Talk:Sukhoi Su-35/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

This article needs major changes. Mainly due to it being out of date and having a large amount of false information. I am preapred to write a new one from scratch.

Then please do. Just edit it from the topmost link, remove all content and start from scratch. Starcraftmazter 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done listing the basic differences detween the Su-35(A) and the Su-35BM. Can someone clean up and organize neatly?

Crash

Wasn't it an Su-30MK that crashed at the 1999 Paris Air Show? Zaku Two 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/28/1027497446606.html This should be enough proof to remove that Zaku Two 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"A Sukhoi Su-30 jet - a similar twin-engine design to the Su-27 - crashed at start of the Paris air show in 1999, but the two pilots ejected and no one was injured."

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/msnbc001.htm This, too. To whoever added that: not everything with canards is an Su-35 or Su-37... Zaku Two 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Su-35 for PAF

The article cited for Su-35 for Pakistan does not even mention it. Whoever placed it does not read Russian as Viktor Mikhaylovich is talking about engines of future fighters, not orders to Pakistan.76.26.199.253 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

14 hardpoints?

I know the KnAAPO website states this, but is there any evidence besides that page? I believe it's just a mistake on their website since Rosoboronexport states 12 hardpoints. Also, logically the two extra hardpoints could only be under the nacelles, but there aren't any pictures of it carrying two pieces of ordnance there. - Dammit 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer: so called multi-payload racks can be used to "increase" number of pylons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.32.17 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Future of this article

The 'new' Su-35 was rolled out before MAKS 2007 and is shown to be a largely different aircraft from this article's Su-35. It has a new FBW system, new phased array radar, new IRST, new engines, etc. It's classified as a 4th gen++ aircraft and even outwardly looks different from the existing Su-35. So my question is this: Do we add the information of this new Su-35 to this article or do we split the two into seperate articles named(tentatively), say: first gen/second gen Su-35s. I believe there are enough differences between the two for seperate articles, just like the Mig-29/Mig-35, but I'd like to see what people are thinking about this. Don't forget to sign your posts. (Bobbo9000 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

It might be too early to make a knowledgable decision just yet. I'd say to go ahead and add the new info as it comes out. Later, especially if a new designation is assigned, then a split can be proposed. There no real reason to rush at this point. It's better to have two related designs ont he same page, with lots of information, then to split one off and have only a stub with scant info, no specs, and no pics. And since they are both currently called Su-35, the same link will bring them here. - BillCJ 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent non-productive edits

I have recently reverted multiple edits/additions/changes by User:Gxe65 and User:Historian info, who may or may not be the same person. (Hopefully not, as that is sockpuppetry, and a serious breach of policy.) As partially explained in my edit summaries, there are many problems with theos edits, so many that I ahve reverted wholesale rather than try to keep some. Some of the edits removed sourced information. Others added non-fields to templates, which will not work, and thus not show at all. Other changes were contrary to the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. Another problem was that each change was made as a separate edit, which made it very dificult to follow the changes, and no edit summaries were given. Please refrain from thowing out charges such as vandalism, or from just reverting. READ my edit summaries, and then discuss the page with me to find out what the problems are. Now that I've started tht process, maybe we can get down to improving the page, rather than making edits that don't do that. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Total POV you have removed citations and removed other critical information this is serious vanadalism.--Historian info (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not. At the risk of being accused of being POV again, I'll try to list the many problems I have with your edits tomorrow. I'd honestly try to keep your "critical information" while correcting your errors and mistakes, but since you don't seem to accept that you've made any mistakes, I'd probably be reverted for "vandalism" again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for being a bit rude, because there is no need for that so sorry. However, the removal of the citations is just plain wrong.--Historian info (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Stop removing citing information and vandalising the article.--Historian info (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Now bearing in mind that I just "strayed" onto this page recently, IMHO, there does need to be some attention ot the article in regards to citations and reference sources. Using primarily electronic (Internet) sources is problematic and most authoritative works on Wikipedia begin with the consideration of peer-reviewed data, secondly, published material that is vetted by author, publisher and represents "expert(s)" then second-third person published material and finally periodical/journal sources. Electronic media is usually considered secondary and in the case of a contemporary or current topic may not be as reliable as other sources. FWIW, a "cooling down" of rhetoric also should be considered. If you made an intemperate statement that you may wish to retract, placing through the passage will indicate to readers that the statement was withdrawn. Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

"Super" Flanker?

Who exactly calls the Su-35 the Super Flanker? Flanker is a NATO codename - Do NATO call the aircraft Flanker-E, or Super Flanker-E? If they don't call it the Super Flanker, and Sukhoi or the Russian Air force don't, then neither should this article. (And incidentally, shouldn't some context be given here - it isn't apparent from reading the article (and particularly the lead para) what the relationship is between the Su27, Su-27M and Su-35). Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that name comes from, possibly Sukhoi or the Russian Air Force; the aircraft's NATO reporting name is "Flanker-E" and I don't know of any verifiable sources for the name "Super Flanker," so I'd refrain from using it. Zaku^Talk 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New article for the Su-35BM?

Despite still using the basic Flanker airframe and Su-35 name, I think the differences between the Su-35 and BM are distinct enough to warrant a new article, like we did with the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F. The airframe itself has been changed in a number of ways and the avionics have been significantly improved. Besides, we're already seeing some confusion on this page (such as "the Su-35, does not possess the canard fins that the Sukhoi Su-30MKI has"). Zaku^Talk 20:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zaku. I agree with you on a new article for Su-35BM.' Moreover, Su-35 has a another difference with the MKI apart from the canard fins - its a one seater not two seater like the MKI. Therefore, I happily concur with Zaku new article on Su-35BM.--Historian info (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Zaku please can you start the article, thanks.--Historian info (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Zaku Sukhoi Su-35BM.--Historian info (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question?

I have a question that I've had for a very long time and never really had a satisfying answer to it so I ask anyone here. Why do Russian military aircraft manufactures produce so many variants in comparison to other military aircraft manufactures in the world???--Historian info (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is really for discussing the article not for general questions, but I dont think they do produce more variants - have you looked at F-16 Fighting Falcon article! You can always ask the question and explain in more detail where you are coming from on the Aircraft Project talk page they may be for helpfull with off-topic questions. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Su-35UB

I think some mention should definitely be given to the two-seat Su-35UB (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/su-35ub.htm), which is easy to confuse with the Su-30MKI.--N22YF (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The UB's been on my radar for a while, but I haven't dug up much info on it yet. Does anyone have a specifications listing or a useful article on it (not only filled with pictures)? So far, all we can do is say that it exists, if that's what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen too much info about it yet either, but I think its existence (at least) should definitely be included. Here is a specifications listing: http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fighter/su35ub.html

There are also a couple sentences here: http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/Su-35UB_a000320006.aspx --N22YF (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we could add the VVS codenames (Not the NATO: Flanker codename) for these aircraft (translated). Su-27: "Little Crane", Su-37: "Terminator" ("Super Flanker"), Su-35UB: "Sabertooth" (as mentioned in the Sukhoi-affiliated movie Mirror Wars). I could dig up a listing with the other flanker variants, but I believe that most of them go by Little Crane (the standard Su-27 based ones) or Triplane (Canard-equipped Flankers). Although irrelevant, other codenames include: MiG-29: "Swift" ("Fulcrum" - although a rare case, the VVS commonly uses the NATO designation for the MiG-29, taking the name as an honor that describes the MiG-29's versatility), MiG-33(MiG-29M): "Super Fulcrum", Su-25: "Comb" ... etc. I also believe the Su-32 is called the "Platypus", but I'm unsure of that. Anyways, I think we can add the VVS codenames for these aircraft (since they don't usually used the NATO designations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Su-35UB.

Is the photo now in the inbox actually of the Su-35? It doesn't seem to have any canards - which according to the article the Su-35 has. In any case - if someone doesn't sort out the image in commons and add things like souces and licenses, there won't be a picture here.Nigel Ish 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is the Su-35BM, but I'm 99% sure it will get deleted since it appears to be from KnAAPO's website. The only free picture of an Su-35 we have is the one on the right of the Su-35UB. I'll see if I can write a paragraph about it this week so the picture would actually make sense. - Dammit 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Armament: 2× wingtip rails for R-73... ???

Aren't the sorbtsyja (or how it is called) ECM-pods hard-mounted at wingtips? At least every photo of the su-35 suggests this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.164.137 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The wingtip mounts can be used to carry IRMs, but it's not as simple as slotting in an IR missile after removing the ECM pod. It requires some specialist attention which means turn around time is usually a few hours. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Discrepancies: how many are in service?

The first paragraph states that "around five" are in service, but the box on the right says "150 are in active service", which is obviously wrong. Also, this article: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080220/99687166.html says "The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said." Perhaps this article is referring to the Su-35BM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N22YF (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Libyan AF Su-35 deal.

I've searched the web and through online defense journals I have access to and I can see nothing more than Russia stating that it WANTS to sell Su-35s to Libya, but nothing concrete on a deal having been placed. Can we have some verification on this? (Bobbo9000 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

K, so there's still nothing announced about any possible Libyan AF purchases and no link verifying any sales of the Su-35 so I've removed the reference (under operators) for the time being. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

How much produced?

Your cite is not completely true.

16 Su-35 airplanes were produced. 12: 701-712, 3: 86-88 (for Akhtubinsk air base), 1: 801 (Su-35UB). --Candid (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to update the total and add a new reference. That was the best info I could find from a decent reference (warfare.ru). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Radar

I removed the statement The average output of the Su-35 Radar is 5 kW and a peak output of 20 kW as being not notable to the aircraft. User:Blue67 has added the information back and seeks a reason why I think it is not notable. This is an article about the aircraft, this level of detail is not required for an aircraft article it is better in an article about the particular radar system. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That info was in the article before. I removed it for similar reasons. Just did not think that detail was important. Still don't. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Agreed with addition to article. But not with explanation as Radar power and configuration is essential in the missile fighting and targetting abilities of any fighter. Most military analyst now check first how advanced the RADAR is before commenting on anything else about an aircraft. Look at this article on Sukhoi Flankers, The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power" by Dr Carlo Kopp [1]. He goes into length about the importance of the RADAR power in a fighters abilities. (See section: Su-30 Growth Paths) Please can you give detailed reason why you believe "not important to aircraft"?--Blue67 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence only lists the power rating and nothing about how it relates to the Su-35. If it was the radar's range limits that would be different. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the educated reader the power of the radar directly gives a rough estimation of range. Moreover, it does talk about range (290 kilometers), "The average output power of this radar is 5 kW, with peak output at 20 kW; thus the output power of the Su-30MKI and Su-30MK2 would be insufficient. When the H035 radar was tested on Su-30MK No. 503, the detection range was as far as 290 kilometers with 1 kW power output, he said." So what is your reply to this? I wait for your reply.--Blue67 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have only edited wikipedia for a few hours but please remember that this is a general encyclopedia not a technical manual it may be worth looking at other aircraft articles and generally around Wikipedia to see what is the norm. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes agreed its not completely a technical manual. However many articles on wikipedia are a technical manual see the maths or physics articles String theory. However, you owe it to your readers to talk about the main aspects of a fighter (in correct context). Just because other fighter articles are missing vital information doesn't mean its ok "two wrongs don't make a right". All wikipedia articles on fighter aircraft should have sections, as standard, on the following areas. 1. Design Goal & objective 2. Airframe, 3. engines, 4. weapons, 5. RADAR, 6. Maintenance and running costs to the nation operating it. This will produce contextually correct & accurate articles for the reader.--Blue67 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No census to merge the articles here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-35BM → Sukhoi Su-35

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing meregers.)

The Su-35BM is the modernized version of the Su-35. The manufacturer Sukhoi just calls the newer version "Su-35". The content on both the older and newer versions can be covered in one article without problem. They are largely already covered in the Su-35 Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Support

• Support - Yes as the nominator. Better to have related versions together where they can be covered better without repeating information. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - ChowHui (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I dont know those who support know how much about this SU-35BM. The official description header basically emphasize summarize the whole issue: "An old name for a new aircraft". From a Wikipedia standard prospective, when the Su-35BM truly unveil to the public, no doubt it will be worth a page itself. It is pointless to merge now and then split it again for being too long in an article. To merge the two aircraft is like forcing the Hornet and Super Hornet to chunk in one single article. ChowHui (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The old Su-35 version was basically a set of prototypes. The content for that is not all that much. The new version is an interim fighter and more will come out. This article can easily cover both. Plenty of other articles cover related variants with differences. There's already several Su-27 derivative articles. Nobody else has done any real improvement to the Su-35BM article in months. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Su-35BM is NOT at all a Su-35 upgrade. It is essentially a redesign aircraft. Modified control surface, rework structure, totally different flight control sys, avionics, powerplant all sums up a new aircraft form sketch. Less content under the both topic does not give reason to merge two different aircraft under one single title. This will confuse readers that does not aware the difference of the both aircraft and is an irresponsible way to present information. ChowHui (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I or anyone called the Su-35BM a simple upgrade. I've written text in this article that summarizes the changes. The old Su-35 does not really warrant its own article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind. This article can briefly cover the new Su-35 to explain the differences and point to the Su-35BM article. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Oppose - Su-35/Su-27M/T-10M and Su-35/Su-27Sm2/Su-27BM/T-10BM, It would be better to use twinn name designations for all Su-27 aircrafts like - Su-33 (Su-27K), Su-34 (Su-27IB), Su-35 (Su-27M) and Su-35 (Su-27BM). --Corran.pl (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note discussion closed in December with a no merge. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently it looks like this page is turning into an Su-35BM page (The "Modernization" section is a significant portion of the page, and the specifications now are of the Su-35BM, not the Su-35 "classic."). If these pages aren't going to be merged, this page (including the specifications) should be chiefly about the original Su-35. It makes no sense to have the Su-35BM's specifications on both pages. N22YF (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First flight

People Change the First FLight part its first flight was February 19, 2008. AND NOT MAY 1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.196.75 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what sub-model you're referring to. THe first basic Su-35 flew in 1988 tho. - BillCJ (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Su-27M/Su-35 first flew in 1988. The new Su-35 flew in 2008. The difference is explained in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the present Su-35 aka Su-35BM aka Su-27SM is a whole new design approach. It should not be confuse with and to relate to the Su-35 on this page. Regards ChowHui (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

can peopel get speed right or what?

Why is it always a problem for wiki to get the speed and various convertions correctly?

2.25 is not 2700 km/h, get it right already. Jesus. I corrected to the higher one, because I consider MAKS site a better reference.

If anyone disagrees, we can talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.123.155 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe specs from Sukhoi and KNAAPO's over some display at an air show any day. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Su-35 can not cost $60 million

The Soviet, er Russian Airforce has a $2.5 billion dollar contract for 48 SU-35s plus some other fighters. If the other fighters were not included that would still be only $52 million per Su-35. So the real price has got to be around $40 million. Hcobb (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I will toss everything about BM out of this article

There already is a BM page so I'm going to move all the BM stuff over there and redesignate the base 35 as an aerobatic aircraft as it surely is not a combat aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Su-35BM is made up name. Besides the version Russia ordered into production appears to be Su-35S.[2] No real reason the Su-35 and its variants can't both be covered here. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Then change the BM page into a redirect back here. Hcobb (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sale to Venezuela

The sale is thus far not official, Chavez did mention it a few times as a possibility, but thus far they only have SU-30MK2 type planes. --GeneralPatton (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Su-35BM Big/Deep Modernization

Can someone add a better reference for the Big/Deep Modernization part? The Globalsecurtity.org and Aviapedia.com are about the only semi-RS refs I can find for it. There is no mention of Su-35BM on Sukhoi's web site (sukhoi.org), btw. -fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think its best to use all the possible designations seen thus far, akin to this fairly respected site http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Su-35S-Flanker.html --GeneralPatton (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing them is fine, but that can be done in the text instead of section label(s). -fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • In addition, the internal company designation is Т-10БМ (BM), per Russian language wiki article, that lists it as BM. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-35БМ. --GeneralPatton (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • RIA novosti, the official Russian state news agency, also uses the BM designation http://www.rian.ru/infografika/20090202/160777380-ig.html --GeneralPatton (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are two Su-35 types: the old one and the real one. The old Su-35 with canards is actually Su-27M. It was called Su-35 for marketing purposes. They had bort numbers 7xx and internal designation T-10M. Also Su-27M with bort number 711 was equipped with TV engines and called Su-37. Again for marketing purposes only. Su-27M program was closed.

New Su-35 is completely different plane than old Su-35 i.e. Su-27M. It has different internal structure, smaller midsection and other aerodynamic improvements. New Su-35 has bort numbers 9xx. Designation Т-10БМ is wrong and never existed. You can check here: All OKB Sukhoi aircraft types

Designation Su-35S is not clear. Some sources calims that it's modification of Su-35 for Russian AF. Official Sukhoi site has no record on 'Su-35S' only 'Su-35' without any letters: http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/ . KnAAPO plant site has only 'Su-35' page: http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su-35.wbp

Sources of info about Su-27M and Su-35 creation history: official sites www.sukhoi.org and www.knaapo.ru, Andrey Fomin's article in Take-off Magazine August-September/2007, documentary film 'Su-27. Worlds best fighter'.

Conclusion: there must be two articles about two different types of aircraft: Su-27M and Su-35. And in both articles must be explanation about 'marketing names': Su-35 and Su-37.

Sincerely yours, XaHyMaH (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations in content [not]

It turns out a large part of this article's content has been word for word ripped straight out of Russian AF material; please see: link. Upwards of 20 sentences are direct copy-pastes, and I didn't count beyond that, but this is a very severe problem. Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it looks like the book copied text from here. That book is dated 2011 and much of the text of this article easily predates that. Note the same section labels as in this version from January 2011. Before a couple of months ago, a good bit of the text in this article was written or reworded my me in the 2008-09 timeframe. I say forget that book and remove it from this article. Maybe do a little rewording. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Very devious of them, stealing directly from Wikipedia. The book shall be removed. Kyteto (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Might be appropriate to list it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Perhaps the publisher has done the same with other books too. There are publishers out there which basically run their business by copy & pasting wikipedia content, collating it into a book, and selling it. This causes circular referencing problems as well as concerns about articles containing copyvio. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucky we all have access to reliable info outlets such as Flight International and Aviation Week, as well as Sukhoi.org. I myself have informative and interesting books written by Yefim Gordon and Eden Paul. There's no need for books like the above mentioned. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Offering the aircraft to Australia out of desperation?

First of all, sentences including "perhaps" should probably be avoided in an encyclopaedia, also the sale is mentioned after the lost contract with Libya but the source is a 2002 book (apparently), so the two events are unrelated. Also I tend to doubt that Sukhoi is "desperately" trying to sell it since the Su-30MK has been selling quite well on the international market (even to western equipment operators like Malaysia and Indonesia). At the very least I think that the supposition of the author should be removed and the date of the offer should be added.
Hyper Shinchan (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge Su-35BM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as Merge. - BilCat (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Sukhoi Su-35BM → Sukhoi Su-35

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Rationale: The Su-35BM/Su-35S is a derivative of the Su-27M/-35 as stated by Sukhoi. Jane's entry in the current All the World's Aircraft covers both versions with 3-4 paragraphs on the Su-27M/Su-35 and over 6 paragraphs on the new Su-35BM/Su-35S version. This wikipedia article can cover both the Su-27M/-35 and production Su-35S. There's not enough coverage to need a separate article for the Su-27M/-35 and there is better continuity with them together. -fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your entry using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support: Per rationale above. -fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Su-35BM/S seems to be an improved production version of the prototype Su-35. They can happily be covered in one article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support agree with rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Just so long as the current aircraft is noted as being a non-fighter airshow acrobat. Hcobb (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Su-35BM is a made up name and Su-35S is just a variant.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jane's 2010/11 says that Su-35S is the main production version of the Su-35 and that Su-35BM is an old name for the Su-35S. This calls for a single article.TSRL (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - One basic type = one article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The Su-35BM is a an advanced type of the Su-35 and doesn't justify a new article. Tt100 (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with the rationale. necromancer (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: These are two very different plane, so the article can not be combined. --Droni4ch (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RCS

Whats the real RCS of the SU-35? References please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

1m² http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-design.htm -Nem1yan (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Real RCS is classified. Officials just says that Su-35's RCS is lower than Su-27's RCS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaHyMaH (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Venezuelan Air Force order of 2008

Did this happen or not? The current article seems a bit unclear. Hcobb (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge Su-35S part 2

The decision made back in 2010 is based on inaccurate information and a superficial reading of a very general article on Sukhoi's website. First of all, it is simply inaccurate to state that the Su-35S is a development of the Su-27M/Su-35. It is not. It is a substantially new airframe both internally and externally. The canards are dumped. The dorsal airbrake is gone. The engine intakes are bigger (to accomodate the more powerful, newer engines). The empennage area has been reduced. Extended high-lift devices with large flaperons occupy the full trailing edge of the wing. The shape of the nose is modified (because the radar is different). New, lighter systems generally (including but not limited to the FBW system). Changes in the actual composition of the aircraft's structure (as in the materials used to build it). Corresponding increase in fuel. Different vertical tails, etc. The only thing it borrows from the Su-27M/Su-35 is the name. This is self-evident from the Sukhoi article bizarrely linked above to support the (wrong) decision to treat these two very different aircraft as one and the same. "A general concept emerged of a considerably modified Su-27 fighter, which retained the name of Su-35." How this statement was used as a basis for treating these two aircraft - seperated by 20 years - as if they are one and the same development is extremely puzzling. Frankly, if the superficial similarity and use of the same name between the Su-27M/Su-35 (T-10M) and the Su-35S (T-10BM) is all that it takes for two articles to be merged, then frankly we might as well just merge every single "Flanker" variant aircraft entry into one, it'd have as much basis. Or to draw on WW2, it'd make as much sense to combine the La-5FN and La-7 article into one. Heck, throw the LaGG-3 in as well. The article's superficiality serves to obscure these differences - none of the very substantial changes and modernizations are noted (though yes this is a matter for content and people need to contribute this stuff). Further, as an aside the entire "Su-35BM" designation is erroneous (though it has apparently proliferated around the net, it is thankfully falling out of use now that the proper, Su-35S designation for the serial version is known). Its a bastardisation of the T-10BM designation.Beryoza (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The merger justification is based on Jane's Su-35 entry and Sukhoi's site. What sources do you have for the Su-35S having a "substantially new airframe" (other than the removal of the canards)? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the idea that Sukhoi's site supports the merger is simply incorrect. All it acknowledges is that the name was reused. We don't need the Sukhoi website to tell us that, since its self evident. As for Jane's, I don't why it (and I don't even know what it says, in what detail - but if it says the Su-35S is just a variant of the Su-27M then its wrong - period) should control anything. As to sources, nothing I said is in the least bit new or controversial - its all over the internet. You can google everything I said (and then some). Here's just one example: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/. As the link rightly acknowledges, the Su-35S actually bears far more in common with the original Su-27 airframe than the Su-27M/35. As for visually obvious differences, you can check the difference in vertical tails by just comparing a picture of an Su-27M/35 to an Su-35S - they're completely different. Ditto with the lack of a dorsal airbrake - look at any picture of the dorsal surface of an Su-27M/35 to an Su-35S. Beryoza (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Heck - even the dimensions are different. The Su-27M/35 is 22.183m long and has a 14.7m wingspan. The Su-35S is 21.9m long and has a 15.3m wingspan. They're not the same plane and they share virtually no developmental pedigree apart from using the Flanker layout. Beryoza (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Janes, here's a Jane's IDR article in relation to the T-10BM project, written by Piotr Bukowksi (a well known aviation journalist with particular focus on former Soviet and Russian aircraft) reproduced under fair use on an aviation forum. Though old (at that stage it was still unknown that the dorsal airbrake would be removed), it adequately summarizes the genesis of the program, and explicitly states that the Su-35S/T-10BM is a new project, with no relationship to the Su-27M/35 apart from the reuse of the name. http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=812077&postcount=1 Beryoza (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only add that reusing names was not uncommon in Soviet times. See Tu-22 and Tu-22M. Two very different aircraft sharing the same name. And getting separate pages. Also do note, that Sukhoi's info page on the plane has a link at the bottom titled "1st flight of the 2nd Su-35 prototype in Komsomolsk-on-Amur". Referring to the 2008 prototype not the 90-s one. i.e. Sukhoi referring to "Su-35" means only the 2007- plane, with the 90-s one only sharing the name.D2306 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I still feel they are close enough related for one article and Jane's does as well in its All the World's Aircraft entry. The current consensus is to have the articles merged together here. Start a discussion on splitting to get a new consensus. See WP:Splitting for more info, including tags. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well leaving aside all the above evidence, as to All the World's Aircraft - can you confirm whether it even acknowledges that these two aircraft don't even have the same dimensions? Because if not then that proves said source is simply not probative (Jane's is not perfect, especially in terms of Russian weapon systems) and whoever wrote the entry simply lazily assumed they were the same. In any event, anyone else good at splitting protocol? Far too esoteric for me, I'm a very occasional editor at best. Beryoza (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are differences in their external dimensions. That in of itself does not prove there are significantly different aircraft. Changes to the nose, tail, and landing gear can cause those without any changes to the rest of the airframe. There are plenty of aircraft articles where versions are covered that have very different external dimensions and/or weights, e.g. Boeing 767, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Bell UH-1 Iroquois. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the nose, tail and landing gear don't cause the wingspan to enlarge. In any event, I never said the dimension change alone proved they were significantly different. That's what the other evidence was for (e.g. the deletion of the dorsal airbrake, the different tails, the sources explicitly saying there was no relation between the two - including Jane's IDR). Leaving that fact aside, what I said about the dimensions just there above was that if the Jane's entry didn't even acknowledge the difference in dimensions its further evidence of that piece simply being lazy because the name was similar. Noting the differences between the aircraft like that is the basic task of an aviation reference. Beryoza (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

China buying Su-35

China has never displayed any interest in the Su-35. Are you confusing it with the negotiations for the Su-27/30 upgrade packages? Or the negotiations for the Su-33? The rest of this is wishful thinking! Claiming that China wants to buy and then Russia being reluctant to sell.

Where is the [51] "Zhao 2004, p. 216." from? Sounds like a fake source.

Cite 50 covers the Su-35 co-production. Cite 51 follows the next sentence about Su-27 production in China. Cite 51 is a shortened footnote pointing to Zhao book in the Bibliography section, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

China is buying 24 Su-35: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/25/after-a-decade-long-wait-china-and-russia-ink-super-jet-military-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.124.226 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's been in article for months. See bottom of Sukhoi Su-35#China section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This Finnish source says China ordered 24 planes in March 2014. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Serial and serial production?

Sukhoi delivered the first Su-35S serial aircraft in 2011. In December 2012 it delivered its first six serial production units. This needs to be clarified. What's the distinction between serial, production and serial production? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be adding something not stated in the article. The text does not say the 2011 deliveries were serial production aircraft. If Su-35s were delivered then, they had to be pre-production versions. Also, I can not find an English source for that delivery. The translation of the text in the source for that indicates that 2 were planned to be delivered when the contract was signed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Four Su-35S's had been completed bu Feb 2012.[3]. Lenta says the Russian Air Force received two production versions in 2011. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Four built, but not necessarily delivered as they have been used for testing. The Lenta.ru is the one I was referring. Maybe it was the rough translation of that. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• The translated article says "In total, the Russian Air Force received eight Su-35s: two - in 2011 and six in 2012. In addition, the military have been transferred and the three experimental Su-35 fighter (Sic)." My question still stands, what the flying fuck is a serial production, and production aircraft? Why did Sukhoi say it had delivered the first six Su-35S fighters although two had been delivered in 2011? These inconsistencies are driving me insane. Damn those Russkies --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bingo! According to ARMS-TASS, the delivery plan for the Su-35S is as follow:

• 2 in 2011
• 8 in 2012
• 12 in 2013
• 12 in 2014, and
• 14 in 2015

This would mean the first four Su-35S's are serial pre-production [production] examples used to conduct state acceptance trials with the Defense Ministry, along with the three prototypes (one of which has presumably not flown), and would later be accepted into the Russian Air Force. The six delivered in December 2012 are indeed the first serial production another batch of production units.

So I would assume that at the end of 2012, there were 13 Su-35s, 10 of which are one way or another with the Russian Air Force. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Take-off says the Su-35S that flew in May 2011 is a production-standard unit. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Page 6 of the March 2013 edition of Take-off says that the six units delivered in December 2012 were not the first production Su-35S delivered at all. Sources that claim Sukhoi delivered the first six Su-35S in December are wrong. So, lemme clear a few things up. Two Su-35s prototypes made their first flights in 2008. Two Su-35S production aircraft were built and delivered in 2011. Another two had been flown by February 2012. In December 2012 Sukhoi delivered a further six Su-35S units to the Air Force. By now 10 Su-35S's had been delivered. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

RT.com = valid source for Sukhoi Su-35??

Hello. I am aware that RT.com is an organ of state or pseudo-state propaganda highly favorable to Russia and her allies, but wonder what consensus is on the suitability of RT.com as a Sukhoi Su-35-source? Specifically this is w.r.t. any usable material from this current news article published (June 17, 2013): UFO over Paris? Unique Russian 4++ gen fighter to debut at Paris Air Show. Feedback is be appreciated before I would add anything to Sukhoi Su-35 that uses RT.com as a source! Thank you. Azx2 06:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

UFO
Just 2 examples from that RT.com article: 1) it claims the Su-35 is colloquially known as the "UFO" because it's super-maneuverable even for a Sukhoi! Is that article-worthy? Azx2 07:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
2) another seemingly-dubious statement that I'd want to get feedback on before referencing from RT.com is this claim:

...The Su-35 surpasses practically all modern fighter jets such as France’s Rafale, Sweden’s Gripen, the Eurofighter 2000, and the modernized US F-15, F-16, and F-18. It is on a par with the fifth-generation US F-35 and F-22A, neither of which are currently on the market.

Would someone want to risk inserting these claims into the article based on Russia Today? Thanks. Azx2 07:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a biased comment and I have removed from the article. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

References

GA-review or reassessment?

Are whatever the problems were that caused the article to be GA-delisted resolved? If so, should the article be submitted for a new GA-review, or is there a different Wikipedia mechanism to use to respond to a several months' old delisting? THanks. Azx2 17:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Australia

I've just removed the paragraph on Australia as it was nonsense. While Russian arms companies periodically offer their wares to the Australian military (and occasionally take out ads in the various defence and aviation magazines), I've never seen any suggestion that the ADF has seriously considered this as being a realistic option, much less formally evaluated it for purchase as claimed. While there's a noisy (but tiny) minority of advocates for Russian designs in Australia, it's unthinkable that Australia would purchase a non-western combat aircraft. The logistical issues and costs associated with this alone would a nightmare, even if the ADF decided that it wanted to abandon its 100 year-long tradition of only ever purchasing equipment which is interchangeable with that of its allies. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I've got no problem with it. It seems out of place in an article about a Russian fighter jet anyway. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Expand citation

Could somebody please expand FN 130 ("Sukhoi Su-35", Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Jane's Information Group. 6 February 2013."). It's missing the ISSN/ISBN, publisher location and page number. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Su-35 in Finnish airshow 1992

I am pretty sure that I saw 2 planes from Sukhoi in an Midsummer Airshow in Kauhava, Finland in year 1992. They were called Su-30 and Su-35. One of them was a one-seater and the other a two-seater. Don't remember which was which thou (I was 14 at the time).

They were in factory livery, not Russian Air Force. Their support plane was in Aeroflot livery. Which was kind of funny, with the hammer and the sicle on tail and after the recent collapse of the Soviet Union.--80.186.166.231 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://wayback.archive.org/web/20110728161032/http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Patriarch Kirill's Su-35

The buzz on the net has it that the Patriarch's Su-35 is a scale model, not the actual aircraft. Alan G. Archer (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Su-35 > F-35

http://vpk.name/news/122665_voennyii_ekspert_su35_yavlyaetsya_ugrozoi_dlya_amerikanskih_istrebitelei.html?last#last The Su-35 can run its combat vehicles with high supersonic speeds of about Mach 1.5 (about 510 meters per second) at a height of nearly 14,000 feet; F-35 may act primarily at about 9000 meters at a speed of about Mach 0.9 (297 meters per second).

is it real? 89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum and it doesnt appear to be a comment on improving the article we can close this. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No it should be open. Its relevant, as these two will fight one day no doubt. In a scathing assessment the Rand corporation stated the Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

You're such a biased hack, citing a report by David Axe who cites a 2008 RAND report, making your "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" comment third hand. Here's some actual assessment from people who have actually flown the aircraft. 73.222.85.76 (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

North Korea To Buy Russia’s Su-35 To Invade South In A Lightning Assault

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/01/world-war-3-north-korea-to-buy-russias-su-35/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.167.18 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed to Splitting the Su-35 (1988) and Su-35 (2008)

I Proposed to Splitting the Su-35 (1988) and Su-35 (2008). --Strak Jegan (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose No reasons provided to justify splitting this article. Splits and merges has been discussed multiple times on this talk page before (see archive page too). The current consensus to merge the Su-35BM article to here was reached in 2010, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Su-35 employs an Irbis-E/ But/ In service Su-35 S employs N135 Irbis

The Su-35 employs an Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array radar that constitutes an essential component of the aircraft's fire-control system. The radar is capable of detecting a 3-square-metre (32 sq ft) aerial target at a distance of 400 km (250 mi), and can track 30 airborne targets and engage eight of them at the same time.[40] [42] Su-35S uses the N135 Irbis passive antenna array with electronic scanning radar further improve the Su-35 a locator[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-35&type=revision&diff=674700036&oldid=674698938

Su-35 cockpit photo

The cockpit photo provided in this article is of an SU-30, not an SU-35. The SU-35 has two much larger displays and does away with all analog gauges.

TNI-AU Su-35 Purchase

Air Forces Monthly and Air International (both Key Publishing) are stating in their respective October 2015 issues that Indonesia has selected the Su-35 to replace it's fleet of F-5Es. Would anyone like to confirm and update this article? --Bobbo9000

The article already says this in the Operational history section.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding page numbers to source

Hello. At the moment Piotr Butowski's article in Jane's Intelligence Review does not have a page range, as I have access to it via ProQuest, which has left out the page numbers. If somebody who has access to the 1999 article and could improve the reference by adding page numbers to the references, that'd be greatly appreciated. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation of sources

Hello. Just a question about interpretation -- if a source says that in December 1983, the Soviet Council of Ministers decided to use the Su-27 as a basis for the development of the Su-27M, is it fair to say that the Council has directed Sukhoi to use the Su-27 to design the new aircraft? Also, as Piotr Butowski has said that development had started in 1982, what does the Council's 1983 decision actually mean? Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I love this aircraft have you more reliable source abou this?, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

NATO reporting name

Hello. According to Gordon 2007, the Su-27M (and for that matter, the Su-37), did not have any NATO reporting names; the book claims that Soviet openness towards the end of the Cold War didn't warrant such designations. Yet IHS Jane's refers to the modernised Su-35 as such. Does anyone have any insight into this discrepancy? I'm more inclined to accept the view from the book. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So the book is 10+ years out of date? When in IHS Jane's dated? - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

BilCat: I don't think the age of the book would matter much in this case, because the Su-27M made its first flight almost twenty years before it was published. Even if the modernized Su-35 was given a NATO designation (IHS Jane's articles as recent as 2016 have referred to the aircraft as Flanker-E), and even if the book was published ten years from now, I still think Gordon's claim about the Su-27M should still be interpreted without taking into account its publication date. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So a NATO designation couldn't have been assigned or changed by NATO in the 10 years since the book was published? Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be really surprised if NATO assigned a designation, since the Su-27M did not enter into production, and as far as I know, only one aircraft is still flying. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand why your so quick to dismiss Jane's. They're not infallible, but neither is Gordon. It's a lot easier to correct a website than a book. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I take back my objection to Jane's -- I personally don't understand why it refers to the aircraft as such. Interestingly, the Su-30MKK (Flanker-G) and Su-30MKI (Flanker-H) both have their NATO designations. With regards to your point about the book, this is Gordon's third publication about the aircraft family, after Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker: Air Superiority Fighter (1999) and Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker (2006). Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think that it's easy for a trade publication or magazine to casually include a NATO designation (perhaps for identification purposes?), whereas it would require more investigation (which I assume Gordon to have done) to make the statement that NATO did not assign an aircraft designation. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TASS and Defense Tech currently report the NATO reporting name for the Su-27M as simply "Flanker" and the Su-35 as "Flanker-E". As these are current sources, I would say they would trump the book. The days of wishful thinking that Russia, China, and NATO would be buddies are long gone. Scr★pIron^IV 18:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV: Thank you for your input. I have to say that the book sometimes have claims that do not corroborate with other publications (eg that the Su-37 was powered by AL-31FU, instead of AL-37FU, engines). However, I can understand his point (although I'm skeptical like you) that Soviet opening up in the late 1980s and in the early 1990s would mean that NATO had less reason to give it a designation, regardless of any improvement in the relationship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way that I understand it is that the names were given more for internal protocol/technical/identification purposes, and less for political/diplomatic reasons. BTW, I couldn't find any magazine articles that referred to the Su-27M as Flanker-E. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding from my reading of the sources that the the Su-27 was merely the Flanker, and that updated versions received additional letter designations. Whether one involves political considerations or not seems immaterial; one would always need to be able to identify aircraft - an adversary or an ally - by a recognizable term. Scr★pIron^IV 06:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Indonesia as future operator

Hi. According to the recent addition of Indonesia as a future operator, the source that's been used dates back to 23 August this year. There hasn't been any confirmation from the Indonesian or Russian governments yet; instead there's an article on an offset agreement. So I don't think we should list Indonesia yet. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Su-35 in Sudan?

Some sources are reporting the recent sale of the fighter to Sudan. The wiki article on the Sudanese Air Force lists it in its inventory with the following source: https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2017/11/20/Sudan-recieves-Russian-fighters-ahead-of-Bashir-s-first-visit-to-Moscow.html Should we add this information to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.175.181 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This report only seems to be coming from local sources. This Russian source [4] English translation suggests the aircraft are more likely Su-30Ks. User:BlackFlanker should be able to provide more details on this.@BlackFlanker: --Finlayson (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fnlayson according to the RIA Novosti the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir just discussed with Russian representatives about the possibility of acquiring the Su-30 and Su-35 fighter jets, no contracts were singned during his visit. Sudanese media likely got it incorrectly and thus published distorted claims. Source: RIA Novosti BlackFlanker (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• BlackFlanker, thanks so much for the info! --Finlayson (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has to be split into article about old Su-35 and an article about new Su-35

There are two totally differrent fighters: 'old' Su-35 wich is really Su-27M and 'real' Su-35. First Su-35 was slightly bigger heavier and has canards. It's an old tradition at Sukhoi Design Bureau to use duplicate designations: Su-7, Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Su-17 and now Su-35. And factory designation 'T-10BM' is never existed. --XaHyMaH (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This article is technically for the Su-35S.212.73.224.250 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, they are very closely related even if they have differences. Similar variants/versions can be covered in one article without issues. This was discussed a few years ago and consensus was to merge (see Merge Su-35BM section in talk page archives). -Finlayson (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)