Su-35S: News

Read that the new upgraded Su-30SM2 will share engines, radars and other devices from the Su-35S making them more compatible and simplify logistics / repairs. They will in effect become the 2-seat version of the Su-35. Plans are that over time all the Su-30SM's will be brought up to SM2 standards.

Initially the Su-35s systems were untested and immature, but were also related to things developed for the Su-57... now that they have operational experience with the Su-35, including in Syria, then it just makes sense to fit that same equipment to all Flanker type fighter bombers.

The Su-34 stuff is probably different enough to warrant its own upgrade but some things for the Su-35 could certainly be used but it will need its own upgrades of other unique things like the radar for example.

This means despite having various versions of upgraded Su-27s, Su-30s, Su-35s, and Su-34s, they are going to end up with essentially a single (35) and two seat (30) fighter/medium strike aircraft and a medium strike (34), plus the stealth pair of Su-57 and S-70.

AMCXXL wrote:

George1 wrote:I had the impression that there were 6 more to be delivered not 3, But probably we had an earlier delivery as well

Yes, probably other 3 were sent to Vladivostok one or two monts ago, because also several airplanes from Dzemgi regiment also were trasnferred to Tsentralnaya Uglovaya to raise a second Su-35 squadron

The most probable is today are 98 in service in those units:
24 Besovets
12 Khotilovo
22 Dzemgi
17 Vladivostok
8 Kubinka
8 Lipetsk
6 Akhtubisnk
1 Zhukovsky

From yesterday:

The Russian group in the far East was reinforced with su-35 fighters

Su-35 multirole fighters entered service in the air force and air defense associations of the Eastern military district (VVO). This was announced on Saturday, January 2, by the press service of the

It is noted that combat aircraft are involved in performing combat training tasks in the air units of the Eastern military district.

It is specified that the military received new fighters at the end of 2020."Interfax".

In late November, the Russian defense Ministry reported receiving three su-35S from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant.

It was noted that two su-35S will be delivered to the center for training aviation personnel and military tests of the Russian defense Ministry in Lipetsk.

Another su-35S will remain in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the 23rd Tallinn fighter aviation regiment.

The defense Ministry clarified that this delivery completed a five-year contract, under which 50 su-35 aircraft were delivered to combat duty regiments of the Russian aerospace forces until the end of 2020.

https://iz.ru/1107444/2021-01-02/rossiiskuiu-gruppirovku-na-dalnem-vostoke-usilili-istrebiteliami-su-35

One of the team mates of the new Su-57 at GLITs

With the su-57 all their tactics and strategies/air combat philosophy will need to be reconsidered.

Before they had su-35/30 and now they have stealthy su-57  controlling s-70, su-35 and su-30 which will also control new drones. They will also use datalink for controlling missiles launched by other aircraft...

So the research squadrons will have thrir hands full the next 10 years.

It's an old video, but it shows a maneuver that even I doubted was real at first
...Until I saw it with my own eyes during MAKS-2017.
So yes-Su-35 really has such maneuverability.

It's like the plane equivalent of the london cab, able to turn on a sixpence. Impressive stuff.



Video regarding F35 vs SU35, I haven't watched it yet so I'm leaving it here for later

Scorpius wrote:It's an old video, but it shows a maneuver that even I doubted was real at first
...Until I saw it with my own eyes during MAKS-2017.
So yes-Su-35 really has such maneuverability.

Lucky guy!

beast

According to this chart it can carry twin pylons on the centerline for R-77 only, but can use triple ejector racks for 250kg bombs on both centreline pylons, both under engine nacelle pylons and centre wing pylon. Two 500kg bombs can be carried on the centre wing pylons but I suspect they are tandem,

The centre wing pylons can also carry twin 20 shot 80mm rocket pods, twin five shot 122mm rocket pods and twin single rocket launchers for the S25OFM rocket launcher.

It is a mistake on the chart... it only shows one triple for each pylon when it should show two.

It has the correct number of bombs shown as a number, but the image is wrong.

GarryB wrote:

According to this chart it can carry twin pylons on the centerline for R-77 only, but can use triple ejector racks for 250kg bombs on both centreline pylons, both under engine nacelle pylons and centre wing pylon. Two 500kg bombs can be carried on the centre wing pylons but I suspect they are tandem,

The centre wing pylons can also carry twin 20 shot 80mm rocket pods, twin five shot 122mm rocket pods and twin single rocket launchers for the S25OFM rocket launcher.

Ever notice that you almost never see an su-30 but particularly an Su-35 carrying any fuel drop tanks?
what is the first item on that chart? All I can read is long range something. They must carry quite a bit of internal fuel and rely on in-flight refueling when needed. Is it just me or do you fellas noticed that too?

They don't need fuel tanks. Su-35 has more than 4000km autonomy which is just huge.

Ever notice that you almost never see an su-30 but particularly an Su-35 carrying any fuel drop tanks?

AFAIK Flankers don't have wet pylons... the only exception is the Su-34, but the others can't carry external fuel tanks... they were designed to have all their fuel internal to reduce drag.

Most of the time operationally they have less than half their full potential load of fuel internally... they just have long legs.

Isos wrote:They don't need fuel tanks. Su-35 has more than 4000km autonomy which is just huge.

So hypothetically if they were to have external tank installed how much total range could they get out of them?

Isos wrote:They don't need fuel tanks. Su-35 has more than 4000km autonomy which is just huge.

It makes sense if it can hold so much fuel along with the foam they install in the wing tanks to prevent small fire from igniting the fuel is such a brilliant solution.

Then with 4x redundancy on hydraulic cables for the critical moving parts makes for even greater survivability of the wing structure and especially the critical moving surfaces.

Not even a single belly tank to help increase a few hundred or a thousand kilometers because they position that R-27 way in the rear of the center of the aircraft which obviously they can't use both.  They would have to eliminate that rear-mounted R-27 if they want to add a center fuel tank if it is critical.

These details concern me for obvious reasons that you know of since we don't operate any tankers, yet, anyway, and I sincerely hope Russia and Egypt agree to purchase one or two so we don't have to rely solely rely on buddy-buddy refueling with the MiG-29/35s and does the Su-35 perform buddy buddy? I'll have to look it up.

GarryB wrote:

Ever notice that you almost never see an su-30 but particularly an Su-35 carrying any fuel drop tanks?

AFAIK Flankers don't have wet pylons... the only exception is the Su-34, but the others can't carry external fuel tanks... they were designed to have all their fuel internal to reduce drag.

Most of the time operationally they have less than half their full potential load of fuel internally... they just have long legs.

That's good news especially patrolling the VAST Russian country side which I'm sure is split between several bases.
I really think eliminating that rear-mounted R-27 and mount a full belly tank would go a long ways and add to that great 4000km range plus more afterburner usage if needed although I love the idea those engines are capable of cruise control without AF which is a next generation requirement I bet the other engine builders will try to adopt to their 4th gen aircraft although i believe the RAFALE already has that capability. I'll have to check to be sure.

Su-35 carries 11500 kg of internal fuel, enough for up to 3600 km of flight range, and can also carry 2x PTB-2000 EFT for max. unrefuelled range of 4500 km.

They normally don't use EFT for combat missions, only for ferry flights.

what is the first item on that chart? All I can read is long range something.

It says long range missiles... which could be R-37M or their new replacement model missiles.

So hypothetically if they were to have external tank installed how much total range could they get out of them?

Much of the extra fuel carried in external fuel tanks is generally used up in drag... 2,000 litres of extra fuel in one external fuel tank does not equal an extra 2,000 litres of internal fuel sadly.... especially if the tank is not dropped when empty.

don't have to rely solely rely on buddy-buddy refueling with the MiG-29/35s and does the Su-35 perform buddy buddy? I'll have to look it up.

My understanding is that buddy refuelling with Russian fighters involves a centreline tank with hose and nozzle that can be reeled back to hang behind the aircraft for another aircraft to attach to.

If it is a MIG-35/29M/29K doing the refuelling they have wing mounted tanks to maximise the amount of fuel they can transfer.

That's good news especially patrolling the VAST Russian country side which I'm sure is split between several bases.

The thing is that they will generally not fly between bases that much... more often they will patrol the area equal to half the distance to their nearest other base... with planes at that other base patrolling the area from there to their base.

Very long flight range is useful but most of the time it takes too long and a pilot would be pretty tired when they get there.

What it does mean is that the pilot can accelerate and operate at higher speeds and use AB more to accelerate faster.

So they can fly faster at less fuel efficient speeds which reduces their effective range but because they don't need to fly that far it doesn't matter.

It essentially means they can fly faster and for longer instead of just short dashes which allows them to cover more airspace more efficiently than a smaller aircraft with less fuel on board.

They normally don't use EFT for combat missions, only for ferry flights.

In which case they would not drop them which means a higher drag penalty.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:They don't need fuel tanks. Su-35 has more than 4000km autonomy which is just huge.

So hypothetically if they were to have external tank installed how much total range could they get out of them?

You can found the consumption of the engines on the web and calculate it depending what fuel tank you take.

But fuel isn't the only issue. I read somewhere that Rafale is more limited by the oil for its system during long flight than fuel.

You can't just refuel a plane and fly it 24/7. At one moment you will have other issues that will oblige you to land.

And like in cars no oil can destroy the engine.

P.S: my 4000km number seems to high. Like LMFS wrote its more 3600.