New picture of the second Su-35 prototype, Seeeexy Options

[CayceG]

Straight from the flight tests at Komsomolsk.
This gives a good view of 902's underside and the rest of the camo scheme. Given that, this excellent rendering was done by someone... awesome.





In other Su-35 news, Sukhoi plans to build a third prototype to add to the flight testing. We can only hope that the production models are outfitted with a camo just as good.
This is why Russian planes look better than US planes

[GARUDA ZERO123]

why couldn't they combine thrust vectoring with the canard wings. You would get unrivaled manauverablitiy (excuse my spelling)

This post has been edited by GARUDA ZERO123: Mar 7 2009, 03:42 PM

[CayceG]

why couldn't they combine thrust vectoring with the canard wings. You would get unrivaled manauverablitiy (excuse my spelling)

They did with the Su-37 but I'll tell you why they don't anymore.

For one, canards add extra weight and take up space with the extra systems needed to make them move. That means less room for fuel. That's also why the speed brake that all Su-27s have was removed--more room for fuel.
They also increase your radar cross section. The Su-35BM is going for low observability. That's why canards were removed.
Canards provide extra lift, which is good for STOL operations, but it's a friggin interceptor... The Su-27 doesn't need STOL.

But, the option for canards is there if any air force wants the Su-35 with canards. But, honestly, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of better maneuverability.

Rage!

You have no idea how many times I have to tell people that the Su-37 doesn't exist or that it wasn't ever in service. There were only two of them.

[Gelb 6]

You have no idea how many times I have to tell people that the Su-37 doesn't exist or that it wasn't ever in service. There were only two of them.

I thought that the only SU-37 was the 711, and it crashed right?

So what's the other one?

[CayceG]

I thought that the only SU-37 was the 711, and it crashed right?

So what's the other one?

The bort number was 712. It was actually designated as "T10M-12"
http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-ru-m.htm

It was converted to a Su-37 from a Su-35 (just like 711) and then converted back into the Su-35 configuration and sent to the Russian Knights, the only operator of Su-35s currently. Su-37 712 now serves as the #2 plane in the Russian Knights.

Actually I didn't know that, so it's good that you asked. Now I know.

[Joeyski]

Su-37 712 now serves as the #2 plane in the Russian Knights.

Just to clarify, is it still in -37 config or reverted to -35? Would it be classified as a Su-37 or an Su-35 if it's been converted back?

[CayceG]

Just to clarify, is it still in -37 config or reverted to -35? Would it be classified as a Su-37 or an Su-35 if it's been converted back?

It's in the -35 configuration. No TVC. And it's considered a Su-35 (or Su-27M, depending on who you ask).

1. battle tested hmmm, not to sure about how many battles designs like the su-35 have fought.

second the camo looks tacky, im not a huge fan of the airframe looking from top view not too bad but side view its not that good looking neither from the bottom,

2. su's are large aircraft, and russian electronics always lack in comparison,
3. now making a cheap plane, well the russians do it best, but again lack of stealth and a defense net work such as US''s make these planes obsolete,
4. should just make the su-47, but even said its the same basic design, which will mean the same radar reading, over and over and over untill some GENIOUS GO'S HEY we should try somthing DIFFERENT FOR A CHANGE!! i mean only been doing the same basic design, for what better part of 30 40 years? stupid. show's just how small minded you people can be.
5. you can have your su-35,37,mig-29. ill stick with my f-16.f-22. and just remeber the us desided we dont need thrust vectoring on our older craft, even though we tested it on numerous craft. we inovate do new design's the f-22 will rip on through.

Jesus christ...

1. The Su-27 has been tested in battle. They served, most recently in the war in Georgia, as well as in the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In that war Su-27s flew against MiG-29s and didn't suffer a single loss. All engagements were dogfights with heat seeking missiles, so the Su-27 has fought and does have experience.
2. Russian electrics do lack in some areas. But you have to look at the radars individually and think of what they are meant to do in order to properly analyze them. They don't have a very powerful AESA radar (the Zhuk-AE) compared to our F-22 AESA. But when comparing PESA radars, the Russian's Irbis-E in the Su-35 is better than any PESA radar we have. It's nearly as powerful as the MiG-31 Phazotron radar that is one of the most powerful radars ever in a fighter. The MiG-31 radar is another thing they've got on us.
3. How is a plane (Su-35) that is better than our F-15s and F-16s and Europe's Typhoons and Rafales obsolete? Just because a new fighter doesn't have stealth doesn't mean it's obsolete.
4. You're retarded in regards to the Su-47. The rest of that sentence just doesn't make sense.
5. I'm not comparing the Su-35 to the F-22. The majority of fights it will have will be against fighters without stealth, so it makes sense to not compare it to the high bar set by the F-22.

That's what the PAK FA is for.

Not a bad paint scheme! But i agree with USAF with the whole survivalbilty>style.

But i still give it two thumbs^!

As for survivability, all Russian fighters are designed as "denial fighters"... that means that all the defensive measurements on the fighters are designed to make US equipment not work. So, the survivability goes up when you design to beat the best.

This post has been edited by CayceG: Mar 8 2009, 09:28 AM