Except if you actually bothered to do proper research you realise that the current Su-35 prototype shows no physical evidence of having a rearward facing radar (especially compared to the obviously bulbous tail cone of the Su-34) and all the promotional materiel for the type makes absolutely no reference to a tail mounted radar. The only reference to such a system for the Su-35 comes from the original article that announced that the type would be built and nothing has been heard of it since. For historical sake the radar mentioned at the time was the NIIP Osa, one of the many radars designed for the Mig-21’s nose and installed on the Mig-29UBT prototype.

The current prototype does not, but there have been plenty of claims about the aircraft having the rear radar. I’m not saying it has it for sure now am I? Unless you’d like to pretend I did. I merely showed SOC the link I was referring to earlier. Further tests will tell us what’s going on.

Just to show how unfounded such claims are, I’ll drop in a few numbers:

The miraculous Su-35 has a ferry rage of 3600km on internal fuel and 4500km with use of external tanks. That is understood to be without any weapons. We’ll see: Ferry range on internal fuel is good, but what is it good for?

The Typhoon has a ferry range of 3800km. Radius is not given.
For the Rafale a radius of 1000nm is given for a “penetration mission”, which would exceed the Suchoi 35’s ferry range.
F-15C is given with 1000nm radius for interdiction mission or a 5000km ferry range with CFTs and all wet hard points stuffed.

No source gives away actual mission radius for the Suchoi 27 or any derivative. In Wikipedia one very smart person translated the ferry range from Sukhoi’s website into a combat mission range, which is total rubbish.

It becomes apparent that the “superior range” is anything but superior, even compared to contemporary fighters.

Superior range is of course superior, unless you are a complete oaf sir. The fact that the comparison can even only be made in terms of potential value to an air force, the fact that the Su-35BM can carry a larger bomb load also speaks highly of its value.

4-A newborn myth…the su-35 supercruiser

Myth?

The Su-35BM test pilot said he was accelerating past the speed of sound and the acceleration was in no way stopping. Supercruise. Not myth.

Operation values of the captor have not been released. Inform me about the Irbis, why do you think it would?

Price regarding, these are only protoypes, disscus price when its actually on sale, and EF, its not equal to the F-22, what planet have you been living on.

I was using the tanker argument against range accusations. In any combat sitiuation they would be eliminated with IFR. Why two su-35 vs 1 typhoon what about visa versa, russia may afford large numbers we will see, it only has a few su-34 that have been in developement for about 15 years and more. Other nations will only buy small quantities the the jet. As far as I know russia wants the PAK FA doesnt it and will only buy a limitednumberof su-35’s.

The price comparison is similar. Approx $120 million and $140 million for the F-22. At prices that high the difference losses its importance.

The tanker argument also does well for the Su-35BM, whose superior range allows it to fly longer missions for countries without refueling capabilities – which seems to be, most of the world’s nations anyway.

Added with the vast difference in the qualities of the weapon suites, the EF really doesn’t have much of a chance. And whatever the slight RCS difference may be, can only be guessed by the members here.

Cheaper, we will see. Bigger means nothing. Quality of the radar is all important, the current CAPTOR radar fitted in the EF is better than F-16 ASEA, any normal radar out there, when they develope an ASEA it will be better. Payload size, in terms of useful payload, carring 12 missiles will not alllow the su-35 to supercrusie if it can consistently anyway. What loadout is the typhoon unable to carry?? As far as I know it can carry any possible loudout you would want. Check out some of the most recent typhoon pics involving the ATG weapons 😉

longer range without in flight refuleing, when would any airforce not use it 🙂 Oh yes russia, because they dont really have any. There is no need for the typhoon to patrol miles and miles as its the countries it is designed to defend are now where near the flipping size of Russia. Larger EW suit, how??? Again it is quality not quantiy and thats what the EF has alot of.

yes you can have two su-35 for a typhoon, if you can anyway :(, but whats the point when there exchange ratio is 4.5 to one?

Now explain with basic counter-numbers how the CAPTOR aboard a EF will flat out beat a Irbis equipped Su-35BM, especially with the kind of ECM that the Russians would deploy.

Have you even compared their deployable weapon suites?

Stop comparing your little toy in a one on one situation, where it loses anyway (2 on 1 more likely)! Price? See What? The EF costs as much as a Raptor, just about, and Sukhoi have stated they easily beat the latter in terms of pricing.

Also, in terms of no support? Are you completely out of touch with reality? The Il-78 has quite some range, you know? Not to mention the Su-35 itself has tanker capability AFAIK.

How would moving an SSBN closer matter? Those missiles are ALREADY in range and ALREADY out of position for ABMs in Alaska to do anything about them. Moving them would have no effect whatsoever. I think uping the ante is not in Russia’s best interest. They wouldn’t want us sticking TLAM-Ns in SSNs and surface ship VLSs I’m sure. :diablo:

What would they give a damn if they can arm their strategic bombers with Kh-102s with nuclear warheads.

Or do you think the US would find it funny if the Russians armed their Kh-22M/32 and Kh-15s, SS-N-16s, Type-65 torpedoes, etc, with tactical nuclear warheads once again? :diablo:

I would assure you that the sub would not be useless to its crew after firing its missiles. A crew that would be aware that any form of continued survival is dependent on them taking very great care of their vessel and that any spares they will ever have available to them are onboard already!.

I appreciate that in your boys-own fantasy world the glorious sailors of the Rodina would cry vengeance and do all to exact revenge on the enemy. In the real world though a submarine special weapons release order isn’t likely to be an immediate launch instruction and the command authority will very likely to want the boat as intact as possible to be reloaded if surviveable reloads are available. SSBN command staff arent usually known for their kamikaze instincts and their boats certainly not disposable assets.

Submarines, although technically capable of it now according to some, are still not really accepted as first-strike weapons. I’m sure I dont have to explain that concept to you. A second-strike tasking would be a warning order to come to weapons release status allowing time to find a suitable polynia, if not explicitly ordered to one, to wait for launch time or follow-on signal.

If a NATO SSN is inside the protected ‘bastion’ that Russian forces were to establish to deploy their Akula’s into then its pretty much curtains for the whole Russian second-strike potential and no amount of ice-reinforcement is going to make the blindest bit of difference. If an SSN is within detection radius of the SSBN then the bomber is not going to make it to the surface and fire its missiles anyway.

Hey thanks for stating a lot of the obvious.

What reloads? Are you completely insane? In the event of a nuclear attack there’s going to be no Severodvinsk or Severomorsk (or vise versa), unless you think your Yankee friends are extremely stupid. “Yeah – let’s leave their sub bases intact, hah, take another salvo from their SSBNs.” Good one Jonesy. :rolleyes:

Or wait, lets take another few hours and sail into areas with thinner ice – increase our chances of getting sunk by an enemy SSN that might be around.

Point remains simple. It’s a second strike weapon meant to launch no matter what. Thanks for reading.