The National Interest compares the combat capabilities of the F-16 and the "deadly" Su-35

84
Over the decades, that the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter is the basis of the US Air Force and its allies, it has become a multi-purpose aircraft capable of performing various missions. In modification Viper ("Viper"), this machine will remain in service for many years. But now she has potential adversaries - for example, Su-35, which surpasses the Attacking Falcon in many characteristics.

About this in the publication material The National Interest wrote military commentator Dave Majumdar, reports RG-Sil



The National Interest compares the combat capabilities of the F-16 and the "deadly" Su-35


During training, the United States Air Force uses Su-27 ("Flanker" for NATO codification) as an "enemy". He is among the most likely air opponents that American pilots may encounter. Su-35 - is a deep modernization of the "Flanker", not very common, but the most powerful of the currently created. In the hands of properly trained pilots and with the support of ground services, this machine poses an extraordinary threat to any Western fighter. The only exception may be F-22 and F-35 due to its electronic equipment. Although the correct tactics in the case of them can play a useful role for the Russian aircraft.

But the "workhorse" of the United States and its partners is the F-16 Viper. The main disadvantages of this fighter are the lack of the latest radar with active electronic scanning (AESA) and the inability to use the AIM-120 air-to-air missiles at altitudes at which the F-15 Eagle, for example, can do this.

The AESA system is necessary for tracking cruise missiles and other hard-to-reach targets. Improved F-16E / F in the United Arab Emirates are equipped with modern radar APG-80 AESA, but the fleet of such aircraft is extremely small. The United States Air Force planned to upgrade the F-300's 16 aircraft under the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (CAPES), but it was canceled due to budget cuts. For the F-16 Viper, the air-to-air missions are secondary, and yet with the presence of AESA, these planes could engage in long-range Su-35 confrontation. However, such battles will be very problematic, sums up Majumdar.

At short distances, the outcome of the fight comes down to the skills of the pilot and the characteristics of the weapons used. The appearance of the R-73 and AIM-9X missiles led to the fact that hostilities took place under the scenario of mutual destruction. In this regard, a certain advantage arises from the Russian aircraft due to super-maneuverability. However, an experienced F-16 pilot will still be able to neutralize it.

Anyway, the Su-35 is an extremely capable aircraft. He wiped out the enormous technological advantage that the fourth-generation Pentagon fighter fleet had in the past decades
- the analyst concludes.
  • RIA News
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    3 October 2017 18: 53
    UVT for the F-16 would greatly extend the life of this beautiful aircraft. AFAR, as I understand it, is already in the latest versions.
    1. +18
      3 October 2017 19: 01
      UVT glider can not stand .... it will have to redesign the entire plane ...
      1. +2
        3 October 2017 20: 53
        The glider will withstand. Experienced F16 was with OBT. Not launched for other reasons.
        1. +8
          3 October 2017 22: 07
          Quote: Michael Newage
          The glider will withstand. Experienced F16 was with OBT. Not launched for other reasons.

          Here is a prototype. If you are familiar with the thermal bath, then slightly reject and there is no tail. Here stabilization is needed. One keel will not stand. Need compensation. With what? Which one? The Su-35 and F-22 are not a problem. Two vectors give rise to the desired vector without loading the glider
          1. +1
            3 October 2017 22: 16
            I didn’t hear that that laboratory would fall apart in the air when its tail fell off laughing . She completely flew to herself and even made a Pugachev cobra. This just says that the glider there was normal. I don’t know, maybe it was strengthened, but fact is a fact. It's not about keels, even though I rubbed it. fur. not studied.
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/nf16dvista.html
            1. +3
              3 October 2017 22: 36
              Quote: Michael Newage
              She completely flew to herself and even made a Pugachev cobra.

              And where did you see OVT in this link? The deflected thrust vector or Controlled is an egg in profile, but the plumage and air brakes support the variable stability - pure aerodynamics - no snot. Do not confuse Beat with Byte in general hi
              1. +1
                3 October 2017 22: 50
                This link contains the TITLE of this aircraft and the fact that it did not crash due to a torn tail. Here's where you say that it had a UVT engine:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-
                16_VISTA
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
                So I don’t confuse anything, and byte with bit are related concepts like a centimeter and a decimeter wink .
                1. 0
                  4 October 2017 08: 03
                  still found https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/14891/
              2. +1
                4 October 2017 00: 26
                Quote: Tusv
                Draft thrust vector or Steered - an egg in profile,

                butter, butter
                Management thrust vector (UHT) of a jet engine - deviation jet engine from the direction corresponding to the cruising mode.

                Those. under the concept of “thrust vector control” of a jet engine is any technical solution that allows you to deflect the jet from some, relatively speaking, “main” position (cruise speed vector, as a rule). Moreover, the “deflected nozzle” is only one of the methods for controlling the thrust vector.
                Example

                and how it is implemented, case 10e
                So

                so
                NF-16D MATV (Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring - traction vector control)

                or as

                in FIG.
                this is uvt, but the methods are different
          2. +1
            4 October 2017 00: 57
            Quote: Tusv
            then slightly reject and there is no tail. Here stabilization is needed. One keel will not stand.

            why not three "tails" then? Al four?
            1.Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle-
            GE Axisymmetric Vectoring multi-angle nozzle used on the F-16 MATV

            and nothing breaks
            2. "reject and no tail"
            The tail has nothing to do with it.
            Vertical plumage (VO): Provides the aircraft with road stability, controllability and balancing with respect to the vertical axis
            And the plumage (in general) refers to aerodynamic surfaces that provide stability, controllability and balance of the aircraft in flight.



            Threat. maybe this picture will explain what?

            and this one with UVT m / y by the way, probably will not have vertical tail

            Quote: Tusv
            Two vectors give rise to the desired vector without loading the glider

            Yes bullshit.
            What does “needed” mean?

            all forces acting on the aircraft in flight can be reduced to three: total aerodynamic force Ra (->), gravity G (->) and engine thrust P (->). These forces, in turn, can be reduced to the resultant force F (->) applied at the center of mass of the aircraft, and the moment M (->) relative to the center of mass:

            In the general case, the force and moment acting on the plane are nonzero and the plane moves progressively along the force vector with acceleration j = F / m and rotates about an axis directed along the vector with angular acceleration

            j is the linear acceleration of the center of mass of the aircraft, m / s2;
            F - force acting on the aircraft, N;
            m is the mass of the aircraft, kg;
            ε– angular acceleration of the aircraft, rad / s;
            M is the moment of forces acting on the plane, Nm;
            Jm is the moment of inertia of the aircraft relative to the center of mass, kgm2.
          3. 0
            4 October 2017 03: 22
            Stirlitz smashed nonsense. Nonsense squealed and escaped from the hands.
      2. 0
        4 October 2017 09: 28
        Quote: d ^ Amir
        UVT glider can not stand .... it will have to redesign the entire plane ...


        Why would such an opinion?
        Are you an aircraft designer?
        The designed overload for the F-16 is 9g - more than enough.
        Another thing is that the UVT design itself has more weight and it will be necessary to solve the problems of compensating the rear centering.
        But no one will do this - the concept of supermoveability was studied in detail on the experimental X-31A from 1991-1994.


        According to representatives of the US Air Force. X-31A reversal time in supercritical mode is 30% less than conventional reversal with high overload. Evaluation of the combat effectiveness of the X-31A in numerous research fights with the F-18 aircraft "yielded remarkable results." This assessment was aimed at studying the effectiveness of supercritical maneuvering. In the process of joint maneuvering, three main combat maneuvers were studied and mastered: a sharp change in pitch, a turn with access to supercritical angles of attack, and a helicopter attack maneuver. In the latter case, according to the pilot, “tracking the target with the yaw line of the fuselage was achieved well.”

        In UVT (Vector) projects, they plan to abandon vertical plumage.
    2. +9
      3 October 2017 19: 30
      the "deadly" su-xnumx And quotes for what?
      1. +5
        3 October 2017 21: 38
        Quote: VERESK
        the "deadly" su-xnumx And quotes for what?

        Correctly noticed. Only now I won’t understand something, but why was this pair chosen for comparison? Wrong, actually. I-15 and MIG-15, these analysts did not try to compare?
        1. +3
          3 October 2017 21: 51
          I-15 and MIG-15, these analysts did not try to compare? Soon we’ll also see a comparison of water with ice in combat qualities ... hi
          1. +1
            3 October 2017 21: 53
            Quote: VERESK
            I-15 and MIG-15, these analysts did not try to compare? Soon we’ll also see a comparison of water with ice in combat qualities ... hi



            This is not the worst option ... one freak recently compared an iron with a sperm here ...
      2. 0
        4 October 2017 00: 59
        Quote: VERESK
        quotes for what?

        has not yet killed anyone.
        There are no military victories.
        Quote: Reserve officer
        . Only now I won’t understand something, but why was this pair chosen for comparison?

        because the F-16 is the workhorse of the United States and NATO in fact
        and the Su-35 will be the same horse in the Russian Aerospace Forces
    3. +8
      3 October 2017 19: 34
      Quote: Zaurbek
      UVT for the F-16 would greatly extend the life of this beautiful aircraft. AFAR, as I understand it, is already in the latest versions.

      Yes, but when I remember how our Su-27 flew to the USA and the subsequent vile steps of the mattresses, after losing “fights” in the trash, I don’t feel like talking about a “beautiful” plane and wonderful US Soviets ... especially after Majumar) )))
      Just read the statements of Kharchevsky.

      More than, including about trade cuts in the military-industrial complex on both sides.

      https://rg.ru/2007/08/10/reg-chernoz/harchevskiy.
      html
    4. +5
      3 October 2017 21: 04
      Quote: Zaurbek
      UVT for the F-16 would greatly extend the life of this beautiful aircraft

      Is UVT possible on a single nozzle? Imagine the thrust vector, but it’s not frail in the falcon, it’s wet with a sledgehammer along the tail with all the dope
      1. +5
        4 October 2017 00: 27
        Volodya, Salute! I will not go into the discussion ... I was pleased with another news:
        “The crews of the latest Su-34 fighter-bomber aircraft of the Eastern Military District, deployed in the Khabarovsk Territory, performed flights to the stratosphere in supersonic mode,” the press service of the Eastern Military District reports.

        According to the press service of the BBO, the crews of combat aircraft worked out elements of aerobatics and elements of air combat.

        Interestingly, do our “striped colleagues” train there?
        1. +3
          4 October 2017 01: 18
          Quote: Solomon Kane
          Interestingly, do our “striped colleagues” train there?

          Where to them lol . The stratosphere starts at 11.000 m, commercial airlines fly at such altitudes --- there are more stable flight conditions, not to mention military aviation. They would also write that the training took place in "pre-space", it sounds pretty cool.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        4 October 2017 02: 24
        and two snot - two sledgehammers! Logic  laughing
  2. +2
    3 October 2017 18: 54
    It’s more correct to translate the name of the Viper modification not “viper”, but “reptile”
  3. +16
    3 October 2017 18: 55
    It’s somehow unethical to compare the characteristics of the light F-16 and heavy Su-35. But both cars are really beautiful. And this one is generally lovely. And whoever will bury someone in a battle, I hope it won’t reach it. Otherwise, the 16th will leave ... for anything. And this is near Khabarovsk.
    1. +11
      3 October 2017 19: 00
      Totally agree with you. If you compare the Falcon then with Mig 29.
      1. +8
        3 October 2017 19: 08
        Quote: Radomir
        Totally agree with you. If you compare the Falcon then with Mig 29.

        Rather, with the MIG-35. hi
        1. +7
          3 October 2017 19: 20
          NEXUS! hi We have a lot of 35's? All the data is different.
          1. +6
            3 October 2017 19: 47
            Quote: VERESK
            NEXUS! hi We have a lot of 35's? All the data is different.

            No ... he is being finished, completed ... in general ... there are a lot of problems with him. Serial production is scheduled for 2019. But I'm afraid that this average MFI is becoming obsolete faster than necessary. It seems that the Bug-A radar was brought to mind, but they suffered with it unforgivably long.
            At the same time, its price is almost close to the cost of the already proven SU-35S, which is a heavy IFI. This is unacceptable, given the concept of a fighter pair, the ratio of the number of heavy to light fighters should be one heavy, 2 light, due to the fact that light fighters are stupidly cheaper.
            Another problem, I think so, is the weight of the MIG-35, which translates it from the class of light fighters to medium. That is, in fact, we have already four heavy fighters, these are SU-30/35 and in the future SU-57, and In addition to this, the MIG-35 is also not much lighter than the ones listed above, while the functions of the dryers are almost the same as those of the MIG-35. That is, the mottling of machines will greatly add to the work of techies.
            I think that it would be much more useful for the Mikoyanites to concentrate their efforts on creating a really light front-line fighter of generation 5. Such work is underway, but information on this issue is very slow. In fact, my opinion is that the MIG-35 was 20 years late and there is no point in reanimating this project now, as drying has occupied its niche a long time ago.
            1. +8
              3 October 2017 19: 52
              Apparently, Mikoyanovtsy are trying to rush from wall to wall. MIG-35 was 20 years late Namely, a lightweight fighter is needed. The MiG is no longer able to concoct it. Who will? Not everything is good in the country of advice. crying Thank you.
              1. +5
                3 October 2017 19: 58
                Quote: VERESK
                But a light fighter is needed. The MiG is no longer able to concoct it. Who will be?

                Now all design bureaus are united in a single corporation and work on generation 5 LFIs, which started the MIG design bureau on an initiative basis, now I think will continue throughout the world.
                1. +5
                  3 October 2017 20: 05
                  , Now I think they will continue with the whole world. We believe. God bless us. hi
            2. +3
              3 October 2017 21: 02
              For the price, like for two Su-35S three MiGa-35s. This is quite bearable. So let them saw, it will come in handy for us. In general, the MiG-35 is more of an export project. He will be fooled by all the small countries that are currently sitting on 29 MIGs and looking for new customers. Many fighters do not want to buy heavy fighters in principle, for various reasons, this is an excess for them. F35 a lame duck and if your country is not an American mongrel, it is not needed for nothing. Remain F-16 in full mincemeat, Rafal, MiG-35 and Gripen. The rest or junk, or do not reach the characteristics.
            3. +1
              3 October 2017 22: 23
              Quote: NEXUS
              In fact, my opinion is that the MIG-35 was 20 years late and there is no point in reanimating this project now, as drying has occupied its niche a long time ago.

              In fact, this error comes from MIG-29 .. Initially, he lost to Sushka in all respects, and only the lobby of the MiG office gave him life .. There can be no cheapness of modern aircraft because you can forget about efficiency .. Generic drawback of MiG 29-35 it was not possible to solve a small fuel supply, in the 35th version the weight increased sharply and brought to nothing the MiG's trump cards in maneuverability .. There is no sense in this aircraft .. Only export to occupy the plant’s capacities ..
              1. +2
                3 October 2017 22: 57
                And the range was increased there and the weight there is normal due to the use of composites. The maneuverability there is the same, and if the engines with UVT are left, it would be even better. So it's quite a norm. And cheapness is a relative concept, but 40 cartoons in any case are less than 60.
      2. +5
        3 October 2017 19: 09
        There is a very old shooting. Pilots hang out. An-12. Flight only 12 minutes. They can slap at a height.
    2. +3
      4 October 2017 03: 58
      Let's stop the hypocritical lisp with the Americans !! All their planes and pilots - Must "die out in weeds" for those atrocities against civilians in other countries that they have been repairing for more than half a century !! am
      "Good American - Dead American" good
  4. +3
    3 October 2017 19: 07
    During training, the United States Air Force uses the Su-27 as an "enemy"

    I wish our pilots during training used F-16, F-22 and F-35 as an “enemy”! Good practice. good
    1. Martian
      +2
      3 October 2017 19: 23
      Quote from serry
      I wish our pilots used F-16, F-22 and F-35 as an “enemy” during training

      Yeah, I can imagine how the “partners” will respond to the request to sell a couple of F-16s or any other -15 or -18 for any thread of the training center with the wording - “study guide” or “for representing a likely opponent” laughing The "democratic" media of the white and fluffy West would have raised such a stench, and the generals in the Pentacon would have pulled out of their coils. I’m silent about "Tse Europe" ... laughing
    2. +5
      3 October 2017 19: 40
      What for? For serriy It’s enough for us how they “train.” We know their machines. And not sorry, for some reason! good
    3. 0
      3 October 2017 20: 37
      Quote from serry
      I wish our pilots during training used F-16, F-22 and F-35 as an “enemy”! Good practice

      For this there is a Yak-130. Can imitate anything
  5. Martian
    +4
    3 October 2017 19: 10
    I'll take it from the marine theme. For a start, certain criteria are usually chosen. Take, for example, one-year from one class and compare. Or take two vessels of the same displacement and compare. And entot American "analyst" with a hard-to-pronounce last name compares one criteria he knows. Just two fighters. Well it is, my personal opinion request
  6. +4
    3 October 2017 19: 37
    Firstly, I consider it absolutely incorrect to compare the Su-35 and F-16. These are two different classes of cars.
    They would try to compare the F15 and Su-35, I agree that the comparative performance characteristics would clearly not be in favor of the F-15.
    1. +6
      3 October 2017 19: 48
      The F-15 is a good car. But no longer in time. Su-35 is a masterpiece. Compare these two cars is an empty lesson. Iron with a sperm. Who is cooler and faster?
      1. +4
        3 October 2017 20: 09
        I'm talking about what .. smile Firstly, the similarity of the airframe, weight category, thrust-weight ratio, a similar two propulsion system, sighting systems, radars. Two heavy fighters gaining superiority in the air, for which they actually were created. Only ours, this is the further development of the Su-27, but there is no further development of the F-15, as a fundamentally new machine. Well, comparing the lightweight F-16 with the Su-35 is tantamount to a Lada vs Volga.
        1. +4
          3 October 2017 20: 19
          Quote: Zubr
          I'm talking about what .. smile Firstly, the similarity of the airframe, weight category, thrust-weight ratio, a similar two propulsion system, sighting systems, radars. Two heavy fighters gaining superiority in the air, for which they actually were created. Only ours, this is the further development of the Su-27, but there is no further development of the F-15, as a fundamentally new machine. Well, comparing the lightweight F-16 with the Su-35 is tantamount to a Lada vs Volga.




          And the F-15SE Silent Eagle, presumably, is not the further development of the f-15 but which thread of another aircraft ...
          1. +5
            3 October 2017 20: 21
            This is one of the modifications to the F-15. The abbreviation has not changed. We also had SU-27M, SM, SM3, etc. But the fundamental changes to the airframe, its materials ... soldier
            1. +4
              3 October 2017 20: 30
              Quote: Zubr
              This is one of the modifications to the F-15. The abbreviation has not changed. We also had SU-27M, SM, SM3, etc. But the fundamental changes to the airframe, its materials ... soldier



              That's how ... it was worth the amers call it F-314 for example, that's all, it would be another plane ....


              Maybe you will still be interested in the differences between the f-15SE and the basic f-15 ... you will learn a lot of interesting things for yourself .. and on avionics and motors .. and on gliders and materials .. and on EPR .. maybe you won’t write after that their conclusions with such an unjustified aplomb ...
              1. +1
                3 October 2017 20: 35
                I will certainly take your advice .. smile
                1. +1
                  3 October 2017 20: 40
                  Quote: Zubr
                  I will certainly take your advice .. smile



                  I doubt it ... but better late than never ...
                  1. 0
                    4 October 2017 00: 31
                    Better Compare Tu-22 and Tu-22M3
                    1. +2
                      4 October 2017 19: 40
                      Better Compare Tu-22 and Tu-22M3 Wow, Doc! These cars are not just different, but from simply-absolutely.
  7. +2
    3 October 2017 19: 58
    Quote: VERESK
    The F-15 is a good car. But no longer in time. Su-35 is a masterpiece. Compare these two cars is an empty lesson. Iron with a sperm. Who is cooler and faster?




    And in this allegory of yours, the Su-35 iron or sperm?
    1. +4
      3 October 2017 20: 09
      Su-35 iron or sperm? Read the comments carefully. Then prerogatives in priority setting may come.
      1. +4
        3 October 2017 20: 21
        Quote: VERESK
        Su-35 iron or sperm? Read the comments carefully. Then prerogatives in priority setting may come.



        For some reason, your linguistic exercises resemble the famous: ... from the point of view of banal erudition and further in the text ...
        1. +2
          3 October 2017 20: 25
          from the point of view of banal erudition And then in the text, no way? Okay. I’ll explain it simply. "Sperm" -Su-35. Will it be okay?
          1. ZVO
            +1
            3 October 2017 21: 42
            Quote: VERESK
            from the point of view of banal erudition And then in the text, no way? Okay. I’ll explain it simply. "Sperm" -Su-35. Will it be okay?


            Lives quickly and briefly ... so you wanted to say?
  8. +1
    3 October 2017 20: 04
    Quote: VERESK
    NEXUS! hi We have a lot of 35's? All the data is different.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but they’re not at all in the troops
    1. +2
      3 October 2017 20: 10
      but they’re not at all in the troops No.
  9. 0
    3 October 2017 20: 14
    How would I decide: whether Viper ("Viper"), which is known to be born to crawl, and therefore can not fly, or whether the proud "Attacking Falcon".
    And in general, the worst weapon is a person. And if we are not talking about flapping ears at the airfields, as in 1941, then the native walls will help, definitely.
  10. +1
    3 October 2017 20: 36
    Quote: VERESK
    from the point of view of banal erudition And then in the text, no way? Okay. I’ll explain it simply. "Sperm" -Su-35. Will it be okay?



    I am exactly .. this is your classification ... de gustibus non est disputandum ...
    1. +4
      3 October 2017 20: 38
      .de gustibus non est disputandum ... I’m not interested in your drawings. It’s too late. Compare. If you have desires and professional suitability.And this. The same car is not bad. Identify the pros and cons of both cars.
      1. 0
        3 October 2017 20: 59
        I completely agree with my colleague that comparing the characteristics of the show is not very adequate.
        Multo magis interesting est theatrum vitae
  11. +2
    3 October 2017 20: 48
    Quote: VERESK
    .de gustibus non est disputandum ... I’m not interested in your drawings. It’s too late. Compare. If you have desires and professional suitability.And this. The same car is not bad. Identify the pros and cons of both cars.




    Aqvila non captat muscas .... and the circus at the air show has a very distant relation to the combat properties of the aircraft ...
    1. +4
      3 October 2017 21: 04
      .a circus at an air show has a very distant relation to the combat properties of an airplane ... Namely, if Syria is an Airshow. Do you drop the video of maneuvers in the sky of Syria or do you find it yourself? Or a video of F-16 shot down in the UAE by our Kurgan? Fortunately, not Satan.
      1. 0
        3 October 2017 21: 22
        Heather. Remember the story of the bombing of a plant near the base of Hmeimim. Sushki had a chance. And our squadron (mixed) was waiting for an answer. But did not wait.
        1. +5
          3 October 2017 21: 46
          Sushki had a chance There wasn’t. According to the contract, the VKS protect only their own. The rest is in the hands of Assad’s troops. You’re not at all going to get there. If there isn’t a contract. And if it is, I don’t envy you.
          1. 0
            3 October 2017 22: 30
            Well, so categorically. I think our VKS and yours on this TVD are equal in strength. And therefore, even with the agreement, they will not be brought to a fight ...
            1. +1
              3 October 2017 23: 19
              What do they mean equal in strength? you have 400 planes there and how many, 20-30? funny to compare
              1. 0
                4 October 2017 07: 58
                No, we have 400 fighters, and you have 1200. Only they still need to carry a battle bowl. over a large territory and a range of up to several thousand kilometers of TVD. Plus, the greater experience of our pilots in the conditions of warfare, but a significant advantage in UAVs.
                That's who the sky will be for. Such a real comparison (f 16-su 35)
                1. 0
                  4 October 2017 10: 05
                  our 1200 aircraft (of which 350 are modern, the rest are old) per thousand kilometers. from Syria, and surpassing them closer is unrealistic - there is no infrastructure for them in Syria, so there simply aren’t any actions for the BV theater, there really are a couple of dozen planes, well, sometimes strategists come in to train, enough to drive the barmen in the desert, but no more Togo
            2. +2
              4 October 2017 19: 43
              I think our VKS and yours belay Do you also have a videoconferencing system? wassat
        2. +1
          4 October 2017 04: 10
          Well, who are you lying to here? Everyone here already knows that “yours” first “call” us, ask permission and only then fly somewhere! You don’t have any “freedom to bomb anyone we want”, from the word at all. Each time you are given a one-time permit and try only to deviate from the stated (permitted) goals - you will be writing out the funeral. soldier With all your show-offs, your few thermonuclear charges from the sizzling blow of the Strategic Rocket Forces will not save. And if necessary, then with caliber “from the Caspian Sea” we will make a glass lake out of your desert. So don’t “bounce” here tongue
          1. 0
            4 October 2017 08: 36
            What permissions. This is a myth, a defensive reaction of some colleagues on the site during. Of course, no one will agree on one-time actions in a changing operational environment, especially politics. Yes, command headquarters warn on a special channel about strikes, operations. No more.
    2. +3
      3 October 2017 21: 06
      Your "knowledge" in that part is even more distantly related to the subject of discussion. laughing .
  12. 0
    3 October 2017 21: 00
    Why compare specifications?
    If the war with the Americans, then this is the third world nuclear.
    Yankee, are you ready to die?
    1. 0
      4 October 2017 04: 13
      Not the fact that the collision of these aircraft will be between the United States and Russia. ALREADY there was a war where on the one hand there were Su-27 on the other - Mig-29. Yes yes in black Africa feel . I don’t know who piled on whom, but the fact of real military operations of aircraft that were actually created as Allies is important to us.
    2. 0
      4 October 2017 08: 24
      ABOUT! And Khrushchev thought so, and to this music, the fleet, aviation and artillery were cut ...
  13. +1
    3 October 2017 21: 41
    Quote: VERESK
    the "deadly" su-xnumx And quotes for what?

    Is this the plane that has the secret code Whack-9? Probably fate drove by hand
  14. 0
    3 October 2017 23: 41
    But if we compare the capabilities of 200 F-16s versus 50 Su-30s?
  15. 0
    4 October 2017 00: 41
    Then it’s more logical to take F-15 as rivals, he is definitely a worthy opponent!
  16. +1
    4 October 2017 04: 09
    Doubtful expert, compares different classes of fighters.
    Su-35 heavy fighter, F-16 light.

    It is necessary to compare with the lungs. But even the F-16 with the Mig-29 is somehow not right. The F16 has one engine, and the Mig-29 has two.
  17. 0
    4 October 2017 08: 01
    Su-35 eats any ...
  18. 0
    4 October 2017 08: 18
    Question: why does the NI expert compare these two machines? It makes more sense, I think, to compare "classmates." F-15 and Su-35, F-16 and MiG-35?
    1. +1
      4 October 2017 14: 28
      Because he is not an expert, but a clown who entertains American military pensioners and couch wars Yes .
  19. 0
    4 October 2017 17: 42
    F-16 Fighting Falcon- American multi-functional light fighter.
    If we compare it, it is with a moment. With regard to the creation of a rotary nozzle and its management is a very difficult technical task. The simplest single-axis scheme implemented on the aircraft Su-30MKI, F-22. A more complex two-axis scheme, which is used on the MiG-29OVT, F-16 MATV "VISTA", F-15 "ACTIV" and provides independent control of pitch, yaw and roll. When reaching large angles of attack, the flow stalls at the edges of the air intakes and a so-called surge occurs - pulsations of the air flow, due to which the engine stalls. The appearance of surge effects is highly dependent on the location of the air intakes and their shape. The configuration of the air intakes on the Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters ensures stable operation of the engine when reaching large angles of attack corresponding to tail-to-front flight. In addition to this moment, the speed drops sharply, and the working conditions of the air intake become close to the operation of the engine on a fixed stand, where there is no flow stall.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"