Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

Isos wrote:China and Russia are into hypersonic and drones. Stealth is barely developed. Europeans are also bypassing massive investements in stealth and focus and datalinked stuff.

Europeans are not bypassing stealth. Look at the prototypes of all their 6th gen fighter aircraft. They have been designed keeping stealth in mind.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:China and Russia are into hypersonic and drones. Stealth is barely developed. Europeans are also bypassing massive investements in stealth and focus and datalinked stuff.

Europeans are not bypassing stealth. Look at the prototypes of all their 6th gen fighter aircraft. They have been designed keeping stealth in mind.

Yes but stealth isn't the caracteristic on which they will invest the more. It is the network capability with all other plateforms, datalinks and drones...

Su-57 is stealthy but they will rely more on its ability to guide drones than anything else. Its stealth will worl great at long distances from where it will guide its drones on tatgets.

F-22 is just stealthy. F-35 is still full of mostakes in development.

Isos wrote: It is the network capability with all other plateforms, datalinks and drones...

European data link and drone technology is half a generation behind the U.S. So they are trying to catch up. In stealth they never had any proficiency.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote: It is the network capability with all other plateforms, datalinks and drones...

European data link and drone technology is half a generation behind the U.S. So they are trying to catch up. In stealth they never had any proficiency.

They are investing in the first two. Not in stealth.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Su35 dont need radar, IRST and r74 is enough, hel run down f35 at mach 2, and kill him without him knowing

All he need is s400 datalink

He can’t fire r74 without radar lock. IRST is not enough to launch with thermal.

Isos wrote:Yes but stealth isn't the caracteristic on which they will invest the more. It is the network capability with all other plateforms, datalinks and drones...

Stealth isn't all that important. Gripen can detect and target lock on stealth when they network the IR and radar of two Gripens. Previous versions of Gripens could not create two way data link of IR sensors but the E variant can.

bitcointrader70 wrote: He can’t fire r74 without radar lock.

WVR IR guided missiles use a passive sensor to detect, track and lock infrared radiation, they don't need radar lock to be able to be fired.

Problem with that is you are gambling on amraam not hitting anything. F35 will get to fire first.

But I was talking about r77. It can’t launch r77 without radar lock.

Your all wrong.
The S-400 will be firing first. ;-)

bitcointrader70 wrote:Problem with that is you are gambling on amraam not hitting anything. F35 will get to fire first.

But I was talking about r77. It can’t launch r77 without radar lock.

It can carry only 4 amraam in the bays. Carry them outside and it becomes less stealthy.

With jammers and evasive manouevres you can easily escape from those amraams in a su-35.

Against a su-57 it would be as hard as hitting a f-22 with a r-77. Pretty useless.

Those missiles aren't magic, real Pk is very low even against 4th gen fighters, that's why russians have long range IR r-27ET still in service. They will also very likely deploy r-77M with IR guidance. R-77 also should have had such version but they stoped developements because of the 90s crisis.

Such missiles will have datalink and will use data from Nebo radars... making it a deadly long range anti stealth weapon.

If the f-16 fired at 70km then they could have used RVV-AE at its limits (80km) but that would have still had a chance to hit or at least to make the f-16 go defensive allowing the su-30 to go on him and get closer for another missile launch and keep getting closer and keep launching missiles.

But what you forget is that it was 2 su-30 vs 12 or more f-16. Su-30 kept a safe distance which is understandable. It's not some stupid US exercice where you can go 1 vs 10 and hope to win. Real war, real tactics. If the enemy outnumbers you with decent jets you keep safe above friendly SAMs and monitor the enemy, even if you have a su-57 or a f-22.

Isos wrote:If the f-16 fired at 70km then they could have used RVV-AE at its limits (80km) but that would have still had a chance to hit or at least to make the f-16 go defensive allowing the su-30 to go on him and get closer for another missile launch and keep getting closer and keep launching missiles.

But what you forget is that it was 2 su-30 vs 12 or more f-16. Su-30 kept a safe distance which is understandable. It's not some stupid US exercice where you can go 1 vs 10 and hope to win. Real war, real tactics. If the enemy outnumbers you with decent jets you keep safe above friendly SAMs and monitor the enemy, even if you have a su-57 or a f-22.

This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational. F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots. And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty.

bitcointrader70 wrote:Problem with that is you are gambling on amraam not hitting anything. F35 will get to fire first.

But I was talking about r77. It can’t launch r77 without radar lock.

>F35 will get to fire first.
Wrong. For that to ever happen, APG-81 needs to get past khibiny and provide a solid lock, if you have evidence of the APG81's ECCM specifically going through khibiny, you can demonstrate that.
Furthermore, this ''theory'' ignores the fact the probability of pastel passively seeing the APG-81. And no, just like radars have software to mask their emissions, ESM systems do as well. Therefore you would provide exact evidence that it will gest past SPO-150-35. Or the claim is bogus.

>It can’t launch r77 without radar lock.
Wrong, R-77-1 has a Passive-Active seeker. There are eight passive nodes in it that silently lock at any emitting thing at up to 200km. And mid course guidance info can be provided by many sources to begin with, like triangulation. So you are conveniently ignoring the probability of this seeker locking on APG81.

bitcointrader70 wrote:

Isos wrote:If the f-16 fired at 70km then they could have used RVV-AE at its limits (80km) but that would have still had a chance to hit or at least to make the f-16 go defensive allowing the su-30 to go on him and get closer for another missile launch and keep getting closer and keep launching missiles.

But what you forget is that it was 2 su-30 vs 12 or more f-16. Su-30 kept a safe distance which is understandable. It's not some stupid US exercice where you can go 1 vs 10 and hope to win. Real war, real tactics. If the enemy outnumbers you with decent jets you keep safe above friendly SAMs and monitor the enemy, even if you have a su-57 or a f-22.

This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational. F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots. And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty.

"This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational."
Su-57 is Operational.

" F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots."
No that is not how it works.
Your post once again ignores everything from ECM to ESM picking up emissions, to integrated sensors of the surroundlings (L band radars and so on) giving more situation awareness. It then Ignores the fact that the NEZ of an AMRAAM is short and more or less comparable to that of an R-77-1. Therefore any relevant shot is already within or close to IRST range and well within radar range. (Unless you believe in bee size RCS from every angle and ignore the fact that aircraft are seen from a very wide range of angles in which RCS is magnitudes larger than that making that narrow front practically irrelevant)

as for longer shots then that is highly dependant on missile's energy, if it has barely any energy to turn then it needs little maneuvering to avoid, in which energy of the airplane is quickly recovering, then there's another hole in your observation, which is the aircraft needing to dodge or not, since ECM can entirely divert a missile from it's target.
All of your claims are very general and inaccurate, they do not have the precise contexts and the data and evidence to back those contexts up. It's like saying ''AESA Has ECCM, therefore it will bypass ECM" or saying "this missile is anti tank therefore will destroy any tank". With your very own logic, the T-72B3's radio, which has frequency hopping, will defeat every ESM and ECM in existance because there's the name "frequency hopping" included in.

"And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty."
Except that it isn't.
Once again, you have no evidence on weather the F35 could really shoot at an Su35 from standoff distances given the realities stated above, they can even end up having comparable distances to fire, depending on ECM vs ECCM and how the RCS varies. And no, there isn't just "losing" energy, speed of its recovery is also a factor, and if the F35 is dodging too then it is in the same position. It might even be in a worse position if ECM does beat ECCM and the battle ends up heavily influenced by kinematics.

Then you are ginoring how the Su35 fires way more missiles than the F35 with a larger variety of seekers (passive active, passive semi active) which drastically increases ECCM, And hit probablity compared to the monotone AMRAAM attacks.

You are making long stroke statements with enormous plot holes in them, while selectively ignoring anything in favor of the Su-35, which smells an awful lot like F-16.net.

bitcointrader70 wrote:

Isos wrote:If the f-16 fired at 70km then they could have used RVV-AE at its limits (80km) but that would have still had a chance to hit or at least to make the f-16 go defensive allowing the su-30 to go on him and get closer for another missile launch and keep getting closer and keep launching missiles.

But what you forget is that it was 2 su-30 vs 12 or more f-16. Su-30 kept a safe distance which is understandable. It's not some stupid US exercice where you can go 1 vs 10 and hope to win. Real war, real tactics. If the enemy outnumbers you with decent jets you keep safe above friendly SAMs and monitor the enemy, even if you have a su-57 or a f-22.

This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational. F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots. And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty.

With 4 missiles it can't pressure that much and it doesn't have bays for IR missiles. Pretty useless tactic. Su 35 willjust use its r-73 to blow it out of the sky.

Atmosphere wrote:

bitcointrader70 wrote:

Isos wrote:If the f-16 fired at 70km then they could have used RVV-AE at its limits (80km) but that would have still had a chance to hit or at least to make the f-16 go defensive allowing the su-30 to go on him and get closer for another missile launch and keep getting closer and keep launching missiles.

But what you forget is that it was 2 su-30 vs 12 or more f-16. Su-30 kept a safe distance which is understandable. It's not some stupid US exercice where you can go 1 vs 10 and hope to win. Real war, real tactics. If the enemy outnumbers you with decent jets you keep safe above friendly SAMs and monitor the enemy, even if you have a su-57 or a f-22.

This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational. F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots. And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty.

"This is the problem I have with Russia not having a real stealth jet operational."
Su-57 is Operational.

" F35s can pressure flankers the same way by continuing to launch amraams and getting closer for better shots."
No that is not how it works.
Your post once again ignores everything from ECM to ESM picking up emissions, to integrated sensors of the surroundlings (L band radars and so on) giving more situation awareness. It then Ignores the fact that the NEZ of an AMRAAM is short and more or less comparable to that of an R-77-1. Therefore any relevant shot is already within or close to IRST range and well within radar range. (Unless you believe in bee size RCS from every angle and ignore the fact that aircraft are seen from a very wide range of angles in which RCS is magnitudes larger than that making that narrow front practically irrelevant)

as for longer shots then that is highly dependant on missile's energy, if it has barely any energy to turn then it needs little maneuvering to avoid, in which energy of the airplane is quickly recovering, then there's another hole in your observation, which is the aircraft needing to dodge or not, since ECM can entirely divert a missile from it's target.
All of your claims are very general and inaccurate, they do not have the precise contexts and the data and evidence to back those contexts up. It's like saying ''AESA Has ECCM, therefore it will bypass ECM" or saying "this missile is anti tank therefore will destroy any tank". With your very own logic,  the T-72B3's radio, which has frequency hopping, will defeat every ESM and ECM in existance because there's the name "frequency hopping" included in.

"And even though su35 is better aerodynamically it’s bleeding speed and energy dodging missiles while f35 is cruising pretty."
Except that it isn't.
Once again, you have no evidence on weather the F35 could really shoot at an Su35 from standoff distances given the realities stated above, they can even end up having comparable distances to fire, depending on ECM vs ECCM and how the RCS varies. And no, there isn't just "losing" energy, speed of its recovery is also a factor, and if the F35 is dodging too then it is in the same position. It might even be in a worse position if ECM does beat ECCM and the battle ends up heavily influenced by kinematics.

Then you are ginoring how the Su35 fires way more missiles than the F35 with a larger variety of seekers (passive active, passive semi active) which drastically increases ECCM, And hit probablity compared to the monotone AMRAAM attacks.

You are making long stroke statements with enormous plot holes in them, while selectively ignoring anything in favor of the Su-35, which smells an awful lot like F-16.net.

Lol? F35 has the latest radar and the latest EW suit.

R27 is a garbage missile worst PK than the sparrow. That leaves r73 and r77. Su 35 has to know the f35 is there to be able to fire anything

Russians have a bad habit of lying and over exaggerating everything. I know because I’m Russian.

Kret has been caught doing it. The Indians rejected su57 because they deemed it not good enough.

Murmansk bn is marketed as some EW wonder weapon that can jam everything which is obviously not true.

Su35 does not have a 350km detection range. The radar settings have to be changed for a small vector scan and it’s a useless mode without awacs queuing it up.
Any time russian equipment fails it’s blamed on it being an export model when the truth is Russia just makes inferior products.

The best hope flankers have against f35 is that it only has 4 amraams internally and if it wants aimx9 it’s stealth is severely degraded.

Jamming makes stealth more effective and stealth makes jamming more effective. This is basic stuff.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Aim9x was spoofed by a su22 flare

The indians shot down their own mi17 , so that's not really a source to go off

R27 has blown F15s out of the sky over yemen as well as a panavia tornado,

I guess that means the F15SM and Tornado GR4 are inferior products and Vympel is superior to BAE and Mcdonnel Douglas

Anyone with a brain will see you are trolling only

The f35 submarine doesnt need to be shot down, it will sink on it's own,  it's just missing a nuclear reactor, maybe you can ask Russia for burevestnik reactor, then f35 would be functional at the very least

F22 has only a better chance marginally to f35 because it can actually fly, and maneuvers, even then rafale trashed f22

So su35 dont even get close

A land based r27 slightly damaged an f15 and shot down a tornado.

In the air to air setting in the Ethiopian wars it was a garbage missile.

Indians rejected su57 because it didn’t live up to Russian claims. What does a random friendly fire incident have to do anything with that?

You probably believe a su24 jammed Donald cook too right?

Arkanghelsk wrote:F22 has only a better chance marginally to f35 because it can actually fly, and maneuvers

Assuming there's any F-22 left that is operational. They don't have any spare parts left so if something breaks it's not trivial to replace (cannibalism is a thing here)

Arkanghelsk wrote:Aim9x is garbage missile, r27 at least killed f15 and saw through the flares

It's impossible to compare missiles without getting a few dozen and doing your own tests. The same applies to American and Russian designs, so the dick-waving based on "real life" operational history is a pointless endeavor.

Indians rejected su57 because it didn’t live up to Russian claims. What does a random friendly fire incident have to do anything with that?

Thry never claimed that... it's people like you that spread this story.

Indians were never part of the program. They paid to have some access to it for their own version that was suposed to be developed by themselves. The issue was that India was expecting sukhoi to transfert all the 5th gen technologies developed for su-57 for the 6 billion they invested. Sukhoi told them to **** off.

And when you see they paid 8 billion for 36 Rafales they really went to **** themselves.