Su-35S: News #2

Isos wrote:Because they have no aesa radar, no r-77M and the composite they had is already used on su-35 which is why it is more expensive than the su-30 but allow a smaller RCS.

They may have had prototypes of all that but nothing in production.

Now all of that is in production for the su-57 so they will buy the su-57 instead of making an expensive su-35 with su-57 technology.

Like I've been saying all this time, Su-35 is a placeholder for Su-57

How many are operational? I think they need at least 200 to fend off a potential Japanese threat in the east.

What japanese threat?

Japanese fighters would be shot down with S-400s and their ships sunk by Bal and Bastion before they even get close... those Su-35s would have very little to actually do.

Checkmate will be a very good solution to increase numbers. In Syria they quickly learned that twin-engines are often over-kill and too expensive for most missions.

What they found was that big Sukhois are expensive to operate in large numbers and that smaller lighter aircraft could often do quite a few jobs more efficiently and affordably.

The MiG-35 is much cheaper to operate than any model Flanker which is why they are buying some for testing and evaluation.

What they also need is r-77M retrofited to su-35/30.

Should be compatible as it was Su-35, MiG-35 and Su-57 that the missile was designed for.

The Russian MoD assessed the situation and decided that a few fighter jets and A2/AD systems was all that is needed to keep any Japanese forces in check.

Agreed... actually sending 200 heavy fighters to the Far East would likely drive the Japanese to respond by increasing their forces and creating an arms race where there was no need for one.

And a AESA Radar instead of an PESA this in combination with the retro-fitting of the R-77M would make it very, very potent. Instead they've kept producing the same production model there's no new things to it's batches?

A lot of the advantages of electronic scanning make the cheaper simpler PESA a powerful radar system, while the AESA is more capable it is also much more expensive, and in many areas the differences are not so obvious.

There is little value in making a radar ten times more expensive if it does not improve performance or capabilities very much at all.

Now all of that is in production for the su-57 so they will buy the su-57 instead of making an expensive su-35 with su-57 technology.

They will likely use both and try to unify a lot of the systems used to reduce costs and improve commonality.

If it turns out that the Su-35 is cheaper to operate then they might keep using those for a range of roles where stealth is meaningless, but if it turns out the cost is not so different and the Su-57 is much better then they might go the other way.

The point is that both are in production and they get to choose which is best... they are not driven by doctrine that demands an all stealth fighter fleet by x date no matter what the costs.

Like I've been saying all this time, Su-35 is a placeholder for Su-57

They needed a new stealth fighter to fight western stealth fighters, but they didn't know how effective they might be or how many they might need.

Even the US can't afford an all stealth fighter fleet and I doubt the Russian AF would even want to try to do the same.

The Checkmate and anything MiG comes up with will be along the lines of affordable 5th gen medium to light fighter and that will most likely end up being the numbers aircraft... along with unmanned drones of course.

Since N036 is same structure as Irbis E, they could in theory fit it onto Su-35's. But that would also require either major adjustments to onnoard instruments in order to get it to work or replace the computers altogether. And the performance gain out of it will be rather miniscule.

My understanding is that AESA radars include processing and noise removing capability at the antenna level so the amount of data from the antenna is greatly reduced making processing and using information much faster and easier, but either way the information coming from an AESA radar is not going to be hugely different from the information coming from a PESA... they are both electronically scanned radars.

One issue might be engine takeoff power, but their engines were designed for high takeoff capacity because AESA radars were a known thing when they were developed.

Peak power would almost never be used except trying to discriminate a very long range small RCS target, and it would be used to track rather than scan except trying to use the radar as an EMP type weapon perhaps.

The core of their problem is lack of fighter aircraft with AESA radar because many of the improvements in design and manufacturing come during the production process and based from operational experience, so until they put some into production and start using them in numbers their costs will remain high and failure rates for elements wont go down very quickly.

Of course they are adopting AESA type radar across the board from armoured vehicles and artillery vehicles and air defence vehicles to helicopters and ships and even portable battlefield radars, all of which improve the skill set and production potential.

Having said that photonic radar seems to be even better so is there much point in funding and deploying AESA radar to existing fighters when the next generation of new radars with much much better performance is on the verge of being tested?

Current model radars are not bad and get the job done... super stealthy enemy aircraft will be detected by ground based over the horizon radar anyway, as the fighters approach they will likely get first contact with their IRSTs as much as their nose mounted radar.

For the Flanker family the wing mounted AESA radar is intended for finding stealthy targets anyway.

Regarding the open architecture design of the new fighters I would expect they would be plug and play with software installed first to use all their new features.

Arkanghelsk wrote:I have a question regarding the capabilities of SU 35 with khibiniy.

Obviously the technical information behind this is a state secret

But maybe someone could have a conceptual framework for how VKS could employ offensive operations

Against say a flight of 5th gen aircraft picked up by OTH,

Would Su35 and khibiny be able to mask a bigger flight of closing SU35 and SU30 to close with and engage the enemies via IR and radar guidance?

Same goes for AWACS with help of mig 31?

In other words could pod based ew give VKS tactical advantage in an offensive type scenario?

Obviously on the defense the IADS is enough, but in strictly offensive scenario discounting su57 and checkmate

With the enemy unmasked by OTH radars, it does not make a big difference whether the planes are stealth or not, they have no surprise and their approximate position is defined (differently to LOS radars, OTH can pick up geographical features and use them to improve detection accuracy), so air wings of fighters or preferentially interceptors can be cued in their direction in complete silence and attack them with long range missiles. The 5th gen planes either rely on AWACS (are they viable amidst overwhelming EW and MiG-31 attacks guided to avoid their escorts?) or have to switch on their radars, in which case they stop being stealthy at all... I don't really see where the wining strategy for NATO would be here, frankly.

The use of Khibiny would depend on what its level of performance is relative to the radars it tries to fool. I assume its use is primarily in strike role vs. SAM sites, but of course it should be effective in A2A role too. specially against AAMs. It can indeed serve for a single plane to cover a whole group and other advanced functions, but how well would it perform in the moment of truth vs. modern AWACS or fighter mounted radars is not really easy to know.

I would expect OTH radars to operate in frequencies too large for any aircraft mounted pod to influence let alone detect... it is all a game of cat and mouse, but at the moment I would think Russia would prefer to use high speed and manouvering to evade HATO defences than stealth simply because stealth is unreliable.

Stealth works for tracking radars but for search and early warning radars you are more interested in detection and general location than exactly how many aircraft are in the formation and what are they carrying under their wing pylons.

Ironically the next gen radars might be able to answer such questions... making the entire concept of stealth a little redundant... until the next new gen technology makes it less effective...

I think there will be a difference between fighter carried self defence pods and dedicated aircraft intended for the role... whether they be helicopters of large transport planes.

Last time I was interested and following the subject it was a toss up between a Tu-22M3 as a jammer, where its speed and range would be useful for strike packages, and an Il-476 as a jammer simply because its raw power meant it didn't need to enter enemy air space to do the job.

I seem to remember the Il-476 model won because it was able to take more onboard power for running very powerful jamming equipment off its four engines than the Backfire could manage from its two engines.

The problem for HATO was that Soviet SAMs of the 1980s could shoot down HARMs as a matter of course and these days they are even better at defeating such threats.

Jamming at this or that frequency ignores the range of frequencies modern radars can operate in... brute force is probably not a good option any more and sophisticated use of jamming or signals is probably a better way forward.... but then the Russians have been spending money and improving their own systems in all areas including C4IRS... which is of course Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Reconnaisance, and Surveillance, but also EW.

Kh-58 with 250km is enough to take down any radar. They don't really have anything to counter ARMs.

Indeed it is HATO that is in trouble in this regard, but of course they have always been the aggressors so consideration for national defence never came into the equations they applied to their development and procurement policies.

Or you can go the Houti's way. Use drones and oblige the enemy to spend its expensive missiles that are available in low numbers against them. Saudi are beging for AMRAAMs now and even if they are rich they don't seem to have enough to buy large stocks at once.

Which has always been a western problem... they have nice shiny weapons they show at arms expos, but they tend to be over engineered and with no consideration for costs... a Javelin costs more than a cold war Soviet tank. Using it in Afghanistan against MG postions or light utility trucks with MGs on the back is a terrible waste of resources... even an unguided rocket like RPG or SPG-9 would do that job for a fraction of the price, but internet warriors are bragging about how wonderful Javelin is.

We saw that test where they had a tank sitting out in the open and the missile missed.... there was probably a rock on the ground some distance away that the sun was shining on so when the missile went up into the air the old tank target was cold and the rock looked hot so it hit the rock. Notice later you can see flames coming out of the target tank... I rather suspect they built a fire inside the tank to warm it up for another shot so the Javelin would see the tank this time and actually hit it.

The point is that they have enormous potential but in practise are actually rather limited and are so expensive most countries can't afford to have them in enormous numbers.

Anti tank weapons and anti aircraft weapons need to be owned in enormous numbers because soldiers will fire an anti tank missile at almost any hard or point target, from cars and trucks and buildings and bunkers... anything they see as a threat...

Light cheap missiles like Bulat will be ideal for such uses as well as for IFV use against enemy IFVs...

Russian missiles tend to be cheap command guided or laser beam riding weapons they can produce in enormous numbers but they also have unguided weapons like the various single shot and reloadable weapons for all sorts of targets too... if it is not moving use an unguided weapon, if it is moving then use a guided weapon... and it is OK to use lots of them.

HATO seems to have a different policy... SAMs seem to be token weapons that only HQs will ever see... Russian air power is not excessive so that is not really a huge problem, but the influx of drones means any enemy can launch air threats against HATO ground forces... and I can tell you for light drones fighter planes are useless. For medium drones they can take them down really easy, but the light drones are hard to spot and deal with from an aircraft. Small arms fire puts neighbouring units in danger... and does not have a good hit to kill record...

Any real conflict with Russia and HATO is going to run out of planes and missiles very quickly which their ground forces are not used to operating without.

The practice every pilot needs in Russia, landing on a frozen lake