defo a nerf for supersonic speeds
Probably a buff at some intervals at mid to low speeds.
Though they will also have to adjust the drag to match the turning curves
That source only calculates F-15,16 and Tornado performance based on its own data. It cannot be used for real comparison
Here it says where the data for the Su-27 is taken from (“Руководство по технической эксплуатации N 10 книга 1”, which is the technical manual).
Spoiler
And here is one of the graphs provided, which I am using for the report. It overlays the Su-27 and F-15 energy gain at full burner under 1G.
I am not using the analysis of the report, just the graphs provided.
Did they ever get an F-15 to do the comparison against, or is this inferred / extrapolated data?
it’s a guess, basically
it also seems wrong because the F-15 has a higher TWR than the Su-27 at all fuel loadings
1 Like
Are you joking? The prototype of the su35 was born before there was even the idea to create the SM modification it’s like saying that the MLU package led to the F16C even though the F16C was created before.
You are basing your conclusion out of the name of the plane.
There’s a post on the suggestions of the forum that talks about the su35, go read that instead of talking about your nonsense.
I remember back in the day su37 was shining on the airshows but then it got shafted and the su35s appeared. It turns out canards are not the best idea.
Thankfully European designs shows otherwise.
Must be Russian design fault.
1 Like
SU-37
Su-27M (T10M-11)
Flanker F
These are all names for the same aircraft.
Russia does this a lot. It takes an existing airframe, gives it a random upgrade for a one off prototype or limited production run and gives it an entirely new name.
All are the same prototype demonstrator aircraft that incorporated canads and thrust vectoring and and digital FCS into the SU27M airframe.
It was a demonstrator that was able to perform a 360 somersault.
It crashed due to structural failure in 2002
It proved that canards were pretty much useless on an aircraft that used thrust vectoring.
@Grimtax
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0GPpvSFq9j45
wing area 62.04m2 not 65
2 Likes
Ahahaha. The SM2 version never existed…The Su-27SM has nothing to do with the Su-35. The Su-35 of the first generation is the T10M tail number 710
Calling Su-27SM first generation Su-35S is still wrong
2 Likes
Why?.. Su-27M he should have received such a name in the Air Forces if adopted… The prototypes are T-10M…In 1992 formed the appearance and name of the export version of the Su-35…
In 1995, three production aircraft were built under the name Su-35…
2 Likes
Su-27SM is not first generation Su-35S. I said it before that Su-27M(T-10M) is the one that can be called that. There are no Su-35 made from Su-27SM(Serial Modernized) as far as I know. NATO is claiming Su-27SM is first generation Su-35 which is not true.
But excuse me! I didn’t see one letter…Of course not, the first generation of the Su-35 is the T-10M(Su-27M)/Su-35…
1 Like
1 Like
Russian aircraft markings are always quite complicated
It seems there is some confusion regarding my statement about the generation statement of the
Su-27SM to the Su-35S. To clarify, I am not suggesting that the Su-35S was directly built upon the Su-27SM platforms. Instead, my point is about the historical and developmental lineage that led to the Su-35S.
Historically, the Su-27SM was the first significant upgrade to the Su-27, introducing new avionics, weapons systems, and capabilities. This can be seen as the first generation in the modernized Su-27 series. Following this, the Su-27SM2 and Su-27SM3 represented further advancements, each incorporating more sophisticated technology and improvements over their predecessors. These successive upgrades can be considered the second and third generations as mentioned, respectively.
Finally, the Su-35S represents the final iteration of this evolutionary process. While it is a highly advanced and distinct aircraft, its development was influenced by the technological and operational lessons learned from the Su-27SM, SM2, and SM3. Therefore, when I refer to the Su-27SM, SM2, SM3, and Su-35S as first, second, third, and fourth generations, respectively, I am speaking about the historical progression and technological evolution that led to the final development of the Su-35S. Now this is quite logical right so everyone should be able to follow where I am going with this.
In summary, the Su-27SM, SM2, and SM3 were critical steps in the evolution that eventually resulted in the Su-35S, which is why both the SM3 and Su-35S finished development approx. around 2008 and they both had their maiden flights in 2008, but the Su-35S is not built directly upon the Su-27SM platforms. This was rather the Su-27M which some have mentioned. BUT this was just a short period of a demonstration life and not an actual used platform as the first, second, and third gens are as I have now stated. They are rather the product of a continuous improvement and modernization process which then again inevitably resulted in the final state of the Su-35S.
Please notice I am saying Su-35S not Su-35 and the three Su-35 that were acquired by the RUAF is not mentioned by me once as they were hangar queens their entire life almost. And as I will be saying in the latter unless you are an employee at UAC that has first hand info about their developments being separate then there is no universal declaration about this.
This is EXTREMELY logical, I hope this clears up any misunderstandings and honestly no point in arguing about this anymore.
It seems a lot of us are very passionate about this aircraft series. I will have my opinion, You can have yours. Unless you are an employee at UAC that has first hand information about this there is no point in declaring a universal statement.
Thanks.