Military Review

Su-35 vs F-35. "Uncle beats a child with a bat"

83



Is the most secretive American combat aircraft F-35 easy prey fighter Su-35? Some believe that this is a completely true statement, writes indrus.in 26 July.

In July, the 2008 was a simulation of air combat with the participation of the Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F / A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was “battered like a child”. The simulation was conducted at the Hikam base of the US Air Force in Hawaii, which was witnessed by at least four representatives of the Air Force and Australian military intelligence. The deputy of the Australian Parliament, Dennis Jensen, knowingly said that in the course of “highly secret modeling”, the F-35 was “mercilessly beaten by the Su-35 fighter”.

Sukhoi company presents Su-35 as a fighter of the 4 ++ generation with some signs of the fifth generation, that is, with stealth characteristics. His ability to shoot down stealth planes is largely determined by super-maneuverability. Very expensive Western fighters are in the role of "plates" for rifle shooting.

The power plant Su-35 allows you to perform all kinds of difficult maneuvers, including the Pugachev Cobra, the Frolov Chakra and the unprecedented pancake (Pancake is a horizontal turn almost on the spot at 360 hail without a loss of speed — without the loss of speed doubtful statement - comment "VP").

Western analysts do not attach much importance to super-maneuverability, believing that in real combat operations, stealth is more important than super-maneuverability. Stealth is a parameter that stays with a fighter "anytime, any day." Northrop Grumman's business program manager Pete Bartos (Pete Bartos) says that stealth was a basic requirement for developing F-35 and therefore it does not need high maneuverability.

However, the authoritative military source Defense Industry Daily writes that "stealth is very useful, but this is not the Harry Potter invisibility cloak," after all. Indeed, the US Air Force stuck on stealth, while the theory of air combat is constantly evolving. “In 1940-1950's, the priorities were first the height, then the speed, the maneuver and the firepower. From the third and fourth generations of fighters, priorities shifted to speed, then maneuver, and finally, super-maneuverability. It’s like a knife in a soldier’s pocket, ”said Sergey Bogdan, chief test pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, in an interview with Aviation Week.

Expert on aviation Bill Sweetman says the maneuvers that the Su-35 demonstrated at the Paris Air Show should not be mistaken for air superiority. “However, these maneuvers are not aerobatic tricks. An unpredictable flight path of a fighter can lead to malfunctions of the enemy missile guidance algorithms, the fighter itself can launch short-range missiles with a high probability of hitting an enemy aircraft, ”the expert says.

F-35 completely depends on its low profile and prefers not to get involved in a close air combat (“knife fight” - knife fight), where it will be very vulnerable from Su-35. Russian fighter possesses a large deadly arsenal weapons, increased flight range and, of course, the legendary super-maneuverability, which has become the hallmark of the Su-27 family.

Sergey Bogdan recalls that in 1989, the Su-27 performed the Cobra: “A quick change in speed can lead to a breakdown in tracking an enemy fighter’s Doppler radar. The maneuver is even more effective on the Su-35C, because after this maneuver the pilot can direct the aircraft in any direction. ”

Bill Sweetman says that the tactical advantage of doing a cobra is that any air-to-air missile has an “intellectual element” that predicts where the target will be after a while, but not in the case of a cobra. “If an enemy plane flies with an unpredictable trajectory and is able to change it unexpectedly and very sharply, without losing controllability, then it will be very difficult for the rocket to hit it,” the expert says. Vigorous maneuvers performed by the fighter, reduce the range of effective launch of enemy missiles, says Sweetman.

To destroy the Su-35, the F-35 fighter must come closer, thus putting it at risk of being detected (the powerful Su-35 radar can do it, especially since this aircraft has the most long-range air combat missiles with a range of 400 km developed by the company "Vympel", which is a world record - which rockets are meant, the source does not specify - comment "VP").

The expert also reports that the American tactics of air combat boils down to three principles - “first found, first shot, first destroyed”. With the advent of the Su-35, this tactic may be revised. F-35 may be the first to detect the Su-35, but for the use of missiles it must approach, and at this time both opponents will see each other. "In this case, the advantage of stealth is significantly reduced," says Sweetman.

In close combat, the Su-35С, with its uncanny ability to fly at minimum speeds and at the same time sharply accelerate to supersonic speeds, turns into a hunter. The maximum speed of the aircraft is 2,5M, the range of the flight is 3600 km, in the configuration of the air combat fighter, it can carry 12 medium-range missiles Vympel (probably mean R-77 RV of various modifications - comment “VP”). The F-35 fighter can carry only a handful of missiles, the range is only 2222 km, and its maximum speed 1,6М seems to speak only of the desire to "die as soon as possible."

In fact, the F-35 does not offer the “extravagant capabilities” that most Air Force countries of the world need. Conversely, the Su-35C offers efficiency on a par with fifth-generation fighter jets. Even worse, for the Western air force, it is the fact that they already see the vulnerability of the F-35 when it has not yet entered service, and after all, by the 2020-th year, there will be combat stealth fighters "Sukhoi" PAK FA. There is still enough time for the pilots of many Western fighters to change their profession to a different, safer career.
Author:
Originator:
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/06/26/scatter_its_the_super_flanker_26501.html
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Makarov
    Makarov 28 June 2013 05: 46 New
    44
    don't underestimate the potential adversary, but the Su technique is simply astounding - and that's a fact
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 28 June 2013 05: 50 New
      14
      Yes, the question is not in evaluation and phalometry should be, but in the unit ratio of units in service.
      1. avant-garde
        avant-garde 28 June 2013 05: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: We refund_SSSR
        and the unit ratio of units in service.

        Well, you will agree that these are not pies and there is no way to cook them in hundreds a month, and is it necessary ??? I think they will be made as many as will be necessary to fulfill the tasks assigned to the SU-35, and this number is for sure of course. Another thing is that it is necessary to carry out the plans prescribed in the GPA, perhaps even to the detriment of foreign contracts.
        All hi
        1. Refund_SSSR
          Refund_SSSR 28 June 2013 06: 52 New
          +3
          Quote: avant-garde
          Another thing is that it is necessary to carry out the plans prescribed in the GPA, perhaps even to the detriment of foreign contracts.

          Well, actually this was a hint.
        2. Airman
          Airman 28 June 2013 10: 27 New
          0
          Quote: avant-garde
          Quote: We refund_SSSR
          and the unit ratio of units in service.

          Well, you will agree that these are not pies and there is no way to cook them in hundreds a month, and is it necessary ??? I think they will be made as many as will be necessary to fulfill the tasks assigned to the SU-35, and this number is for sure of course. Another thing is that it is necessary to carry out the plans prescribed in the GPA, perhaps even to the detriment of foreign contracts.
          All hi


          For 15 years, Sukhoi firm exported about 450 aircraft, that is, about 30 per year.
      2. Che
        Che 29 June 2013 08: 41 New
        0
        Well, several regiments of these dryers would not hurt us. The enemy is strong and dangerous - this is an axiom.
    2. avant-garde
      avant-garde 28 June 2013 06: 02 New
      +9
      Quote: Makarov
      don't underestimate the potential adversary

      So, it’s not we who don’t appreciate it, but the Americans themselves draw such conclusions, so there’s no yes
      1. alexng
        alexng 28 June 2013 06: 27 New
        +6
        The Yanks have a new chip (fi-35) "hat - invisibility", this is the hat-casting.
        1. tronin.maxim
          tronin.maxim 28 June 2013 06: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: alexneg
          The Yanks have a new chip (fi-35) "hat - invisibility", this is the hat-casting.

          Well then, our Su-35s boots have walkers! laughing
          1. Tarpon
            Tarpon 28 June 2013 08: 13 New
            +5
            And a sword-hoarder!
          2. SMikhalych
            SMikhalych 5 December 2017 16: 53 New
            0
            And the invisible hat!
      2. krasin
        krasin 28 June 2013 07: 09 New
        +1
        There is still enough time for the pilots of many Western fighters to change their profession to another, safer career.

        Judging by the parameters and the character, I would be in their place, it’s better to twist the nuts in a sharashka. wassat
      3. the polar
        the polar 28 June 2013 09: 44 New
        -1
        Quote: avant-garde
        Quote: Makarov
        don't underestimate the potential adversary

        So, it’s not we who don’t appreciate it, but the Americans themselves draw such conclusions, so there’s no yes

        There is an increasing need to test the F-35 and SU-35 in real battles, so the supply of China SU-35 is justified, due to the imminent appearance in Japan and Korea of ​​F-35
        1. No_more
          No_more 28 June 2013 11: 45 New
          +1
          And the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese immediately looked at each other a sigh and began to fight, "It must be, then it is necessary"?
      4. Odysseus
        Odysseus 28 June 2013 17: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: avant-garde
        So, it’s not we who don’t appreciate it, but the Americans themselves draw such conclusions, so there’s no

        I would not want to upset you, but this is not the Americans writing, but the Russian-Indian newspaper.
        1. Tuareg72
          Tuareg72 21 December 2017 08: 56 New
          0
          And I would not want to upset you, but many write about it. And many amer
    3. DEfindER
      DEfindER 28 June 2013 09: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: Makarov
      don't underestimate the potential adversary

      I agree that to defeat the F-35, you need not only the plane itself, but also a virtuoso pilot, a melee master. Moreover, I would not be so sure that the Su-35 could be the first to detect an American whose ESR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for F-35) i.e. Before engaging in close combat, our pilot will have to make several maneuvers of evading already launched enemy missiles, i.e. need a professional pilot and not a beginner ..
      1. Airman
        Airman 28 June 2013 10: 36 New
        -1
        Quote: DEfindER
        Quote: Makarov
        don't underestimate the potential adversary

        I agree that to defeat the F-35, you need not only the plane itself, but also a virtuoso pilot, a melee master. Moreover, I would not be so sure that the Su-35 could be the first to detect an American whose ESR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for F-35) i.e. Before engaging in close combat, our pilot will have to make several maneuvers of evading already launched enemy missiles, i.e. need a professional pilot and not a beginner ..

        No need to engage in cap-making, you forget about the F-22, which is the main fighter in the United States, and which will only now be delivered to Israel. And the F-35 is an unsuccessful attempt to save, and the avaricious pays twice.
        1. DEfindER
          DEfindER 28 June 2013 16: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Povshnik
          you forget about the F-22, which is the main fighter in the United States, and which will only now be delivered to Israel

          The first time I hear where this infa was? I think that Israel will not economically pull such a fighter ..
        2. Tuareg72
          Tuareg72 21 December 2017 09: 14 New
          0
          Yes, now the big question is whether Jews will buy raptors. They are shocked by 35, after this "invisible miracle" from the antediluvian Soviet shooter barely took their feet. And they do not give a damn, even despite the relentless movement in the wake of the amers, for how many dollars their equipment will fall from the sky. And what will fall, so do not go to the grandmother. One hundred percent Russia, in the near future, is ready to supply the Syrian army with modern weapons, and the relations of Russia and Israel with Assad have nothing to do
        3. tracker
          tracker 22 January 2018 16: 00 New
          0
          F-22 is no longer available and most likely Israel will buy F-35
      2. Rus2012
        28 June 2013 20: 37 New
        0
        Quote: DEfindER

        Moreover, I would not be so sure that Su-35 could be the first to find an American whose ESR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for Ф-35) i.e. Before engaging in close combat, our pilot will have to make several maneuvers of evading already launched enemy missiles, i.e. need a professional pilot and not a beginner ..


        "Whose EPR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for Ф-35)" - is it in the frequency range of whose radar?
        As you know, the EPR is not a purely constant value and strongly depends on the operating frequency of the station ...
        1. DEfindER
          DEfindER 28 June 2013 23: 45 New
          -1
          Quote: Rus2012
          "Whose EPR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for Ф-35)" - is it in the frequency range of whose radar?

          Frequency range: X (8-12 GHz), apparently this is the optimal range for an aircraft radar, if you can’t see it in this range, then only the optical remains, but here clouds and fog can cover ..
      3. provinces
        provinces 29 June 2013 02: 57 New
        0
        The value of the EPR of 0,001 (m2, of course) outside of reality is just a square of 3x3 cm2. I met other values ​​of Su-35 2-3 m2, F-35 0,1-0,2 m2.
      4. provinces
        provinces 29 June 2013 03: 30 New
        +1
        Regarding "our pilot will have to make several maneuvers of evading already launched missiles" are also big doubts.
        The range of f-35 missiles is highly dependent on altitude (air density, therefore, its resistance value) and speed. At maximum altitudes and supersonic speeds, the F-35 range is 110 km. But!!!! About secrecy, then we are not talking.
        At an altitude of about 10 m in subsonic mode (stealth) - the missile range is already 000 km. And at heights of 60-2 km - only 3 km (the last figure I give with an accuracy of + - 20 km).
        It turns out that the f-35 will detect earlier, choose a convenient position, but until it approaches the range of destruction, it will be detected.
      5. tralmaster.
        tralmaster. 8 December 2017 21: 06 New
        +1
        But they don’t teach pilots to fly in a straight line. In the USSR there was less raid than now. And the technique is excellent. The Me-109 was also much better than the I-16, and by a lot, but on the Leningrad front they flew and shot down the Nazis until they were 43 years old. Someone defends the MOTHERLAND and someone on ambition. When the first bomb explodes in America, then let's see huh-ih-hu.
    4. Joker
      Joker 28 June 2013 15: 13 New
      +6
      The author does not take into account our history in the article; we never attack, but defend ourselves. I think SU-35 has a thing that receives signals about targets from ground-based radars? Yes, 100% is there, and then the F-35 can be kayuk, the F-35 can detect the on-board radar quickly, but the ground-based radar will do 100% and then at least F-35 will be far away, even if it's close, but no invisibility will help it. For some reason nobody takes this fact into account, everyone always talks about air battles, as if opponents are fighting without the support of other means, it is worthwhile to consider reconnaissance planes, air defense, if you collect everything from American fighters in our land, there are no chances to survive zero, if only they will not immediately fly with the EU together with the EU, and this is impossible, as we have intelligence and radar, and there in the event of an air raid, the pilots will have nowhere to return, because all their airfields together with their countries will be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Therefore, we need fighter interceptors and more plus T-50, the rest do not need much, the main thing, in spite of any agreements, is to make medium and short range missiles with a nuclear warhead and who the fuck is coming to us, in some local conflict to squeeze low-powered nuclear missiles and everything there will be bricks in the toilet to go, so amers and climb with their disarmament to us, because if there is nuclear weapons in the country and it is developed, who the fuck will get in there. Invisible submarines do with the possibility of launching intercontinental missiles with nuclear weapons and let them patrol across the bottom of the ocean so that the retaliation strike is inevitable, this will cool the hot and blunt heads of the Americans. Regarding SU-35 - I think we should take advantage of the US experience in creating invisible F-18 and do the same with it, not to the detriment of maneuverability, of course, this will further increase the chances of SU-35 to win, plus new weapons from short range to big, like on T-50 will be new, and then you can finish it under others (if necessary) and more planes, more, now they play a VERY important role.
      1. eagle11
        eagle11 28 June 2013 16: 44 New
        0
        It is very difficult to use nuclear weapons, for this we need political will, and understanding that in return we will get the most do not indulge. The integrated use of forces and means, the basis of tactics. But, the United States achieved the greatest success in this. We have virtually no support, and there are no steps in this direction (EW aircraft, tankers, reconnaissance aircraft)
        1. Bashkaus
          Bashkaus 28 June 2013 17: 09 New
          0
          During the Second World War there were quite courageous people who understood their responsibility to their homeland and the hopelessness of losses on their part, including of their lives, so many died laying down on grenades, covering with their breasts the ambrosures and those blowing under the tank. So I think that our country is rich not only in minerals, but also in strong, strong-willed people who are ready at the right time to make the right decision and without hesitation to grapple in mortal combat with the enemy, and not accept the pose of submission. Russia stood on that, stands and wakes up to stand. And all these tolerant liberal values ​​that are now being imposed on us are just being imposed in order to undermine our mentality, so that because of our selfish interests we become afraid of fights and opportunities to get by.
        2. Tuareg72
          Tuareg72 21 December 2017 09: 34 New
          0
          Success amers ??? When and where??? You are this nonsense, do not tell anyone else about their success! They will laugh. And listen less to the "businessman"! He will also tell how they and the coalition not only defeated the bearded in Syria, but also the aliens on the moon
      2. Paradox
        Paradox 12 November 2013 21: 15 New
        0
        Kapets are warriors. Who will fly near the radar? They will be destroyed first, and then such equipment will be allowed in there. Any aircraft will be shot down in 1-2 minutes if the radar detects (the radar is in the air defense complex)
    5. Rus2012
      28 June 2013 20: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Makarov
      don't underestimate the potential adversary, but the Su technique is simply astounding - and that's a fact

      ... in this case, dear colleague, estimates from foreign experts, so that’s all!
      here - http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/196416-vsya-pravda-of-35.html
      evaluation
    6. Alekseev
      Alekseev 28 June 2013 23: 29 New
      +2
      Su-35, of course, an outstanding aircraft.
      But considering the combat capabilities of an aircraft (or SAM) in a “duel” battle is not entirely relevant.
      Confrontation in the air is a highly complex task, where aircraft, training of pilots, radio equipment, and electronic warfare especially are important, both support issues and, of course, tactics.
      If, for example, EW means it is possible to achieve serious problems for guiding long-range missiles, then the F-35 is inferior, if not ... then the situation is worse.
      It is also impossible to consider fighting in the air only as air or air combat (as happened in Libya, Yugoslavia, etc.) without taking into account attacks on the airfields of both sides of the conflict, fuel depots, and ammunition.
      Without such strikes, you can’t win a victory in the air when fighting a serious opponent.
      So, Su-35s alone, and even in piece quantities, are not enough to restore the power of the Russian Air Force and bring them to the “21st century appearance”.
  2. fduch
    fduch 28 June 2013 06: 02 New
    0
    "(Pancake - a horizontal turn almost in place at 360 degrees without loss of speed -" without loss of speed "is a dubious statement - approx." VP ")" probably meant without loss of height ....
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 28 June 2013 10: 59 New
      0
      Quote: fduch
      360 degrees without loss of speed - "without loss of speed"

      In the picture depicting this particular pancake, it is clearly seen that the speed does not change significantly, as it happens when performing "Cobra". By all rules and laws, both speed and altitude must change, but this happens within narrow limits.
  3. TRex
    TRex 28 June 2013 06: 06 New
    +3
    Article - balm on the heart! I saw firsthand flights when they worked out the aircraft-bearing theme - they simply fascinate the capabilities of the machine.
  4. Stas
    Stas 28 June 2013 06: 14 New
    +2
    Well, it's nice to be happy for our military aircraft builders and designers. Honor and praise be to them !!!
  5. Bort radist
    Bort radist 28 June 2013 06: 35 New
    16
    Often recently I hear that US pilots have invaluable combat experience. And against whom they fought. They were opposed by aces pilots, sophisticated modern air defense systems. Technique of confrontation bought (the best is usually retained for internal use) Since the days of Vietnam, they have not encountered a worthy opponent (equipment, support, combat experience, .....). So the phrase - a unique combat I would like to call into great doubt.
    1. ale-x
      ale-x 28 June 2013 08: 42 New
      +3
      Yes you are right. Experience they call a big raid, the ability to land on aircraft carriers and multiple bombing of illuminated targets.
      1. eagle11
        eagle11 28 June 2013 16: 50 New
        +4
        What do you call experience “walking in flight”? Open our eyes, the pilots are sitting squadrons on the ground.
    2. Alwizard
      Alwizard 28 June 2013 08: 58 New
      +8
      Regular combat missions, constant combat training missions, bombing and launching of military missiles, each pilot many times a year refuel in the air, including at night, is generally silent about naval aviation.

      Tell me where I'm wrong.

      In some places, they save fuel and fly 50 hours a year — is this “invaluable combat experience” in your opinion? )
      1. Bort radist
        Bort radist 28 June 2013 10: 43 New
        -2
        Quote: Alwizard
        Regular combat missions, constant combat training missions, bombing and launching of military missiles, each pilot many times a year refuel in the air, including at night, is generally silent about naval aviation.
        About "constantly fighting" and "combat training" in more detail?
        And all this in the absence of decent opposition. Rastrel Yugoslavia without entering the zone of defeat, Lebanon, .... Yes raid, experience, but not a UNIQUE combat. A complex of omnipotence is born. And then from heaven to earth. Vietnam is forgotten.
        1. Alwizard
          Alwizard 28 June 2013 12: 03 New
          +2
          I do not understand a bit, what do you want to prove? That a pilot who launched a military missile only performed on the simulator, and saw in the air refueling only on a wall newspaper, is as effective as continuously participating in exercises and military operations? Yes - America never had an opponent of the USSR level, well, no one had a duck, what is there. And vice versa.

          “It’s hard to learn, easy to fight,” consider the operations in Central Asia and Africa to be the same as the exercises.
          1. Bort radist
            Bort radist 28 June 2013 13: 34 New
            -1
            Quote: Alwizard
            operations in Central Asia and Africa are for them the same as exercises.

            Operations against almost unprotected, difficult to call combat experience - all that I want to say. Prove no desires. Time will prove everything.
            PS Where did you serve? nameless?
        2. eagle11
          eagle11 28 June 2013 16: 54 New
          0
          Unfortunately, we did not have such an enemy. compare the losses of the us and vietnam, by the way there (in vietnam) the usa really gained experience, we do not.
          1. Bort radist
            Bort radist 28 June 2013 21: 32 New
            -1
            Quote: eagle11
            the usa has really gained experience, we are not.

            There were many of us where, starting with the sky of Spain.
      2. tupolev-95
        tupolev-95 28 June 2013 14: 18 New
        +1
        They don’t save anymore. It’s immediately obvious that you don’t have a military airfield nearby. Now they ask very strictly for a raid. Of course there are still a lot of flaws, because after all 20 years have been cut. Now you need to build.
      3. Paradox
        Paradox 12 November 2013 21: 21 New
        0
        the norm is 150, and for our country 50 is no longer bad.
    3. tupolev-95
      tupolev-95 28 June 2013 14: 11 New
      0
      [Quote] [The expert also reports that the American tactics of aerial combat boil down to three principles - “first discovered, first shot, first destroyed”. / quote] This will drive against Iraq, but not in this case.
    4. eagle11
      eagle11 28 June 2013 16: 48 New
      +2
      Considering that we do not have experience in using aviation AT ALL (the Caucasus, Tajikistan doesn’t count), then in the USA, we have gained tremendous experience. We have overgrown with papers, serve the idiotic states. New technology, only in dreams.
  6. GEO
    GEO 28 June 2013 06: 52 New
    +3
    There is still enough time for pilots of many western fighters to change their profession to another, safer career
    ============================
    really liked the author’s conclusion. They are afraid that is good.
  7. Nitarius
    Nitarius 28 June 2013 07: 26 New
    +1
    It’s necessary to finish something! The main park, as mentioned above, is worn out. A couple of planes do not solve strategic issues. Improvement is always on - and there is no need to stand still.
  8. Strashila
    Strashila 28 June 2013 07: 41 New
    +1
    Stealth ... as a rule, it is good only in a couple of cases, if the enemy does not have air defense or if there is total superiority in the air, in all other cases sheer profanity. That is a good example of Serbia and Iraq.
  9. wanderer
    wanderer 28 June 2013 08: 27 New
    +5
    In general, it is not correct to compare the Su35 with the F35, they are of a different class, then it will be necessary to compare either the F35 with the MIG 29, or the Su35 with the F22, it will somehow be more honest.
    1. Old skeptic
      Old skeptic 28 June 2013 15: 41 New
      +1
      Check out this material. The hunt for comparison will disappear:

      http://telegrafist.org/2013/06/28/68359/
  10. Andrew 121
    Andrew 121 28 June 2013 08: 35 New
    +8
    Conversation of the pilots: Harry, I really piss when I see Su.
  11. darksoul
    darksoul 28 June 2013 09: 05 New
    -1
    Su-35 this f-35 to the nines ..... their bet on stealth technology has not yet been confirmed in one conflict ... everywhere they are fighting with countries that do not have an air defense system, like a maximum of zsu-23x2 and silka .... as in Yugoslavia F-117 shot down and the point
  12. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 28 June 2013 10: 42 New
    +3
    It is very interesting to listen to the opinions of competent people. There is a question if anyone can enlighten a little. On the one hand, high-tech aircraft are good, but on the other hand, there is only one perching that has been removed from service and there is no Irkutsk plant. Where and most importantly how quickly it will be possible to arrange the production of such aircraft in case of need. It turns out you need a soldier’s plane, the release of which can quickly be established somewhere in the depths of the country. On the other hand, do not step on the rake on which they stepped before the war. Then if anyone remembers greatly modifying the beautiful I-16 and launching the I-15bis and Chaika it was believed that they could quite successfully resist the new Tagans, but by and large the calculation did not materialize. I read this opinion that it would be better if all production capacities were thrown for the release of new aircraft. Today the situation is distant but similar. Then there was also the pursuit of maneuvers in turns and vertical attention was not given the necessary attention. Maybe even now low visibility is more important. And the main quantity that is happening now is not even laughter, but bitter tears. Please express a very interesting opinion of people in this understanding.
  13. Windbreak
    Windbreak 28 June 2013 10: 44 New
    0
    In July 2008, an air battle simulation was carried out with the participation of a Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F / A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was “beaten with a baton as a child”
    “In all the simulated battles on both sides, 240 fighters of various models participated. The result of virtual battles turned out to be this:
    - Su-35C vs F / A-18E / F. With losses of about two hundred aircraft, Russian fighters completely destroyed the enemy;
    - Su-35C vs F-22. 139 Raptor and 33 Su-35С flew off the battlefield;
    - Su-35S vs F-35. The “dryers” were completely destroyed, while only three dozen Lightnings survived. “Well, just beating
    1. Alwizard
      Alwizard 28 June 2013 11: 57 New
      0
      The louder the headline, the better.
    2. TRAFFIC
      TRAFFIC 28 June 2013 12: 04 New
      +3
      Actually, these are all fairy tales, there was no simulation http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air
      -pow.html those who know English will read for themselves. For those who do not know briefly: China’s attack on Taiwan was considered
      At the same time, the briefing does not back up this remark by Maj Gen Charles Davis: "The exercise involved basing capacity around the Pacific Rim. It was a logistics and deployablility exercise, not a battle."
      The exercise looked at basing and logistics opportunities in the Pacific.
      The analysts assume Kadena is wiped out by short-range ballistic missiles within the first minutes of the conflict.
      Analysts have suggested that the air base in Kaden will be destroyed by ballistic missiles in the first minutes of the conflict
      Operating from Andersen, RAND says that only six F-22s carrying a maximum of 48 air to air missiles can remain on station above Taiwan at any one time.
      Operating from Andersen base, only 6 F-22s with 48 missiles can be located over Taiwan
      Chinese respond by launching three air regiments - 72 SU-27s carrying 912 air to air missiles
      China puts 72 Su-27 against them
      For the purposes of discussion, RAND assumes the most optimistic outcome: Every missile fired by the F-22s find their mark, and none of the Chinese missiles shoots down an F-22
      Even if all F-22 missiles destroy 48 Su-27s, there are still 24 Su-27s left that destroy tankers and F-22 simply fall into the sea without fuel, the F-35 is out of business at all. The Australian deputy invented the F-35 , and about what you wrote came up with Karl Kopp, an Australian analyst. It is strange that Rakesh Krishnan Simha did not know about this. laughing
  14. Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 June 2013 12: 23 New
    +9
    The article is completely nonsense and frankly, bewilderment is the comments of people who took it at face value. To begin with, in 2008. as such, the Su-35S was not in nature, there was a prototype T-10BM board number 901. While US specialists could rely on the Su-27 and Su-30 for flight performance, then they could not have any data on the airborne equipment, radar characteristics, and communications equipment. What modeling could be done? As in children's games about the war game "fall I hit you!"? And the phrase "His ability to shoot down stealth aircraft is largely determined by super maneuverability." - generally from the area of ​​warm / soft. As if the ability to shoot down stealth aircraft is determined by the capabilities of the radar, you can carry out dizzy somersaults in the air for half a day, but if you do not find the enemy, you can not shoot him down.
    Further: “If an enemy’s plane flies with an unpredictable trajectory and is able to change it unexpectedly and very abruptly without losing control, then it will be very difficult for a rocket to hit it,” the expert says. The energetic maneuvers performed by the fighter reduce the effective launching range of the enemy’s missiles, Sweetman said. "How does he imagine it? Did the Su-35S link fly out and start the cobra to twist in the air? Why the hell should they fly with an unpredictable trajectory? An airplane performing intensive maneuvering doesn't will be able to detect anyone in the air at all, neither visually, nor even radar.
    Further: “With the advent of the Su-35, this tactic can be revised. The F-35 may be the first to detect the Su-35, but for the use of missiles it must come closer, and at the same time both opponents will see each other” - Why come closer? At 100 km. F-35 is able to hit the Su-35S with medium-range missiles, can the Su-35S radar at this distance see it? It is doubtful otherwise the US Air Force would have ordered an airborne missile with a range of 200 km.
    So all this is nonsense ...
    1. PLO
      PLO 28 June 2013 15: 05 New
      +1
      article of course is nonsense, but you'd better keep silent too


      Why come close? At 100 km. F-35 is able to hit the Su-35S with medium-range missiles, can the Su-35S radar at this distance see it?

      all the so-called stealth planes are invisible only as long as they maintain a radio silence, and in order for him to detect someone at a distance of 100 km he needs to turn on the radar, i.e. no talk about any stealth
      and yet, yes, H035 Irbis will be able to detect f-35s per 100km without problems, stealth is not a panacea, just like supermovement
      this is also from the series about small radars)
      So all this is nonsense ... (c)
      1. sergey261180
        sergey261180 28 June 2013 21: 31 New
        0
        and in order for him to detect someone at a distance of 100 km he needs to turn on the radar, i.e. no talk about any stealth
        And he doesn’t have to turn on the radar; the target data can be obtained from the AWACS plane.
        1. PLO
          PLO 28 June 2013 22: 43 New
          0
          And he doesn’t have to turn on the radar; the target data can be obtained from the AWACS plane.

          in the same way any plane can receive them, besides not only from AWACS.
          just not the point
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 1 July 2013 09: 55 New
        +1
        The included radar can only provide the bearing of the target, i.e. to indicate that the aircraft’s radar is working somewhere, it will be impossible to determine the exact location of the target for guiding the rocket. Moreover, "American AFAR radars can operate in the mode of emission of a broadband noise-like low-power signal, which is rather difficult to detect. This mode is the main advantage of the AFAR."
        Next, the one who first detects the enemy will win, the F-35 will have a much higher chance of finding the Su-35C first, because The ESR of the latter will be noticeably increased by the external suspension of air-to-air missiles; moreover, the F-35 is capable of detecting the Su-27 at a distance of 350 km.
        Quote: olp
        and yet yes H035 Irbis can easily detect f-35 per 100km
        - a rather controversial statement that has not been verified by anyone, EPR Lightning is not well known to anyone, never met the Su-35S in the air with the F-35, the Americans have long known the characteristics of the Su-27/30, because Su-35 is not particularly different from them in size and design, then these parameters will be true for him. Those. In terms of radar visibility, the Su-35C is not a secret for Americans, but the same cannot be said for the F-35.
        As you can see, the right of the “first shot” will be for the F-35, after which the pilot in the Su-35S will not be able to detect the enemy missiles or shoot down the enemy missiles with the electronic warfare, maneuver and missiles with the TGSN.
        1. PLO
          PLO 2 July 2013 17: 21 New
          0
          The included radar can only provide the bearing of the target, i.e. to indicate that the aircraft’s radar is working somewhere, it will be impossible to determine the exact location of the target for guiding the rocket.

          and you don’t have to determine the exact location
          a missile is launched on radar radiation, in principle, all aircraft missiles have an SSS (active or passive)

          Next, the one who first detects the enemy will win, the F-35 will have a much higher chance of finding the Su-35C first, because The ESR of the latter will be noticeably increased by the external suspension of air-to-air missiles; moreover, the F-35 is capable of detecting the Su-27 at a distance of 350 km.

          Once again, with the radar turned on, the EPR of the aircraft does not play the first role in who first detects the target
          it’s ridiculous about the suspension, the F-35 takes only 2 medium-range missiles into the internal compartments, not to mention the fact that without external PTB its combat radius is ridiculous

          Moreover, the F-35 is able to detect the Su-27 at a distance of 350 km.

          - a rather controversial statement, not verified by anyone (s)

          PR Lightning is not well known to anyone, in the air the Su-35S never met the F-35, the Americans have long known the characteristics of the Su-27/30,

          yeah, especially it's very convenient for creating all sorts of myths

          As you can see, the right of the “first shot” will be for the F-35, after which the pilot in the Su-35S will not be able to detect the enemy missiles or shoot down the enemy missiles with the electronic warfare, maneuver and missiles with the TGSN.

          in reality, the right of the first shot will be determined by completely different factors, but in a vacuum in a spherical battle of one Su-35S and like a stealth F-35 (with 2 missiles, a ridiculous combat radius, without cannon weapons) I would not put F-35
    2. provinces
      provinces 29 June 2013 04: 04 New
      -3
      100 km is at extreme heights and supersonic. Supersound is the end of invisibility. And at an altitude of 10 m in subsonic mode - a range of 000 km. At an altitude of 60-2 km, the range is even less at times. Missiles with a range of more than 3 km do not fit in the F-60 (short weapons compartment). A simple rule works here - if you want a range - increase the weight and dimensions of the rocket. At the moment, whatever one may say, the Su-e range cannot be approached by the unnoticed F-35 range.
  15. Apologet insane
    Apologet insane 28 June 2013 12: 44 New
    +3
    Hmm, a typical propaganda article. In a local conflict, we can still oppose Americans with similar experience in the air to Americans, but in a global conflict they will have more experienced pilots who can more easily train more. In addition, little really depends on maneuverability, because the main burden will be borne by the personnel of the AWACS aircraft, which, by the way, we have more, but there are only 2 modernized ones. And the experience of the personnel on our airplanes is also in question. Still, real learning on technology is much more effective than training on simulators.
  16. Nevyatoy
    Nevyatoy 28 June 2013 13: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: Alwizard
    I absolutely support your point of view, for the vast expanses of our country, not tens, but thousands of aircraft are needed, albeit not as technologically advanced as the SU-35.

    One gets the impression that everyone without exception knows from and to .. the military strategy of the Russian Federation, including its secret part.
    I agree that if we, as the United States, intend to sow democracy around the world, we need thousands of SU-35 or cheaper analogues.
    And if we are going to wage defensive wars followed by a counterattack. Please note that the F-22 radar is capable of detecting ground targets at a distance of no more than 70 km. Our s-300 at a distance of 150 to 300 km. I am not special, but I suspect that the S-300 systems have much more invisibility detection capabilities than fighter radars. Moreover, I never heard that the Americans have any obviously effective methods of overcoming our S-300s with their fighters or attack aircraft. By the way, we are armed with 1900 PU S-300, each launcher, if not mistaken, carries 4 missiles. It turns out more than 7000 potentially shot down planes. There are also 72 launchers with the S-400 Triumph in the coverage area (up to 400 km.) Of which, even the “Raptorams” will certainly fly.
    Maybe our few fighters are weapons for counterattacks and gaining air supremacy after the operation of air defense?
    1. eagle11
      eagle11 28 June 2013 17: 00 New
      0
      Without air defense, like a runner without one leg. We do not have Cyprus, where a dozen air defense systems can solve the air defense problem.
    2. Alwizard
      Alwizard 28 June 2013 18: 23 New
      0
      You have extremely strange ideas about the role of multi-role fighters, which cannot be replaced with any S-300. The S-300 has one role - the interception of aircraft and cruise missiles, and there are dozens of them in the fighter-bomber.

      Let’s give the numbers for the number of tanks as an example, they say we have 4000 T-80 of various modifications, why do we need these fighters?

      Mixed salty with green.
  17. Prosto vovochka
    Prosto vovochka 28 June 2013 14: 16 New
    -2
    Let's all drink !!!!!!!!!!!!!
  18. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 28 June 2013 15: 24 New
    +1
    I was touched by the phrase "... and its maximum speed of 1,6M, it seems, speaks only of the desire" to die as soon as possible "." Laughing to hiccups. belay
  19. sergey261180
    sergey261180 28 June 2013 21: 29 New
    -2
    Can the Su-35 take off and land vertically like the F-35B? Not! The comparison is incorrect. The F-35 will soon be used as a strike aircraft instead of the F-16. In addition, vertical take-off and landing will increase the stability of aviation from sudden attacks on airfields.
  20. provinces
    provinces 29 June 2013 03: 47 New
    0
    Quote: DEfindER
    Quote: Rus2012
    "Whose EPR is ten times lower than ours .. (0.5 for Su-35, 0.001 for Ф-35)" - is it in the frequency range of whose radar?

    Frequency range: X (8-12 GHz), apparently this is the optimal range for an aircraft radar, if you can’t see it in this range, then only the optical remains, but here clouds and fog can cover ..

    Did you fly on an airplane? At altitudes above 6 m there are no clouds, much less fog. And at heights where there are clouds, the range of the F-000 missiles will be less than 35 km.

    It may turn out that the visibility in the infrared optical range is the main weak point of the F-35. Its peculiarity is the very high temperature of the engine (not the output gas jet, but the engine body) in comparison with other fighters, both American and European and ours. If I am not mistaken, 160 C (in Kelvin 433). And the power of thermal radiation is proportional to the temperature in the 4th degree. According to Australian sources, systems are already being installed on Su with a range of detection of “standard temperature” engines of 50 km (when developing the system, experience was used to detect launches of intercontinental missiles). In the future, it is expected to improve systems to 100 - 150 km.
  21. strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 29 June 2013 08: 03 New
    +1
    Not special - but still ... "Cobra" Pugacheva, "chakra" Frolova and "unprecedented pancake" - figures performed by aces-testers at air shows. No wonder they are named by name. They speak for the perfection of aerodynamics. Somewhere there was an opinion, that these miracles can be used by combat pilots only in the case of FULL automation (maneuvers). Especially in battle. Try to compare the annual flight time of a tester who feels the machine as himself - and a combat pilot. And the pancake -pancake is great, but how it directly apply? From cannons to shoot all around with a fan? More significant is the number of new fighters released - and trained pilots, so it seems to me.
    And one more moment. Syshya has no civilian flight schools, all civilian pilots are former military. So here. This infantry is mostly native. So you will not be full of “pancakes”.
    Quote: Prosto Vovochka
    Let's all drink !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, you already drank everything at your place, there’s nothing to agitate here.
    1. Botanologist
      Botanologist 29 June 2013 22: 11 New
      0
      Quote: abyrvalg
      by combat pilots these miracles can be applied only in case of their (maneuvers) FULL automation.


      What for? The only really applicable (and suitable) maneuver against a rocket is a barrel. Or a half-barrel. Hanging in the air is a fun argument. Is the rocket falling into a stupor of amazement?
  22. Stasi
    Stasi 30 September 2013 14: 19 New
    0
    The Su-35 is really above all praise, the whole question is that such an aircraft should be placed in the army in sufficient quantities. As for the stealth technology that the Americans are hoping for, it is not so invulnerable. The American mathematician Dennis Overholzer borrowed this technology from the calculations of our scientist Peter Ufimtsev, who proposed dividing the aircraft body into triangles. These calculations were published in the journal "Technique-Youth" and Overholzer took them from there. But even in Soviet times, our experts came to the conclusion that for invisibility, the aircraft would have to sacrifice its flight qualities as maneuverability and speed. In addition, the "Stealth" is not so difficult to detect: they are even spotted by the old Soviet meter-range radars, and the Su-35 has a much more powerful and modern radar system for reconnaissance and early detection.
  23. Paradox
    Paradox 12 November 2013 21: 28 New
    -1
    All these are piece products, and so far so. In the USA, the needles are already run-in like AK47, modified, etc. Maybe they are not the best planes. But SVD and AKM are not the best rifles, they are military. Military - that means you can spank from the staddetaly thousands of times a week. And 4 planes a year is so that a major artist does not die of hunger ....
    1. vovanbesmert
      vovanbesmert 2 June 2014 15: 50 New
      0
      why f35 maneuverability, when it has AIM9X, maneuverable, can shoot at least from behind, is not sensitive to IR traps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LxhLMiRklQ#t=70 :( it's a shame drying a good machine!
  24. NordUral
    NordUral 4 December 2017 22: 16 New
    0
    How much can you brag about? It is time to stop entertaining ourselves and adequately assess the capabilities of the potential enemy’s equipment.
  25. Pavel Anatolyevich
    Pavel Anatolyevich 21 February 2018 16: 37 New
    +1
    No need to fly close, where it is not necessary!
  26. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 11 December 2018 01: 02 New
    0
    There is still enough time for the pilots of many Western fighters to change their profession to another, safer career.

    Here, comments are superfluous and that says it all, of course, you shouldn’t be so naive and hope that it will be so, but we won’t sit idly by, but we will continue to improve technology, aircraft construction and other things!
  27. shinobi
    shinobi 19 December 2018 11: 17 New
    0
    I trudge on these Yankees. When they talk about their "invisibility", advantages and other blah blah blah, I want to ask just one question: And what about missiles, air-to-air are also invisible? After launch, they are perfectly visible by the aircraft radars of our fighters .And you can notice the launch point without any additional means. Moreover, no one flies now without tracking AWACS and over-the-horizon reconnaissance stations. And they see them perfectly and a sudden attack vryatli succeeds. At least the fighter. And most likely, the Vietnamese story will repeat. This is when the Yankees relied purely on missiles and the battle from far away. The lack of a radar on the old 17 MiGs didn’t help them much. Nobody canceled the initial guidance from the ground even now.
    1. kuz363
      kuz363 24 December 2018 07: 13 New
      0
      Well, you will see this rocket, which is already in the air. There is little sense if it flies on your plane. It is unlikely that you will try to shoot back, heroically sacrificing your life. Most likely you will try to get away from the rocket and use anti-missile care, if possible. There is no time for return fire.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 25 December 2018 06: 08 New
        0
        Tell it to the downed Yankees. And then he is an air battle.
        PS: My sensei, to the eternal question of beginners what is better than carats, wushu, etc., answered: It is important not what you own, but how you own it.
  28. kuz363
    kuz363 24 December 2018 07: 09 New
    0
    Americans will not converge in close combat, as during the Second World War. They will simply shoot at a great distance, avoiding close combat. And the huge difference in the number of US and Russian aircraft (even without taking into account the rest of the NATO countries) will remain 4 times for a long time.