Su-35S: News

LMFS wrote:I don't think it needs necessarily to be better than the IRST, then they would no bother with the later. Their approach is multispectral for their sensors and multifunctional for their radioelectric suites, so they can act both as communication, jamming or detection tools. In regards of their radars, ground based ones are already multiband, while new A-100 will have two bands too. It just allows better and more reliable detection of stealthy targets.

There's also the detection factor.  If the enemy aircraft ends up in that range that is just between what that wing AESA likes to be at without being completely detected and at the merge where now, you're only and best solution is using HOBS or the gun, the IRST becomes the most desirable form of detecting the enemy's IR signature and firing a missile using it.  

So the IRST might actually be the best form of taking down an enemy aircraft if the altercation ends up within that particular distance.

LMFS wrote:
I guess their concern is mainly VHF, because they know at those frequencies their planes glow in the radar screens practically as any other design, but you are right that current reality sends their narrative of "VLO designs" and planes that can perform their missions unsupported directly to the trash bin. But fanboys' religious faith is stronger than facts  

In any case, with the new network of radars against aerodynamic targets being set up all around Russia (Konteiner-3M), any hopes about stealth planes taking out unaware VKS fighters and interceptors while they try to shoot down AWACS/ISR, jammers and other supporting assets is just daydreaming.

I know this is not the thread to discuss this and it would be off-topic, but could you expound on that first paragraph about the VHF aspect supposedly being able to detect VLO AC just briefly, or maybe point me to another thread that discusses that concept in detail or even a link you learned that from?  That would be great and much appreciated.

I don't think it needs necessarily to be better than the IRST, then they would no bother with the later. Their approach is multispectral for their sensors and multifunctional for their radioelectric suites, so they can act both as communication, jamming or detection tools. In regards of their radars, ground based ones are already multiband, while new A-100 will have two bands too. It just allows better and more reliable detection of stealthy targets.

Well that is what I am trying to say... stealth attempts to fool high frequency radar which is normally used for detection and tracking of targets...

What they are doing is combining different radar frequencies and IR as well as optical and other sensor equipment to combine collected data. Each sensor type has weaknesses and limitations but also capabilities and strengths. By using them all together you can collate the data collected by their strengths and use that to eliminate noise and useless info to create information that is much better than any of the sensors could have produced on their own.

In fact an L band return from a direction where there is no Ku or X band return or a very weak return, but a relatively clear IR signature suggests that is a stealth object and a full power X or Ku band scan might be in order to see if that improve the return... or is reflected to the passively operating X and Ku band radars of other platforms the aircraft is operating with.

I guess it doesn't hurt to address that briefly. LO design relies mainly on two aspects, shaping and materials, the first being responsible for most of the RCS reduction and necessary for true VLO design (faceted surfaces, planform alignment and so on).

Yes, stealth design is a bit like the opposite of reflector design. A reflector on a car or bike seems like it has its own light built in because if you shine a torch on it at night it appears to be like someone is shining a torch right back at you. Your torchlight is captured and intensified and shone right back at you so it is very easy to see.

Stealth design is the opposite so when a torch is pointed at it.. rather than reflecting it back like a mirror where you see your torch reflected... think of it as a mirror turned 45 degrees so your torchlight is not directed back at you but off on a different angle that you cannot see.

If there is no light source where the mirror is redirecting your light then it will look dark and against the rest of the dark sky will be very difficult to spot.

Using a different radar wavelength is like using a different frequency of light... so using VHF frequencies is like using a thermal imager instead of a torch and binoculars. The mirror has a temperature which will appear in the thermal imager...

Put another way, a stealth design like an F-22 or F-35 is designed to deflect radar waves of X and Ku bands so they don't go back towards the radar that sent the signal. With a VHF wave the signal is not effected by the shape of the object and the small detailed curves and bumps or facets don't effect the beam which just bounces straight back...

I personally find Kopp easy to understand because of the way he explains things and would recommend reading his work... he is not always right with his speculations but there is no doubt he knows what he is talking about... it is just that he has no access to classified or inside information...

With the deliveries of the Su-35S coming to an end.. and while the Su-57 is yet to come ... Are there any plans for a new batch of Su-35S (maybe SM)?

Some ideas for an SM version
- Updated engines (same as the Su-57/1)
- AESA Radar
- Improved cockpit (wide area HUD, such as Su-57 and Su30SM)
- Other stuff from Su-57, like the IR sensors and others
- any other?


I guess putting ready-made elements of the future fighter into serial production can advance things and even reduce the final price. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a batch of 2 or 3 squads of a type like this while the 57 sharpens its nails...

Su-35 is supposed to replace aging Su-27 from the 1980s. Basically 2 Su-27 can be replaced by 1 Su-35. Meaning Russian air force will have to order about 100 more Su-35 over the next decade.

ultimatewarrior wrote:Basically 2 Su-27 can be replaced by 1 Su-35.

How do you come to that conclusion?

The Russians have never said they want an all stealth fleet of fighter aircraft and AFAIK they were never going to replace all existing types with Su-57s and any lighter stealth fighters MiG come up with...

Interceptors will continue with MiG-31s and then MiG-41s, and the Su-57 will be improved with new engines and new equipment and systems and probably the Su-35 will receive improved equipment based on that developed for the Su-57 over time. They will also fill gaps and improve performance with drones like the S-70 and new MIG medium stealth fighters too and presumably their drones as well.

Basically 2 Su-27 can be replaced by 1 Su-35.

Is what they would say in the west to justify why the new plane is five times more expensive than the old plane... it is three times better and you only need half as many so having one Su-35 for every two Su-27s in service means reducing fleet numbers by 50% and getting a 50% improvement in performance because individually they are three times better.

The problem is that western planes have to get better because new Russian planes are a lot better and also cheaper and will be out there in bigger numbers over time because they are affordable... unlike the F-35.

Over the next few years Russia will be buying Su-30s, upgraded Su-27s, Su-35s, Su-57s, MiG-41s, MiG-35s, and the new MiGs they are developing... they wont be short of fighters.

LMFS wrote:I guess it doesn't hurt to address that briefly. LO design relies mainly on two aspects, shaping and materials, the first being responsible for most of the RCS reduction and necessary for true VLO design (faceted surfaces, planform alignment and so on). But the effectiveness of shaping is dependent on the physical size of the aircraft's elements compared to the wavelengths of the radar. To put it very simply, if the wavelength is bigger than the plane's surfaces, these cannot redirect the radiation in a controlled way, that means, shaping loses its value and only RAM/RAS apply, but their effectiveness is also dependent on the wavelength. This is the reason why Russians seem so relaxed about Western VLO planes (they say openly that they can see them) and why the West is developing new planes and ways of fighting these low frequency radars.

There are many sources on the internet addressing this issue, maybe one of the best to start with is Carlo Kopp's analysis in Air Power Australia. I have learned also quite a bit from different users in this and other forums, where now and then guys with actual knowledge explain how it is done.

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Nebo-SVU-Analysis.html
https://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/DT-CVLO-Mar-2012.pdf

Thanks for the reply and the information on those links that I didn't get a chance to thank you for.  Appreciate it very much.  That's some good information.

Speaking of good information, here's a couple of links I was just reading today regarding the Plasma Ignition concept on these new Su-35S.  This is pretty good stuff  since it's really for the layman to understand lol.  Hope you fellas enjoy it too since I really didn't know much about WTF plasma ignition was in the first place.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/aeronautics-and-astronautics/plasma-assisted-ignition-and-combustion

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1066982_forget-spark-plugs-plasma-based-ignition-makes-engines-more-efficient

The only "plasma" effect I knew of was what the Russian general promised way back in 2002 or 2003 in an article in Combat Magazine about the then PAK-FA and it's major stealthy attribute was a new, Russian discovery/invention/innovation which was to be a plasma cloud that would engulf the entire aircraft during flight and render it borderline Clingone, as it would be practically invisible to any radar of any type and strength.

When I first read that (and I'm sure you fellas remember that load of kaka lol), I was pretty excited because I wanted to see the Russians give the Americans a run for their money and the F-22.  Turns out, it really was a load of kaka mixed with some strong ass vodka!  What ever happened to that "great" idea?

Anyone know if the Khibiny ECM pods are permanently attached to a specific airframe's wingtips or are they removable and the weapons pylon installed and vice-versa? It seems like the pods are permanently attached to me and the specific aircraft that has them would have specific avionics hardware and software to work the pods and that they aren't really interchangeable. Any one know if that is true? I tried to search for info but there's nothing out there in English.

I've seen all the images possible of Su-35s with the pods and the ones without pods have wingtip pylons, which indicates to me that it's either one or the other and not that they are interchangeable. Hence the question because none of the English sources I could find give any information that those pods are actually replaceable on any Su-35S or certain ones with particular wiring and hardware & software etc.

Just curious because it seems like the ones that do carry them are dedicated ECM platforms, while the others that have pylons only are not.

When I first read that (and I'm sure you fellas remember that load of kaka lol), I was pretty excited because I wanted to see the Russians give the Americans a run for their money and the F-22. Turns out, it really was a load of kaka mixed with some strong ass vodka! What ever happened to that "great" idea?

Have you ever seen one of those toy plasma balls... it seems to have lightning in it and when you put your hand on the glass surface a lightning bolt comes out from the centre and traces the shape of your hand.

An electric charge and some exotic gasses is all you need.

What the Russians were talking about a few decades ago was to electrify the air around the aircraft to make it act like ionised air... which would effectively absorb radio and radar waves of all frequencies... the problem is that the speed the aircraft moves means it would be like trying to cover it in smoke because of the speed they move it might be good to hide from radars from behind but most of the time it is radars in front of you that you are worried about.

It was not totally useless at the front of most aircraft is a big nose radome and the front end of that is generally hollow with a radar antenna set about a metre back from the nose tip.

What you can do is fit a bladder or gas container inside the nose radome and fill it with exotic gasses that turn into a plasma without needing to be heated to very high temperatures... like the ones in the toy glass balls.

When you put a small electric current through it creates a plasma that absorbs radar waves coming in and bouncing off the front of the radar antenna and absorbs them again when they bounce back through so any signal that might get through will be dramatically reduced.

Also when you want to use your own radar you can disable the power and it is radar and radio transparent... when you want to increase stealth and don't need to listen for radar signals then it is not complicated... you need electricity lines into your radar antenna anyway so the power is there, the space is otherwise unused... the exotic gasses might not be super cheap but they are kept and not consumed... they wouldn't be heavier than normal air, and it should significantly reduce RCS when you need it...

Of course hypersonic missiles can use their friction heated nose areas to generate real plasma from normal atmospheric air and they have mentioned that they have means of using radar and radio communication with these weapons... which suggests they have done a lot of work with radars and radio communication and plasmas...

Anyone know if the Khibiny ECM pods are permanently attached to a specific airframe's wingtips or are they removable and the weapons pylon installed and vice-versa?

They should be swappable... even just when a new pod becomes available and can be swapped out with the old one.

It seems like the pods are permanently attached to me and the specific aircraft that has them would have specific avionics hardware and software to work the pods and that they aren't really interchangeable.

AFAIK they are just pods that can be carried on the wing tips or carried on a standard pylon. When used on the wing tips they generally replace the pylon, but for example with the Su-25 pods often replace the AAM outer pylon because essentially they do the same job in a different way...

Just curious because it seems like the ones that do carry them are dedicated ECM platforms, while the others that have pylons only are not.

Have seen Su-33s with wingtip self defence pods too.... it is like ERA on tanks... they might not fit them in peace time but during actual conflicts most aircraft/tanks will have them and use them.

If they needed serious upgrades or changes to use them then they would be pretty stupid.... the whole point of putting it into a pod is so you can carry it when you need it or can put something else there when you don't. It also means you can buy 40 pods for 100 aircraft because they are designed to protect other aircraft in the flight... every single aircraft in a group does not need them.

I would expect the wingtip pylon is simply removed because those pods are design to attach directly to the wing tip... there are likely adapters so they can be carried on specific pylon types on other aircraft that don't have wing tip weapon pylons.

Has anyone come across a impartial assessment of IRST systems? All the articles I have come across all say: "well the SU-35 has one but its not as good as Eurofighter bla bla". The Russians have been much more commited to  IRST then western countries so I am not buying this. Its also a great way to neutralize stealth.... and seems logical that Russia would invest heavily on this type of tech. It seems with the OLS-35 combining IR/Optical and laser ranging.. there is a lot of potential here

Mark

Well first of all IRSTs are not new for Russia... their MiG-25s and MiG-23s came with them as standard, as did their MiG-29s and Su-27s.

The thing about target detection is that you want two key bits of information... first the angular direction to the target, and second the distance. Radar is OK with angular distance, but good for distance to target and also speed of the target in relation to your aircraft. The IRST excels in terms of angular tracking... even more so because of its simplicity.

IRSTs are not thermal imagers... they don't create a detailed image of the airspace around the aircraft... they detect hotspots... and modern aircraft are generally a collection of dozens of hotspots of different intensities... when they move together in a cluster that can become a target for an IRST.

When you see modern aircraft launching flares they tend to launch them in clusters and the point of that is to form a group of hotspots to mimic an aircraft.

For an interceptor like a MiG-23 you will generally be directed to an intercept point determined by ground control to a position behind the target where they can't spot you but you missiles will be within easy reach of the targets... you can fly out with your IRST on, though ground radars and air based radars will provide your radar display with full target information despite your radar being off... your view from your IRST is live and might show drones or cruise missiles that other radars further away might not have spotted.

Once you are in position to launch a missile you launch a missile... you don't use your radar straight away... when the aircraft are shot down you might turn your radar on to try to spot any missiles they might have already launched or other elusive targets the ground based radar might have missed.

IRSTs are different enough from Radar to make both very useful and complimentary....

There are at least three bands of IR that are useful in the earths atmosphere and are not limited range and useless... and imaginatively they are called long, medium, and short.

Interestingly the Armata tank has short IR cameras as well as medium and long wave.... the short wave IR can see through glass and to an extent water... which makes it rather interesting... combined with the other wavelengths and indeed visible light and with video processing you can get a very detailed view of the world 24/7...

The IRST on the MiG-35 is also pretty good... I believe the laser range finder is good to 20km against air targets and can be used to mark ground targets out to 30km in clear weather of course...

franco wrote:So if 21 Su-30SM2's and 25 Yak-130's are costing 100 billion then 70 billion will not buy a lot of Su-35's. My guess would be about 24-30.

The thing is Su-35S costs almost the same as Su-30SM. In 2015 the contract was 60 billion rubles for 50 Su-35S. Since then the inflation was around 24%. So it could even be the same 48 planes as before. Do not forget that they talk about Su-30SM2 which are supposed to be comparable to Su-35S, but unlike those they have yet to begin their serial production, which would make Su-30SM2's more expensive. So if I had to bet I'd say 70 bln would get you at least 36 Su-35S.