There is none except two prototypes. The production of 48 Su-35BM for the Russian AF will start from 2011 (12 per year) and be completed in 2015.

48 of the final incarnations of the Flanker family.

Enough to equip, what, two, maybe three VVS squadrons?

http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Regional-ASCM.html

Sunburn, Sizzler and Yakhont anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles would spell the end of the Nimitz class supercarriers.

Unless the supercarriers and all surface warships were armed with railguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

I think this will be good for Australia and hopefully we can get some meets between RAF and RAAF to have comparisons and to play with each other.

Maybe the RAF have done it with the US Navy already but i’ve not heard anything on this.

I guess as they are to replace the F111 there main role will be ground attack. The Aussies must feel that this plane is a big improvement on the F111 and i hope it serves them well. I don’t think once the F35 arrives in OZ it will replace the SuperHornet i think they will run the 2 together. I wounder what advantages the superhornet will have over the F35 when it arrives in service for the role the RAAF. Maybe better weapons integration/availability. I think the F35 would have to carry things like Harpoon on a hardpoint anyway so that’s the stealth gone. I am also not sure if Anti Ship Missiles and US navy weapons will be available for the F35A if US airforce doesn’t use them? maybe the F35 A B and C will all have the same weapons available by using the same computer or something?

I think this is a good buy for the RAAF and it will fit in nicely to there airforce. Also i wouldn’t they have any neighbouring country that could seriously attack them that they could not fight off with FA-18’s and Super Hornets.

Does anyone know what Weapons package the RAAF have bought for the Super Hornets.

Also are there any weapons the SuperHornet can use that the FA-18 can’t?

All in All i think a good buy for the RAAF and should really push up the availability over the F111.

The EA-18G Growler, the EW variant of the F/A-18F, will be included.

I don’t mind the Super Hornet, but I’d wish the RAAF would have used the B-1R Lancer as a strategic bomber or the F-15SE Silent Eagle, because they have the longer range.

They obviously confuse the first flight with the in service date.

That is what aviation fan people often tend to do, like the day the PAK FA takes to the skies is when it enters service with the VVS. Give me a break.

The Sukhoi engineers, test pilots and the VVS have to continue testing the PAK FA, along with several other prototypes to test their performances, their avionics, supercruising turbofans, missile test firings, dogfighting capability against the VVS’s existing legacy fleet of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

So in other words, Pravda is saying that buying the Su-35 to cover the gap they themselves have cried out as existing until the PAK FA is intended to start entering service, and ceasing Su-35 purchases in that same year, proves the PAK FA has failed in some way? I’m having a little trouble with their logic here. Yes it would have been nice for Russia to have had it ready earlier but then they might as well publish an article about how nice it would’ve been had the USSR not fallen. It makes no difference.

The Su-35BM Flanker-E, the final member of the Flanker family of air superiority fighters, is meant as the stopgap prior to the Su-50 PAK FA reaching IOC circa 2015 with one or two frontline squadrons of the same fighter regiment (a VVS equivalent to a USAF fighter wing).

Currently there is one active combat squadron equipped with the Su-35.

Unlike you I can read & comprehend. Everything of any reliability says that the 1st T-50/PAK FA prototype/test aircraft is currently under construction. That makes it many years behind where the F-35 is at right now.

The article posted by medal64 makes it clear that Russia will be procuring Su-35s until at least 2015 since the T-50/PAK FA will not be ready until at least that time. By the time the T-50/PAK FA is possibly (it could take longer) ready for procurement/production the F-35 will be (according the the current schedule) at full rate production with ~230 procured & ~130 delivered (test & service aircraft) already.

Don’t know where you are getting this from. I didn’t say anything about the T-50/PAK FA being screwed – just that it will not enter service before the F-35.

The USN is only procuring additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to fill the gap left by losses & delays in the F-35C.

Definitely it won’t. That’s where the Gen 4.5 fighter stopgaps come in.

As long as it prolongs the Raptor’s monopoly of the skies for even just a month longer… ’till its stealth advantage is negated altogether.

And what if the Su-35 is exported to the air forces of rogue nations? That’s a catch-22 for the Raptor export lobby.

Now I don’t know what exactly do you mean. If course PAK-FA is behind the F-35 in schedule, it always was.. :confused: I don’t think Russians ever had any intention to make it complete before the F-35 or have I missed something?

Then we must have misunderstood each other. But I am not sure what is the big news, then. Has anyone here ever expected a series T-50 to appear before 2015? That would be a HUGE surprise to me.

BTW, it is pretty expected that VVS is procuring Su-35s. T-50 will not be able to replace all 31s and 27s. I think Russians might consider designing the T-50 as a compromise between F-35 and F-22 and to supplement the numbers with Su-35s instead of developing another light 5th gen fighter.

The Su-50 was actually meant to be a Raptorski. The first non-U.S. Gen 5 fighter to take to the skies, to counter the F-22 Raptor. The Indian Air Force wants their own customized two seater variant, under the name FGFA, Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, aka Su-50MKI.

It makes sense that the aircraft did not have much of an IF signature for the PL-5s to pick. Does that explain why anti-drug aircraft of South America I have seen on the internet use cannon/machine guns? … … However, why didn’t the F-7s use their cannon?

An SLAF F-7 scored a gun kill on an LTTE light plane with its 30mm cannon.

I think there will always be human in the Loop somewhere. But if you could have aircraft that can avoid SAM’s and other missiles by pulling extremely high G’s or maneuvers that would kill a pilot in the cockpit then that’s a good thing. I think we will also have long range high endurance aircraft that can stay up for day’s or weeks. I

What i imagine it will come down to will be: Is it worth taking the pilot out of the cockpit for each mission. Easy bombing missions like what predator does just now are fine. But you ask the troops and i bet they are glad they can have a manned aircraft fly low level over the enemy maybe fire the cannon a little to get the targets to surrender. It worked in Iraq.

If going into a high threat environment where a UCAV could go in bomb the target and get out pulling maneuvers that would kill a pilot then that what’s needed. But the technology to make aircraft do that will need to be invented first

We will not see UAV’s take over all roles in the next 100 years anyway.

I think it will depend on the mission but there will always be a human in the loop somewhere. I don’t think we will ever get the stage where you tell the computer wipe out a country or taliban for example and then all aircraft start charging out of hangers loading what arm’s they like and picking there own targets and taking off into the sunset.

Mind you Artificial intelligence is a interesting topic and who knows what it could do once you teach it how to learn. imagine something taking all the information on the Internet and making up its own mind as to what to do with it. Scary Stuff.

The human has many properties the intelligent supercomputer does not have.

UCAVs won’t completely replace manned fighters, but only to serve alongside manned fighters, and useful for high-risk tasks like Wild Weasel SEAD, strategic reconnaissance and dogfighting against advanced enemy fighters.

But what do you think about UCAVs replacing manned fighters altogether?

I think they should never replace manned fighters altogether, although the two can coexist and cooperate, like UCAVs being used for Wild Weasel missions.

The MQ-9 Reaper is designed for CAS, not air superiority, and it would be comical to see a Reaper go up against a jet fighter, because the UCAV pilot does not have the same field of vision as that of a fighter pilot in his/her cockpit.