Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

In theory, Russian equipment always seems to beat everyone else..."no analogues in the world"  :-) But their strategy is defensive for ever (Sweedish, Polish, French and German attacks) and everytime it came at a massive cost. I actually think it is kinda stupid to play that game...the argument that "we beat back everyone and don't poke the bear blah blah" is kinda stupid. Getting fooled once is understandable and may be twice but that many times...there is something wrong. So all these great toys wont be much if you don't send the message that you mean business....its like India vs Pakistan (India always on fucking defensive mode). The offensive ones generally win in the end (mongols vs chinese), Islamic invaders vs Indian Kingdoms (early 7th century) after trying many times. Look at it objectively...they did do well in Syria though. You don't want to fight wars on your soil...

I do not think US designs the conventional equipment to go one on one against Russian conventional weapons for a peer to peer confrontation....nukes are pretty good match. Strategy and purpose are completely different....

I do not think they are in the same class...Rafale may be better comparison

Note: One dimensional bubbleman, please keep your response short...if you chose to go haywire

dino00 wrote:One surprised thing for me was how close the su and the mig where.

Yeah, for me too, but in the end the MiG always was a pretty nimble plane and new TVC / FCS / engines gives it pretty much the same arguments the Su-35 has.

Very striking to me is the apparently small effect the new short range missiles capable of acquiring the target after launch have in the fight, once the kinematics of the whole engagement are considered. Minimum range is an issue, as well as their capacity to actually find the target by themselves after being launched. These elements are very difficult to analyse qualitatively so the study is very enlightening

My understanding is that they want the new short range weapons to have IIR seekers and datalinks so a target locked with helmet mounted sights or IRST or radar or any combination and be fired upon by a lock on after launch weapon that uses a datalink with the launch aircraft to ensure it goes after the target the pilot wants killed first.

Perhaps a few MiG-35 haters can pull their heads in and give credit where credit is due... but I doubt it... haters are going to hate.

GarryB wrote:My understanding is that they want the new short range weapons to have IIR seekers and datalinks so a target locked with helmet mounted sights or IRST or radar or any combination and be fired upon by a lock on after launch weapon that uses a datalink with the launch aircraft to ensure it goes after the target the pilot wants killed first.

This was the scenario in the simulation indeed, but even when the author acknowledges this technology allows an opponent to defend himself despite the positional inferiority and their guidance was simulated as flawless, the results were not that brilliant. That being said, we know essentially nothing about data and assumptions used for the analysis and that is where the trick lies, but the same author made some other analysis with different results. For instance against Rafale it was not so easy for Su-35, which makes sense if you analyse the aero qualities of the plane. If you would consider Su-57 with superior aero design, bigger wing and intake capture area, TWR and systems including DIRCM it may look even uglier for F-35.

I think the Rafale and the Typhoon and the MiG-35 and Su-35 are all better than the F-35 in most areas except stealth, and if you have things that can see past the stealth features like L band AESA radar and IRST systems, the F-35 becomes a very expensive fighter bomber more comparable to the British Buccaneer than the American F-16.

They wanted it to be a stealth F-16, but really it is a stealth Bucc... which makes it an acceptable medium range strike aircraft, but like putting AAMs on an Su-24 or F-111 and reducing their effective range and limiting them to 6 bombs each... but stealthy... and very very expensive.

It was in his stories.

This is interesting, if true. This MFD is from Su-34, what mean Su-34 track F-22 through platan EO complex.

Medo I was just thinking that! That ain't no SU-35 !



SU34


Wow so how did SU-34 get on him!?!?! Where did that happen??

Your pic is from one of the prototypes. Serial one:

And it seems to have no lenses to increase rcs.

And it seems to have no lenses to increase rcs.

Wouldn't matter... Platan is EO and is not effected by RCS.

GarryB wrote:

And it seems to have no lenses to increase rcs.

Wouldn't matter... Platan is EO and is not effected by RCS.

I was thinking that a a-50 or a ground based radar could have analyzed its true rcs.

Well if they had Su-35s in the air it would have been pretty obvious from the radar signature from the radar in the nose of the Su-35 in X and Ku bands and the radar signature from the wing mounted antenna in the L band whether it was using reflectors or not... the detection range with L band should be fairly long range as the signal would not be effected by shaping or RAM, and the directional accuracy would be enough to point an EO system or a high power X or Ku band radar pretty much at the aircraft.

A full airspace scan might not pick up a stealthy target, but a small area scan at high energy levels should... from the radar return they got they will know how stealthy it should be... what would be the point of taking an F-22 into a combat zone and flying it in an unstealthy condition.... they might as well use an F-15 as that could carry more weapons further and faster and much much cheaper...

As shown in the image, stealth means nothing in EO systems...

Don't underestimate Su-34. It record well F-22 with its ELINT equipment, TV, IR Picture from Platan and RCS with V004 PESA radar. Su-34 radar is also very powerful and capable. I wonder if RuAF use those new ECM and recce pods for Su-34 in Syria. Those new pods would bring even more informations from F-22 and F-35.

medo wrote: Su-34 radar is also very powerful and capable.

Powerful compared to what? It is just powerful enough to use R-77 at its full head on range. The radar is less capable than the Zhuk of the 29SMT that has far better ground mapping and sea detection ranges.

Su-34 PESA radar V004 have 15kW peak power and range of 370 km. I know, you use capabilities of this radar from prototype in nineties and even that radar was comparable with zaslon in MiG-31. Serial Su-34 have well upgraded radar with increased range to 370 km comparing to 200 -250 km range of prototype from nineties. It already use R-27ER missiles, so there is no problem to use R-77-1 in full range. True, Su-34 didn't get those missiles yet, but it will as they are comming in RuAF armament.



In air to air capabilities V004 is comparable with zaslon radar. Prototype from nineties have similar capabilities in range, power, could track 10 targets and engage 4 targets simultaneously. Serial Su-34 radar is upgraded and is comparable with Zaslon-AM from MiG-31BM. Zaslon-AM have increased range to 320 km, while V004 to 370 km. Domestic V004 could detect 3 m² target at range of 200 km, for export range will be at 120 km. True, Zaslon-AM could track 24 targets and engage 8 targets simultaneously, but MiG-31BM is pure interceptor. V004 primary roles are air to ground and air to sea modes, but even with 10 tracking targets and engaging 4 air and 2 ground targets simultaneously is still on the level of many modern fighters.

Open sources say 90km against fighters. But its mainly a bomber costing ~25 million $ so ...

Isos wrote:Open sources say 90km against fighters. But its mainly a bomber costing ~25 million $ so ...

This is from the early prototype from the nineties. Radar went through upgrade for serial Su-34, because its capabilities were not good enough for RuAF. Max. range was also increased from 200 km to 370 km. Peak power is 15 kW, so detecting range against fighter at 200 km is quite real comparing to Irbis, with 20 kW peak power and detecting range against 3 m² at 400 km. V004 is more powerful than Bars-M radar and have big PESA antenna. Usual info are from early prototype or for export model. Yes, it is primarily working in air to ground and air to sea modes, but its air to air capabilities are not to be underestimated. Su-34 could take care for itself and doesn't need fighter protection. It have same missiles in armament as other fighters.

Its physics.

Energy input = energy output (minus loss). If the radar uses 15kw of power, then it is outputting 15kw of power and this gives indication of its capabilities. Newer sensitive electronics onboard allow detection and tracking to be stretched out a bit more.

Any source ?

Its physics.

Energy input = energy output (minus loss). If the radar uses 15kw of power, then it is outputting 15kw of power and this gives indication of its capabilities. Newer sensitive electronics onboard allow detection and tracking to be stretched out a bit more.

Mig-25 had a 400kW radar. I always suggested to use it by combining it with itbis E technology so that they have a 400kW irbis E which would be theorically 20 times more powerfull than normal irvis E. Fuck LPI if you burn and see 600km everything in front of you.

400kw radar? what?

Anyway, it is also if the transistor is capable of handling the output.  That is why a N036 has similar performance to Irbis-E because both are 20kw radars.

As for finding info on V004, good luck.

The reason behind this info as BARS R radar going from its 140km 3m^2 detection range (1999) to roughly about 300km 3m^2 detection range that was posted by former member of this forums and was posted on keypub.  It was adjustments to the T/R module (single due to PESA design) and the sensitive components like the microprocessor that can translate the data quicker and more accurately.

400kw radar? what?

Well I just checked and some say 600kW.

https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-25_foxbat.pl

Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power %u2014 about 600 kilowatts.

Vaccum tubes were also resistant to nuclear EMP. It could cook a chiken if used on the ground.

Replace the irbis T/R with small vaccum tubes and boost the power output. The computer should be able to handle that easily. In lock on mode at small ranges enemy's transistors should burn.