British expert: the F-35 fighter will never defeat the Russian Su-35

60
The American fighter of the new generation F-35, whose development spends billions of dollars, has such flaws that will not allow him to defeat the Russian Su-35 "even after a million years," writes in his article for Business Insider the Royal Joint Institute for Defense UK research Justin Bronk. Article leads RIA News.





“In the early stages of development, experts noted that the F-35's ability to conduct air combat is inferior even to the F-16, which should be replaced by a fighter. Later, some shortcomings were corrected, but the emphasis in F-35 was placed more on invisibility, with less attention being paid to its combat characteristics, ”writes Bronk.

"It is for this reason that older fighters, such as the Su-35 or Typhoon, are likely to be able to destroy the F-35 in combat at close range," he believes.

“Although every credible report indicates that F-35 will excel in stealth,” Bronk continues, “yet effectiveness in air combat depends on other indicators.”

“Typhoon and Su-35 have a positive value of thrust-to-weight ratio (thrust to weight ratio of the aircraft) under combat loads, and this means that they can be more effectively accelerated, including vertically, than the F-35. At the same time, the Su-35 is much more maneuverable, ”explains the expert.

According to him, the F-35 also has a positive value for thrust-to-weight ratio, however, “it’s not completely clear whether this would benefit the fighter, because its small wings and the whole design are more focused on stealth than on its maneuverability, which will adversely affect characteristics of the fighter ".

"Thus, the F-35, most likely, will not be able to win the air battle over the Su-35 or Typhoon," concludes the Bronk.
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    1 September 2016 13: 38
    No need to compare the plane with an ax
    1. +24
      1 September 2016 13: 45
      We haven't heard the opinions of British "scientists" and "experts" for a long time! Thank you "VO", made me happy !!! fellow
      1. +17
        1 September 2016 13: 51
        As Comrade Stalin said: “If our enemies scold us, then we are doing everything right.” And if they begin to praise us, then there is reason to think.
        And on the topic: people are evaluated according to deeds, and not according to words, TTX is certainly good, but it looks like a comparison of spherical horses in a vacuum.
        1. +2
          1 September 2016 14: 00
          Quote: User
          If our enemies scold us, then we are doing everything right. ” And if they begin to praise us, then there is reason to think.

          Where do they praise us? Just the monopolization of the supply market The Pentagon many do not like. LM crushed too much. This is an internal showdown of American companies, and the Su35 here is just an excuse
        2. +7
          1 September 2016 15: 33
          Well, not quite like that, although Drying and F-35 are really different planes, drying a fighter with the ability to work on the ground, lightning more than bombs with the ability to work through the air.
          and they focus on stealth and network-centricity, which provide excellent theoretical advantages, but where there are good electronic warfare, network-centricity is greatly reduced, and where there are modern radars, and even more so ROFAR, which should soon go into the series, stealth is also going along the beard. and it turns out that lightning aircraft without advantages, with some disadvantages.
      2. +20
        1 September 2016 14: 04
        The article is about nothing.
        I explain why:

        1-Another comparison of the F-35 with the SU-35 (the Typhoon was also added to the comparison) /
        2-Again compare HEAVY DESTRUCTOR 4 ++ pok. with easy (unfinished) 5 pok.
        3-Another plaintive whine of "Hawks" give money for revision / increase in the number of produced F-35 /
        4-Compare Svermanevremennaya and low-tonnage machine 9 (the emphasis in them is made precisely on these qualities).
        5-These already got all comparisons ala -Who is cooler Schwartz or Bruce Lee? Will not lead to anything (even though fill the entire network with another comparison of "Whale and Elephant")
        6-It would be much more interesting to read about Vstrecha: S-300; S-350; S-400; BUK2-M3; Armor C2; SAM "Sosna"; MANPADS "Verba" with the F-35 ... Moreover, the meeting of our air defense with the NATO Air Force is more likely than the "Knight's meeting" One on one: SU-35 against F-35, T-50 against F-22 ...
        1. +3
          1 September 2016 14: 18
          Quote: Now we are free
          2-Again compare HEAVY DESTRUCTOR 4 ++ pok. with easy (unfinished) 5 pok.

          not well if a heavy fighter, then yes.
          Only the right term Air conquest fighter, therefore, you need to compare with any enemy pepelats other than him, you will conquer domination hi
        2. 0
          1 September 2016 18: 37
          There, for the most part, the translation is very bad.
          Here is the original
          http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-could-not-dog
          fight-typhoon-su-35-2016-8
    2. +1
      1 September 2016 14: 26
      with an invisible ax))
    3. +9
      1 September 2016 15: 06
      That's something like laughing
  2. +2
    1 September 2016 13: 38
    “In the early stages of development, experts noted that the F-35's ability to conduct air combat is inferior even to the F-16, which should be replaced by a fighter. Later, some shortcomings were corrected, but the emphasis in F-35 was placed more on invisibility, with less attention being paid to its combat characteristics, ”writes Bronk.

    Ie stealth is not a combat characteristic, I choke on laughter from such experts
  3. +4
    1 September 2016 13: 39
    Drop the F-35 in the hope that the Americans will revive the F-22 and start selling them. Although the plane is really so-so. Drying, it seems to me, is still better.
  4. +2
    1 September 2016 13: 39
    [quote] [/ quote] older fighters such as the Su-35
    Yes, much older)))
  5. +3
    1 September 2016 13: 40
    Never say never. These British scientists and experts are still those connoisseurs. The Su-35 is certainly an excellent machine, but one should not underestimate a potential adversary, or "partner".
  6. +8
    1 September 2016 13: 44
    So the F-35 seems to be an attack fighter, not intended for aerial combat. It would be more correct to say: will he run away from SU-35 or not.
    1. +3
      1 September 2016 13: 57
      Monos Today, 13:44 New
      So the F-35 seems to be an attack fighter, not intended for aerial combat. It would be more correct to say: will he run away from SU-35 or not.
      at such high-speed characteristics? - generally not correct ...
    2. VP
      +2
      1 September 2016 14: 56
      So far, it’s not clear to anyone what it is intended for.
      1. +2
        1 September 2016 16: 24
        laundered a huge amount of money
  7. +2
    1 September 2016 13: 50
    Again 25. Yes, these are generally different aircraft for their purpose. And the same weight. F35 must be compared with the MiG 35, they are classmates.
  8. +3
    1 September 2016 13: 59
    Everything, like in a car, depends on the gasket between the steering wheel and the seat. In this case, the helm.
  9. +1
    1 September 2016 14: 03
    The Su-35 is brought to the ideal of the Su-27, but what is the F-35? How does he behave when performing aerobatics, what is his maneuverability? For a fighter, these are the main parameters, add speed and weapons (radar, missiles, gun).
    1. +1
      1 September 2016 14: 34
      A. Pokryshkin derived a formula for a fighter: Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire ...
      1. +1
        1 September 2016 16: 06
        In his time, shot from 400 m.
        And now from 20-30 km.
    2. +3
      1 September 2016 14: 36
      Watching at what speed.
      F-35 is optimized for combat at a speed of 0,9 MAX. At this speed, he confidently performs aerobatics and maneuverability (there are many videos).
      Its shortcomings, as the British correctly noted, are relatively slow
      a set of speed and altitude. Those. it’s easy to catch it when taking off from the airfield,
      eg. When he gains speed and height, he turns
      into a very combat-ready fighter (as recently noted by Norwegian combat pilots who conducted training battles against their own F-16s).
      The main thing for him is not to slow down in battle.
      Despite the fact that his radar has no equal power and he has one more advantage: the network was aware of the situation around (without radio communication with colleagues). And do not forget its stealth for enemy radars (there is no obvious signal on the radar - it is not always clear when it is possible to open fire with missiles).
      1. VP
        +2
        1 September 2016 15: 05
        I'm embarrassed to ask ...
        And is there the same video of battles where it would be clear to any skeptic that the battle begins, proceeds and ends only strictly at 0,9?
        I would be very grateful
        1. +2
          1 September 2016 15: 43
          This is now such a spell for the Israeli pilot F-35 - only on the 0,9 M (damn, again he crawled to the vertical 0,8 M and received nuts from the Syrian Su-27) laughing
        2. +3
          1 September 2016 15: 50
          There are statistics of training and real fighter jet fights.
          By country and continent ...
          The vast majority proceeded at a speed of precisely 0,9 MAX.
          It was on this that Lockheed designers based their choice.
          1. VP
            +3
            1 September 2016 16: 03
            Even by country?
            How interesting, the right word ...
            Most recently, one writer argued on Topvar that it’s not like statistics, it’s the theoretical estimated most profitable speed, but I won’t quibble.
            And what do the statistics say? Is the speed of the battle constant throughout the entire duration of the battle? We stood together in a merry-go-round, "bricks for gas" and followed each other in a circle at 0.9?
      2. +3
        1 September 2016 16: 52
        It is ridiculous to read how one of the most important indicators of a fighter in combat - the rate of climb (the ability to quickly move / climb vertically) is simply assessed as "a disadvantage when climbing when taking off from an airfield, which disappears (no one knows where?) When conducting air combat" Interestingly, it takes your breath away ...

        Apparently, the Americans urgently need to give the Jews all the rights to advertise and sell the F-35. Then they (the Jews) will quickly explain to British scientists that the American plane simply cannot have any weak points. He costs so much ...
      3. 0
        2 September 2016 06: 05
        Sorry, I did not understand: "voyaka uh
        Watching at what speed.
        The F-35 is optimized for combat at a speed of 0,9 MAX. "

        "Maximum speed, km / h 2065 (M = 1.67)" (from technical specifications)

        And if about the "Mach number", then it is, as it were, just "M"
  10. +5
    1 September 2016 14: 06
    This aircraft was created (not without the help of Soviet developments) for strikes from a long distance and is not intended for close combat. There are both construction and weapons. Now the victory in the battle is provided first of all to the one who first finds the enemy ..
    1. +2
      1 September 2016 15: 46
      And who is the first to detect an enemy in long-range aerial combat - the F-35 with the radar shining on the entire Ivanovo airborne radar or the Su-35С with the RTR airborne system?
      1. +4
        1 September 2016 15: 52
        Make a compact AFAR, finally. It's time. fellow
        1. VP
          +1
          1 September 2016 16: 07
          But why?
          PFAR is more powerful. Again, there is no signal power loss due to radiation in a direction different from the perpendicular one, which is characteristic of AFAR.
          Each system has its own pros and cons; there are no minuses.
          1. +3
            1 September 2016 16: 46
            The point is only in price. 2000 modules bite angry .
            AFAR wins anyway.
            Nobody, except Russia, seems to be engaged in military aviation in military aviation anymore?
            But AFAR is much more expensive.
  11. +3
    1 September 2016 14: 18
    it is strange that Justin Bronk did not add that the Typhoon could easily cope with three Su-35s, which has been repeatedly expressed by such experts before.
  12. +2
    1 September 2016 14: 19
    USArastov's strategy is to hide. On the F-35. Or in Zamvolte. Or shell from afar the Papuans with cruise missiles.
    1. 0
      2 September 2016 16: 01
      There is nothing wrong with hiding from the enemy and replaying him.
      But, especially against us and not hide.
      Sawing, carefully sawing.
  13. +1
    1 September 2016 14: 19
    What do you say this flying freak is called? FU-35? "Garbage 35% Simplified"?
    1. 0
      1 September 2016 18: 10
      Dear moderators! 50 meaningful and weighted comments are more interesting to read and evaluate than 500 similar, clogging comments. Nothing holds them back anymore.
  14. +3
    1 September 2016 14: 38
    1. Everything will depend on the balance of power. The United States and its friends like to fight with radar support and having superiority in forces and means.
    2. F-35 universal fighter, but more in the shock direction
    3. In the first phase, there is a struggle for air superiority and it will be led by the F-22 (I remind you that there are 200 of them now)
    4. Do not forget about F-16/18/15 they will survive more than one modernization and will be, as now, serious air fighters.
  15. VP
    +2
    1 September 2016 14: 51
    Gentlemen from Israel, enlighten these stupid Angels as they really are
    1. +1
      1 September 2016 16: 00
      The Angles are not so stupid - they bought the F-35.
      Where are the peasants without the 5th generation now? laughing
      And how good the F-35 is in training battles, and what battle tactics to choose,
      Israeli pilots will learn better from December this year - not to wait long.
      1. VP
        +1
        1 September 2016 17: 39
        But does England have a choice?
        They swelled several billions into the project, more than any other country except the States themselves.
        And after that refuse?
        The boys will not understand.
        Under the 35th and its financing, they signed back in 2000.
        So it’s too late for them to back up.
  16. +2
    1 September 2016 15: 42
    In general, everything is correctly indicated in the article:
    the flaws were fixed, however, the emphasis in the F-35 is more on invisibility, while less attention is paid to its combat characteristics

    this is the first.
    Further, it is clear that
    will be able to destroy the F-35 in close range combat

    any products that have the best parameters for conducting close-range air combat are almost all su and moment lines, even old ones. Therefore, the scientist clearly expresses the message - do not make this aircraft a universal fighter, since
    The F-35 also has a positive thrust-to-weight ratio, however, "it’s not yet clear whether this will benefit the fighter, because its small wings and the whole design are more focused on stealth than on its maneuverability, which will negatively affect the combat characteristics of the fighter."

    Conclusion - you do not need to make another story about the creation of the Bradley machine, it will not lead to anything good.
    IMHO-f35 brought anyway will be an airplane against the Papuans, an airplane of one departure for countries that have in their arsenal a more or less developed air defense and electronic warfare. And if these countries have at least a few light fighters like the MIG-29, even more so.
  17. +7
    1 September 2016 16: 01
    sometimes I read comments and laughter parses me to the very kidneys. I don’t remember any war that the United States started, in which they would not have numerical superiority over the enemy in the air 5 times. Well, there simply were no such wars. and if we take into account that the Fu-35 and Fu 22 still have about 400 units, you need to have at least 400 Su-35 units. so that you can compare something. (let us leave their performance characteristics aside, this can all be revealed only in real fights). against Yugoslavia, which had only 19 combat aircraft and the old almost non-operational air defense, 660 NATO aircraft fought with AWACS and Navy with the KR Tomahok, the same in all other wars. they were primarily crushed by numbers and extinguished by air defense systems from a distance. although it must be admitted that the United States has very efficient pilots, they are experts in their field. and as for the TTX fu-35, it’s a pretty modified Yak-141 that introduced a powerful radar and gave it some stealth characteristics. and talking about him as a full fighter is not even funny. the weight that he can do is, with very limited capabilities for arming, stealthily spoil while other fighters cover him, diverting the main attacks to himself. but if it is loaded on external pylons ... then this bucket will be knocked down on approach until it has entered the zone of combat use of its weapons. 1 on one, he is unlikely to go into battle, because the Su-35 is a serious aircraft that can generally hit him with a missile through an optical channel for 30-40 km. without resorting to the main radar, in addition, if the Su-35 also does not turn on its radar, then it is also not so easy to detect, for this you need either AWACS or a ground-based air defense system, besides, you should not forget that false targets are still no one has canceled. drying can launch two false targets at once, and then go and distinguish which of them is a real plane, and as soon as it launches, you can put an end to its stealth, then everything is decided by speed and maneuverability. drying it will simply tear in this sense. but ... do not forget that one on one these battles will never be held, and only if they have to face in the air if there are 1-35 NATO aircraft against 5 Su-6. further there is no point in discussing anything.
    1. +2
      1 September 2016 16: 22
      "in general, at 30-40 km to hit it with a rocket through the optical channel" ///

      Where is this channel - optics on the head of a rocket or an optical sight in an airplane?
      Or is an optical cable unwinding behind a rocket? , explain.
      1. +4
        1 September 2016 17: 16
        and didn’t notice from above on the nose he has such a ball? like a wart ... so this ball, it rumbles around on both sides, so it’s a sight-and-eye view ... it’s a tyk to hide the OLS-27K for close combat, and this wart-ball sees any object in the IR range, even a skydiver sees and can aim at it is R-77, so the same ball is also on the Shells that they see .. they do not irradiate, but they just bluntly see. here is an excerpt from the performance characteristics of the Su-35 Su-35 and also received a new optical-location station for the development of the Su-35 high-tech universal of the Scientific and Production Corporation "Precision Instrumentation Systems" (until 2007 - the Scientific Research Institute of Precision Instrumentation), which received the designation OLS -35 and providing, according to information from the developer's site, a review in the front hemisphere of an aircraft airspace, land and water surface; search, detection, capture and self-alignment, determination of angular coordinates and range to air, ground and surface targets in the average infrared (3-5 microns) and visible wavelength ranges; detection, capture, tracking and determination of the angular position of the spot of an external laser illuminator, as well as laser illumination of ground and surface targets. The station includes a heat direction finder (the target detection range of the Su-30 type in its front hemisphere is 35 km, and in the rear hemisphere is 90 km), a laser rangefinder-target indicator (work on an air target at a distance of 0,2–20 km, on ground - up to 30 km, accuracy - 5 m) and a television channel that allows to detect and automatically track various targets in the area from -90 ° to + 90 ° in azimuth and from -15 ° to + 60 ° in elevation. It is also possible to use various hanging sighting containers.
        1. 0
          1 September 2016 22: 02
          In short, an infrared scanning camera in the bow of the aircraft.
          Thank you.
    2. 0
      2 September 2016 00: 33
      On Yak the same radar as on the MiG-29. F-35 is not pretty modified, but a little bit gradually redesigned.
      Details here https://topwar.ru/99506-palubnyy-f-35cpristupil-k
      -tretemu-etapu-ispytaniy.html
  18. 0
    1 September 2016 18: 34
    I’m wondering if only one translator translates all this in RIA, or is there a team of such "ultra-professionals"?
  19. gcn
    0
    1 September 2016 19: 55
    This is the ideology of a global strike and one of the components of its f-35 is inconspicuous and most importantly numerous in NATO and the North American states. The plane cannot be called a melee fighter, although it can, you can also call our bomber 34 just as an example, although they have different classes, but you must agree on equal terms that he will not be able to compete with the Su-27. it meets their requirements for the next 5-10-15 years. And now we need to think about why such an expensive underfighter in every sense (and in a very decent amount), but North Americans (allies) need a good plane to work on land.
    1. 0
      2 September 2016 15: 50
      Aircraft aggressor. Act without runway or with bad runway
  20. 0
    2 September 2016 06: 13
    According to him, the F-35 also has a positive thrust-weight ratio, however, “it’s not yet clear if this will bring benefits to the fighter

    Weight, kg
    empty 13300 aircraft
    normal takeoff 20100
    maximum take-off 31800

    Engine type 1 Pratt Whitney F135 turbofan engine
    Thrust, kN
    maximum xnumx xnumx
    afterburner 1 x 178+

    Even dividing 18 tones by 20 tones does not work more than 1, although even 0, 00 ... 01 is also positive (I think the difficulties of translation)
  21. 0
    2 September 2016 10: 30
    Yes there? Set P-39 against our drying. D ... b ... l
  22. 0
    2 September 2016 17: 10
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    Monos Today, 13:44 New
    So the F-35 seems to be an attack fighter, not intended for aerial combat. It would be more correct to say: will he run away from SU-35 or not.
    at such high-speed characteristics? - generally not correct ...

    You have to run away immediately, until you notice ...