one can think of during development. So you need low rate production and long term operation, at best in real world conditions, before you know if the new system is improving things or it is actually a new and expensive burden. Haste is unnecessary while good, consistent work is crucial.

Indeed... testing is for a reason... and thorough testing is more expensive and also very time consuming, but when you don't test properly you find you ships engines overheat in warm water areas.... you find that brilliant idea for launching UAVs without rockets... that bungey cord that is cheap and simple and does a great job... doesn't retain its stretch in minus 30 degree temperatures so you have to find another way of launching your UAVs... (as it was towed and had a nearby motor vehicle they used a compressed gas system instead with an engine powered compressor that could work in any temperature)...

Now clever developers might have foreseen those problems and done something about it at the design stage, but the purpose of testing is to sort out issues before they go into mass production... because once they are in mass production all the production procedures and steps are set... so finding the oxygen system suffocates the pilot might require a new oxygen generating system, or it might require bottled oxygen to be carried which might require a complete redesign of the cockpit area as well as changes to operating procedure as well as structural changes etc etc... which need to be done to a test aircraft and tested... then if it is OK then changes in production need to be made and all the aircraft already made need to have the adjustments made to them... enormously expensive and frustrating because all those new planes you rushed into service are no longer available... so no new planes, no stop gap planes... your grounded until the changes are identified and applied and tested and then implimented on already made aircraft and then return them to service... expensive, time consuming... not to mention embarrassing.

GarryB wrote:Indeed... testing is for a reason... and thorough testing is more expensive and also very time consuming, but when you don't test properly you find you ships engines overheat in warm water areas.... you find that brilliant idea for launching UAVs without rockets... that bungey cord that is cheap and simple and does a great job... doesn't retain its stretch in minus 30 degree temperatures so you have to find another way of launching your UAVs... (as it was towed and had a nearby motor vehicle they used a compressed gas system instead with an engine powered compressor that could work in any temperature)...

Now clever developers might have foreseen those problems and done something about it at the design stage, but the purpose of testing is to sort out issues before they go into mass production... because once they are in mass production all the production procedures and steps are set... so finding the oxygen system suffocates the pilot might require a new oxygen generating system, or it might require bottled oxygen to be carried which might require a complete redesign of the cockpit area as well as changes to operating procedure as well as structural changes etc etc... which need to be done to a test aircraft and tested... then if it is OK then changes in production need to be made and all the aircraft already made need to have the adjustments made to them... enormously expensive and frustrating because all those new planes you rushed into service are no longer available... so no new planes, no stop gap planes... your grounded until the changes are identified and applied and tested and then implimented on already made aircraft and then return them to service... expensive, time consuming... not to mention embarrassing.

Exactly, it is normally said that you multiply the cost of correcting one development failure each step further you let it progress. So from  drawing board to prototype there is already a big cost increase, and so on further until you get to retrofit in field of serially produced and deployed units. We get used to US way of managing programs so we may get to think this is the way it is to be done, but it is not, unless you have a hunger for losing money. For instance, the typical suspect the F-35. It was rushed into service / low rate production with high unit costs and a truckload of deficiencies under the excuse that it would be more expensive to update or produce the 4th gen planes it was going to replace and besides it would result in lesser capability. By doing that they put all their eggs in the F-35 basket instead of hedging against potential developmental problems and delays, which in complex programs ALWAYS materialize. Now the F-35 production rate and needs of USAF do not match and they apparently plan to order up to 200 F-15X to fill the gaps, which is essentially adopting the Russian approach they so stupidly mocked... after having wasted billions through the concurrency costs. Russia instead have the Su-35 and 30, which are perfectly capable for the AD role that is central to Russian doctrine, while Su-57 is further refined and brought to the point where it can integrate seamlessly in the VVS and make it capable against fundamentally new threats. That is how you manage a high risk, high cost program, period. Rushing new tech into operation and ditching HW which is still capable is just irrational, unless what you want is to milk the state.

Introducing new technology to older systems also is a good way to field test the new technology and to get it into production and service before the new aircraft gets into service.

A good example would be the new NK-32 engine for the upgraded Blackjacks that is also being fitted to the upgraded Tu-22M3M...

Upgrading 30 Backfires means they will be making at the very least 60 NK-32s and putting them in real aircraft that can fly up to the mach 2 speed of the Blackjack, so any problems found can be solved... aircrews and maintenance crews get experience working with the new products rather than having to wait 3-4 years for the new Blackjacks to enter service in numbers.

Production wise it means if 50 new Blackjacks are made and the older Blackjacks get them, plus 30 Backfires they will need (50x4) + (15x4) + (30x2) engines and they get to test them and use them operationally faster... so 320 engines instead of just 260... the older Backfires might be upgraded to the new engines or retired... either way the NK-25 is removed from service and just the NK-32 remains... which would reduce the number of different engines they are operating... without any performance or capability loss.

GarryB wrote:Introducing new technology to older systems also is a good way to field test the new technology and to get it into production and service before the new aircraft gets into service.

Su-35 is a good example of this. Both the avionics and the engines were brought to "almost" state of the art before going one step further with Su-57. That is how things are done and one of the reasons why Sukhoi normally does not disappoint.

By putting -5th gen (as opposed to 5th gen or +5th gen) technology in the Su-35 they can work on integrating the systems and automating the processes the pilot needs to be able to perform before the Su-57 even gets airborne.

Changing to a new generation can be compared with building AAMs... their first guided air to air missile was the AA-1 Alkali and it was a fairly complex missile with bits all over the place that had been developed that way for various reasons. The result was a missile that worked but was not so easy to service and maintain, and certainly not so easy to upgrade.

Then they got a hold of a Sidewinder and the generation leap was modularity. Sidewinder wasn't more sophisticated or more complex or more capable in many respects than the system they already had. They copied the design principle of modularity... so seeker and then control/guidance mechanism with the front canard surfaces, then the warhead, then the rocket motor and tail control surfaces. Such a layout means you could replace the motor or the warhead or the seeker or the guidance package or the servo motors for the control surfaces fairly easy... with the AA-1 Alkali it was more complex because a newer motor or seeker or guidance might not fit without having to shift things around or even reposition everything.

The huge shift in design meant going right back to the basics of design and changing them to this module method... but that might mean it was 5 or 10 years before a Soviet missile could be put into active service using this new design philosophy and they needed new missiles now... so they copied the missile... not something they would do if they had another option.

They used a Soviet seeker that was better than the seeker in the missile they captured. They used a Soviet Rocket motor for the same reason, but the modular layout was adopted, and the gyro was copied because it was smaller and yet more effective than the old Soviet model, and of course as can be seen they adopted the layout of the US weapon too so they look like sidewinder missiles... but what they also did was started development of their own missile designs using modular structures to allow simple assembly and upgrade and replacement of faulty or damaged parts. Drop a missile and dent the side of the rocket motor... replace the motor rather than having to destroy an otherwise perfectly good missile...

The point in this case is that they could have stopped production of the AA-1 and had a large gap and then a new Soviet missile of a new modular design... or they could continue to use the AA-1 in improved forms and copy the sidewinder to get a new missile into service as quickly as possible and develop a Soviet replacement.

In the end the AA-2 was replaced as a self defence missile by the AA-8 and as the standard WVR dogfight missile by the R-73... so the AA-2 was considered successful enough to not be replaced for some time...

The AA-8 turned out to be quite a capable missile for its size, while the R-73 was rightly feared as one of the best WVR missiles available in the 1980s and 1990s. Even today in an updated digital model it is capable, but not state of the art.

GarryB wrote:By putting -5th gen (as opposed to 5th gen or +5th gen) technology in the S-35

The Su-35 has a lot of modern systems, many state of the art systems, but there is nothing of 5th Generation in the Su-35 variant. This is a conceptual mistake.

The Su-35 has a lot of modern systems, many state of the art systems, but there is nothing of 5th Generation in the Su-35 variant. This is a conceptual mistake.

The avionics and software in the Su-35 is based on the stuff that went into the early Su-57 designs... experience and extra money made the Su-57 and Su-35 systems better... just like the new systems in the latest upgrade of the T-90AM is based on further experience and development of the T-95 and T-14 systems...

If there is nothing 5th gen about the Su-35 then why does it have wing mounted L band radar AESA antenna in its wings?

It is a single seat fighter intended to fight both 4th and 5th gen fighters... why not put the same avionics in it that you are putting in the Su-57?

It wont have the side mounted AESA arrays but it can also carry a much larger missile payload and communicate directly with HQ and other platforms on the ground and in the air because it does not need to be super stealthy...

Instead of calling the Su-35 Gen. 4++ or 4+++ you could also call it Gen. 5- ("stealth" shape).

The main problem is the arbitrary nature of the generations... if you need full on stealth and super cruise capacity then does the F-35 even count as a fifth gen fighter?

It could be a second generation low fighter... it is what the F-16 is to the F-15, except it is to the F-22...

Of course having said that... not every Su-35 is the same... I rather doubt the Su-35 the Chinese got is not the same as the Russian AF Su-35... the Chinese simply didn't pay enough for that to be the case really... they can't just give that sort of stuff away.


The Su-35 is not a 5th gen fighter by any stretch of the imagination... but it is very well equipped to hunt 5th gen fighters... which in many ways makes it much better... it doesn't have the performance limitations of a stealthy fighter... it can carry large external loads and it is not disgustingly expensive to buy or to operate...

Given the choice between an F-35 or an Su-35 I would take the Russian jet every time... because even before you have even used it the American jet has made you poor and sucked all the money out of your military budget and for what?

Previous generation western fighters still got the job done.

If you had to categorise it I would call the Su-35 a 4th gen fighter with -5th gen avionics and soon weapons...

GarryB wrote:The main problem is the arbitrary nature of the generations...

The definition of the Generations is not arbitrary, despite habitually many sources are not reproducing well the definitions.

The problem is the arbitrary use the term, like you did.

Hole wrote:Instead of calling the Su-35 Gen. 4++ or 4+++ you could also call it Gen. 5- ("stealth" shape).

Not really. Its tech is on par with eurocanards. Even sergei bogdan test pilot of sukhoi said the difference between su-35 and su-57 is huge.

Even eurocanards are more 5th gen since they are getting their aesa and they are stealthier than su-35.

Su-35 is just a big radar that can see anything and carry 12 missiles with 2000km range. It has no real 5th gen equipment, no lpi aesa, no real supercruise, no reduced rcs, no inbuild ecm.

That doesn't mean it's bad ot only means it s not a 5th gen fighter. It is very good for their needs. F-35 is the exemple of how useless can be money/new tech if you have stupid people taking decisions.

Su-35 in the future needs a 400kW radar like mig-25 to see even better. Fuck syealth if you can see everything and fire huge amount of missiles from far away.

Even sergei bogdan test pilot of sukhoi said the difference between su-35 and su-57 is huge.

The difference between the F-15C and the F-22 is probably huge too, but the new F-15 they are going to start making because the F-35 is shit... are they going to put F-15C avionics in it, or are they going to adapt the systems they have developed for the F-35 and F-22 to fit in the new Eagle?

The Su-57 is not some magic super plane that can have 5th gen avionics that can never be fitted into an older generation aircraft...

In many cases the technology used in the new aircraft might be one generation ahead of what is fitted into the previous generation... but some of it might just be the same... do you think the rubber in the tires of the Su-57 is some new generation super polymer resin that is invisible to radar and IR?

Even eurocanards are more 5th gen since they are getting their aesa and they are stealthier than su-35.

Well even when fitted with AESA radars the Eurocanards have radars optimised in the exact range that the stealth of 5th gen fighters is supposed to defeat.

The L band wing mounted AESA radar on the Su-35 should be able to detect targets at extended distances... and that includes the semi stealthy eurocanards... which when armed are not stealthy at all.

Su-35 is just a big radar that can see anything and carry 12 missiles with 2000km range. It has no real 5th gen equipment, no lpi aesa, no real supercruise, no reduced rcs, no inbuild ecm.

Yeah, which is why the US is deciding to build the same with a revamp of the F-15 design...

BTW supercruise is supposed to allow smaller aircraft fly further and faster without needing a lot of external fuel... the Flanker doesn't normally carry external fuel for a reason...

The Su-35 has got reduced rcs, it has inbuilt ECM and ESM, and an L band AESA is as LPI as you can get because NATO fighters don't carry sensors that can detect L band radar signals except their datalink gear, which is non directional... so they will detect it scanning but wont know where it is or how far away it is...

BTW 2,000km radius with 12 missiles makes it equivalent to about four F-35s... except in price and cost of operations...

That doesn't mean it's bad ot only means it s not a 5th gen fighter. It is very good for their needs. F-35 is the exemple of how useless can be money/new tech if you have stupid people taking decisions.

The definition of a 5th gen fighter is created by Lockheed Martin, who are hardly the definers of generations for anything...

The Su-35 is not supposed to be a 5th gen fighter... it is a hunter of 5th gen fighters... a job for which it is very very well equipped... and guess what... the new AAMs developed especially for the Su-57 for shooting down F-35s and F-22s will be entering service in the next few years and those missiles will also be carried by the Su-35 and MiG-35...

Su-35 in the future needs a 400kW radar like mig-25 to see even better. Fuck syealth if you can see everything and fire huge amount of missiles from far away.

More likely they will be getting photonic radar which will transform their ability to detect and engage enemy stealth targets... all that money spent in the US will be for nothing... in fact you could already say it has.... the Russians sent S300 and S400 and Su-35 to Syria and the F-22 and F-35 left the area and are now perhaps only used by Israel firing from standoff distances outside of Syrian airspace... the Israelis have operated with impunity over Syrian airspace for decades, and now they have F-35 super stealth 5th gen fighter planes and they run away and lob weapons from a distance like an Afghan feud... but these supercruising AESA equipped stealthy super planes should be able to fly right over their targets with impunity because they are invisible.... we are not talking F-117s armed with a bomb or two... these are 5th gen fighter aircraft supposed to be able to defend themselves and able to multitask... they are not multirole they are omnirole... they can go in and shoot down planes and blow up SAM defences and still hit their target... all without being detected or tracked let alone fired upon...

The definition of a 5th gen fighter is created by Lockheed Martin, who are hardly the definers of generations for anything...

It is defined by what tech they are using. The last tech for fighters are AESA LPI radars, supercruising engines, stealth shapes and materials, lots of datalinks ...

6 th generation will be defined by thing like photonic radars, artificial inteligence ... and probably some other tech that will be discovered in a near future.

The L band wing mounted AESA radar on the Su-35 should be able to detect targets at extended distances... and that includes the semi stealthy eurocanards... which when armed are not stealthy at all.

No official claims about that. Ground based L band radars have all antennas the size of a house or even building and they are still not enough precise to track targets. What make you believe that the small antennas in the wing of the su-35 that are some cm wide can detect anything or are used as radars ?

They are more likely used for datalink between su-35. Unless you have a proof of what you are saying ?

The Su-57 is not some magic super plane that can have 5th gen avionics that can never be fitted into an older generation aircraft...

I never said that. You can take everything from su-57 and put it inside su-35. But the su-57 will still be better as it was build as a 5th gen fighter while su-35 is build on a 4th gen fighter basis.

But again if it proved in Syria to be good enough against raptors and f-35 then buy more of them.

does anyone have an update on percentage of modern (new) equipment across the armed forces, i know that they had targets but havent seen anything for a while, they also had one for modernisation (upgraded equipment)

d_taddei2 wrote:does anyone have an update on percentage of modern (new) equipment across the armed forces, i know that they had targets but havent seen anything for a while, they also had one for modernisation (upgraded equipment)

As a result, by the beginning of 2019, the equipment of the Armed Forces with modern weapons increased 3.8 times - from 16% to 61.5%. It is 82% in the Strategic Nuclear Forces, 48.3% in the Ground Forces, 74% in the VKS, 62.3% in the Navy, and 63.7% in the Airborne Forces.

By Modern weapons, they combine new and upgraded into the above totals.

franco wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:does anyone have an update on percentage of modern (new) equipment across the armed forces, i know that they had targets but havent seen anything for a while, they also had one for modernisation (upgraded equipment)

As a result, by the beginning of 2019, the equipment of the Armed Forces with modern weapons increased 3.8 times - from 16% to 61.5%. It is 82% in the Strategic Nuclear Forces, 48.3% in the Ground Forces, 74% in the VKS, 62.3% in the Navy, and 63.7% in the Airborne Forces.

By Modern weapons, they combine new and upgraded into the above totals.

thanks for the info. i wonder if the figures are just on equipment that needs replacing or as a complete armed forces. because something like a D-30 122mm gun already does what its suppose to do and would by age be classed as old but unlikely to be replaced unless calibre phase out same goes for mortars and the ground forces having large numbers of these would effect % if it is indeed calculated as a whole. If it is calculated as a whole them this could explain the low percentage for ground forces.

What make you believe that the small antennas in the wing of the su-35 that are some cm wide can detect anything or are used as radars ?

They are more likely used for datalink between su-35. Unless you have a proof of what you are saying ?

How about just a little bit of basic common sense, they describe it as being an L band AESA radar array... if it was just a datalink signal or IFF signal detection system WTF would they use a string of sensors along the wing... honestly why not call it a datalink system instead of an AESA radar array?

Not going to bother...