sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:the Su-35S flying at 1.757M at 40,000ft is burning a LOT more fuel than the F-15SA flying at 1.4M at 50,000ft. The dynamic thrust difference here is remarkable. 18,938 lb of thrust for the Eagle and 37,946 lb of thrust for the Flanker.
Wow, that is a massive difference, thanks for clarifying. The situation is quite tricky then, since the F-15 reaches max speed in that configuration and starts to climb only, which paradoxically generates more points than the Su gets by keeping its acceleration. Just shows how complicated analysis gets, when you go beyond simple technical characteristics.
juretrn wrote:The self-congratulatory, condescending tone of those last paragraphs makes me lose any faith in what is written above.
Of course it is up to you to lend ears or eyes to what you consider worth it, but just some comments:
- That condescending tone you notice is very much the same most Western analysis show towards Russian developments. And I agree it is tiresome, but since these pieces are for internal consumption, I guess a bit of optimism and oversimplification are to be expected.
- The kind of analysis they make is 1 on 1, maneouvering combat. If they consider the US plane in worst conditions than theirs after running their simulations, it makes sense that they state it plainly. If you read the Rafale analysis you will see different results, though.
- I would rather use such sources to learn more about their doctrine and their planes than about yours, since their intelligence on US aircraft may not be 100% perfect. That was the aim by sharing the link, since official data for modern Russian planes in their domestic version is simply not available.
- Having said that, they state things like the F-35's avionic has been brought to perfection. To ditch the whole because some sentences are not correct in your opinion is a not the most prudent IMHO.
vilters wrote:It is so funny, pathetic actually, that so many continue to think in 1v1 scenario's.
While I think you are formally right, how do you propose to analyse a many vs. many situation considering all possible geometries and available supporting assets, if you don't decompose the problem first in 1 vs. 1? It is exceedingly complicated to run such simulations without simplifying, so much so that they are not really manageable without state-level resources. What Spurts does at least allows us to compare individual pieces of HW involving actual tasks.