Sukhoi Su-35 multi-role fighter

[flateric]

I fear even to take a quick look at things that happen at CDF and SDF at the moment.

 

[Deino]

CDF is actually quite calm but still undecided or sceptical ... wheras at the Key-Forum and SDF there are 2 groups: the first which sees that as a true humiliation to the Chinese aviation industry, a testimony for all failures and the superiority - and therefore a GREAT success - for the Russians .... the second group is still a litle bit sceptical but most of them see it as a mostly political deal, which is to - at least a bit - even the import/export trade, for paying the Russians for future collaboration and most of all to get the 117S engine for J-20. With maybe additional engines the J-20A can reach IOC earlier.

IMO - besides I agree in terms of the 117S engine - it is most of all a testimony that the relationship between both states is much more normal than most posters in sveral forums like it to be.

Deino

 

[chuck4]

The Su-35 deal between China and Russia had been in the rumor mill for years. The Chinese were previously never in any hurry to buy the aircraft. The Russians were more eager to sell.

I am guessing that the recent, nearly armed, confrontations with Japan in the long simmering dispute over Shenkaku islands, and obviously American intention to support Japan with military power, has changed Chinese mind, and persuaded them that their international environment can deteriorate faster than their previous plans for military build up and modernization had allowed, and they should splurge to bring their capabilities more up to date immediately.

The announcement also coincided with the first trip abroad by the new Chinese president, to Russia. The language of diplomatic communiques stemming from both sides seems more effusive then usual. It is known that Russia feels itself being cornered and intentionally undercut by the atlantic alliance, from Libya, to syria, to oil and gas strategies that reduce dependence on Russia. Russia considered herself the net looser in each of major western geopolitical initiatives under Obama. The Chinese consider obama's pivot to the pacific little less than a declaration of new cold war against china as the main antagonist of the US. Also Russia is smarting over success of western powers to pry India away from Russia as its biggest arms buyer. So I think in the future you would see much more convergence of interest between Russia and china, and likely more military cooperations as well.

 

[Deino]

To admit ... I don't understand that fuss anymore ....

When the last huge arms deals were signed between Russia & China, then thi shappened usually durong top-meetings of the leaders ... and these deals were soon thereafter officially confirmed. This time - strangely after these rumours were repeated over and over again Russian sources - they were this time only reported by Western ones and as usually one again and agin with exatctly or nearly exactly the same words (= copy & paste) ! As such I'm still very sceptical and thsi one seems t prove my daubts:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130325/DEFREG03/303250014/Russia-No-Deal-Sale-Fighters-Subs-China?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

TAIPEI — Russia is denying Chinese media claims that Moscow and Beijing have signed agreements to sell Russian-made arms and military technology to China, including 24 Su-35 multirole fighter jets and four Amur-class diesel submarines.

During a recent visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow from Friday to Sunday, no discussions took place regarding “military-technical cooperation” issues, the ITAR-TASS news agency reported Monday. This was in response to an earlier report by China’s CCTV on the same day.

“The Kremlin is officially denying even discussing arms trade during Xi’s visit,” said Vasiliy Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). “In Russia-China relations, specific arms trade contracts are almost never discussed by the top leaders, just the general approaches.”

Another defense industry source in Russia said there are strong reservations about going forward on the memorandum of understanding signed in December to explore the sale of the twin-engine Su-35s and Amur submarines to China.

China intentionally violated intellectual property right (IPR) agreements when it copied and manufactured Russia’s Su-27 fighter as the J-11B, according to Russia.

In 1995, China secured a production deal with Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed the J-11A, for $2.5 billion for the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. In 2006, Russia canceled the deal after 95 aircraft when it discovered China had reverse-engineered the fighter and was secretly manufacturing an indigenous copy, the J-11B, with Chinese-made avionics and engines.

There are strong suspicions China will procure the technological know-how of the Su-35 and Amur and simply produce an indigenous version.

But not all agree. Gary Li, a senior analyst at London-based IHS Fairplay, said China’s research and development have moved forward.

“It no longer will seek to directly reverse engineer everything it buys, but maybe adopt parts of the platform for other projects [and] integrate into domestic designs,” he said.

There also are concerns China wants access to the Su-35’s Saturn AL-117S engine, which is outfitted on the T-50, a prototype of Russia’s fifth-generation Sukhoi PAK FA stealth fighter.

However, Kashin said the risks of selling the Russian engine to China are negligible.

“An engine cannot be copied by obtaining a sample,” he said.

Li said he could envision Chinese aerospace engineers studying the aircraft’s engine and thrust-vectoring for future inclusion, as well as the Amur sub’s air-independent propulsion, but it will still be more than a decade before China will stop having to order engines to replace “worn-out ones,” as it has been doing with the J-11 and J-10 fighters.

“It always takes a few years before they can make a domestic alternative,” Li said.

Kashin cautions that a Chinese attempt to copy the Su-35, as they did with the Su-27, would be more difficult, “because this time, our Ukrainian ‘brothers’ cannot help them by selling the Chinese all the technology they lacked for a handful of dollars. I think the Amur situation will be generally the same.”

Ukraine has been accused of selling China former Soviet defense technologies, but it has no access to information regarding newer systems, such as the Su-35 and Amur.

“The Amur ultimately isn’t a strategic submarine, and as Russia’s interests in the Far East are not yet that ambitious, they can afford to sell them to China,” Li said. “How better to keep the U.S. pivot off their backs?”

 

[fightingirish]

Two-seat version of Su-35 fighter will not be developed, ITAR-TASS reports with reference to Chief Designer, Igor Demin.


"During development of Su-35 we have placed a bet on development of single-seat aircraft", - Demin said.


President of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Mikhail Pogosyan, reported earlier that Su-35 fighter is complemented by two-seat Su-30SM jet, which may be used as an operational trainer.


"Su-30SM is the two-seat aircraft derived from the export version of the jet. It complements Su-35, because it features a thrust-vectoring nozzle and new functional capabilities provided by the advanced avionics suite", - Pogosyan said. According to him, Su-30M2 jets are used as an operational trainer for Su-27SM pilots due to shortage of trainer aircraft.

Source: RuAviation -Two-seat version of Su-35 will not be developed - Tuesday April 29, 2014 09:06 MSK

 

[Austin]

Can some one tell me what kind of Sensor Fusion do they use on Su-35 ?

How is it comparable to western Sensor Fusion say in Rafale or Eurofighter ?

 

[Austin]

So, does anyone knows more about this OEIS system? Is it something akin to F-35's EODAS? Thanks.

www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/126-optiko-elektronnaya-razvedka-.html

So will we see this on PAK-FA or it will be only on Su-35S ?

Is this system similar to how EODAS on JSF works ?

 

[flanker]

What do you think 101KS system is for?

 

[Austin]

What do you think 101KS system is for?

On 101KS I read it has additional DIRCM

Not sure how this work , Can you explain

1 ) If this has IR and TV channel both or just one of these ?
2 ) Does it provide weapon quality data for IR missile launch ?
3 ) The laser in there is for ranging purpose ?

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

According to Wikipedia, which frankly isn't the most reliable source, this is how it summarizes the 101KS.

101KS Atoll electro-optical system
- 101KS-O: Laser directional infrared countermeasures
- 101KS-V: Infrared search-and-track
- 101KS-U: Ultraviolet missile approach warning system
- 101KS-N: Targeting pod

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia citation for this is PiBu's Air International 2013 piece on the PAK FA. But I would imagine that any EODAS-like system would probably be a part of the 101KS-O.

 

[flanker]

Well well well. We have a little christmas today. Big ass original factory drawings of Su-35S.

http://postimg.org/gallery/3b2m0zmji/

http://postimg.org/gallery/1kjtd53w/

Source and todays winner of 1000 interwebz; http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_50752_start_200.html

Would be great if PS wizzards on here glued them together. Word of warning; according to a friend while all the main files are same size, the drawings themself apparently arent exactly the same size. ??? IE the drawings are all the same size, but each part itself is of different size; hence the drawings are in different scales.

 

[flanker]

Maybe i am impatient, but no one?

 

[Machdiamond]

To be honest, it is an exceptional release of information considering how recent this aircraft is.
The pages are labeled as unclassified, but I am wondering whether this release was approved by Sukhoi.

 

[flanker]

The pages are labeled as unclassified, but I am wondering whether this release was approved by Sukhoi.

Doubtful to say the least.

 

[Deino]

To admit I'm a bit surprise, no-one already posted this and even I was longtime quite skeptical about the rumours or if the PLAAF would indeed purchase the Su-35, ... but after years of negotiations and rumours that a few no longer took for real, it seems to be true:

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151119/1030368307/russia-sells-china-billions-dollar-su35.html

So ... what do You think ? Finally a done deal or still uncertain ? ... and if true, when will the first Su-35 will be seen like this ?

Anyway here's maybe the more important part of the reports:

...
На встрече с представителями КНР управляющий директор УМПО Евгений Семивеличенко подтвердил готовность предприятия выполнять существующие обязательства в рамках военно-технического сотрудничества между двумя странами, также возможность работать по перспективным проектам, в том числе по двигателям АЛ‑41Ф‑1С, применяемым на новейших истребителях Су‑35 и серийно производящимся на заводе.
...

http://www.umpo.ru/News118_958.aspx

...
At a meeting with representatives of CHINA Managing Director of "UMPO" Eugene Semiveličenko confirmed the readiness of enterprises to implement existing commitments in the framework of the military-technical cooperation between the two countries, also the opportunity to work on promising projects, including the AL‑41F‑1Sengines used on the latest fighters Su‑35 and where to plant.
...

Via Bing !

Deino

 

[Deino]

Here's the official confirmation of the Su-35 deal:

China confirms deal with Russia on Su-35 fighter jets

BEIJING, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- China confirmed a deal to buy Su-35 fighter jets from Russia on Thursday.


"The Su-35 fighter jet project is one of the areas in which China and Russia are willing to cooperate," said Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian in response to a question about the 2-billion-dollar deal.

The two countries will continue to enhance cooperation in military technology based on equality and mutual benefit, Wu said at a monthly press briefing.

While commenting on another question about Russia's plan to provide the first round of S-400 modern anti-aircraft missile systems to China within the next 12 to 18 months, Wu said cooperation is under way according to plans.

Air defense is an important part of China-Russia military technology cooperation, the spokesman added.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-11/26/c_134858791.htm

... and even at the government's HP:

记者：俄罗斯媒体报道，俄官方部门表示中国和俄罗斯签署了购买24架苏-35飞机的合同，金额高达20亿美元。请予以证实。

吴谦：苏-35飞机合作项目，是中俄双方均有意愿积极开展的一个合作领域，通过双方的共同努力，已经取得阶段性成果。双方将继续按照平等互利的原则，发展军技领域的合作。

http://news.mod.gov.cn/headlines/2015-11/26/content_4630541.htm

Deino

 

[Deino]

Hey ... no-one cares ??? ???

 

[Grey Havoc]

Is there going to be a full production line set up in China for the engines?

 

[flanker]

No.

 

[JimK]

Well well well. We have a little christmas today. Big ass original factory drawings of Su-35S.

http://postimg.org/gallery/3b2m0zmji/

http://postimg.org/gallery/1kjtd53w/

Would be great if PS wizzards on here glued them together. Word of warning; according to a friend while all the main files are same size, the drawings themself apparently arent exactly the same size. ??? IE the drawings are all the same size, but each part itself is of different size; hence the drawings are in different scales.

The drawings really aren't that high resolution if you look at the lettering. This didn't take any wizardry, just a lot of cutting and pasting. Elementary school stuff, but in a digital format. I don't have PhotoShop, just Microsoft Picture It Premium, so I couldn't trim around the wing inboard boundary to fit it to the assembled fuselage planform. I had to piece it together, realizing that there is an overlap, sort of like fitting a plastic model wing into a fuselage slot. The lack of similar profile between the inboard end of the leading-edge flap and the adjacent fuselage side doesn't help. What I am saying is that the wing location may be off a few centimeters, full scale.

As I don't read Russian, I hope I don't have the wings on upside down. I assumed that the access panels for the pylon attachments are on the underside of the wing. Similarly, not knowing what type of projection is used, I took a guess as to which nacelle inboard side was which.

I tried to add the horizontal tail planform from a small three-view that I found in an Su-35 brochure (take-off june 2007) but the leading and trailing edges didn't match too well, so I omitted it from the other plan view. I hope this drawing reconstruction is useful.

 

[flanker]

Much appreciated, thanks!

 

[Deino]

"The secret Christmas presents from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia have arrived at China this morning."

https://twitter.com/xinfengcao/status/812862293805387776

 

[Deino]

Tatatata ....

 

[flateric]

"The secret Christmas presents from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia have arrived at China this morning."

These are extra stuff for actual presents.

 

[Deino]

"The secret Christmas presents from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia have arrived at China this morning."

These are extra stuff for actual presents.

And I'm sure you once again can't discuss what kind of extra stuff this is ?

By the way I know my obsession to numbers is maybe not understandable to others, but if You look at this blurred block of numbers it does not look as if it is a 11x3x-pattern that a 6. Ar, 2. Division type should have ??

Any idea?? Do You know a clearer image of a number or the number alone ?

 

[flateric]

And I'm sure you once again can't discuss what kind of extra stuff this is ?

What can IL-76 deliver there? Yes, spare parts etc.

 

[Hyperwarp]

And I'm sure you once again can't discuss what kind of extra stuff this is ?

What can IL-76 deliver there? Yes, spare parts etc.

Surplus of 117S? More than required for just spares?

 

[Deino]

And I'm sure you once again can't discuss what kind of extra stuff this is ?

What can IL-76 deliver there? Yes, spare parts etc.

O.k. ... I was thinking about some additional surprises.

Anyway I have another question: how sure we are that this single image is not photoshopped ???

Not that I question the delivery itself, and even if I know my obsession to numbers is maybe not understandable to others, but if You look at this blurred block of numbers it does not look as if it is a 11x3x-pattern that a 6. AR, 2. Division type should have ??

... and also the camo is too much of Russian AF style.

Since I'm still inclined to this theory: The Su-35's main purpose will be to explore and develop the use of TVC in aerial combat and to use this bird for DACT/ in a dedicated aggressor regiment ... as such I would have expected something in line of the 175. Brigade FTTC (with 78x6x-serials), maybe as a replacement for this unit's Su-30MKK, but these reports about an assignment to the 2. Fighter Division if true is indeed a surprise.

Deino

 

[CiTrus90]

Anyway I have another question: how sure we are that this single image is not photoshopped ???
[...]
... and also the camo is too much of Russian AF style.

Just my 2 cents, but...

...looking at the roundel on the tail I'd say it's highly probable this is a photoshopped picture.
The arms around the star are not of the same lenght and they are definitely both too short when compared to the ones on J-11s and J-16s (even taking into account similar angles for the point of view).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rnpJr0fOWU8/TolA4AiS1gI/AAAAAAAAAWk/Fr0NzSO11Zg/s1600/China%2527s+J-11B+Fighter+Jet+Armed+With+PL-9+And+PL-12.jpg
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/4/3/0/1571034.jpg?v=v40

The blurred serial is in the same position you see on the RUAF birds and not in a lower position as typical on their Chinese counterparts.
On the nose of the plane, roughly where the bort number would be on a Russian aircraft, there's heavy pixelization, which is indeed suspect of tampering.

Combined with the camo, I'm prone to say this a Russian SU-35S, probably one of those deployed to Syria.

 

[Deino]

Anyway I have another question: how sure we are that this single image is not photoshopped ???
[...]
... and also the camo is too much of Russian AF style.

Just my 2 cents, but...

...looking at the roundel on the tail I'd say it's highly probable this is a photoshopped picture.
The arms around the star are not of the same lenght and they are definitely both too short when compared to the ones on J-11s and J-16s (even taking into account similar angles for the point of view).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rnpJr0fOWU8/TolA4AiS1gI/AAAAAAAAAWk/Fr0NzSO11Zg/s1600/China%2527s+J-11B+Fighter+Jet+Armed+With+PL-9+And+PL-12.jpg
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/4/3/0/1571034.jpg?v=v40

The blurred serial is in the same position you see on the RUAF birds and not in a lower position as typical on their Chinese counterparts.
On the nose of the plane, roughly where the bort number would be on a Russian aircraft, there's heavy pixelization, which is indeed suspect of tampering.

Combined with the camo, I'm prone to say this a Russian SU-35S, probably one of those deployed to Syria.

You are correct ... and oooooohhh how much I hate these stupid fan-boys:

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/814229905730834433

 

[Trident]

Not so fast...

If indeed it's a fake, that is unlikely to be the source image, the extremely close match in angle is just a remarkable coincidence IMHO.

If you mirror a Su-35S photo to pass off its left side as its right hand one, there are a number of minor asymmetries which you need to correct (IRST, forward upper MAWS sensor, refueling probe, gun muzzle, rear position light, ladder sockets in the tail fin). Every single one of those is spot on in the PLAAF Su-35SK photo and that's no mean feat of attention to detail AND image manipulation - why mirror the image in the first place and incur all that obfuscation effort?

Assuming it's a fake, the prankster also managed to get rid of the R-73 on the right wing tip in the original photo very cleanly indeed, same with the underwing and intake pylons. No artifacts, nothing - again, why not choose a source picture that does not have pylons and missiles in the first place?

Also, the camo pattern on the tail fin does not match the original and indeed it appears to be a two tone blue & grey pattern to me, rather than three tone blue. Which once more begs the question of why you'd use an image with Russian standard camo as your basis if you intend to mess with the paint scheme. Arguably faking a pattern onto one of the uniform dark grey Su-35S's is easier than first erasing the Russian blue camo and THEN applying a fake pattern.

Last but not least, the underside is lit differently in the supposed source photo, something which is also non-trivial to change without messing up the rest of the image.

The serial number matches in location with the PLAAF aggressor Su-30MKKs, BTW.

EDIT: nav light is on in the PLAAF image and colour is correct - granted, that's relatively easy to fake, but still. Also, there's a bag inside the canopy behind the ejection seat head rest where there is none in the supposed source image.

 

[CiTrus90]

Not so fast...

If indeed it's a fake, that is unlikely to be the source image, the extremely close match in angle is just a remarkable coincidence IMHO.

Let's make an experiment.

Take the Russian Su-35 pic, mirror it and overimpose it on the "Chinese" Su-35 image. Scale it up and rotate the Russian Su-35 to match the "Chinese" one.
[Pro-tip, mirroring an image, scaling it up and applying some changes works well to counter reverse image search.]

If you mirror a Su-35S photo to pass off its left side as its right hand one, there are a number of minor asymmetries which you need to correct (IRST, forward upper MAWS sensor, refueling probe, gun muzzle, rear position light, ladder sockets in the tail fin). Every single one of those is spot on in the PLAAF Su-35SK photo and that's no mean feat of attention to detail AND image manipulation - why mirror the image in the first place and incur all that obfuscation effort?

Remove undesired features and add background.

Add shadows to hide anything you don't want to show on your "Chinese" Su-35.
[Pro-tip, your shadows are on a different layer, modify them as desired once you adjust the lightning and contrast of the final picture.]

Remove Russian markings, add IRST etc..

Add Chinese markings and green light.

Assuming it's a fake, the prankster also managed to get rid of the R-73 on the right wing tip in the original photo very cleanly indeed, same with the underwing and intake pylons. No artifacts, nothing - again, why not choose a source picture that does not have pylons and missiles in the first place?

The picture is full of artifacts, trust me. If you don't trust me, take a look around the edges of the aircraft or where the bort number and markings were supposed to be.

Also, the camo pattern on the tail fin does not match the original and indeed it appears to be a two tone blue & grey pattern to me, rather than three tone blue. Which once more begs the question of why you'd use an image with Russian standard camo as your basis if you intend to mess with the paint scheme. Arguably faking a pattern onto one of the uniform dark grey Su-35S's is easier than first erasing the Russian blue camo and THEN applying a fake pattern.

Not necessarily true. Moreover, it's easier to fake something taking cues from reality than starting from scratch (hence using an existing camo).

Original pic:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan-Air-Force/Pakistan-JF-17-Thunder/1832617
Photoshopped pic:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i65/elite-falcon07/Iaf17.jpg

Last but not least, the underside is lit differently in the supposed source photo, something which is also non-trivial to change without messing up the rest of the image.

EDIT: nav light is on in the PLAAF image and colour is correct - granted, that's relatively easy to fake, but still. Also, there's a bag inside the canopy behind the ejection seat head rest where there is none in the supposed source image.

If in doubt, look above where I added the shadows.

I did all of this in half an hour, more or less, using Gimp, which is not as powerful a tool as Photshop. I could do better with more time at hand, but I don't think it's necessary in order to show how a "fanboy" could easily fake a picture.

It's sad, but we will have to wait some more before seeing the real PLAAF Su-35s.

 

[Deino]

Thanks a lot .... but again I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[Trident]

Remove undesired features and add background.

See, even though I provided a list of features that need changing when you mirror, you already missed a couple (ladder sockets, gun muzzle). You also neglected to add noise back into the areas you cut away, visible even to the naked eye, and the edge between background and airframe edge is too sharp to be plausible in those locations too.

I don't mean to claim that these things cannot theoretically be taken care of by somebody highly skilled in Photoshop and with sufficient time on his hands, but the manipulator could then have saved himself a lot of the effort by more carefully selecting his source photo.

Add shadows to hide anything you don't want to show on your "Chinese" Su-35.
[Pro-tip, your shadows are on a different layer, modify them as desired once you adjust the lightning and contrast of the final picture.]

As a result, the contrast between light and dark areas looks completely out of whack. The first thing I'd have done to your image is this:

<insert attachment1 here >

... immediately revealing some of the pylons and unrealistically hard edges to the shaded areas of the airframe, strongly suggesting they've been manipulated. By contrast, our supposed fake looks like this:

<insert attachment2 here >

Still perfectly plausible.

The picture is full of artifacts, trust me. If you don't trust me, take a look around the edges of the aircraft or where the bort number and markings were supposed to be.

Of course it is, due to the massive water mark and normal image compression effects in areas of high contrast. Not *every* artifact is evidence of covert tampering...

What I'm getting at is that there are none in the locations where you'd expect some to be in a fake due to the removal of, for example the missile and pylons.

Not necessarily true. Moreover, it's easier to fake something taking cues from reality than starting from scratch (hence using an existing camo).

I'm not saying it can't be done, depends on what purpose the fake is supposed to serve I guess. The JF-17 pic was probably intended by the author to be a what-if specifically for showing what the camo would look like on that aircraft, so the effort of changing the pattern simply came with the territory.

In our case of trying to fool people as to the PLAAF Su-35S it's just a needless complication of the task, however. And in any case, it's pretty easy to spot the outline of the former dark grey area in the manipulated JF-17 image.

If in doubt, look above where I added the shadows.

As pointed out above, I did and came away unconvinced.

I did all of this in half an hour, more or less, using Gimp, which is not as powerful a tool as Photshop.

And it tells. While I applaud your effort and skill, it is nevertheless quite easily spotted as a fake.

Most of the issues revealing it are also exacerbated by an unnecessarily poor choice of base image, which is exactly my point. Why not select a source photo that is closer to the end result you wish to achieve in the first place? Everything you do to the image can also be potentially exploited to expose the manipulation, so why dig yourself deeper into that hole than absolutely required to make the fake reasonably credible?

Maybe I'm overthinking this on the pragmatism and am ascribing far too much planning to somebody who is simply trying to get a good laugh out of people's reactions, but still.

It's sad, but we will have to wait some more before seeing the real PLAAF Su-35s.

Fair enough. I stopped short of calling the image genuine for a reason, but equally I'm going to stand by my statement that it is by no means a *proven* fake. Yes, final confirmation (of PLAAF Su-35s as well as the veracity of that image) is still pending.

 

[Deino]

The funny thing is, that in several Chinese forums they are indeed arguing that these two images are so similar by pure coincident and IMO esp. in one point they might be correct; the camo-scheme is different !

Additional point of concern they mention are marked in that image below.

 

[Racer]

Have a look to where the right wing tip is touching the vertical stabilizer in both pictures. Its not the same crossing point by a small distance.
Conclusion: the picture has not the same angle. Very very near - but not same.

 

[Hood]

Looks like it might have been true after all (the event if not the picture).
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/beijing-recieves-first-four-su-35s-432994/

 

[Deino]

 

[Deino]

Surprise: finally a clear image Chinese Su-35 showing serial no. 23063 But I'm confused; very much confused since indeed the 2xx6x would be 15th Division but the no. 3 simply does not fit !!

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/833426427366240256

Anyone with a decent idea ??

Deino

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/07/20/watch-russias-su-35-wows-crowds-maks/?ESRC=deftech.sm