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.
the numbers come from various F22 posts on FR.
Some one claimed in some articles on FR that the per cost for the 187 planes is someting like $320 million with R&D. I think that number came from a Wa Po article, but not sure wiithout searching. That is the number the ‘powers that be’ used in their decision to halt production - as I understand the matter.
The other numbers come from “The Untimely Demise of the F-22” linked in another F22 post on FR. Just search ‘F22’ and you should find it in one of the posts from this month.
While the original question was about the first one billion from Cash For Clunkers, the actual number Congress allocated, to the completion today, was 3 billlion.
So just tripple what ever number of planes that would have been bought to gurantee US air superiority into the future. In a few years the US will be faced with export models of th PAK FA and the Chinese J-XX, for which only the F22 could counter, and without the F22, we lose all hope of air superiority against even the smallest opponent.
You must remember that you cannot just divide that Clunker number by the current cost per, rather you have to factor in that for each plane made the costs drop, like anything else. How many more planes you build determines the actual cost per. Had the original number been ordered for the USAF and an export version made then the costs per would drop into the Flanker cost per range or below.
Flayaway costs represents the costs to produce the aircraft and stuff it with avionics and engines, and the F-22 program is about as mature as it can get as far as costs are concerned.
Order 1,000 and the unit flyaway costs won't dip much below $120 million each. Certainly nowhere near your $70 million figure. That is much closer to what the F-35 flyaway cost is projected to be at project maturity.
However, order 1,000 F-22s and the total unit cost will drop significantly from the current $340 million per aircraft because the $30 billion development costs already spent would be spread over more airframes.
About the F22Argue with this guy and the Center. The article you cited is surrounded by AF internal politics and doing the PC thing - as the Hussein Admin. and Sec. Gate wishes, else the whole of the USAAF might find itself on the chopping block as many have argued recently in other specialized publications quoted on FR and elsewhere. Arguing about costs here is silly IMHO. We need the F22 or the USAF is 'tostados'. Russian produces Flankers for $90 million per. The lastest varient makes all the 'teen' USAF planes good target practice. The F35 cannot be expected to survive a fight with the 35s on any regular basis. When the PAC AF is produced and exported, there is no way any USAF plane other than the F22 will be able to achieve air superiority and allow ground troops to do their jobs.
More than $60 billion has been spent on the research, development, and procurement of the F-22, putting the per unit cost of each aircraft at roughly $340 million. But the marginal cost of buying one additional aircraft has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.
About the F35
In May the Government Accountability Office estimated that U.S. investment in the F-35 would total "more than $300 billion to develop and procure 2,456 aircraft over the next 25 years." That works out to about $122 million and change for each aircraft. Allied militaries are expected to buy at least 700 additional F-35s. The jet will come in at least five variants: a conventional fighter for the Air Force, a short takeoff, vertical-landing variant for the Marines, a carrier version for the Navy, and export versions of the Air Force and Marines variants. Not surprisingly, a program this complicated has already entered its own death spiral--the estimated cost of the program has risen 45 percent since 2001, and Congress has already responded by trimming the total procurement by more than 500 planes. This latest two-year delay could cost an additional $7.4 billion according to the Pentagon's report--assuming, of course, that there are no further delays or overruns.
The Untimely Demise of the F-22
A triumph for the military-industrial complex.
by Michael Goldfarb, editor THE WEEKLY STANDARD
08/17/2009, Volume 014, Issue 45
Absolutely no argument from me there. The F-35 was never meant to go "toe-to-toe with the Russkis," to paraphrase Slim Pickins.
I'll argue with the Center about their $70 million flyaway figure, as it is pure fantasy. It is also fantasy that Ausralia, Israel, or Japan could ever purchase the F-22 (were laws changed and export variants designed) for the US flyaway cost of $140 million each, as some in those contries seem to believe (or hope.) R&D costs would be tacked onto these export aircraft, so closer to $200 million each when you also include the cost of developing the export variant.
Production Su-35 
Top view diagram
The paint scheme of the F-22 on the center row would be ideal for a 65th AGRS Raptor. What do you think?
How about we buy some F-15S or F-16XL (Cranked Arrow) engine-ed with a P&W F119-100?
Known good tech, maintenance infrastructure in place and you don't spend all day fixing peeling paint.....better than flying "nothing".
But killing the Su-35 with a Slammer is hard, because it has an OLS-35 (its IRST), which can easily detect the Slammer’s missile plume and the pilot can either pull up or dive down to dodge the AMRAAM (since it cannot pull terminal G) while deploying a burst of chaff.
The Su-35 pilot would keep doing this until he reaches the merge and engages in a WVR dogfight, where it would excel.
In WW2 Japans Yamato said he would run wild for the first six months then he promised nothing... he did just that.
The next big war will not be that long for us to make a come back ...
And if we did go that long... add in we now see we can not go the long haul due to the left undermining the effort...
We got problems
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.
An RAAF F-22 Raptor.