Impressive

Edit

@Pit,
thanks for the information, it cleared some things up. As of lately I really have to update my info on russian weapons.
BTW do you know why there exist different designations such as K-74M and R-74M?

Per example:

Izdeliye 470 corresponds to factory designation of R-27R missile.
K-27R corresponds to air force designation under tests of that missile
R-27R is air force designation.

Izdeliye is used nonetheless the missile is on the drawing board, on tests or deployed.

K, only for test missiles.

R, for deployed missiles.

R-73 lineage is:

R-73K
R-73L
R-73E
R-73EL
K-74
K-74M

In service missiles, R-73K, R-73L, R-73E, and R-73EL.

K for Krechet (radar fuse)
L for Yantar (laser fuse)

Both for Soviet and Russian VVS.

E is export version of K, EL is export version of L, both have same kinematics.

K-74 was first upgrade iteration, longer range (up to 40 km Raero), better seaker head (digital, longer HOBS up to +/- 60°) aim point impact selection. First seen 1994.

K-74M is further upgrade of it, with HOBS up to +/- 75°. It was shown on 1997.

Accord to one Pyotr Butowski article, the characteristics reffered to K-74 corresponds to those of K-74M…neither missile were manufactured, because all the important seaker head works were made by Arsenal at Kiev, Ukraine, and there was no money for further works.

Today, work is directed in Russia towards a missile called “Izdeliye 760” (Izdeliye 750 is K-74M, Izd 740 is K-74, Izd 72 is R-73) that should be light on 2010. It uses russian seaker head, MCGU, uprated engine, but not FPA. It’s described halfway between ASRAAM and AIM-9X and Python-5.

A full grown new missile called K-MD or Izd 300 will arm PAK-FA, but isn’t related to the R-73 saga.

To come back to the original topic Su-35 vs ECDs. I have to agree with the earlier conclusion from Trident. I think the Su-35 will be a quite advanced and capable fighter, the best Flanker ever and one of the best combat aircraft in the world. Sukhoi managed it to make an already impressive airframe even more capable and I think it is worth recognizing this achievement. Nonetheless people should start to see things a little bit more realistic and objective. Unfortunately the fanboys just live up to the marketing hype of the industry which is often spreaded by the customers as well. Of course these are the most reliable sources for public people and you can gather the most valueable and accurate data and information from there. But there is a difference between given facts and statements which reflect personal opinions which often have no factual base!

True, there is not enough information on the Su-35 to build an accurate assesment as per-it, furthermore, most wannabe boys call it “Su-35BM”, where there is no such aircraft, or either “Su-35-1” where such designation refers to first prototype (hence -1) of Su-35.

How can we know about flight specs of an aircraft with new engines, new FBW, lighter airframe and 2 more tons of fuel, that had only made 20 flights?

They’re just exploring the flight envelope, and their PR-release says that “we didn’t believe we would be capable of SSC, now we’re thinking twice”…and the such.

They don’t even know right now what’s the range of the aircraft, neither they have prepared the flight manuals, nor draft of them either…they’re just…testing.

The Su-35 should be an even match for most if not all fighters currently fielded, excluding the F-22. But will the Su-35 be superior to the ECDs? Maybe! But maybe not!

No way to know until the definitive (and 901 blue is not that one) pre-serial aircrafts fly and flight stats derived from aircraft manuals (writted and certified) could be delivered. Now you just see wannabe speculation and informed guessing. But that’s start with “speculation” and “guessing” not matter the another adjective.

Sticking with the facts, the Su-35 is so far just a single piece prototype in the flight test stage. I know that two further examples are supposed to join the test fleet this year and that Sukhoi plans to start series production as early as 2010, with first deliveries slated for 2011.

T-10BM program is more than that, I’m afraid. The engine have been in the tests since 2004, the radar since 2006, and different pieces of avionics sisnce similar times, Su-35-1 is just the first aircraft prototype, and as such is not a definitive one, it doesn’t carry the MLWS (probably derived or similar to one used on MiG-35) that was recently advised, you could be sure it also doesn’t corresponds to aircraft quality finish, and I know first hand, nobody tolds me how a serial production Flanker looks, I have seen them, 1 meter (and some 30 cm) apart.

But where are the customers? There are a number nations which have shown an interest in the type, but that doesn’t mean they are definitely going to order it.

So we have to wait, unless somebody is crazy enough to buy a non-finished, 20 flights tested aircrafts. I could talk you about the Venezuelan Air Force plans, I know them, but would that made any difference?…

In a lot of press releases Russian officials claim that the RuAF will purchase an unknown number of Su-35, though a lot of different numbers are floating around. AFAIK no contract has been signed! Even if the Su-35 enters service in 2011, how probable is it that the aircraft will enter service in the configuration which is proposed by Sukhois marketing brochures?

It’s the same situation for the “somebody knows, we’re all sure” Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche-3 “final but not so final” configuration, till I miss the news sometimes, who should be understood because my interest on aircrafts is low. Not to talk on the so much rumoured, announced and never concreted Rafale versions sicne the times of the South Korean tender…would not we have right now a Rafale with AESA accord to some plans?

Looking at all the different advanced combat aircraft which were introduced in recent years all of them entered service in a basic configuration and it took a couple of years before their capabilities were fully developed…

You’re smart boy, cool. Sukhoi and NIIP says that since 2006 in Jane’s IDR articles, citing per example, N-035 R&D, just like Bars R&D, not the first serial production aircraft would have all the kit for the run…NCTR modes would take time to develop.

And then there are the dubios super long range missiles. Sukhoi states there will be a new 200 km long range missile.

Vympel (part of the TMC conglomerate) and NPO Novator (not part of it) says that and are working on such missiles. If TMC says at Farnborough that the rival’s product is paper-work and theirs is the holy grain of upper-star49 knowlodgement, you, as an smart boy as have desmotrated should get the correct assesment “it’s marketing issues between competitors, I don’t have seen yet a finished product, so let’s wait”.

And yes, under GPV-2015, TMC is receiving funds for just that (the name of the program is Izdeliye 810 missile, based on Izd 610M missile that was per-se an evolved version of the K-37 that hit the tests and made some of the brochure-claim…after much pain on the airborne launch tests). Izd 810 is not planed for Su-35, but for PAK-FA, Su-35 use is spin-off.

And is not a 200-Km range weapon (heck, even R-33 launched from MiG-31 from some fire-setup could outrange that numbers as was desmotrated in 1994 tests, not related to the famous K-37 tests), it’s a further-300 Km weapon…will we see it?

Last month, TMC received export-permission for displaying and promoting new weapons, off course, in so much Star-49 babelfish and lost of time, most members of this forum don’t know about them, but they’re Kh-59MK2, Kh-59M2, Kh-59UShUEK, Kh-38ME/MLE/MAE/MKE and KAB-1500LG-F. We can discuss all those weapons later if you want.

It is supposed that this missile will be a development of the R-77, but where is that missile?

It’s not development of Izd 170/190 missile. It’s development of Izd 610M missile in fact development of K-37 and K-33 weapon.

Does it actually exist and when is it going to enter service and being integrated on the Su-35?

Would be integrated when the russians decide to send Su-35 definitive prototype to Akhtubinsk for tests and weapons validation at the GLITS, probably after they finish the 4-aircrafts tests and some export-user decide to fund the weapon with a buy…want a prove?, check Damocles and Litening-II integration with Su-30MKI and MKA. They were done after and not before.

As I understand it the KS-172 is nothing else than hot air,

You have to prove that with something better than just hot air from the main competitor of TMC, that says “hot air!” without arging. That’s an old PR trick, and you’re smart boy to see thorugh that. We don’t know.

the R-37M exists in which form ever, but AFAIK no Flanker ever carried a version of the R-37.

Before Su-35 and Su-30MKI equiped with RLSU 30MK or Bars, there was no Flanker equiped with radar able to use such a kind of missile. In fact we know little what has Flanker carried or not carried on tests at Akhtubinsk, because such tests seems to be kept secret or obscure, or we don’t see the information here at west-european or US forums…or do you think those places really pack even 40% of the truth known on the CIS of what they do or left to do?

Is the integration of that weapon into the Su-35 fixed and if yes when is it going to happen. I wouldn’t wonder if the Su-35 won’t be able to use anything else than the stock R-77/RVV-AE for quite some time.

Neither me, for being sure.

In 2007, there was a nice symposium by GosNIIAS people (check who are them), the topic was on the future of the AAM industry and they shown the MRAAM path of development:

170 is your basic R-77 first built at KAKhK Artem at Kiev (they survived just 10 rounds after break-up) and later built at Vympel shops near Moscow. Kolommna plant at Moscow were R-73E is built was tooled for it, but never built anything. This is the R-77 for Rus VVS.

190 is the basic export version, built at Vympel shops, users known are Peru, Malasya, India, China, Vietnam, Argelia, Venezuela, maybe in the future Indonesia…did I left somebody out?

170-1 is a basic upgrade for VVS of the 170. No further detail were given on it, but let’s be a little more incisive. On Lipetsk, 2007 show, there was a nice Su-27SM brochure that shows (using Izdeliye and not common market designations), the weapons used by Su-27SM…Izd 170-1 was shown. Izd-170-1 could be compared to little increments like Charly-4/5/6 are for AIM-120C.

180 is a new missile, it’s what replaced the old K-77M program. It left the lattice tails because the ukrainian actuators were not the best they could find (they have now better electrical actuactors for that work) and they don’t want to know about Ukraine ever. The missile uses new pulse-to-pulse rocket (no ramjet, but ramjet is not end of the world) for a much improved range under different kinematic conditions. Seaker head and warhead is different, seaker head is a further development of the current 4th generation “Progress” seaker made by Agat and finished by 2002 (that could mean that Progress 250 mm seaker could be used on Izd 170-1/K-77-1, but that’s just an educated guess), russian acounts talk about active radar, HOJ and passive homing, not so difficult to made with their knowlodgement on all the basic technologies. Warhead is bigger and directional (similar to 9M96? who knows) and INS includes fiber-optics IMU (developed since 2001 at least) and GPS. This missile is slatted for Su-35 and PAK-FA, and IOC should be in the next decade, contrary to Izd 170-1 that was on state tests by 2007.

Furthermore, TMC and Vympel says they have prospective ramjet powered missile that could be developed during the original program of the 90s (now we know how’s called and it was never called RVV-AE-PD contrary to some russian sites/articles and the garbage over-repeated on the west) there were some ground tests (SOC have a photo of it) and air tests from Su-27 test-beds. They “offer” the missile for PAK-FA or whatever it’s, but between offer and “compromise” in my dictionary there is a long way.

Those are MRAAM missile segments and Izd 810M is different segment, from different R&D and origin path.

And how likely is it that the Russians will sell those new long range missiles to export customers?

Money between, they would do if it’s feasible.

What most people forget about or I would even tend to say don’t know about is that aircombat is complex and depends on a varity of factors. Aircombat can’t be limited to a few factors such as radar or missile range performance.

True, but do you expect to much from this kind of forums to enter areas where not everybody is fluent, you have to learn to kept your discuss at a low level so everybody could understand you, not so different on politics, if you start discussing on Rmax/1, Rmin/1, Raero, A-Pole, E-Pole, F-pole, FBR, and the such, you could better try with your friends at Luftwaffe because you will grown tired of not be able to comunicate with this audence…you have to mantain the SA of the scenary if you want a correct comunication, so stick to what people understands, and made sense of yourself. You seems to be able of that.

Of course there are factors which are more important than others, but in the end it is the combination of key paramters which defines how effective a fighter is.

You can try history to search whose those factors are…pure performance like speed and height advantage over long time seems to be the dominant factor that allows a fighter to made their own terms in combat (being to impose them or to refuse combat)…SA is just an abler. That’s why uber F-35 would be never competence to F-22A, avionics wise similar. That’s what Carlo Kopp accurately points aside of its babelfish and PR-oriented talk (he had to eat after all, you have to learn to put your SnR receiver pretty high and then you can enjoy what he wrote)

The data/information which are released to the public are nothing else than specifications, which might give you an indication, but which aren’t neccessarily representive.

Or could be!, you will be surprised on how not so much different some of the information on systems, military systems appears on your typical Jane’s or USNI World Naval Weapons Systems, and they same practically the same at your weapons manual from armed service, I know that firsthand. Off course, practical employment of the weapon system is a different bussines. Too much factors to take into account.

Real world data might differ in both ways, being better but also worse. The most interesting details are unknown however because they are classified.

That’s correct. Real data is not about range or height or similar gizmos, but about realiability of the weapons system, and it’s statistical per nature, and you can never trust on that. Statistics are made always under different contexts.

The rest of your post I don’t comment, would be bored to say “agree” to all of them.

Good job.

Venezuelan’s Mirage-50EV with ITA-39 interfase and AM-39 Block 2 Exocet AShM.

Iraq’s Mirage F.1-EQ-5 and improved Mirage F.1EQ-6 (this last one with up to two AM-39 Exocet)

Super Etendard in multiple SEM and basic form.

India’s Il-38 (with the Sea Eagle)

Tu-95K-22

And lots of Badgers, per example.

To answer myself:

Another pod unveiled at the show was the Indian SIVA Electronic Support System, developed by the Indian Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE). The pod weighs 100 kg can be carried by the Su-30 aircraft on standard rocket attachment point and is interfacing with the aircraft radar warning systems and avionics. The pod covers a forward arc of 60 degrees and provides target accuracy of 1-2 RMS. The SIVA pod will enable the Indian Air Force to conduct electronic reconnaissance missions and support air defense suppression missions by providing accurate targeting for radar suppression missiles and other guided weapons.

http://www.defense-update.com/events/2008/summary/singapore08_radars.htm

I guess that’s 60° means plus/minus 60° on azimut both rear and forward hemisphere (for a total of 240°), no sense only to made antenna array covering only 60° of frontal hemisphere.

The quality of ACT training of FAA Mirage’s pilots and RN FAA Harrier’s pilots is so dismal that is not worth mentioning. FAA was using Vietnam era ACT tactics for sections and divisions, no match to maybe, some of the best pilots that NATO had. On the other hand, fuel constraints were true, yes.

By that time there were no Su-27S on VVS neither V-PVO, but I think that Babich is making a what-if of what could have happen in such a conflict, had the Argentineans had a long range fighter. Su-27S then, it’s just a case.

If anyone remembers me talking about coming up with a detailed history and description of the S-300P variants and systems, it’s nearly done. It’ll be available on my blog in the next couple of days. I’m done with the development history and am tackling the descriptions of all of the associated components as well as the deployment arrangement and hierarchy right now.

Ok Sean, please update your signature at the buttom once you finish the article, so we, the unconscious people could be remembered and would enjoy it 🙂