Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-35S: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 04, 2011 3:27 am

    Im wondering how this Su-35"S" is any different from the two previous
    Su-35BM that was tested last year. Which of them is really the final
    production model?

    The Su-35BM is the pre-production prototype... a test bed to put all the bits together in a real plane and see if they all work together. It is generally put together with available parts but not in a production line... it is hand made.
    The Su-35S is the serial production aircraft, but by the article above it seems the S models were used to accelerate systems testing. There are lots of things that need to be checked like whether the new radar in the new nose configuration with the new IRST next to it is properly cooled and doesn't overheat the stuff next to it and cause problems. Stuff like that.
    This article talks about the first serial production batch of Su-35S fighters that have been made in a production line rather than made as a single aircraft prototype. They have been tested and are being sent to the Russian Air Force who will send them to a testing and evaluation centre to draw up the various operations manuals which will be printed and distributed to the units when they get the new planes.
    Serial production aircraft are made in a way that they can be put together in a factory production line. Changes will be made to the prototype design to make them easier to put together on a factory line so the serial aircraft will be different to the prototype so even if the prototype was fully flight tested, the serial production models still need flight testing to make sure changes made to make them easier and cheaper to make on a production line haven't effected performance and characteristics.

    For instance on the prototype electronics might be put where it will fit for the moment, in the production model they might shift a few things around to make it easier to build and easier to maintain. Things might be shifted or access panels might be enlarged to make certain things easier to get at for example which might have nothing to do with how easy it is to make and put together. Or it might be found that two access panels close together can be combined into one which makes it quicker and easier to make and reduces the number of edges/panels/screws etc.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Wed May 04, 2011 5:52 pm



    First serial Su-35.


    There is your answer Medo... these are the first serial production Su-35s.
    [quote]
    I know they wrote serial production. The only think which bother me is, that there was no pre-serial batch of Su-35, or I missed them. Usually they first build few pre-serial examples to see if any modifications are needed before serial production. All other planes and helicopters have pre-serial batch, so I don't know why Su-35 would be a different example. Anyway, it is good, that air force will finally get new serial Su-35, which will increase their air defense capabilities. I hope this will give wings also to PAK FA.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 05, 2011 2:36 am

    I would assume that because the Flanker airframe is pretty tried and trusted and there were at least two Su-35BM prototypes plus I saw at least one Su-30M used to test the new radar system for the Su-35 that perhaps the pre serial production stage could be skipped.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Thu May 05, 2011 5:01 pm

    http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/su-35/1st_ser_su-35_trials.wbp

    Su-35 pictures from KNAAPO.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 06, 2011 3:38 am

    Thanks for the link Medo... I notice there is a link there to download all the pics as a zip file... very handy.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Sat May 07, 2011 7:42 pm




    There are interesting new sensors in front of cockpit, behind cockpit end under cockpit. Maybe something like DAS in F-35 or Spectra in Rafale?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 08, 2011 3:20 am

    It is quite hard to tell... can clearly see the inflight refuelling probe retracted of course.

    Would prefer better angles and higher resolution shots before I speculated there was a DAS like system.

    After the Mig-35 was revealed to have such a system I think Sukhoi probably decided straight away that the Su-35 needed one too.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Stealth design SU-35 aircraft

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon May 16, 2011 11:42 am


    Hostile radar range cut on Su-35s

    Russian stealth researchers have developed materials and techniques that can reduce the head-on radar cross-section (RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter by an order of magnitude, halving the range at which hostile radars can detect it. The research group - working with Sukhoi, but based at the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow - has performed more than 100 hours of testing on a reduced-RCS Su-35 and has also experimented with the use of plasmas - ionized gases - to reduce RCS.

    US and European aircraft manufacturers have used specially developed materials to reduce the RCS of basically non-stealthy aircraft for many years. Notable examples include the Have Glass and Have Glass II modifications to the F-16. However, Russian work in this area was undisclosed until ITAE researchers presented a paper to a conference on stealth in London in late October 2003, which was organized by the International Quality and Productivity Centre.

    According to the ITAE presentation, Russian researchers have developed mathematical tools that can calculate scattering from complex configurations, such as an Su-35 carrying a full external missile load, by breaking them down into small facets and adding the effects of edge waves and surface currents. The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.

    "A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200ºC. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets


    The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22 m3 vacuum chamber.

    ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.

    ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards and treating or shrouding other components. One of these is to design a radome that can be switched from RF-transparent to RF-reflective. The interior of the radome would be coated with a cadmium sulphide or cadmium selenide thin-film semiconductor material which changes conductivity when illuminated with visible or ultra-violet light.

    However, the problem of making such a film has not been solved.

    A second technique that is also described in Western literature is to place a frequency selective surface screen in front of the antenna. This is a foil-like metal screen etched with small apertures which allow RF energy to pass within a narrow waveband, corresponding to the radar's own operating frequency. This reduces RCS, according to ITAE, but at the expense of radar performance.

    However, ITAE has flight-tested a more exotic technology: the use of a low-temperature plasma screen in front of the radar antenna. The screen hardware is mounted in front of the antenna and is transparent to the radar when switched off.

    When activated, the screen absorbs some incoming radar energy and reflects the rest in safe directions over all RF bands lower than the frequency of the plasma cloud. It switches on and off in tens of microseconds, according to ITAE.

    In principle, this is the same as the 'plasma stealth system that was reportedly developed by the Keldysh Scientific Research Center (also part of the Academy) in 1999.

    At the time, it was claimed that the system, using a 100kg generator, could reduce the RCS of any aircraft by two orders of magnitude, or 20dB. ITAE has not attempted to develop a whole-aircraft system, but researchers expressed the view that it would be difficult to apply except to a high-altitude, low-airspeed aircraft because the airstream would dissipate the plasma faster than it could be generated.

    The ITAE paper also gave some indications of the direction of stealth technology for future aircraft. Test facilities include large compact indoor RCS ranges for large-scale models and outdoor ground-level ranges with short pylons that can be used to test full-size aircraft (rather than the models used for US pylon tests).

    In future designs, one emphasis is on large, complex skin panels, reducing the number of gaps and mechanical fasteners in the skin.

    Source: INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JANUARY 01, 2004

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:58 pm




    First more clear picture of OEIS on serial Su-35. It is something similar to DAS in F-35. Anyway, Su-35 will be very effective fighter plane.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:58 pm

    nice photo,
    i think DAS is little bigger ?

    su-35 can face anything in the west except Raptor..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:22 am

    Unless they start making more F-22s I suspect F-22s will not be for export ever... which should mean we will never find out how an F-22 goes against a Su-35.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:20 pm

    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:50 am

    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

    How would you know what the Su-35s RCS is?

    You are just guessing and the fact you suggest it has a low RCS "for a Russian plane" shows you have a bias against Russian planes.

    By giving a hard figure you make it sound like you actually know when it is clearly a case of the opinion of someone who doesn't have a high opinion of Russian aircraft or their designers and engineers.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:06 am

    The amusing part of RCS debate when I see those 0.1 m2 and 0.5 m2 for Eurofighter and Rafale is when PAK-FA chief designer mentioned that its RCS will be no worse than F-22 and will be 0.3 - 0.4 m2.

    Now considering PAK-FA is a fighter designed from ground up using shape optimised for Stealth , and Rafale and Eurofighter has no such requirenment when it was designed in late 80's , F-22 certainly did.

    Its really hard to see how Typhoon and Rafale can come up with those figures and its pretty meaning less for a fighter that cannot carry internal weapons but 10 -12 external HP , the careful stealth goes for toss.

    Truth be told only F-22 ,PAK-FA and JSF are stealth aircraft in true sense , while Typhoon , Rafale are just some best figures obtained at certain optimium angle for certain band and is more of marketing stuff. The best RAM in the world can still produce band specific stealth.

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:34 am

    GarryB wrote:
    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

    How would you know what the Su-35s RCS is?

    You are just guessing and the fact you suggest it has a low RCS "for a Russian plane" shows you have a bias against Russian planes.

    By giving a hard figure you make it sound like you actually know when it is clearly a case of the opinion of someone who doesn't have a high opinion of Russian aircraft or their designers and engineers.

    Don't be so outright ignorant now.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-design.htm

    Beyond these changes, radar absorbent material of greater durability allied with the structural changes, mean that it is expected that the RCS of the aircraft will be equivalent of a F-16, that is, around 1m (Reduced RCS (b/w F-16 (about 1m^2).

    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Austin wrote:The amusing part of RCS debate when I see those 0.1 m2 and 0.5 m2 for Eurofighter and Rafale is when PAK-FA chief designer mentioned that its RCS will be no worse than F-22 and will be 0.3 - 0.4 m2.

    Now considering PAK-FA is a fighter designed from ground up using shape optimised for Stealth , and Rafale and Eurofighter has no such requirenment when it was designed in late 80's , F-22 certainly did.

    Its really hard to see how Typhoon and Rafale can come up with those figures and its pretty meaning less for a fighter that cannot carry internal weapons but 10 -12 external HP , the careful stealth goes for toss.

    Truth be told only F-22 ,PAK-FA and JSF are stealth aircraft in true sense , while Typhoon , Rafale are just some best figures obtained at certain optimium angle for certain band and is more of marketing stuff. The best RAM in the world can still produce band specific stealth.

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

    You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:02 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    What is the BIG difference , PAK-FA is just a Russian Acronym for the project and T-50 is a prototype , much is JSF is for F-35 , they are are the same thing.

    You should note that when Eurofighter , Rafale were designed aerodynamic quality was the key driving point and not stealth , same for Su-35 which is an advanced flanker derivative which superior aerodynamic quality and not real attention to stealth beyond RAM coating and perhaps radar blocker if at all.

    Those are like great marketing figures , can make a good talking point but in real combat its advantage is not great but nominal.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:18 am

    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Actually the intakes on the F-15 are similar to the Tu-22M3 bomber... and the shape of them increased the RCS of the Backfire by 25%.

    The Mig-21 and Mig-23 did not have larger RCS than the F-4 and F-16s that were contemporary equivelents.

    The Mig-25 and F-15 are incredibly similar in external shape and most likely have near identical RCS.

    You insinuated all Russian aircraft had higher RCS than their european and US equivelents.

    The example you give... the Su-27 had US equivelents in the F-14 and F-15 which are hardly better in any respect. In fact the more modern blending of wing and fuselage on the Flanker should lead to better RCS characteristics than either the F-14 and F-15.


    BTW if you had read the first post you would know that when they mention plasma they are talking about a surface coating technique to apply a RAM coating to the aircraft and the weapons it carries.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:11 pm

    Stealth
    As mentioned earlier, Sukhoi learned that a large RCS does not help the plane, as such, to the refinement of the lines, Sukhoi allied other Stealth measures:
    _ Use of RAM layers throughout the structure.
    _ Treatment of the air inlets with a RAM layer with a thickness between 0.7 and 1.4 mm.
    _ Treatment of the face of the engine with RAM material
    _Treatment of the canopy with electro conductive materials that prevent reflection of radar waves.
    These measures mean a RCS between 0.7 and 1 m2.
    In terms of the thermal signature Sukhoi should have used ceramic materials in parts that reach higher temperatures, such as in the exhaust of the engine.

    http://sukhoitributeenglish.blogspot.com/

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:51 pm

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    What is the BIG difference , PAK-FA is just a Russian Acronym for the project and T-50 is a prototype , much is JSF is for F-35 , they are are the same thing.

    You should note that when Eurofighter , Rafale were designed aerodynamic quality was the key driving point and not stealth , same for Su-35 which is an advanced flanker derivative which superior aerodynamic quality and not real attention to stealth beyond RAM coating and perhaps radar blocker if at all.

    Those are like great marketing figures , can make a good talking point but in real combat its advantage is not great but nominal.

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    You are correct in that the Eurofighter and Rafale's RCS are "nominal", but only because pretty much the world's Gen 4+ (or Gen 4.5, whichever you prefer) has tried to reduce it's RCS dramatically (with the F-15 Silent Eagle being the most dramatic). They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    GarryB wrote:
    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Actually the intakes on the F-15 are similar to the Tu-22M3 bomber... and the shape of them increased the RCS of the Backfire by 25%.

    The Mig-21 and Mig-23 did not have larger RCS than the F-4 and F-16s that were contemporary equivelents.

    The Mig-25 and F-15 are incredibly similar in external shape and most likely have near identical RCS.

    You insinuated all Russian aircraft had higher RCS than their european and US equivelents.

    The example you give... the Su-27 had US equivelents in the F-14 and F-15 which are hardly better in any respect. In fact the more modern blending of wing and fuselage on the Flanker should lead to better RCS characteristics than either the F-14 and F-15.


    BTW if you had read the first post you would know that when they mention plasma they are talking about a surface coating technique to apply a RAM coating to the aircraft and the weapons it carries.


    (If you noticed, I said Su-27 derivatives, don't go off topic with MiGs).

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35. I'm not saying the Su-35 has a huge RCS like older Russian planes, I'm simply saying it's still larger than it's modern counterparts.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore. If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth. Otherwise, Plasma stealth remains to be a myth, and even if it were implemented, you can detect it's ion trail farther than you can see it on your radar.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:12 am

    You said (the Su-35) ...
    has a very low RCS for a Russian plane,

    Suggesting that Russian planes have high RCS.

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    It is a flying prototype... two of at least 12. Stealth is hardly going to be tested on every prototype... they can do that with models including full sized models, for the flying prototypes they are more interested in flight performance, engines, radar, systems integration, weapons etc.

    They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    If a LO wont fare much better than a normal 4th or 4.5 gen fighter then it doesn't help... making a plane is expensive and a compromise in design.

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35.

    Can you back that up with evidence or is it just your opinion?

    The blended fuselage/wing design of the Flanker should already make its RCS from most angles smaller than that of the Eagle.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore.

    Don't really care what you believe, it was designed initially to generate ionised gas fields around warheads... there were articles in the 1990s just like there were articles about all sorts of things they wanted foreigners to invest money into to keep the programs going. Now the articles stop you can think the programs are dead all you want... happy in the secure knowledge that if it were even possible for a Russian to have an idea that might work, or that there is any alternative to the path the US has blazed in stealth technology that obviously you would be told on CNN or Fox News... because they have fair and balanced reporting and keep Americans well informed about things that matter.

    If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth.

    Wouldn't if I did... I don't think you are interested in such things for the same reasons I am. Would just say that the Russians were printing articles and putting out lots of info on scramjet research in the 1990s too... not so much now. All you hear is scramjet powered Brahmos II. If there were no collaborative program with India we wouldn't even hear about that. So that is proof they are not working on scramjet technology either.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:13 am

    GarryB wrote:You said (the Su-35) ...
    has a very low RCS for a Russian plane,

    Suggesting that Russian planes have high RCS.

    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    It is a flying prototype... two of at least 12. Stealth is hardly going to be tested on every prototype... they can do that with models including full sized models, for the flying prototypes they are more interested in flight performance, engines, radar, systems integration, weapons etc.

    No one's doubting that Garry, all I'm saying is that because no PAK-FAs that we know of have a complete Stealth package, you can't completely estimate it's RCS. Sukhoi's current claim (most likely without the 2 stealth features I mentioned) is probably based on a PAK-FA's shaping, which is also probably why Western Gen 4.5 planes have about the same RCS too.

    They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    If a LO wont fare much better than a normal 4th or 4.5 gen fighter then it doesn't help... making a plane is expensive and a compromise in design.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35.

    Can you back that up with evidence or is it just your opinion?

    The blended fuselage/wing design of the Flanker should already make its RCS from most angles smaller than that of the Eagle.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore.

    Don't really care what you believe, it was designed initially to generate ionised gas fields around warheads... there were articles in the 1990s just like there were articles about all sorts of things they wanted foreigners to invest money into to keep the programs going. Now the articles stop you can think the programs are dead all you want... happy in the secure knowledge that if it were even possible for a Russian to have an idea that might work, or that there is any alternative to the path the US has blazed in stealth technology that obviously you would be told on CNN or Fox News... because they have fair and balanced reporting and keep Americans well informed about things that matter.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth.

    Wouldn't if I did... I don't think you are interested in such things for the same reasons I am. Would just say that the Russians were printing articles and putting out lots of info on scramjet research in the 1990s too... not so much now. All you hear is scramjet powered Brahmos II. If there were no collaborative program with India we wouldn't even hear about that. So that is proof they are not working on scramjet technology either.

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:26 pm

    Look no need to be jingoistic what I know & every body can observe that Sukhois are large birds made by a different school of thought with a different take on contemporary technology & defence tactics. One must acknowledge that we cant giv exact figures regarding RCS of even the age old SR-71...however, what we can observe as general public that Russian planes in general are large & are accustomed to carry big loads of AAMs & thus have relatively high RCS (look I ain't giving any figures here)

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:32 pm

    Austin wrote:

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

    ...& now I assume you are going to provide a downloading link I love you

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:51 am

    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    You gave the Su-27 as an example and then compared it with later aircraft used in different roles like the Rafale and F-18, rather than the F-15 which is the only western aircraft directly comparable to it.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    We were discussing their effect against stealth aircraft where you suggested the upgrades were both useful and worthless.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Totally worthless information for aircraft that carry weapons externally.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    Interesting you will accept opinions from the web links you post above but my opinion is worthless.
    Good to know.

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.

    No I am not. But clearly we are drawing different conclusions from this fact.
    Now that they probably have proper funding what purpose would their be to publishing results now?
    Actually now that I think about it there was mention of using Plasma Stealth to reduce RCS that was to be applied to the Su-35 and Su-34. I have had a discussion on this forum about it with someone else, but I am not in the mood to help you find it right now. Normally I am happy to share info, but when things become argumentative and I am challenged to prove something wrong I sort of feel like I am being manipulated to be their library B!tch to search for info just to prove myself.
    I don't do that.

    You don't need to believe me... remaining ignorant is your problem, not mine.

    Look no need to be jingoistic what I know & every body can observe that Sukhois are large birds made by a different school of thought with a different take on contemporary technology & defence tactics.

    That is a bit of a generalisation. The Flanker is large because its mission requires range and a significant weapon load. The B-2 proves physical size has nothing to do with RCS. Is the Mig-21 a big plane? It was Russian, how about those big Sukhois like the Su-9 and Su-11, or the Su-7 for that matter.

    however, what we can observe as general public that Russian planes in general are large & are accustomed to carry big loads of AAMs & thus have relatively high RCS (look I ain't giving any figures here)

    Big weapon loads? Compare a Mig-29 with an F-18. A Mig-23 has a tiny front on profile.

    The article above talks about a coating that can be applied to external ordinance to reduce RCS too.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:40 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    You gave the Su-27 as an example and then compared it with later aircraft used in different roles like the Rafale and F-18, rather than the F-15 which is the only western aircraft directly comparable to it.

    Right, so instead of discussing history I should of discussed more modern matters; such as the Su-35 and it's larger RCS compared to comparable planes.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    We were discussing their effect against stealth aircraft where you suggested the upgrades were both useful and worthless.

    You keep thinking I'm suggesting anything, I mean what I say, a Gen 4.5 craft will fare better than it's Gen 4 counterpart.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Totally worthless information for aircraft that carry weapons externally.

    Nope. The Su-35's frontal RCS is estimated to be 1 m2, I think, with minimal external stores, while the F-15SE's is what it is with it's internal stores.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    Interesting you will accept opinions from the web links you post above but my opinion is worthless.
    Good to know.

    I hazard you don't have any real military experience? Thus it is your opinion!

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.

    No I am not. But clearly we are drawing different conclusions from this fact.
    Now that they probably have proper funding what purpose would their be to publishing results now?
    Actually now that I think about it there was mention of using Plasma Stealth to reduce RCS that was to be applied to the Su-35 and Su-34. I have had a discussion on this forum about it with someone else, but I am not in the mood to help you find it right now. Normally I am happy to share info, but when things become argumentative and I am challenged to prove something wrong I sort of feel like I am being manipulated to be their library B!tch to search for info just to prove myself.
    I don't do that.

    You don't need to believe me... remaining ignorant is your problem, not mine.

    Ha, remaining arrogant is your problem and remaining open minded is mine. Don't pretend to be right all the time because you know you're wrong and just want to save face from this plenty ole' American.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:30 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:30 am