Posted on 07/02/2008 7:51:25 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Testing New Fighter Jet Is Successful
Sukhoi Design Bureau is testing a new multipurpose jet Su-35, and the tests are successful, test pilot Sergei Bogdan announced in the interview with the Military & Industrial Courier edition. Thirteen flights have been made, Bogdan specified.
Even the first flights of Su-35 confirmed the excellent flying and technical characteristics of the jet, and were completely in line with the stand tests.
Stability and controllability of Su-35 was evaluated at the altitude of up to 11,000 meters. The fighter was accelerated up to the speed corresponding to the Mach number of 1.3.
In terms of tactical and technical characteristics, Bogdan went on, a new jet leaves behind most of the foreign analogues, including F/A-18 Hornet, Mirage, Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon and is capable of opposing the G5 fighter F-22A Raptor.
The bulk production and supplies of new jets to the RF Air Force and overseas customers are slated for 2010-2011.
What a gorgeous machine.
As an aside, I used to have an employee named Sergei “Serg” Bogdan. Must be a common name?
Successful = It didn’t crash................
............as a target...........
Pretty airplane, but it doesn’t look particularly stealthy
Marketing to gullible third-world AF procurement agents.
“Take on F-22” seems to be meaningless in over-the-horizon standoff warfare, doesn’t it?
With all the exposed armaments it must have the RCS of a metal hangar door.
It will be seen first => hull loss.
Correction - he won’t even see the F22. He will just feel suddenly warm, then nothing.
They use a special plasma to coat the jet and make it nearly invisible to radar...... I thought that was a big deal until someone I know that builds and maintains fighter jets told me we've been using the same thing on our fighters for a loooooong time.
The original Su-35 was a derivative of the Su-27 and essentially a ground-based variant of the Su-33. While the official Russian Air Force designation for the aircraft remained the Su-27M, Sukhoi rechristened the model as the Su-35 in the hopes of attracting foreign customers.
The Su-35 design was largely identical to the Su-27 but incorporated the canards of the Su-33 and more powerful engines plus a new digital fly-by-wire control system. The Su-35 was also equipped with a new multi-mode radar, infrared detectors, and upgraded weapons. The Su-35 development program experienced many delays due to the collapse of the Soviet economy, and the Russian military ultimately chose not to purchase any. Sukhoi instead used the eleven prototypes as technology demonstrators to interest the export market in funding a production model.
The most likely chance for success appeared to be Brazil’s strong interest in co-producing the Su-35 that lasted for several years. Brazil required a replacement for its aging Mirage III fighters, and the Su-35 was considered the front-runner over the competing Mirage 2000, Gripen, and F-16. The Su-35 deal came quite close to being finalized in November 2004, but Brazil declined to sign over cost concerns. Russia later offered second-hand Su-27 aircraft as a cheaper alternative to the new-build Su-35, but Brazil opted to purchase twelve refurbished Mirage 2000 fighters from France instead.
The Brazilian decision appeared to have ended the Su-35 program once and for all since Sukhoi had little success finding other customers. Hopes were briefly revived in May 2006 when Venezuela announced interest in the Su-35, but the nation instead chose a variant of the Su-30. The move is largely politically-motivated given recent tensions between Venezuela and the United States over America’s ban on providing support for the Venezuelan F-16 fleet.
However, the Su-35 was revived at least in name in 2007 when Sukhoi announced the aircraft had entered production for the Russian Air Force. This incarnation is also a derivative of the Su-27 but does not appear to be directly related to the earlier Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes. The new Su-35, sometimes referred to as the Su-35BM, is instead an upgraded variant of the Su-30 series with a more powerful engine, an improved 2D thrust vectoring nozzle, and larger air intakes. The Su-35BM lacks the canards of the original Su-35 prototypes, although some sources indicate these can be fitted at customer request. Other upgrades include an improved radar, glass cockpit displays, compatibility with additional weapons, and incorporation of newer electronics.
Antiquated technology, only good against equally old aircraft. Cannon fodder for the F-22.
While the F-22 pilot is taking souvenir photos...
Unless it has plasma stealth.
Given the recent events at DoD and the USAF command shakeup, we won't have enough F-22s to make a difference anyway, so all it has to do is be able to beat aging, G-limited F-15Cs.
>>capable of opposing the . . .F-22A Raptor<<
Pardon me, not to be rude, but. . . bwahahahahahahahahahah.
(There, I feel much better)
LOL. . . .good one. . . .funny
Plasma coating stealth.
They haven’t taken it to the Paris Air Show to demo the ejection seat yet.
Nifty name, though, “plasma stealth,” sounds so. . . .what. . . .oh yeah, “X-File”-ish.
Link to the original article please, not some promo site dedicated to disinformation-—and from 2004? Four years ago? A little more recent would be nice.
They simply do not have the technology because “plasma” was found ineffective.
But hey, knock themselves out trying to make a whale of a metal jet “stealthy. They could do much better by a few engineering modifications.
LOLOL!! Not saying plasma stealth is all that great. Just saying it exists, and we’ve been using it on all of our fighters. In fact, we use spray cans of the stuff on our F-18’s right now. The guys on the carriers go out and spray it on like spray paint.
But don’t believe me. Keep thinking I’m talking about x-files or something. HEHE! :-D
The technology we use, the materials, coatings, composites are not as you obviously think. Spray can stealth, enough to flummox our jets. . . .come on, really.
Spray it on like spray paint? No kidding? I am sure those brown-shoe Navy types would like to talk about that, or perhaps you heard from a guy that heard from a guy that we do this. Genuinely interested in where you are hearing that allegation of spraying “plasma” spray like spray paint.
Claiming what these SU-guys are claiming, is a big stretch, a very big stretch. . .able to go against the F-22. Seriously.
Would like the original link to the alleged Jane's article published back in January 2004.
Whenever you get the time, of course.
LOL!! Once again not saying this plasma stealth is anything great. It’s something that’s used all the time. It’s nothing special. I never said spray can stealth was the answer to the F-22.
LOLOL!! It’s just a little something that can help a plane be a little more stealthy. Nothing world changing. ROTFLOL!!
Seriously, I do wonder about your sanity (or sobriety).
Get help.
Let them believe what they wish.
In the end, between the tremendous numbers of training hours our pilots enjoy and capablities of our hardware, our opponents would be in trouble.
On the other hand, it would be entirely too close to a “fair fight” for comfort if you matched it against an F-18E/F or and F-15C.
And the russians got samples of it thanks to bubba clinton not having this wreckage blown up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth
...
Plasma stealth technology also faces various technical problems. For example, the plasma itself emits EM radiation. Also, it takes some time for plasma to be re-absorbed by the atmosphere and a trail of ionized air would be created behind the moving aircraft. Thirdly, plasmas (like glow discharges or fluorescent lights) tend to emit a visible glow: this is not necessarily compatible with overall low observability. Furthermore, it is likely to be difficult to produce a radar-absorbent plasma around an entire aircraft traveling at high speed. However, a substantial reduction of an aircraft's RCS may be achieved by generating radar-absorbent plasma around the most reflective surfaces of the aircraft, such as the turbojet engine fan blades, engine air intakes, and vertical stabilizers.
...
Doesn't sound like something that can be applied with a spray can, though.
“Stealth design SU-35 aircraft
Plasma coating stealth.”
Sounds like a bunch of pie in the sky fantasies or very slick marketing gimmicks to dupe the hugo chavez’s and kim jong il’s of the world.
LOL!! That’s exactly what it is. I mean the stuff works, if you’re trying to beat a hand held radar, and it may evade some really basic air defense systems..... but there’s no way it would evade anything beyond the Korean War era.
That’s nice but it’s not plasma since plasma is an ionized gas.
The paint in the rattle cans that the sailors use for touch up is an epoxy.
From the wiki link:
“While it is theoretically possible to reduce an aircraft’s RCS by wrapping the airframe in plasma, it may be very difficult to do so in practice.”
It’s a theory, and more than likely something the russians can’t touch for another 80 years.
And one small problem with using this plasma around the air intakes and fan blades.....Would it not displace the air that the engine is trying to compress in order to mix with fuel for combustion?
Ya never know. You DO know that the original idea for stealth CAME from a paper by a Soviet scientist, right?
It is never a good idea to underestimate the Sov, er, Russians. If I were the DIA, I’d keep an eye on the technology (can’t count on the CIA for anything...).
However, it isn’t anything that comes out of a spraycan.
Oh boy - it will help the russians kill another 100 million.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lW-Epl2TFE
and a magic wand to make the weapon pods invisible?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Put down the vodka comrade, the next time you see a F-22 up close will be behind you as you eject and your parachute opens up.”
Yep: Never bet against US, at least we’re sober, or drunk with Budweiser, not vodka :-)
Yeah Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev developed the equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes in 1962.
The only thing is that the USAF knew about LRCS from when they were testing the YB-49 in the late 40’s to early 50’s.
In fact the USAF considered a version of the YB-49 as a spy plane because of it’s low observability and it’s high altitude capability.
And I never said it came out of a spraycan. I corrected Mr. Mulder in his statement that the Navy uses a spray-on plasma paint in that the paint is not a plasma but an epoxy.
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.