Russia - Egypt military contracts

The first Su-35 for Egypt

Spotter photographs were distributed, taken on July 22, 2020 at Tolmachevo airport (Novosibirsk) during the intermediate landing of the first five Su-35 fighters built for Egypt at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant (KnAAZ) named after Yu. Gagarin - a branch of PJSC "Company" Sukhoi "(as part of PJSC" UAC "of the State Corporation Rostec). Aircraft without identification marks, but with tail numbers on the keel, are flying from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to the European part of Russia for subsequent delivery to an Egyptian customer. Before Novosibirsk, the planes made an intermediate landing in Irkutsk.

Judging by the photographs, the five aircraft being ferried have tail numbers on the keels from "9210" to "9214".

We will remind that earlier it was reported (material of Ivan Safronov) that in 2018 Russia signed a contract with Egypt for the supply of "more than two dozen" (apparently 24) Su-35 fighters and means of aviation destruction for them in the amount of about $ 2 billion.

Egypt , thus, will become the second foreign recipient of Su-35 fighters after China, which received 24 aircraft in 2016-2018 under a 2015 contract worth about $ 2.5 billion.In 2018, a contract worth $ 1.14 billion was signed for the supply of 11 fighters Su-35 Indonesia, but it "stuck"for political reasons. There is also unconfirmed officially information about the conclusion in 2019 of a contract for the supply of 14 Su-35 fighters to Algeria.






The five first Su-35 fighters built for the Egyptian Air Force (tail numbers from "9210" to "9214") during an intermediate landing at Tolmachevo airport (Novosibirsk) during a flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to the European part of Russia, 07/22/2020 ( c) Andrey Neiman / vk.com/nskplanes The Su-35 fighter (tail number "9214") built for the Egyptian Air Force during an intermediate landing in Irkutsk during a flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to the European part of Russia, 07/22/2020 (from ) Alexey Korshunov / russianplanes.net ( link )

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4093806.html

George1 wrote:Egypt , thus, will become the second foreign recipient of Su-35 fighters after China, which received 24 aircraft in 2016-2018 under a 2015 contract worth about $ 2.5 billion.In 2018, a contract worth $ 1.14 billion was signed for the supply of 11 fighters Su-35 Indonesia, but it "stuck"for political reasons. There is also unconfirmed officially information about the conclusion in 2019 of a contract for the supply of 14 Su-35 fighters to Algeria.

14 possibly for Algeria?  That's an interesting number.  Anyway, do we have ANY information at all, about the weapons list for the Egyptian Su-35s?  Have they announced anything at all in Russia?  Even in some obscure, little website in the small, dark corner of the internet?  

Knowing how much weapons this beast of an aircraft can carry, my guess is that a good portion of that $2.1 billion is diverted to lots of weaponry to satisfy 24 or 26 of these massive and deadly beasts.

New Su-35 for Egypt



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4127579.html

Best cammo. Russia should paint them like this also.

Just noticed... had heard about it being suggested as a clever solution but this is the only time I have seen it...

The air brake function...

Using the vertical tail control surfaces as an air brake instead of having a separate back mounted air brake... clever...

GarryB wrote:


Just noticed... had heard about it being suggested as a clever solution but this is the only time I have seen it...

The air brake function...

Using the vertical tail control surfaces as an air brake instead of having a separate back mounted air brake... clever...

I noticed the F/A-18 does the same thing as well. But because the V-stabs are canted on the Hornet, they also use them to assist in takeoff by pulling the rudders inward. So both rudders outward for breaking on landing and both rudders inward for takeoff.

BTW, have you or anyone else heard of this order? And who is the alleged customer?

Russia will supply 67 Su-35 fighters to an unknown country - the contract amount is 7 billion dollars: https://avia-pro.net/news/rossiya-postavit-67-istrebiteley-su-35-neizvestnoy-strane-summa-kontrakta-7-mlrd-dollarov

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297989559427440644

Gomig-21 wrote:BTW, have you or anyone else heard of this order?  And who is the alleged customer?

Russia will supply 67 Su-35 fighters to an unknown country - the contract amount is 7 billion dollars: https://avia-pro.net/news/rossiya-postavit-67-istrebiteley-su-35-neizvestnoy-strane-summa-kontrakta-7-mlrd-dollarov

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297989559427440644

If the news come from avia.pro, then they are most likely false or exaggerated. People seem to think this is a huge order for Iran but we know that they have more than 60 planes already on order, most likely Egypt and Algeria. The revenue is true, but it was never said this was a single order but the global amount of orders for the Su-35:

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=536682

The numbers were revealed in the last visit of Shoigu to KnAAPO

I noticed the F/A-18 does the same thing as well. But because the V-stabs are canted on the Hornet, they also use them to assist in takeoff by pulling the rudders inward. So both rudders outward for breaking on landing and both rudders inward for takeoff.

The idea of using rudder deflection as an air brake is a good one, but whether you open them both outwards or open them both inwards the effect will be an air braking effect... an increase in drag.

If you turned one out and one in then it would create a turning force to one side and if you turned them the opposite way a turning force the other way for the aircraft, but opening them both out or both inwards cancels the sideways force from the other surface and just creates drag.

GarryB wrote:The idea of using rudder deflection as an air brake is a good one, but whether you open them both outwards or open them both inwards the effect will be an air braking effect... an increase in drag.

If you turned one out and one in then it would create a turning force to one side and if you turned them the opposite way a turning force the other way for the aircraft, but opening them both out or both inwards cancels the sideways force from the other surface and just creates drag.

I think what you're saying is true for aircraft with vertical stabilizers, such as the Su-27/30/37, F-14/15, MiG-25/31 etc.  Once you have "canted" or angled vertical stabilizers, that commonality is thrown right out the door because then the rudders create different results with canted V-stabs than with strictly vertical ones.

If you look at this google images page for the F/A-18 Hornet taking off, look at every single picture and you'll see each one has its rudders pulled inward for taking off.

https://www.google.com/search?q=F-18+taking+off&sxsrf=ALeKk03fGkbRjobGArfyC1HZ6mg1AWdfVg:1599484857106&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAx-y1kdfrAhV8j3IEHeYyBC0Q_AUoAXoECBkQAw&biw=1600&bih=722







My guess is that because of the canted angle of the V-stabs, the air is forced down by inward rudders and then also pushes down on the rear of the aircraft to help lift the nose up, along with the deflected horizontal stabilizers, of course.

Once you have "canted" or angled vertical stabilizers, that commonality is thrown right out the door because then the rudders create different results with canted V-stabs than with strictly vertical ones.

I suspect it is part of the flight control system because the aircraft has no actual airbrake it uses the rudders when the wheelbrake and air brake would be used...

Before it has orders to take off the brakes would be applied.

My guess is that because of the canted angle of the V-stabs, the air is forced down by inward rudders and then also pushes down on the rear of the aircraft to help lift the nose up, along with the deflected horizontal stabilizers, of course.

I would say the opposite... because the vertical fins are angled outwards when fully deflected they would act as airbrakes but the air going around the would be pushed upwards more than downwards to go over the top... you will also notice the horizontal tail surfaces are deflected downwards to create a down force so that when the aircraft clears the deck the tail is pushed down directing the engine thrust down and increasing the angle of attack and therefore lift generated by the wings.

I suspect the takeoff takes place so quickly the vertical tail control surfaces don't have time to open properly...

If you think about the 45 degree tail surfaces of the YF-23 the tail control surfaces would go the same way because there would not be horizontal tail surfaces to push the tail down to rotate the aircraft on takeoff...

Egypt Air Force Su-35

Looks good in any camo.

owais.usmani wrote:

Egypt Air Force Su-35

Are they actually delivering these to Egypt in despite of CAATSA?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:

Egypt Air Force Su-35

Are they actually delivering these to Egypt in despite of CAATSA?

Of course.  Sisi played this game perfectly, actually.  First he made really good friends with the orange baboon and flattered him and all that happy stuff that when he even asked him for the F-35, the orangutan said "yes, of course" LOL!  Then when he went to ask the rest of the staff to put paperwork together for Congress, they told him "WHAT!? Are you crazy?!  The biggest threat to Israel and you want to give them 24 F-35s?!  No way!"  

So Sisi said "Ok, no problem, we'll go to Russia and order 30 Su-35Ss from them" and I think the US thought Sisi was playing chicken because they waited until the contract was signed and a large portion was paid up front and they were building them before they offered the F-15 instead!  So the EAF brass was very upfront with the US delegation and told them no since they were already familiar with the F-15 and had asked for it twice before and both times were denied because of Israel and so they tested the Su-35 and discovered that it was a far superior aircraft to the F-15 and so decided to stay with the Russian fighter jet contract.  The US hasn't said much since then, but they would be risking a lot I think if they imposed CAATSA on Egypt.

What self respecting country would let another country tell her which weapons she should get and punish her for not buying their products while pretending to be an ally?

The US needs to grow up.

The US hasn't said much since then, but they would be risking a lot I think if they imposed CAATSA on Egypt.

Imposing CAATSA on Egypt would essentially be making a country that didn't want to buy you planes this time into a country that does not like you very much at all... talk about pushing people away and polarising countries... America....

GarryB wrote:What self respecting country would let another country tell her which weapons she should get and punish her for not buying their products while pretending to be an ally?

Not only that, but tell her which weapon she can get and how restricted that weapon will be!!!!!  That's probably the most infuriating part of the whole relationship with the US.  They've used Egypt as the prime example of how to practice that God forsaken ill-fated Israeli QME they tout about with ever weapons deal to the Arab world except the conditions are the most extreme when it comes to Egypt.  Imagine being the 4th largest operator of the F-16, yet not have GPS guided munitions for them (only laser) but more importantly, no advanced AMRAAMs only the latest version of the Vietnam era AIM-7 Sparrow where the pilot still has to laser illuminate the target for the entire duration of the missile's flight lool.  Certainly not a 110km range fire and forget.

But Jordan can have them, Saudi Arabia can have them, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan many of these don't have any diplomatic relationships with Israel and so they can be construed as more of a threat since we have a gaddam peace treaty that we've abided by every condition (even allowing the MOF to set up camp and a base and inspect for violation on our side of the Sinai but not in the Negev for 40 years!!!! Talk about getting the shit end of the stick lol what's wrong with that picture?

GarryB wrote:The US needs to grow up.

In some ways, as much as I also don't trust the French despite all the weapons they've sold us in the past five years, they did sell us the two MICA missiles and although they're in the 80km range, they're super advanced with high PoK and they essentially opened the door to Egypt for BVR missiles as well as the SCALP cruise missiles and are supposed to be supplying the Meteor at some point soon and then the highly touted MICA NG.  So I give the French a lot of credit for that as they've finally lifted Egypt into the BVR club while the US had its foot on our necks for 40+ years.

GarryB wrote:Imposing CAATSA on Egypt would essentially be making a country that didn't want to buy you planes this time into a country that does not like you very much at all... talk about pushing people away and polarising countries... America....

Indeed.  So many Egyptians are ecstatic about this Su-35 deal because it represents much more than an ultimate fighter.  It's salvation in many ways and many can't wait to shove it in the US' face, CAATSA or no CAATSA who the hell cares.  Those days of being under threat of that kind of bullshit is over.  Let's see if the US likes a belligerent Egypt that rips up that silly cold peace treaty and brings back that good old Arab tension into the area gain.  An eye for an eye.  Then be the first export customer for the Su-57 forget about Algeria screw them.  We'll make that jet proud just like the MiG-35, Su-35 an then the vaunted Su-57.

Even Egyptians didn't comment on the US threats which means they said "there is no chance to even discuss that with the white house" .

Don't take it personally though... they are like that with all their allies... the countries of Central and South America got mostly F-5s and A-4s instead of F-16s because mother America didn't think they needed anything better.

Of course Argentina could have done with some F-16s in the early 1980s...

From a US perspective the British likely still would have won because of their more advanced model Sidewinder they pinched from HATO stocks... the Mike and Lima models... but getting defeated by the British Harriers would have been embarrassing for the F-16 and would have hurt sales.

Imagine the difference a few long range MiG-23s with R-23 or R-24 long range AAMs.

They weren't amazing for the time but the speed of the MiG-23 and its range means they could rapidly approach and launch from 20-30km and then turn and return to base to rearm and try again... I suspect the Sea Harrier would be horribly vulnerable to long range IR guided missiles because of the location of their exhaust nozzles at the sides even visible from the front and sides and rear.

Rugged undercarriage would mean they could base them on the Islands too...

Blinken expresses worries over Egypt purchasing Russian Su-35s in a telephone call to the Egyptian side.

https://br.sputniknews.com/oriente_medio_africa/2021022417012363-eua-expressam-preocupacao-ao-egito-sobre-potencial-compra-de-cacas-russos/

Kiko wrote:Blinken expresses worries over Egypt purchasing Russian Su-35s in a telephone call to the Egyptian side.

https://br.sputniknews.com/oriente_medio_africa/2021022417012363-eua-expressam-preocupacao-ao-egito-sobre-potencial-compra-de-cacas-russos/

This is the third time they already showed concern to Egypt.

miketheterrible wrote:

Kiko wrote:Blinken expresses worries over Egypt purchasing Russian Su-35s in a telephone call to the Egyptian side.

https://br.sputniknews.com/oriente_medio_africa/2021022417012363-eua-expressam-preocupacao-ao-egito-sobre-potencial-compra-de-cacas-russos/

This is the third time they already showed concern to Egypt.

They are like a sticky girlfriend or a chewingum on your shoes. Stop it, it's embarrassing, they choosed someone else.

miketheterrible wrote:

Kiko wrote:Blinken expresses worries over Egypt purchasing Russian Su-35s in a telephone call to the Egyptian side.

https://br.sputniknews.com/oriente_medio_africa/2021022417012363-eua-expressam-preocupacao-ao-egito-sobre-potencial-compra-de-cacas-russos/

This is the third time they already showed concern to Egypt.

Because sancrions on Egypt will be rejected from east and west ,Egypt has good relations with everyone .

On the other side the situation could be worth for US if Egypt went far from US and come more close to Russia ,China and EU.

They will have to buy one or two A-50U to back their mig-29 and su-35 which aren't connected to US made AWACS they operate.

A couple of il-78 will also increase their efficiency.