in a real fight the F-22 will most assuredly thrash any other fighter currently out there with near-impunity

Yeah, right.

But for India etc, this isnt an option, because the Indian side will insist on best in the class performance, and detailed access to the source code and hardware. Based on the way the wind is blowing, I anticipate an AESA MLU for the MKI, and only if that doesnt work out, the N035.

Yes, but Russians don’t seem to be too busy with AESA technology. They have couple of flyable sets, like Zhuk-AE demonstrated on MiG-35, but N035 is slated for the first radar of I-21.

Irbis-E’s numbers are impressive…nothing short of AESA radars. Distance vs 3m2 RCS in ideal head on up to 400 km, for stealth 0.01m2 RCS 90 km. Tracks 30 targets, can lock-on to two at once for SARH operations, and can do eight in TWS, four at enormeous distances > 300 km for R-72 ops. And so on, im sure you know the Irbis-E datasheet.

AESA brings a lot of maintenance advantages, but N035, which should be couple of percent more powerful than N035-E for which we have public figures, is a masterpiece radar itself.

Indians wouldn’t be stupid if they accepted original N035 for MLU, and wait for Russia to develop AESA radars that have more performance than their PESA radars. For now, Zhuk-AE with ~ 800 elements (figure from head, approx), just cannot match the performance of Zaslon, let alone of Irbis.

But otoh, the basic supersonic + range combination of the MiG-31 is hard to match.

It’s unmatched. For those that need it. Even F-22 in supercruise regime cannot match the speed and range of MiG-31 in it’s wet supersonic cruise. India should be happy with MKI’s, true multirole aircraft, just like you mentioned, every Flanker has the courtesy to keep up the burners while it’s 4+ gen counterparts are already running on fumes. Big aircraft, lots of fuel. MiG-31, on the other hand, will always remain an Mach 2.5+ strategic superinterceptor, the upgrades on Zaslon DSPs and FCS could bring an A2G option or two, but it’s a far cry from the MKI multirole capability.

Specialized aircraft. Those that need something that’ll go 1500 km’s on Mach 2.35 and shoot on everything that comes close to 150 km of it, MiG-31 is the right choice. For anything other, Su-30MK(x) is the way to go.

Thanks for the info, Pit.

So the SM2 program has changed. Ok, but you said :

They’re trying to made the government see that Su-35 would not interfere with I-21 project, so to buy some of them in the meanwhile. At the same time they proposed the project as Su-27SM2 as a continuation to Su-27SM, off course introducing most of those items developed for Su-35. Any way, seems not to be working…

So, the VVS ditched Su-27SM2 plans, does that mean they’ll procure Su-35BM in it’s original, “domestic” form? I read in RIAN sometime ago, that Su-35BM will appear on MAKS2007, and it’s to undergo state trials just after.

Sens, your post is somewhat correct, but have a look at these things;

1. If the RCS suppression is applied in a “modular” way, so existing production airframes can be modified too for a lower cost (like on some modern MiG-29 upgrade variants), and if the 117C could fit in a existant Flanker airframes, KnAAPO wouldn’t be opening a new production line for a totally new fighter.

2. Parallel to that, inner structure is different, and so is aerodynamic structure. Control surfraces are different than of either Su-27S derivates, Su-27M and Su-30 family.

3. At this moment, there are no plans to upgrade existant production fighters to Su-35BM level. Su-30MK3, and Su-27SM2 proposals won’t have the BM technology. Keep in mind, that all three types (MK, SM and BM) are under KnAAPO jurisdiction, and it would be insane to open up the production line for a new aircraft if they could upgrade existant projects to that level.

4. Having said that, the BM is not a technology demonstrator. It has been already marketed around with datasheets and such, 95% of avionics and weapons are known (except for “ultra long range AAM and AGM”, the first could be KS-172S-1, i don’t have a clue about the anti-ground one). The BM is bound to find a place in VVS. It’s to undergo state trials just after it’s appearance on MAKS2007, and it has already flown on KnAAPO grounds. Therefore – the VVS won’t push Su-35BM tech into Su-27SM2 or whatever, it’ll go active (hopefully), as an Su-27BM with N035 (instead of N035-E), R-37M instead of R-72, and so on, replacing export technology with one for domestic use.

Thus, it looks to me like if someone ditched all Su-35BM avionics into some Su-27/30 variant, you wouldn’t get the aircraft of same possibilities. The mere fact that VVS plans to introduce Su-27BM in it’s original shape, not like a technology demonstrator with avionics drawback into SM2/SM3 or whatever, speaks for itself. In my eyes, the difference between 27BM and 27SM could be like between F-18E/F and F-18C/D. Here is one Super Hornet quote from wikipedia :

The wing, center and aft fuselage, tail surfaces and power plants are entirely new. The wing area of the Super Hornet is 25% larger. The fuselage was stretched to carry more fuel and room for future avionics upgrades. An engine with 35% more power, the General Electric F414, was developed from the Hornet’s F404 to power this larger, heavier aircraft.

Let’s now do the Su-27S vs Su-27(35)BM. The BM has 2 tons more weight on normal / maximum takeoff regime. The composite usage reduced the sheer airframe weight, and even with two 15 ton thrust class engines, the BM has more range than ordinary Flankers. That would mean more fuel inside. The control surfaces are larger, more preciselly high-lift surfaces and flaperons. The shape is more refined, RAM coated, etc…

So, it’s more or less like in Hornet vs SH. Super Hornet is not an upgrade package for F-18, it’s a new aircraft based on the F-18 airframe. So is the BM. Don’t get fooled by appearance…Su-35/T-10M looked different mainly because of canards, T-10BM lacks canards because of 3D TVC and new FBW system. This is a new Super Flanker, based on both Flanker and the old Super Flanker. It’s not an upgrade.

IRST cant provide course correction for missile outside LRF range as it lack any range/speed figures. LRF work only at 10-15km max, i.e. already within ARH missile activation range. Thats why only active-seekers like IR or ARH missiles could be used with IRST.

It can also use short radar pings for ranging. MiG-31, in squadron mode, can even range without any emissions, via triangulation and by usage of it’s inertial hardware.

You perfectly can. Since the inroduction on Su-27/Mig-29 IRST is used to scan for targets.

Of course you can, but it provides less sectors than small radar. Datalinked, couple of aircraft, could scan a decent amount of airspace only by IRST, but let’s stay on simple single craft scenario. If you went on border patrol with your Flanker, you wouldn’t scan with IRST, would you? If someone knows you’re there, you can be easily evaded. That’s the thing i’m talking about – IRST should be used as sole scanning sensor, only if you know roughly where someone could be coming from.

So, what’s the advantage of a fighter using IRST if it can only see an enemy but cannot shoot it down? What’s the big deal?

It can. With an thermal-guided missile, such as R-27ET or R-73.

The HMS though, can be used with the R-27R/ER.

Actually, the system should cope with any kind of supported missile. SCHLEM mode uses multiple sensors, like vertscan and other close combat modes. If you’re trying to launch an radar homer, radar should be online, and you would slave the radar scanning with your head.

Using ARH with IRST while possible also doesnt make much sence as ARH guiding will light enemy RWR just as good as your main radar.

Not exactly. While in TWS mode, you’re providing course correction to the missile via the datalink, but you’re alerting all RWR’s around, and the missile could still be 40 km away from the target. In that case, the opponent could go defensive at that moment, and bleed the missile’s energy.

If the course correction is provided by telemetry receieved from optronics, that’s completely passive (given that you don’t have the capability to detect datalink between the platform and the missile). Your RWR will detect the emissions only when the seekerhead goes active. That’s on ~ 20 km range, and the missile was flying on a straight trajectory until that moment. There’s a lot of energy left in it, in any case a lot more than if you detected the TWS from 50 km range and went into bleeding manuevers. PK should be much higher than in first scenario.

Where did your IRST get the info, where to look at all?!

That’s the problem with IRST, you cannot just go around and scan airspace with it. You’d need to know where to look at. Even small radars like Kopyo provide more scanned sectors than modern IRSTs. Not to mention, that radar can perform an target ID.

But, IRST is a valuable tool. In a simple scenario, one on one, it could be used in a high speed tailchase, where the opponent is still 15-20 km away. He wouldn’t know are you coming from port, starboard, above or below, and if you have IR-MRAAMs like R-27ET, he wouldn’t know that he was under fire. And in multi-sensor conjuction, IRST and radar complement themselves greatly…radars are weakest in tail-on aspects, and IRST is strongest in that aspect. Parallel to that, radar excells at head-on, while IRST has it’s range significally reduced then. It’s best to combine both. Radar + IRST + sophisticated EW equipment, with a bunch of long-range active radar homers, themal missiles and passive radiation ones, and you’re set to go 😉

Hmm…that last sentence smells like Su-35BM 🙂

Here’s a complete OoB for 1987, VVS, PVO and AVMF, fighting fixed-wing aircraft.

910 MiG-21 Fishbed
1990 MiG-23 Flogger
410 MiG-25 Foxbat
830 MiG-27 Flogger
275 MiG-29 Fulcrum
125 MiG-31 Foxhound
500 Su-15 Flagon
970 Su-17 Fitter
770 Su-24 Fencer
210 Su-25 Frogfoot
15 Su-27 Flanker
450 Tu-16 Badger
135 Tu-22 Blinder
275 Tu-22M Backfire
150 Tu-95 Bear
100 Tu-128 Fiddler
85 Yak-28 Firebar
70 Yak-38 Forger
15 M-4 Bison

Totals around 8,300 aircraft. Keep in mind, that before the Union dissolved in 1992, around 630 Su-27’s were in service, 500 MiG-31’s, 800 MiG-29’s, 15 Tu-160’s, and so on…The sheer numbers for ’87 and ’92 are the same, but the small five-year period boosted the VVS/PVO/AVMF capability by a generation.