Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

http://www.aviapanorama.ru/2015/12/vero ... ost-tozhe/
In conclusion, I would like to advise our colleagues from India, Egypt and other countries friendly to Russia not to spend money on expensive “toys” for conducting colonial warriors, but to buy Russian Su-brand victory weapons.
...
Our analysis shows that F-35 aircraft, despite all their remarkable properties, do not pose a significant threat to our fighter aircraft.

The self-congratulatory, condescending tone of those last paragraphs makes me lose any faith in what is written above.

It is so funny, pathetic actually, that so many continue to think in 1v1 scenario's.

Airplane A vs airplane B?
I thought we passed that some years ago.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No.
I have read lots of garbage on congregates like The National Interest by hacks that constantly flip flop on these things in their articles (one day they publish an article "why the Su-57 is the best thing since sliced bread", the next day it's "why the Su-57 stands no chance in a fight with a F-22"), none ever came across as condescending as this guy-I mean, come on, something something colonialism, buy our stuff instead!
As far as I'm concerned when reading all this and the conclusions are as they are (everything 100% rosy in Sukhoi land, Russia best in every category-seriously????), it's just a David Axe-type hack just throwing some random numbers around for propaganda purposes.
example:

[the Su-35's radar]provide detection of air targets of the F-35 type with an average EPR of about σ ≈ 0.3 ... 0.5 m 2

By how many orders of magnitude did he lie about the RCS of the F-35?

Thus, the F-35 can hardly count on success in long-range aerial combat against our fighters.

And so on.

@juretrn

I don't want to go off-topic in this thread, so excuse that I don't reply in length. The link was provided in hopes that Spurts or someone else with a high level of technical knowledge could use it as reference of a simulation done from another perspective, nothing more. If you don't like it or don't agree with its results, it is perfectly legit and ok. We could discuss about your claims, but I am afraid this is not the place.

Thanks

Given the most updated military speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.2, Su-35(with AA loadout) needs briefly engage in A/B to catch up with F-35. Making its infrared signature more obvious. Su-35 could be easily picked up with DAS.

The lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability of aim-9x block2 allows it to turn 180 deg (a reversal) and shoot bandits in the rear hemisphere of F-35. There is one more thing to notice: when a missile is launched to tail-chase a bandit, its effective range is greatly reduced. Even R-77 has a range of 5 km at low altitude:

(will upload the proof later. The source is a MAKE ads)

(This is the case when the laucher and the target are all @ M0.9. if both are at higher speed the range will shrink more)

However, when a missile turns 180 deg and engage a chasing bandit, it actually engages the target head-on, resulting in extended range. If my memory serves, aim-9x block2 successfully engaged a target 10 miles (16 km) away and behind the launcher, in early 2013.

In this scenario, aim-9x block2 out-ranges R-77. That is a fun fact.

So when a F-35 uses the hit-and -run tactic against two Su-35s, the chasing Su-35s could be picked up easily with DAS far away, and will be engaged by aim-9x block2 well beyond the range of R-77.

With supercuise+DAS, one F-35 could solo at least two Su-35s without exposing itself to any danger.

When you want to blame F35, remember，you need to check the latest data， because the flight envelope of F35 is evolving over time. Latest figure suggests F35 can out turn all non thrust vectored flanker variants，
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJLoW1ClNE0

can out accelerate all flanker family，
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

and can do LOAL to any direction. I doubt Sukhoi has a 10 percent survival rate.

In that link, what is "tactical maneuver weight" defined as?

Is it 60% internal fuel and no stores?

No stores isn't very tactical.

When you want to blame F35, remember，you need to check the latest data， because the flight envelope of F35 is evolving over time.

Sorry, who is blaming F-35??

Latest figure suggests F35 can out turn all non thrust vectored flanker variants，
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJLoW1ClNE0

Just to point it out, I think you are stretching it quite a bit. We all can find airshow stunts and make wild claims based on them. Fact is we can't measure properly the flight parameters involved and have no way of knowing real fuel loads, weather conditions or even if the planes have been prepared for the airshow by removing weight off them.

can out accelerate all flanker family，
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

The Su-35S can officially accelerate from 600 to 1100 km/h in 13.8 s with 50% fuel @1000 m. Your data for the F-35A is 17.9s 700-1100 km/h @60% fuel, 4500 masl, is that right and current? Maybe you should re-run your calculations, without checking your numbers and assumptions, I think it is going to be a much closer call than you think.

In that link, what is "tactical maneuver weight" defined as?

Is it 60% internal fuel and no stores?

60% fuel with jdams jettisoned ， so it should be with 2 amraams left

Ok, so it's 60% int. fuel & 2 aim -120's. Thank you GTA4 for pointing that out.

The Su-35S can officially accelerate from 600 to 1100 km/h in 13.8 s with 50% fuel @1000 m.

That is 50% of take-off fuel (50% * 6000kg, give or take), not 50% of full internal fuel (50% * 11500kg)

Remember, Flanker series never use full internal fuel as take-off fuel.

The take-off weight of Su-27 is only 23430 kg.
The take-off weight of Su-35 is only 25300 kg.

even if the planes have been prepared for the airshow by removing weight off them.

That was a tradition of Russian, not US.

In 1990 era Russian removed IRST and hardpoints from Su-27 for better airshow performance. You can search Su-27P airshow footage on youtube.

USAF only use frontline fighters with no airshow adjustments. This could be verified with tail numbers. Some of them are not properly maintained or even leak fuel at the day of airshow, because they were in the battlefield

'gta4' You must be kidding and 'how do you know this 'fact'?' Stealth coatings may be damaged on an F-22 but that does not mean it is not well maintained otherwise - especially if it is FLYING in an airshow. The last thing anyone needs is a crash.

'gta4' said above: "...Some of them [USAF airshow aircraft] are not properly maintained..."