F-35 vs Su-30/35

[ata]

@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. ...
BP

Really? .... I've asked about Flanker against F-35 in more or less neutral situation.
Anyway, thanks for your answers.

The point you miss, and the parameter against which the F-35 "system" is designed, is that such engagements are no longer "neutral situations" nor one on one, or four on four, or anything like that. So the premise is wrong.

Let's try something that won't get your fanboy hackles up too much.

The new South Korean F-15Ks are pretty good planes. Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such. There are private US companies who bought SU-27 Flankers to make a profit training pilots enaging these. We play with Indians and Malaysian (30MKM w/tv)Flankers and have a pretty good idea how the Flanker family flies. One reason the F-22 and F 35 were developed is Flankers can give the older 4th gen aircraft a real challenge. The F-15 "Next New" isn't going to cut it reasonably soon.

But that isn't the biggest chalenge these days. The F-15s without some serious EW magic is not going to make it in a S-400 type environment. Nor will SU-35s in comparable western battlespaces. Air Defenses have to be surpressed, before anyone can try and establish any air superiority and close air support. That's one thing the F35 was designed to deal with. It is not an F4 Phantom with HARM missiles. It is a system that deals with electronic environments and associated resources of the Integrated Air Defense System. As an aside, because that requires stealth and serious situational awareness, it is a decent fighter but that shouldn't be needed except as a last resort.

The SU-35 is still a decades old design fighting the last war. Its a pretty good design, but it will not fair any better against IADS and 5th gen systems than the F-15s and Typhoons would.

Your questions are like asking, "OK I know tanks can't float, but if we fought on land how would they do ..?" Well the problem is that if the combat has moved to water, it kind of matters if the thing floats... It doesn't help to keep asking, "Yeah but what if they still fought on land?" Combat has changed.

Now if you asked, "How has combat changed?" you might get some answers to your questions.

BP

Ok, I'm surprised why all of the guys here know what I'm thinking better than me. If I'm insisting on neutral comparison because in real combat it's only because yes, you're right F-35 would require to fight with S-300/400 first not Flankers (while we are in "F-35 vs Flanker" place). And ok, if you want to talk about WW3, then could you give me an idea why do you think F-35 is effective against S-300/400? Those stations equipped with multiple bands locators. And as I said before there is one F-117 downed (confirmed) with system 50 years older than modern examples. You're limited by physics anyway. You just can't build aircraft invisible at every wavelength.
And as I answered earlier keeping AD from anti-radar missiles is basics. Again, why do you think it's not solved?
I've found article in English: http://csis.org/blog/russia-announces-sale-s-400-china

That's why I'm trying to get answers. All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.
2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.
3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

You mentioned there are experienced pilots here. Plenty of them. And from tons of shitty commercial I've found those three gems. It doesn't seem great result for such a "proven concept" as everyone told me here. If you have something so perfect you need few words to "sell" it. Normally.
You, of course, you're in your right to say "who the f**k* are you to question us" like another guys did. I don't care. I'm here to get the answers for my old questions. I'm still expect those guys who started good conversation to continue it. Again, I don't care about all the rest.

[sergei]

You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .

Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!!

[hornetfinn]

Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?

How about:

1. Lower RCS makes it more difficult to track, target and engage F-35 successfully

2. Lower RCS makes the EW much more effective significantly reducing the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles

3. Lower IR signature makes it more difficult to detect, track, target and engage using IR seeking missiles

4. Much more powerful EW system (AN/APG-81 radar and AN/ASQ-236) than in almost any fighter aircraft will further reduce the Sukhoi weapons system effectiveness

5. Fully spherical situational awareness system (DAS) will warn about any missile launched by the Sukhois and will track them continuously giving F-35 pilot much better chance of evading any missile launched by Sukhoi . It will also constantly keep an eye for every friendly, enemy and neutral aircraft, helicopter, missile, rocket and ground/sea target within tens, hundreds or even thousand kilometers away (depending on target).

6. Very advanced sensor and data fusion giving far better situational awareness compared to any existing fighter aircraft. This means F-35 pilot and weapons systems will have much more information but presented to them in a way that is very easy to work with. This gives F-35 much better understanding what is going on around them and give a lot more time to make decisions and act to those decisions.

7. Far better and comprehensive datalinking system than in any existing fighter aircraft by having MADL, Link 16, SATCOM and AESA datalinks. This is really underestimated area where people think that a datalink is a datalink. The truth is very different as datalinks can get extremely complex and difficult to implement as requirements grow. This means F-35 will have much more information about what's going on around them and the information is updated much more frequently giving added time for them to observe world around them, think and react to changing situations.

8. All fuel, EW, targeting systems and most likely weapons are internal. This means that in combat configuration F-35 will fly circles around almost all other fighter aircraft in existence and is extremely maneuverable even in air to ground configurations.

9. Standard very high resolution and long ranged imaging infra-red system (EOTS) gives F-35 force totally passive sensor with huge range and ability to track hundreds of targets and identify them at very long ranges.

10. Far better helmet mounted sighting system compared to any existing fighter aircraft due to combination of helmet mounted display, helmet mounted night vision, 360 degree DAS system and sensor fusion. So F-35 pilot will see his enemy (and everyone else) with his own eyes whether it's day or night, clear sky or it's raining or snowing or the aircraft is flying inside a cloud. Most current aircraft (including Sukhois) can only use the helmet mounted sight effectively when the pilot can actually see the enemy aircraft or at least have very limited field of view.

I'm sure you try to downplay these ten huge advantages as you seem hell bent on proving that Sukhois somehow are superior to any other aircraft. These are just advantages that F-35 has all 4th gen fighters and some advantages that it has against any other fighter aircraft in existence. I love how you demand proof from everyone else and never provide any credible proof or source for your own claims. When others provide good sources for their claims, you just ignore them. This is very old troll tactic is getting very boring.

[ata]

Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?

How about:

1. Lower RCS makes it more difficult to track, target and engage F-35 successfully

2. Lower RCS makes the EW much more effective significantly reducing the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles

3. Lower IR signature makes it more difficult to detect, track, target and engage using IR seeking missiles

4. Much more powerful EW system (AN/APG-81 radar and AN/ASQ-236) than in almost any fighter aircraft will further reduce the Sukhoi weapons system effectiveness

5. Fully spherical situational awareness system (DAS) will warn about any missile launched by the Sukhois and will track them continuously giving F-35 pilot much better chance of evading any missile launched by Sukhoi . It will also constantly keep an eye for every friendly, enemy and neutral aircraft, helicopter, missile, rocket and ground/sea target within tens, hundreds or even thousand kilometers away (depending on target).

6. Very advanced sensor and data fusion giving far better situational awareness compared to any existing fighter aircraft. This means F-35 pilot and weapons systems will have much more information but presented to them in a way that is very easy to work with. This gives F-35 much better understanding what is going on around them and give a lot more time to make decisions and act to those decisions.

7. Far better and comprehensive datalinking system than in any existing fighter aircraft by having MADL, Link 16, SATCOM and AESA datalinks. This is really underestimated area where people think that a datalink is a datalink. The truth is very different as datalinks can get extremely complex and difficult to implement as requirements grow. This means F-35 will have much more information about what's going on around them and the information is updated much more frequently giving added time for them to observe world around them, think and react to changing situations.

8. All fuel, EW, targeting systems and most likely weapons are internal. This means that in combat configuration F-35 will fly circles around almost all other fighter aircraft in existence and is extremely maneuverable even in air to ground configurations.

9. Standard very high resolution and long ranged imaging infra-red system (EOTS) gives F-35 force totally passive sensor with huge range and ability to track hundreds of targets and identify them at very long ranges.

10. Far better helmet mounted sighting system compared to any existing fighter aircraft due to combination of helmet mounted display, helmet mounted night vision, 360 degree DAS system and sensor fusion. So F-35 pilot will see his enemy (and everyone else) with his own eyes whether it's day or night, clear sky or it's raining or snowing or the aircraft is flying inside a cloud. Most current aircraft (including Sukhois) can only use the helmet mounted sight effectively when the pilot can actually see the enemy aircraft or at least have very limited field of view.

I'm sure you try to downplay these ten huge advantages as you seem hell bent on proving that Sukhois somehow are superior to any other aircraft. These are just advantages that F-35 has all 4th gen fighters and some advantages that it has against any other fighter aircraft in existence. I love how you demand proof from everyone else and never provide any credible proof or source for your own claims. When others provide good sources for their claims, you just ignore them. This is very old troll tactic is getting very boring.

"Lower RCS", "Far better" - did you read the thread before? There a tones of such commercial here. Anyway, another guy before you already told us F-35's RCS is just ten times higher than F-22's which is still very good, and ruin my statements you quoted. Now I'm waiting for comments where this info came from.
So, no ten huge advanatages from your side nor even one - just commercial. If you don't understand what I mean, then may I ask you for how many kilometers would you reduce "the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles" (from point 2). Exactly, how many km? You statement could be read as "2% reduced". It's still reducing. Does it make sense? No.
Your another points are also absolutely commercial. Could you describe how they would work in real life? This is what I'm asking from the beginning.
Imagine situation: You need to fight with the guy in absolutely dark room. You have baseball bat, he hasn't. You have IR googles he hasn't. Will you win? But what if the guy has a dog? Nothing but dog. Dog doesn't care for dark room, and would survive for a long time against your bat. Will you win? Probably, but you need to explain how are you going to survive in this case.

[shrimpman]

All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.

But those guys have provided you with very clear explanation why flying low is an extremely bad idea. Ever since the very first ait to air combat engagement in WWI one of the main objectives for the pilots was to gain attitude advantage. It’s just like having the wind advantage for the XVIII century warships – they can decided whether to fight or not, choose the moment to attack, strike fast and deadly. You propose a suicidal tactic and simply refuse to listen to reasonable explanation.

2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.

Bear in mind you do exactly the same thing, man. You propose a scenario, where a brainless monkeys lying F-35’s fly right into a Flanker trap. Somehow your Flankers know exactly where the enemies are, are able to track them and approach undetected. Pure magic. And you claim it’s a neutral situation.

3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

Those guys are professionals. You won’t see them spill classified information out of anger. Those guys want to see F-35 succeed just as you want your Sukhoi’s. except for you it’s just pride, for them it’s the essence of their live’s work. Of course they react emotional especially when confronted with rather ignorant individuals who just want to work them up. When a new person with genuine questions appears, sometimes they roll their eyes and assume it’s just another troll. You can’t reason with a 3-year old. The same thing applies when a clueless guy, who read a newspaper article on radio frequencies and has seen an airshow comes over and throws his expert ideas in the face of aerospace engineers. It is pointless to reason with a guy who has no clue. I have once left a discussion, when the other man tried to convince me that speed is irrelevant in air combat, because right now the objective is to fly as slow as possible, because the faster plane ends up right in front of the slower one. It is logical after all, but doesn’t make it any less stupid. Guys see your proposed tactics in the same way. When you point out the gaping holes in your logic, you say "skip the commercials please". What' is the point of asking a question when you don't want to hear an answer?

You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .
Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!!

Oh boy…

[sergei]

@ATA,

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away.

You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35 (the area of antenna, the maximum power)
---------

"Wrong. Su-35 OLS-35 can definitely not detect F-35 from 90/50 km away unless F-35 is going with full AB. Actually here is what the manufacturer says about the OLS-35:"
----------
hornetfinn - none of your links does not confirm your assertion. Not a word about the afterburner.
35km/90km-this data is from 2013 , in 2010-2011 it was 25km/50km, in 2007 it was 15km/45km(for mig 29 as target)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd7YWrGMNU
0.00-0.27
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf
PAGE 12
50km/90km
---------
zero-one
" fail to understand "
Tell us what kind of specific ways to achieve agility not included in the list : small wings,no thrust vectoring(one engine=no thrust vectoring),bulky fuselage,no canards, one engine(I want to see for reference that the one engine is not the cause of low manoeuvrability / slow acceleration by it self ).

"that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World."
Such as T-95 and B- 52? In general examples to the studio!!
"high acceleration and high G performance "
Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?

F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids- False claim

F35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty Loaded weight: 49,540 lb Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb
F-16C Empty weight: 18,900 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb
F35A wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 108 lbs/sq feet 152 lbs/sq feet
F-16C wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 88 lbs/sq feet 141 lbs/sq feet

F35A is basically grown fat F-16C- True

"Viper against an F-35A"= False
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs=50% Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs=86% Fuel let's proceed honestly F-16C Fuel:3500lb=50%
F-16C
Combat weight: 23,400 lbs
Aft thrust: 29,000 lbs, dry thrust 17,155 lb
Wing loading: 78 lbs/sq feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.73 aft 1.24
F-35A
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.7 , aft 1.067
See the difference?

"If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35 ........in a dogfight"
Yes, especially in the helmet-mounted sight and infrared missile
"F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems..........in a dogfight"
R-77 is not for dogfight it for medium-range shooting!!!!
If you don't have lock on target via stealth in a dogfight use gun and infra-red.
-----
sprstdlyscottsmn
"The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar" - Very interesting but source please.

"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

"I can't put a weapon system on it" - Use infrared or gun not radar.

"Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability"
- All abrupt maneuvers are prohibited as it causes increase in the internal temperature of the engine and out design parameters.

"Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22"- Sorry but no ,just not even f16, let alone F22.
"Cruise at 1.20M " Sorry but it is not cruise speed it max speed without afterburner for a small distance (with a unknown load and how much fuel)
--------
SpudmanWP
"only get a compass heading"
That's enough
----------
zero-one
"Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4."
Why do they make it so? The answer= because they are blockheads.
"now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely......immediately evade " Sorry They don't both - F and F .
"flying blind " Why would suddenly.
"3 reach their target" why 3? not 2 or 4 ?
"This scenario repeats "
First wave Su-35 Die in silence as heroes=because they are blockheads cut off all communication systems between the other aircraft and the base .
"F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs" Only if they are installed on the wings =Debuffs - 100% stealth
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such"
-------------
shrimpman
"Those guys are professionals."
A rule 10% - Say 10% truth and 90% turbid water.

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.

[zero-one]

Perfect, thanks a lot.
I have questions.
1. When 1st wave is close to reach fire distance, why they are still going all in the same line and at the same altitude (I guess)? If they know to be fired, it's quite a stupid tactic, I believe. Especially is they know there are 3 more waves and it's possible to manage them to organise better group than what you described.

The 1st wave of Su-35s can't see the Stealth F-35s, for all they know the only things they can see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock', they need to get close enough to fire their R-77s at optimum range which is why they stay in formation as long as possible.

Attacking in separate waves is a common Soviet tactic used, it was used in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars by Soviet advised enemy forces. now if you have a better tactic, please elaborate.

2. When stealth F-35s to guide the AMRAAMs, will the keep stealth mode? How do they communicate with missiles?

Oh yes they can, the F-35s are equipped with advanced LPI capable data links like MADL that are very difficult to track.

3. Non-stealthy F-35 would be visible for Su-35 from much more than 100+ km. It means second wave still able to guide the missiles. I have no idea why they all must misfire?

Possible, but remember the F-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the Su-35s to track and target anything precisely.

Also, in real life stealthy F-35 will be detected by ground system as well (and it will be known that 4 from 8 are stealth), so Flankers could make different tactic from the beginning.

Again as I said, we will have minimal support from 3rd party units, its unfair already that I gave the Su-35s initial support from GCI at the beginning, and no Growler or E-3 support for the F-35s at all.

Again if you have a better tactic for the Flankers please elaborate so that we may continue this chess match

[hornetfinn]

Your proposed tactics is not going to work for multiple reasons, some of which have already been mentioned here:

1. Flying at extremely low altitude is going to burn fuel very fast and is going to cut range to about half and significantly reduce your speed and thus energy state. Not good in air-to-air combat.

2. Flying very low is going to reduce your own ability to detect things that are flying low, so enemy can attack your ground assets with ease

3. Flying low is going to cut the range of your missiles a lot, to less than 1/3 of the range when launched at high altitude. What is worse is that launching against high flying target is going to cut it further as the missile has to climb. If you are launching it at 100 m height and target is at 10,000m height, the missile would climb to maybe 5,000 to 7,000 m and then the rocket motor would stop working as the rocket fuel is spent at less than 10 seconds in modern A-A missiles. After that the missile would be decelerating rapidly as it would have to climb without power. I doubt the ability of most current A-A missiles to hit fighter targets in such a scenario as they would not have much energy left when they reached 10,000 m altitude. The Sukhoi would have to climb several thousand meters to enable weapons employment, which would take a lot of precious time and be vulnerable to attack themselves. You've just given your enemy weapons huge range and kill probability advantage.

4. Flying low will severely impact with the fighter ability to communicate with each other and especially ground based systems. Radio horizon is not your friend in this case.

5. Flying very low will also cut down the maneuvering options when trying to evade missiles. Hitting ground is not a good way to avoid being shot down.

6. Credible Russian sources do not claim that Su-35 or Su-30 to have terrain following or even terrain avoidance radar capability. They claim all kinds of other capabilities but these they do not claim to have. This means flying very low would be extremely dangerous in other than flat terrain, daylight and good weather. They'd have to fly at fairly high altitude to avoid hitting hard obstacles.

7. Modern fighter radars (AESA especially so) can pretty easily detect and track very small and stealthy cruise missiles flying at much lower altitude than any fighter aircraft could ever hope for. Detecting a huge Sukhoi fighter would be extremely easy in comparison. Your friend does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern radars and ground clutter. It does have an effect but far less so than with old radars from 60's or 70's.

There is good reason why high ground has always been preferred in combat. All in all your proposed tactic is one of the worst one could imagine. It limits your own options a lot and gives enemy a lot of advantages. I'm sure no fighter pilot in the world would even give it a serious thought. I think the only way for 4th gen fighter to survive against true 5th gen fighters is by playing very defensively and trying to lure them deeply above enemy territory defeneded with SAMs and a lot of sensors.

1. Even if Flanker range would reduce twice it will be about 2000 km, which is comparable with F-35 best result.

2. It's always mirror, My detection range is low, but you can detect me also at low range. And for Flanker it's best possible option to meet F-35 at short range.

3. Reasonable. Anyway, I can imagine several ways to resolve this tactically. Maybe I'm wrong.
4. Reasonable. But again, I'm considering situation when pilots always trying to find best way. It could be resolved by AWACS flying backward at high altitude, or secondary Flanker doing the same.
5. I see no reason to continue front attack, if you detect incoming missile.
6. Su-35 has it. Another modifications will probably have too.
7. Again, it's always a question of range. If you can detect cruise missiles at 10, 20, 30... km you can destroy it. It will never answer back. And it's different with jet fighter.

Finally, I see only one really good reason to avoid that tactic in that exact example. But I've offered it only to start the discussion, it's just an example of one of many ways to decrease stealth impact, and use Flankers advantages.

1. Nope. No Su-27 variant has 4,000 km range. Su-35 has 3,600 km max range at high altitude when clean and 1,580 km at sea level according to Sukhoi. Su-30 has max range of 3,000 km at altitude and 1,270 km at sea level. F-35A has over 2,220 km range in real life representative A-G mission with 2 2,000 lbs bombs and 2 AMRAAMs. Without weapons and range optimized flight profile, the F-35 range would be significantly longer, at least equal to Su-30 and very possibly equal to Su-35.

2. You are thinking about only two aircraft facing each other. Real life is much more complicated and what would those Sukhois do to enemy low level cruise missiles or strike fighters/bombers? Are you sure close range would favor Flanker at all? F-35 has very good performance as it is and has far more advanced targeting system with spherical day/night/all weather vision and automatic target detection/tracking/identification and better HOBS missile (AIM-9X and ASRAAM).

3. Care to share your great vision about this (missile launch at low altitude vs. missile launch at high altitude)? It's a fact that low level launch will cut missile launch range to one third of the launch range at high altitude. It gets even worse if it's a low altitude launch against high altitude target.

4. Why only Sukhoi pilots would try to find the best way and F-35 equipped force would be bunch of idiots? Why only Sukhoi has supproting assets and F-35 has none? If F-35 is flying A-G mission, why are there no aircraft protecting them like A-A only equipped F-35s?

5. Sukhois have awefully poor equipment to detect incoming missiles compared to F-35. If you detect incoming missile, then you are just trying to survive and you don't have much time to do so. What's worse is that you are flying at low level at low energy state and trying to avoid being hit is hard if you don't have energy for it. Good luck trying to outaccelerate and outrun F-35 flying at high altitude in that scenario and even better luck trying to avoid follow-on shots

6. Show me proof (credible Russian source) about Su-35 or Su-30 having terrain avoidance or terrain following abilities.

7. If you can detect a cruise missile at very low level 10 km away, you can detect Sukhoi Su-27 derivatives at least 50 km away (due to their far larger radar signature and higher flight altitude) and they won't be shooting back at that range from very low altitude. Likely both would be detected further away with.

[hornetfinn]

"Lower RCS", "Far better" - did you read the thread before? There a tones of such commercial here. Anyway, another guy before you already told us F-35's RCS is just ten times higher than F-22's which is still very good, and ruin my statements you quoted. Now I'm waiting for comments where this info came from.
So, no ten huge advanatages from your side nor even one - just commercial. If you don't understand what I mean, then may I ask you for how many kilometers would you reduce "the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles" (from point 2). Exactly, how many km? You statement could be read as "2% reduced". It's still reducing. Does it make sense? No.
Your another points are also absolutely commercial. Could you describe how they would work in real life? This is what I'm asking from the beginning.

Prove that Su-35 can fly 3,600km. Prove it can fire a single missile. Prove that more than 1 Su-35 exists (they may paint new number every time). Prove that Sukhoi can detect F-35 even from 1km away....

All your claims are pure Sukhoi commercial and you can not prove any of them to be true, can you?

Imagine situation: You need to fight with the guy in absolutely dark room. You have baseball bat, he hasn't. You have IR googles he hasn't. Will you win? But what if the guy has a dog? Nothing but dog. Dog doesn't care for dark room, and would survive for a long time against your bat. Will you win? Probably, but you need to explain how are you going to survive in this case.

Imagine situation where I have IR goggles, 10 friendly Gurkhas with machine guns and kukris and IR goggles....

[zero-one]

Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?

yup for a specific set of parameters
Weight, speed, altitude,

the F-35 can sustain a 4.6-4.5 and 5 G turn for a specific set of parameters, what was the weight of the planes when they performed that, what was the speed, was it at corner speed? what was the altitude? many planes can sustain 9Gs at 10,000 feet, but very few can do it a 30,000 feet.

F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids- False claim

F35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty Loaded weight: 49,540 lb Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb
F-16C Empty weight: 18,900 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb
F35A wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 108 lbs/sq feet 152 lbs/sq feet
F-16C wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 88 lbs/sq feet 141 lbs/sq feet

F35A is basically grown fat F-16C- True

"Viper against an F-35A"= False
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs=50% Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs=86% Fuel let's proceed honestly F-16C Fuel:3500lb=50%
F-16C
Combat weight: 23,400 lbs
Aft thrust: 29,000 lbs, dry thrust 17,155 lb
Wing loading: 78 lbs/sq feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.73 aft 1.24
F-35A
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.7 , aft 1.067
See the difference?

The F-16 at 100% internal fuel has a combat radius of around 360 miles using hi-lo-hi flight config with 3,000 lbs of ordnance,
see here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

the F-35A has combat radius of more than 600 nautical miles with 5,000 lbs of internal ordnance,

so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel
[/quote]

"If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35 ........in a dogfight"
Yes, especially in the helmet-mounted sight and infrared missile
"F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems..........in a dogfight"
R-77 is not for dogfight it for medium-range shooting!!!!

oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, I didn't know that the R-77 can't do the same

If you don't have lock on target via stealth in a dogfight use gun and infra-red.
-----

So the F-35 managed to limit the Su-35s weapons to just IR missiles and cannons in a dogfight, while enemies of all Sukhoi planes can use AMRAAMs, Sidewinders and guns in a dogfight, isn't stealth wonderful.

sprstdlyscottsmn
"The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar" - Very interesting but source please.

"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

"I can't put a weapon system on it" - Use infrared or gun not radar.

"Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability"
- All abrupt maneuvers are prohibited as it causes increase in the internal temperature of the engine and out design parameters.

Making stuff up are we? Violent maneuvering was reported as one of the causes for the engine fire on the F-35A last year, that engine problem was FIXED as reported, so no, the F-35 is not prohibited from conducting abrupt maneuvers.


"Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22"- Sorry but no ,just not even f16, let alone F22.
"Cruise at 1.20M " Sorry but it is not cruise speed it max speed without afterburner for a small distance (with a unknown load and how much fuel)
--------
SpudmanWP
"only get a compass heading"
That's enough
----------

zero-one
"Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4."
Why do they make it so? The answer= because they are blockheads.

No, because they have been using that wave tactic for years, from WWII, Vietnam, and Arab Israeli wars, all advised by Soviet AF advisers

"now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely......immediately evade " Sorry They don't both - F and F .
"flying blind " Why would suddenly.

because the Su-35s have to evade, they cannot guide their R-77s to the terminal phase, the Aim-120s on the other hand are being guided via data link by the stealth F-35s that are undetected.

"3 reach their target" why 3? not 2 or 4 ?

because they blow up, 2 Aim-120s for each target, I'd say having 1 of the Sukois survive is pretty amazing already if you ask anyone.

"This scenario repeats "
First wave Su-35 Die in silence as heroes=because they are blockheads cut off all communication systems between the other aircraft and the base .

"F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs" Only if they are installed on the wings =Debuffs - 100% stealth

What part of, ""4 F-35s on heavy configuration with 8 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders (internal 4 AMRAAMs, external 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders) and 4 F-35s on Stealth Configuration.
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such"
-------------
shrimpman
"Those guys are professionals."
A rule 10% - Say 10% truth and 90% turbid water.

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.[/quote]

[blindpilot]

....
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such"
-------------
....

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.

Quick revew of several sources. shows a minimum kill ratio of 102 to 0 kills for the F-15. It could be a couple more. Of these confirmed are 5 Mig 29s.
You are correct - I do stand corrected on the aside refrence for Mig 31, as I was referring to the 4 Mig 25 kills (2 Israeli, 2 Iraq Wars - <note plus 2 that fled battle>) This was an aside to the kill ratio for the F-15, and I will admit I can blur Mig 25/31 and SU 27/35 and F-15A/E in general statements on platforms.

At any rate the F-15 is probably 103/104-0 against fighters including Mig 23/25/29s. That is a simple confirmed fact.

In fairness we should mention the SU-27 is 6-0 with the east Africa combat, but then the Harrier is 21 - 0 as well. I count those as single theatre/conflict results.

BP

[eloise]

You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35 (the area of antenna, the maximum power)

Irbis-e can detect target with RCS = 0.01 m2 from 90km , so according to radar equation (reduce RCS by factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent ) it can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 50.4 km , tracking range is around 80% of detection range ,since F-35 have RCS = 0.0015 m2 , irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km ( in perfect condition , no jamming , no clutter ...etc)
Apg-81 can track target with RCS =1 m2 from 150 km ,Su-35 have RCS = 10 m2 so according to radar equation , Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )
However both side will likely use jamming : F-35 gonna use ALE-70 , APG-81 , MALD-J , Su-35 gonna use KNIRTI SAP 518 ..etc so the number above will be reduced significantly ,may be only to half as big ( Su-35 many only able to trackF-35 at 20 km )

since F-35 have lower radar cross section it will have this advantage as well :

not only that lower RCS reduce burn through distance , jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction ,50% reduction in RCS = 50% less power required to overwhelm real radar reflection with noise ( you can work it out for yourself , 99.9% reduction in RCS= 99.9% less power required to achieve same level of effectiveness , and so on )
now let take example of 4 aircraft :
1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
2) Su-35 : RCS = 10 m2
3) F-16 : RCS = 1 m2
4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
now compared them :
from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
from Su-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
from F-16 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require
so despite the fact that su-35 is much bigger , and can carry jammer that is more powerful than the F-35's one , Su-35 jamming is still gonna be less effective ( assume both side have equal technology level )

35km/90km-this data is from 2013 , in 2010-2011 it was 25km/50km, in 2007 it was 15km/45km(for mig 29 as target)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd7YWrGMNU
0.00-0.27
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf
PAGE 12
50km/90km

so the maximum range that OLS-35 can detect a fighter head on is 50 km
however there are 2 things you should remember
1- that is detection range , to generate firing solution for missiles , IRST rely on LRF , and the LRF on OLS-35 is limited to only 20 km
2- while IRST is not affected by jamming , infrared radiation is absorbed by moisture very significantly so your IRST will be quite useless if the weather is bad or if enemy fighter decide to fly in or near the cloud

"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

.

0.001 m2 may sound pretty low , however it have been achieved very long time ago since HAVE BLUE program (aka F-117 program ) , iam pretty sure the F-35 that was designed 20 years later can at least match that

The main emphasis is laid on the radar reflection from the front sector, which has been defined as a region of 45 degrees to each side of the longitudinal axis of the machine. Aircraft had to face the primary Gun Dish radar, which used light armored Soviet radar anti-aircraft gun ZSU-23-4 and worked in the J band at a frequency of 16 GHz. Hopeless Diamond and its derivative Lockheed Have Blue were optimized almost exclusively on the radar and range of frequencies. As the possibility of calculating RCS improve, increased the range of the target frequency, but the main focus was still on the radar gun measures Dish. In contrast, the plane of Northrop were of low radar cross at lower frequencies in the zones A and B which used the long-range radar. However, since a similar design is always compromises, the price for a wider range of frequencies were slightly worse in the principal target zone A.

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
btw it is interesting to note that they achieve low RCS not only again X-band but also again frequency from 2.3 Ghz to 16 Ghz

[mk82]

Hang on...hang on ata...I am puzzled about a few things......

Number 1 - Do your research on weapons carriage capabilities of the F35. In internal carriage only mode, it's primary air to air weapon is the AMRAAM, not the Sidewinder at this point of time (definite fact). With external carriage, the F35 can carry Sidewinders on its outer most hardpoints (on the wing) and a mixture of AMRAAMs and air to ground ordnance on the remaining hardpoints.

Number 2 - How can you talk about "real" world scenarios when the F35 has not met the SU 35 in real or even simulated combat? The potential tactics you dream up for the SU 35 are just theories and concepts as well frankly. Especially when the SU 35 has yet to engage VLO opponents in real life. At least we know the SU 35 is a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...not a good starting base. Having to use contrived and potentially disadvantageous tactics due to relatively crippling limitations of your aircraft....not a good starting base as well

Number 3 - By your logic, the capabilities of the SU 35 are also just commercials by Sukhoi. Have you personally flown the SU 35 and verified all of it's capabilities personally? I think not. Sukhoi is in the business of selling aircraft too....why would they be more honest than Lockmart? Are the SU 35's capabilities tested in real world/combat conditions rather than best case scenarios? Do you know the answer for that? It seems like you would believe Sukhoi uncritically if they said that the SU 35 would spray fairy dust out of its exhaust or believe that absurd Sukhoi commercial showing the SU 35 downing gaggles of Eurofighters (actually the Eurofighter, especially armed with Meteor BVRAAMs, would more than adequately match the "mighty" SU 35)

Exactly, when I came here I was expecting to generate those scenarios. It would be, of course far from reality, but much closer than commercial from both sides anyway. "blindpilot" said there are a lot of real pilot here, so I'd like if possible them to tell me how it could be in real life without all those "amazing super technology overcome everything in the world". As I said, stealth great feature, but it works not always, not in every situation in the same great way. And my point (don't want to offend the fans) is that in case of F-35 designers put all the money to stealth capabilities. I remember the great sensors, networking, etc, but from outside it seems like invisibility is playing main tactic's role. That's why I'm so focused on RCS. Numbers tell more story than any word, so, let's play numbers at least those we know more or less.
1. "In real life" F-35 would leave the base for some practical reason. For spying, bombing, getting air dominance, etc. I was considering bombing situation. In that case it's very probably it will haven't AMRAAMs on board.
2. Answered before, but one thing more: "radar bright" means F-35 is hunting with radar turned on - so, no stealth at all. With radar turned off it's different and it leaves us with a lot of scenarios would be interesting to discuss. But if you insist on sentences from commercial brochures, useless.
3. Well, there are no huge secrets around Su. It proved it's power and I saw it with my eyes. At Moscow's air show it was staying on it's tale for 20 seconds and then started accelerate up to the sky. It impressed me, of course. Also, description of Su avionics give me an idea it's not the best in the world, but it's "good enough" to do it's job. It's also not a big secret. In opposite F-35's plane numbers are not very impressive while F-35's "computer" numbers are absolutely amazing. But how that "computers" help in real battle situation? Have you tested F-35 in real battle agains well prepared modern Flankers with good pilots? Answer is no. So, how you could be sure all those amazing numbers will be working (I'd rather skip magic explanation from Lockheed)? So, answering your question, I don't need to be critic about Su, because it's like barbarian - you see all the muscles, and even if he's not that smart you can't be sure if his brain power would be enough to support muscles or not. While you have a kung-fu master agains of him, almost without muscles, and his skills must be proven.
So, if you're interesting in this kind of discussion, I would be very appreciated. If not, in fact I'm not very focused on this problem, and I can easily ignore your vodka-bear comments.

Back to number 1: Like I said....do your research and don't be a lazy kapusta....Popcorn has answered your question quite well about the F35s weapon carriage capabilities. Basically if the F35 carries mainly air to ground munitions, it will still carry a minimum of two AMRAAMS....figure that one out. Google will help....

Back to number 2: My mistake...should have explain what radar bright means....I meant high RCS/radar reflectivity. Now with that out of the way.....the F35's APG 81 radar do have LPI capabilities....sure it does not mean no probability of intercept but let's look at the F22's APG 77 (which the APG 81 base its technology on)....it's LPI capabilities work very well in exercises (eg Red Flag etc) against 4+ gen adversaries.....they had no idea they were painted and tracked by the F22s from BVR. It's no commercial trust me. Look it up.

Back to number 3: Nobody is disputing the SU 35's kinematic performance.....by your admission the SU 35's avionics are "good enough"...is "good enough" going to cut the mustard when dealing with VLO targets? You want the "best" not "good enough". Oh, that gets me to another point...how does "computers/avionics" help with real world battles...how about helping the fighter pilots out detect, out think, out communicate and out maneuver (on a more stragedic level) the enemy especially as a group. Good EW helps a lot as well. What do you call a fighter punching around the sky blindly burning excessive amount of fuel with its afterburners...a fighter punching around the sky not achieving the mission. It's actually having the best systems of systems....look at GW1....the Iraqi Air Force was literally hammered by the Allied Air Forces...the Allied Air Forces had superior situational awareness and out acted the Iraqi Air Force which was effectively blinded.....that is not a commercial, it's real life.

More to the point, so you think it is alright not to be critical about SU 35 and Sukhoi's claims about it, especially its avionics and sensors. Nyet Tovarisch, that doesn't "fly" in my book. The Sukhoi SU 35 does not get a free pass. So excuse me while I take Sukhoi's claims with a grain or two of salt. You lay the burden of proof on us but you make the SU 35 sound like a commercial ironically. I lay the burden of proof on you in regards to the SU 35. Ironic, as you can't even get the right facts or specifications on the SU 35 or its components.

One wonders why people are eventually getting annoyed with you on this thread. Don't be a kapusta and do some basic research and get some basic facts right (see number one). Many posters on the F16.net forum do not have the patience to spoon feed someone who has not done any basic research.

Oh yeah, it also helps your credibility if you don't come up with bloopers such as your idea that firing air to air missiles from the deck is no big deal in the "real world". When your air to air missiles start missing high altitude targets all the time because you have pretty screwed up the pK of your missiles, it does matter in the "real world".....you are not achieving your mission. It's not the Airshow Force.

[eloise]

. But I'm a scientist working with radio emission tech for long time,

no offense but iam pretty sure you are not a scientist , even if you are some how, there is no way you working with radio emission tech ,your comments show that you have quite limited knowledge about that field

I don't want to say, stealth is not good. But for example old-school L-band radars can detect X-band stealth easily. Stealth even doesn't work at all in this case.

L band are not affected by RAM ,but still affected by shaping

Wow, wow... wait, it sounds so scary... Do you realise that as soon as F-35 is going to turn on it's perfect doppler radar it will be fired immediately? And your radar is exactly best target could be imagined? And all money spent for stealth are wasted as soon as trigger is on? Do you think guys working on F-22 were that stupid to implement "stealth mode" even for radar? Really? In real life your enemy acts not like it is shown in movies.

APG-81 is an AESA radar with very good LPI characteristic , so just because it turn the radar on doesnt mean you can detect it
here are something about LPI technology

http://www.mar.mil.br/caaml/Revista/2007/Ingles/10-Pag40.pdf

http://www.emrsdtc.com/conferences/2004/downloads/pdf/tech_conf_papers/A14.pdf

Another problem is that even if your RWR can detect enemy's fighter AESA radar ,you still cant launch a missiles at them , because the way that RWR , ELINT system geolocate ground radar doesnt work again air target , so you wont know the distance to enemy , no information about distance or speed mean you cant attack
( here is how RWR geolocate a ground radar )

[mk82]

You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .

Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!!

Chill out with some Vodka.....the trembling will stop Tovarisch. Oh yeah, you are not doing a very good job at supporting ata