It doesn’t lead up to the Su-35S. Su-27SM is just Su-27S with Fox-3 Capability, Pastel RWR and CAS options. Su-35S are not built from existing Su-27S/SM platforms as far as I know.
Su-27SM in the Russian Air Force
- The first prototype of the Su-27SM-tail number “56” red was converted from the Su-27 23 IAP…delivered in 2002 to GLITZ…
- 4 CBPiPLS (Lipetsk) - 5 pcs. : side numbers “02”,“03”,"04"“06” and “07” (red), were transferred in December 2003.
- Former Su-27 23 IAP (Dzemgi - Komsomolsk-on-Amur) - 24 pcs.: side numbers “69”-“92” (red)…
- Former Su-27 22 IAP (Central Corner - Vladivostok) - 24 pcs.: side numbers (blue) “01”-“12”, 21", 24",“26”-“32”…
P.S…Su-27SM1 /Su-27SM2-mythical projects of modernization of the Su-27 to the level of the Su-35S…
I didn’t find SM2, but I did find SM3.
It quite literally does lead up to the Su-35S.
It has nothing to do wether it was built upon the SM variants.
Overall nerf for acceleration?
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