Su-35.
Posted on 08/23/2009 2:30:46 AM PDT by myknowledge
As one of our readers noted, DID’s articles from 2005-2007 seem to describe 2 different SU-35s. One is a mid-life modernized SU-27 Flanker, but there’s also much more re-engineered “SU-35” variant with canards, thrust vectoring, etc. has been confused with (and possibly redesignated between) the SU-37. So… what do we mean by “SU-35”?
This article explains the sources of the widespread confusion regarding the SU-35’s layout and key characteristics, reviews what is now known about the platform, and tracks its development. Those developments are likely to have broad consequences. The aircraft has a home customer in the Russian Air Force, and the SU-35 is being positioned to succeed most SU-30MK variants as Russia’s fighter export of choice within the coming decade.
The latest news involves additional details regarding the SU-35’s initial multi-year Russian production order, and discussion of the aircraft’s export prospects…
Until very recently, only KnAAPO has listed the SU-35 as a product on its site; Sukhoi now does so as well, but Irkut does not. If this seems confusing, it’s because Sukhoi subcontracts production to affiliate firms – IAIA (Irkut) and KnAAPO (Komsomolosk un Amur). Each has their own intellectual property, and their own interests. In addition, the designation “SU-35” has been used in several different contexts over the years. It has been referred to, and even photographed, in ways that referred to both mid-life Flanker upgrades and canard-equipped next-generation aircraft. KnAAPO’s site added the confusion by showing SU-35 pictures on its type page and gallery that display the aircraft both with and without canard foreplanes. The Rosoboronexport catalog picture was unclear.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseindustrydaily.com ...
Su-35.
Camouflage, ur doin it wrong...
Camoflage fail.
Aren’t you glad we stopped building the F-22.
Aside from the Raptor, we don’t have anything that can go toe to toe with this beast.
The camouflage closely resembles what our troops wear. It would be worthless with the sky as background but it might work pretty well with the ground as background.
Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you thing the Air Borne Laser could shoot down in 10 minutes? I think that we need to get past some of our old thinking for aircraft. We need more unmanned fighters, ABL’s, and stealthy bombers, not ego boosting state of the art manned Air Force fighters. Hell the Air Force couldn’t even fly most of the Sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Navy had to do most of the heavy lifting.
Our fighters wouldn't have to go "toe to toe" with the SU-35. With the radar cross section and heat signature this thing generates it would be killed from over the horizon, likely from multiple directions......
Yep, no 5th generation fighter threat out there as a reason to build the F-22.
I guess the P-40 and F4F-4 Wildcat were good enought, no need to worry about the Japs having something better. Especially when their ‘cheap copy’ aviation industry’s quality of production was worth zero.
It's almost as if our political leaders had been bribed.
F-15ski
LOL - good pun
The Zero was a low-wing design, constructed of a lightweight aluminum alloy named “Extra-Super Duraluminum (ESD)”, with the exception of fabric-covered rudder and elevators. The aircraft’s lightweight construction helped it achieve the performance goals specified by the IJN. However, the severe limits on weight ensured that the new fighter also lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
Japs lost a plane, they could replace it in under a month, the pilot, 23 years.
The US lost a place, it was replaced in a day, the pilot fished out of the drink and back in the game.
Recipe for disaster.
How many F-22’s could we have for the BILLION dollars spent on clunker automobiles?
About 20.
Actually, if only one more plane were ordered over the 187, costs falls to $200plus million, if all 750 were ordered cost per plane would fall to $90 million, if the plane was exported to Austrailia, Japan and Israel, cost goes below $70 million per.
Current number cost per, includes all R&D and associated development costs.
So the short answer to “how many planes from the THREE billion spent on cash for clunkers” depends on how many planes are ordered.
See: “The Untimely Demise of the F-22” linked from another F22 post.
Thanks.
/bump
Where do you get those numbers? Current flyaway costs, the cost to build an aircraft without taking research and development costs into account, are $143 million.
A billion dollars would have bought almost 7 F-22s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.