Su-35S: News #2

Very interesting article about the Su-35's sensor fusion system.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3047341.html

Atmosphere wrote:Very interesting article about the Su-35's sensor fusion system.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3047341.html

its an old article

The idea of creating an information and control system for modern aircraft in the Sukhoi OKB was originally born in the form of research on the project of the fifth generation fighter. However, it was first implemented on a multifunctional fighter Su-35.

It just highlights the fact that a company developing a new new generation aircraft can benefit by upgrading the existing generation aircraft with new systems and ideas being worked on for the new generation aircraft.

In this case new stuff for the Su-57 was tested and put into service in the Su-35 which allowed problems to be found and fixed before the Su-57 even went into service.

Without these testing and upgrades of the Su-35 with Su-57 stuff, not only would the Su-35 be less capable, but the Su-57 would also take a lot longer to debug and get into full operational service and serial production.

That is why it makes sense to make MiG-35s because the development and production experience on the MiG-35 will lead to a better 5th gen light fighter being developed and also get numbers aircraft into service quicker.

Previously one could argue if a light 5th gen fighter could be made cheap enough to be made in useful numbers and deployed widely to therefore make it useful.

Listening to the claims for the Su-75 I would say that is possible, but then the question then becomes what is their policy on stealth... do they want an all stealth fleet or are they going to keep their 4th gen fighters which are still cheaper to buy and to operate and could compliment the more expensive but also more capable stealthy new aircraft.

A flight of Su-57s could be bolstered by a flight of four Su-35s armed with 14 plus AAMs if they find the enemy are trying to overwhelm them with numbers... 4th gen fighters still generally carry more weapons than stealthy aircraft can carry and remain stealthy.

Equally with tactics you might want to use a Su-35 as bait to attract enemy aircraft which could then be eliminated by Su-57s and S-70s operating quietly nearby...

When it comes to launching glide bombs or super long range AAMs a smaller lighter aircraft can do it cheaper... the Yak-130 was accepted for service because of the potential for it to be that even lighter and cheaper aircraft... but really when you add an AESA radar and a modern self defence avionics suite then its pricetag jumps up to very close to a MiG-35 but with less range and less payload and also rather slower... if you do a full upgrade with a new afterburning engine and it will cost more than a MiG-35 and it wont be stealthy either.

Claims the MiG-35 is not as good as the Su-35 has no meaning... it is not supposed to be used instead of Su-35s... they are supposed to operate together where two or three MiG-35s can cooperate with Su-35 and work together to deal with enemy threats.

George1 wrote:

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4822614.html

I think there is at least 3 different Su-35 in this batch

the last news say that Su-35 will be in production at least to 2028

This is 5 years 2024 to 2028 or at least 60 more Su-35 for VKS, perhaps even 80
I think 200 is the rigth number for VKS

TMA1 wrote:You can see an arrow and degrees of motion

Good spot by you!  I hadn't noticed the arrow even though it was kinda clear.  Makes sense, too.  That point would be exactly where the horizontal stabilizer would be at its level setting.  Point zero, so to speak.

I bet they use that super cool, old-fashioned levelling meter thingamajig thingy lol that clips on moving surfaces they use during production to find that center level point.  I remember seeing it in one of the Su-35 production videos when one of the technicians had it mounted on the edge of one of the flaperons.  As the flap would more up or down, the needle on that tool would also move and point at all the incremental settings.  That's one of those original tools that never loses its usefulness despite all the modern advancements in technologies.  I have a few of those in my trade I pull out every once in a while, and all the younglings on site start ragging on me with their digital laser ultraviolet see-through high-tech smart tools that cost zillions to buy (which I also have anyway lol) but my $3 tool ends up being faster, more convenient, problem-solving and just as accurate in certain cases lolzo.  Love that stuff.  

Mir wrote:Its a faint permanent marking - and yes it shows the extend of the stabilizers motion.

Perfect photo.  At first when I noticed the mark and the possibility of it being exactly that with all the incremental markings, it reminded me of waterline & draft measuring markings they put on the hulls of ships and even submarines.  

But I've never seen it applied to aircraft like this to obviously measure the stabilizers proper alignment which is beyond cool.  Something you really don't see often, if at all and especially in this modern-day, tech-filled industry.

Mir wrote:Any contact with the airframe could be catastrophic as was the case with early Mig-25's. Early on the Mig-25 suffered a couple of nasty accidents when the aircraft suddenly rolled and turned into a steep dive. It was eventually discovered that the stabilizers jammed and the problem was rectified!

Thought the same exact thing which is what I was hoping that it was not a scratch or an undesired point of contact!  That would NOT be good and also 99.99999% unlikely.

Pretty much why aircraft are built with the most stable alloys & composites possible; to reduce the inevitable effects of expansion & contraction in designs that require incredibly minimal tolerances between moving surfaces, and for something like that MiG-25 scenario from never happening again or in the first place.

That also reminds me of the one time I was at an airshow and was snooping around under an active USAF B-1B Lancer on static display (we're allowed to do that BTW lol) and I was astonished at how much fuel was leaking below the engine nacelles and onto the tarmac where they had cordoned people off with caution tape for obvious safety reasons.  But the amount of staining in the two puddles on the ground and that unmistakably familiar scent of kerosene was mind-blowing to the point I thought there was either a fuel leak problem or the crew that was fueling the aircraft had spilled some for whatever reason.  So I asked one of the pilots who was talking to visitors and answering question what the heck all that spilled fuel was talking to visitors and to my surprise, he said it was the result of expansion & contraction in the fuel cell panels from the stress of subsonic to transonic to supersonic speeds and back & forth.  Amazing and apparently a common occurrence in not just that particular aircraft.

I have pictures of it somewhere I'll try to dig them out.  It's wild but all this sshhttuufff reminded me of that.

AMCXXL wrote:
This is 5 years 2024 to 2028 or at least 60 more Su-35 for VKS, perhaps even 80
I think 200 is the rigth number for VKS

Well if you add the upgraded Su-30SM2's...the numbers sounds even better!

Mir wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:
This is 5 years 2024 to 2028 or at least 60 more Su-35 for VKS, perhaps even 80
I think 200 is the rigth number for VKS

Well if you add the upgraded Su-30SM2's...the numbers sounds even better!  

Su-30 will be mainly in VKS for twin seats of Su-35

In Astrakhan there are now one Su-35 squadron that inlcudes 3 Su-30SM or SM2

I think the older Su-30SM of VKS should be modernized to SM2 and moved to Su-35 squadrons or the Navy

VKS will have Su-57, Su-35 and MiG-31 to be replazed by PAK-DP

He means "MiG-31 to be replased by PAK-DP"...

Mir wrote:
Its a faint permanent marking - and yes it shows the extend of the stabilizers motion.

I can't find the gaddang pics of the B1 bomber with the leaking engines.  But I just saw this on X and it reminded me of this conversation.  Same thing for that H-stab.  I just found it interesting that Sukhoi has that on its brand-new Su-35S in this particular case.  Maybe gives the true meaning of IOC, emphasis on the I for "Initial," perhaps?

That type of marking is quite common - mainly for ground crew inspection.

Some samples on Sukhoi aircraft:

Su-24


Su-27


Su-33

Mir wrote:That type of marking is quite common - mainly for ground crew inspection.

Some samples on Sukhoi aircraft:

Su-24

You are correct again, sir.  I asked my buddy who is former USAF and he told me that while he's not fully familiar with Soviet or Russian specific aircraft labeling, he did know some of the maintenance procedures based on his experience with ex-Warsaw countries' air forces and their Russian jets he was able to see up close (Su-27 & MiG-29 to be specific) and that those are in fact not just for testing, but for the maintenance crews to periodically check, like you said.  

I asked check for what? He said (and these were his words) it's similar to an automatic transmission in a car, or even timing on engine ignition where you have tap-dead center as a reference to idle or a neutral setting, and that the FBW when given a stick cue to return to neutral and there are 2 surfaces that need to be in completely perfect sync, that is how you determine if they are.  Not only when they return to that neutral setting (the center arrow), but when rotating for takeoff for example.  They need to both reach the exact setting.  Or even for differential settings for roll.  Each stabilizer has to be exactly at the correct setting for the commanded FBW instruction and by looking at them in those positions, they can determine if on or the other or both are working properly or if something is off.  I know this stuff might be silly to some, but I find it fascinatingly interesting!

Here's some synchronized perfection.

The Irbis-E radar on the Su-35 is quite unique. It is something in between a PESA and an AESA. The export version can detect a target with radar cross-section (RCS) 3m2 of up to 400 km, but according to Tikhomirov NIIP the one in Russian service FAR EXCEEDS the 400 km mark. According to them the Su-35S can see further than any other fighter in the world.

Combat approval episode about Su-35S.

It will find it's way into the Su-30SM2 sooner than later.

R-37M release from 214km to target.

he R-37M turned out to be a very powerful weapon. I didn't expect that fighting at such a long distance would be so effective. Currently, it is one of the most diverse A-A missiles in the Russian arsenal and in the world.

ALAMO wrote:R-37M release from 214km to target.

And Western military "experts" claim that the Irbis could not track a target more than 100km away

If I'm not wrong range is the arrow on the left. So some 170km. The 214 number is something like time before impact.


Goid missile but the targets are su-27, su-24 and mig-29 from soviet union with outdated RWR and jammers. Against a more modern fighter, long range shots will be far less lucky. You can easily outrun a long range missile if launch at max range by going away from it but you need to know it was launched ir just go hide behind a mountain. Jamming should also make tracking disruptive. That's why they need to quickly introduce R-77M which has less range but is more agile in medium/short distances fights than r-37M.

An IIR version of r-37M with the same datalink as the radar version would be good against stealthy targets or active jamming aircraft. Could also be cheaper as ARH is quite expensive.

@Isos
I think that you are right. Scale with numbers on the left are showing distance and number 214 in a circle is a countdown till hitting the target or something like that.
It would be interesting to see what kind of improvements they could get with further upgrade and refinement of Irbis-E. More modern data processor and digital signal processor along with other electronics and further refining of search and track algorithms would certainly get better resolution and possibility of tracking and engaging more targets simultaneously.

The original R-37 dates back to the 80's and by then it was able to destroy air targets 300 km away. The latest R-37 can do it at 400 km range.
It is widely acknowledge by the western press that a Su-35S shot down an Ukie Su-27 with a R-37M at 217 km - setting the bar quite high in real combat conditions.