Haavarla
Active Member
None more conclusive than what's on page 12:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7424&page=12
Last edited:
Russia to get SU-35 by 2011
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
None more conclusive than what's on page 12:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7424&page=12
Haavarla
Active Member
The RuAF commander Zelin did stick his neck out on this video:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhvNVekTYSw&NR=1"]YouTube - Su-35 fighter jet rocks the sky[/ame]
At 1.44min he stated that the Su-35 program will help gain the necessary R&D for the PAK-FA, but he didn't state how many Su-35 the RuAF will procure in the future..
Haavarla
Active Member
Sorry Feanor, but i have trouble with Russian language..
Is there an Eng translator in these links?
Do you have any in English?
Last edited:
Russia will buy the plane for its air froce, no doubt about that. Theres no way to sell the plane to other countries if Russia themselves dont want it.
So they are gonna buy it and talk about it everywhere, anywhere and anyplace so that it gets a proper status for world buyers.
So they are gonna buy it and talk about it everywhere, anywhere and anyplace so that it gets a proper status for world buyers.
Haavarla
Active Member
Look, i do think the RuAF will procure the Su-35BM in the next year or so.
I'm just want to query the Russian DoD and the RuAF status and orders on the Su-35 and the Su34 for that matter..
If anyone have any good sources or links about this in English, plz share it with us.
Thanks.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Is that really what you get from that Tod? To me that clearly claims that the radar can detect LO targets AT 90km.
I would be astonished if the maximum detection radius for a 21kw peak power 2nd gen PESA vs an aircraft was as small as 90km. 190km seems more like it. Considering that it seems quite unlikely to me that the above statement is in fact describing two separate performance parameters.
dragonfire
New Member
Quote : Nevidimka
Not necessarily if one can think of the Su-30 series - RuAF has only about 19 in service whereas they have sold or have orders to the extent of about 430 units - sold to PLAAF (100), IAF(230), AAF(24), Indoneasian Air Force(26), RMAF(18), VAF(24) and the VPAF(15).Interesting point to note here is that the RuAF is currently operating the second smallest unit of SU-30s. However they might actualy induct the MIG-35 aircraft as such but perhaps in smaller numbers like in the case of SU-30. unless there are other cost concerns involved
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That is not exactly what I took away from the comment...
The very first thing that came to mind was that it was poorly written.
Rather, I was playing :devil's advocate. Now, if one is going by max detection range, it might seem a bit short. However, if one is going by max targeting range... It might make a bit more sense. OTOH, it could very well have been talking about detecting some supposed LO aircraft... We will likely never know, and those who do are likely disinclined to clear up the confusion.
-Cheers
dragonfire
New Member
Su-35 vs Mig-35
I have compared stats and am confused, which is a better craft, while the Mig is faster at 2.4 Mach compared to the Su's 2.25 Mach the Su's range is 3600 Km compared to the Migs 2000 km. The sukhoi has a greater thrust, but has probably only 2 D TVC but i heard the Mig-35 will incorporate 3D TVC. so am still confused anyone can help...:unknown
I have compared stats and am confused, which is a better craft, while the Mig is faster at 2.4 Mach compared to the Su's 2.25 Mach the Su's range is 3600 Km compared to the Migs 2000 km. The sukhoi has a greater thrust, but has probably only 2 D TVC but i heard the Mig-35 will incorporate 3D TVC. so am still confused anyone can help...:unknown
dragonfire
New Member
If someone can help (this is posted here bcauz its an aviation thread)
Whats the difference between Multirole, Air Superiority, Air Dominance
The Su-30MKI has been tagged as a Multirole, Air Superiority Fighter as well as a Strike Fighter, could someone detail the diff kinds of Fighters and their roles and also the maritime variants
Whats the difference between Multirole, Air Superiority, Air Dominance
The Su-30MKI has been tagged as a Multirole, Air Superiority Fighter as well as a Strike Fighter, could someone detail the diff kinds of Fighters and their roles and also the maritime variants
Scorpion82
New Member
Top speed of the MiG-35 is given with Mach 2, not mach 2.4, but it doesn't matter in an operational contents anyway. And the Su-35 has 3-D TVC, while the MiG-35 has nothing, because it doesn't even exist in a representive prototype form. The only aircraft labeld MiG-35 is the former MiG-29M2 demonstrator which just acts as a testbed for some of the avionics proposed for the final product, the sensors in particular. TVC is also offered as an option for the MiG-35, in contrast to the Su-35 where it is part of the overall design concept. A better or not better is completely irrelevant especially as the Su-35 exists in form of two flying prototypes, which are said to resemble the production configuration quite closely. And there are plans to introduce this type into the RuAF and there is some interest from potential export customers as well. The MiG-35 doesn't exist right now and AFAIK there is no customer. Just the India has sent a RfP to MiG for its MMRCA competition.
Multirole is something that can perform strike, SEAD/DEAD, CAS, and air superiority roles. Air dominance is a term coined for the Raptor to make it sound cool. In reality I would label it as an multirole. Air superiority is a role that focuses around destroying hostile airborne threats. A strike fighter focuses around delivering payload to a target with high precision, on a tactical level.If someone can help (this is posted here bcauz its an aviation thread)
Whats the difference between Multirole, Air Superiority, Air Dominance
The Su-30MKI has been tagged as a Multirole, Air Superiority Fighter as well as a Strike Fighter, could someone detail the diff kinds of Fighters and their roles and also the maritime variants
Whilst modern fighters have been labeled such as multirole, swingrole, air dominance, etc, each was developed to fulfill specific mission requirements of each developer country.
In the case of the USA and Russia, the F-15, and Su-27 series were developed as air superiority fighters to counter each other at top end of fighter spectrum, hence a higher degree air-to-air sophistication and cost.
At the lower end we have the F-16 and Mig-29, hence lower cost and greater numbers. These are primarily meant for closer in, battlefield support, hence emphasis on low altitude performance, and air-to-ground systems.
In simple terms, the high end F-15/Su-27 have specific mission requirements different than the low end F-16/Mig-29 which is why they co-exist and compliment each other.
So far, I've discussed the USA and Russia which developed these fighter. So what about the rest of the world? They are customer countries and will buy fighters "off the shelf" to fulfill their requirements too, but this gets often muddied because some countries have similar hi-low end requirements (Israel, India, Japan) and others do not.
Two fighters which must must be mentioned are the F-18 series and Rafale. Both are designed for CATOBAR operations which puts them a tad behind their land based counterparts in terms of performance. However, they do enjoy use by air forces for non-carrier operations.
IMHO the advances in fighter technologies have somewhat closed the gap between the high/low end capabilities, so comparisons can get rather confusing. I personally do not believe in fighter vs. fighter comparisons as there are multiple variables which must be taken into account, a tough task.
Bottom line is that aircraft are developed/chosen to meet mission requirements (and cost) for the end user.
In the case of the USA and Russia, the F-15, and Su-27 series were developed as air superiority fighters to counter each other at top end of fighter spectrum, hence a higher degree air-to-air sophistication and cost.
At the lower end we have the F-16 and Mig-29, hence lower cost and greater numbers. These are primarily meant for closer in, battlefield support, hence emphasis on low altitude performance, and air-to-ground systems.
In simple terms, the high end F-15/Su-27 have specific mission requirements different than the low end F-16/Mig-29 which is why they co-exist and compliment each other.
So far, I've discussed the USA and Russia which developed these fighter. So what about the rest of the world? They are customer countries and will buy fighters "off the shelf" to fulfill their requirements too, but this gets often muddied because some countries have similar hi-low end requirements (Israel, India, Japan) and others do not.
Two fighters which must must be mentioned are the F-18 series and Rafale. Both are designed for CATOBAR operations which puts them a tad behind their land based counterparts in terms of performance. However, they do enjoy use by air forces for non-carrier operations.
IMHO the advances in fighter technologies have somewhat closed the gap between the high/low end capabilities, so comparisons can get rather confusing. I personally do not believe in fighter vs. fighter comparisons as there are multiple variables which must be taken into account, a tough task.
Bottom line is that aircraft are developed/chosen to meet mission requirements (and cost) for the end user.
Not quite. The initial MiG-29 had no emphasis on air-to ground systems. It was a point air defense fighter. For air to ground we had Su-24 and Su-25.
That was the original case. I suspect this may be a case of budget shrinkages as well as the changing nature of warfare, that led to intially specialized fighters being modernized into full multi-roles as both a cost saving move and a recognition that modern conflicts like OIF require more tactical air support, and less air superiority.
You can certainly compare fighter to fighter. It just has to be within the context of a set of doctrinal requirements, and an existing force structure into which they will be integrated.
High end
I thought the F-15 was designed to get into firing positions on Mig-25s and the Su-27 was designed to beat F-15s?
To me its the subsystems and training plus AWACS was the main forces that gave the Eagle's an advantage over most Russian Su-27s, even to this day. The Su-30 based slightly on newer design cuts into the advantages the Eagles held. Other jets cuts into this advantage as well not just Su-30 types Flankers newer designs are just that. The mighty Eagles set the standards for many years and against most still a capable platform.
The Su-35 takes this advantages even further against 3rd and 4th generation fighters but will Russia get enough of them to be useful? I just think tech levels on Block-II 5th generation aircraft are going to jump over today's current type fighters by leaps and bounds. Much greater then the jet age over taking the prop engine aircraft and in less time overall.
I thought the F-15 was designed to get into firing positions on Mig-25s and the Su-27 was designed to beat F-15s?
To me its the subsystems and training plus AWACS was the main forces that gave the Eagle's an advantage over most Russian Su-27s, even to this day. The Su-30 based slightly on newer design cuts into the advantages the Eagles held. Other jets cuts into this advantage as well not just Su-30 types Flankers newer designs are just that. The mighty Eagles set the standards for many years and against most still a capable platform.
The Su-35 takes this advantages even further against 3rd and 4th generation fighters but will Russia get enough of them to be useful? I just think tech levels on Block-II 5th generation aircraft are going to jump over today's current type fighters by leaps and bounds. Much greater then the jet age over taking the prop engine aircraft and in less time overall.
Haavarla
Active Member
Last edited:
A-50
I don't recall even one being used in the Georgian conflict thought that was odd. Maybe other know more what shape Russia's AWACS fleet are in. I'm assuming since they haven't bought a lot of new aircraft over the last ten years years that some upgrades or maybe new aircraft are needed.
I don't recall even one being used in the Georgian conflict thought that was odd. Maybe other know more what shape Russia's AWACS fleet are in. I'm assuming since they haven't bought a lot of new aircraft over the last ten years years that some upgrades or maybe new aircraft are needed.