Both have their advantages and disadvantages but the positioning of the IRST on the Su-35BM means that:
– It need not be at greater altitude than a potential target in order to spot it, enabling it to fly low and avoid radar detection while maintaining full visibility
– The IRST can be cued by the HMS and vice versa (big advantage in WVR)
– It can scan for targets anywhere off to effectively one entire side and the entire front half of the top hemisphere
The tradeoff is that it is not fantastic in a ground attack mission and is not ‘ideal’ in that the lower left hand side of the aircraft is unable to be scanned. These are however significant advantages when compared to a belly-mounted configuration in an air-to-air scenario.

The F-35 won’t need to fly low for radar avoidance though, and this will also give kinematic advantages for BVR missile shots. The Flanker will need to climb to achieve the same advantage. How far off do you suppose a Flanker with 12 AAMs could be seen at 40-50K ft(even if its RCS is down to 5m2)?

Shame it’s such an Achilles’ heel for the F-35 at least. I don’t know any other jet that would get away with being launched with four useful ordnance stations.

Internal storage only=1st day of war when max stealth of utmost importance

Let’s consider the external storage option- if a 3rd Gen Mig-21 with good ECM is a hard target, how do you suppose a fighter starting with a considerably lower RCS, and 5th gen defensive systems might perform? The F-35 will be a great performer in stealth mode or not.

Dear LmRaptor, reread what Djcross wrote. You misquote the exact point I was addressing.

He said that it was not possible for the Irbis to detect (lets even leave discussion of what mode the Russians are talking about) a 3Sq Mtr fighter target at 350-400 km, citing a totally different GBAD component as proof. Second, he said the Irbis E range is 80% of the APG-63, which per context appears to the in service variant of the APG-63 or APG-63 MSA variants like the V1.

To be fair his quote was- “APG-63 has about 80% of the claimed range of Irbis-E. If APG-63 couldn’t lock an F-22 at visual ID range, the Irbis will be a little better, but not significantly better.”

The AESA models have greatly improved performance though.

I assumed the following RCS values, as commonly accepted:
1- PAKFA: 0.1 m2
2- F-35: 0.01 m2
3- F-22: 0.0004 m2

One of the papers of Carlo Kopp gave the values for the F-22 and F-35. Plase can someone inform the source that state RCS of 0.001 m2 and 0.0001 m3 for the F-35 and the F22 respectively?

Your first mistake is citing Carlo Kopp. 😎

I think it’s quite funny that a lot of people loves to repeat the number for thrust in this report, but don’t say anything about other things said there. For example no supercruise and half the turning rate of the F-22, which would make it’s kinematics quite poor.

That’s the difference in objective and subjective #s. One can know what the thrust rating is, yet come to incorrect conclusions about performance(especially considering the F-35’s true performance envelope is still be investigated). Secondly, it depends on who the target audience is for that brief(i.e. were they folks that might decide to buy more Raptors?). That’s why it’s good to look at a wide variety of sources to get closer to the real picture(hard #s combined with pilot impressions, etc….). I’ve seen # potentials for the F-135/F-136 exceeding 50,000lbs in future variants, and the official thrust rating is 43,000lbs, so 48,000lbs doesn’t sound ridiculous.

I’m sorry you took my post as being aimed at you. It was not.

There are a few things you might consider.

• Stephen Chappell is indeed a RAAF Squadron Leader who was assigned as an exchange pilot with USAF flying F-15s with the 65th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis AFB.
• Aggressors carry an inert AIM-9 and use its seeker, recorded via HUD symbology and pilot audio, as a training record of their engagements.
• While the Squadron Leader does not mention their use, the Aggressors also use the IRST functions of Sniper and Lantirn targeting pods (USN uses Litening or ATFLIR) to simulate the IRST functions found on MiGs and Sukhois.
• APG-63 has about 80% of the claimed range of Irbis-E. If APG-63 couldn’t lock an F-22 at visual ID range, the Irbis will be a little better, but not significantly better.

Which model APG-63 though? Certainly the original model is disadvantaged compared to the Irbis, but the (v) 2 thru 4 AESA models, should exceed it, as they’re reported to have longer ranges than the APG-77 due to antenna size.

The Irbis has much more detection range than what you think

if you look the figure for the 0.0001 squared meter is around 20nm or around 38km, however a larger RCS for example a F-35 as your self have quoted makes it between 90km and 38km very well in the envelope of the BVR fight.

from that chart, it looks to me like it’s less than 20nm, which still jives with my 30km or less statement.

now you are saying that a F-22 has a RCS of a tenth of a square milimeter, come on, that is an unrealistic figure even your figure of a RCS square milimeter for the F-35.

A bird has a RCS of 0.01 but some say the B-2 has a RCS of 0.75

The exact figures are obviously unpublished, but the examples that have been given are Raptor has RCS of marble, and the Lightning of a golf ball. The numbers on open source claims are those which I stated- .0001m2 and .001m2 respectively. I have never seen a B-2’s RCS estimated at .75m2 though(it’s always been more along the .001-.0001m2 range).

You wouldn’t. The example I gave is F-35s penetrating an IADS, which includes Flanker patrols, on a strike mission, where they will carry a maximum of two AMRAAMs. As I noted later this obviously can and will be increased if the mission requirements are different; however this example is one of the most relevant to the Asia-Pacific in the next decades. However the capability to carry six or more missiles has not yet been cleared and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest it will make it into Block I aircraft, which are the most relevant here, as they will represent the front line fighting force for the foreseeable future (wow, alliteration).

If the F-35 is on a strike mission, it’s job would be to avoid the Flanker unless it had to defend itself. I suspect you’d have a mix of F-35s A2A configured along as escorts though(along with Super Hornets).

No doubt. However the F-35 can hardly be assumed to automatically enter the NEZ. His stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22s, and the engine nozzle provides fairly unimpressive IR damping. Sneaking up on a flight of datalinked Su-35BMs would not be as easy as I suspect you think it might. But leaving this aside, what’s to stop an Su-35BM from firing a missile at the incoming round to defend himself even if the approaching missile is within his ‘no-escape zone’? Nothing I wouldn’t have thought. And a ‘no-escape zone’ does not provide a missile immunity from electronic or other countermeasures, no matter what the name might say.
As I said I don’t deny the F-35s will likely have the element of surprise which gives them a great advantage, but the Su-35s will always have some time to react; more than almost all other legacy fighters given their tail engagement radar. And once they have picked up the incoming threat they are more than capable of dealing with it.

Given the F-35’s situational awareness of the Flankers(through passive and active means), they’ll likely pick and choose the time of the engagement, and the Flankers will be on defense(I doubt the F-35 will be sneaking up facing in the opposite direction, with its least stealthy aspect in view). Until I see incoming AAMs regularly getting shot under real world conditions, I’m not going to take this with a grain of salt. As for getting into the -120C7/D’s NEZ, that shouldn’t be a problem. The Flanker will be lucky if the Irbis spots the F-35 by the time it’s within 30km(well within the NEZ), and not a lot of time for ECM and self defense missiles to react against a Mach 4+ target.

I don’t argue that. My arguments are based around the F-35s attempting to engage, not attempting to avoid. As I said they’re more than capable of doing that with almost guaranteed success. And not one single release from Boeing, nor one single analysis of the aircraft, has even suggested the possibility of the aircraft being able to supercruise. If the pilots are trying to tell us they “don’t see how it gives an advantage” then I doubt they are flying an aircraft which possesses the ability. We can hardly assume the possibility in a total void of evidence.

The F-35 has nearly as much dry thrust as an F-16 does in full A/B, and it’s flying clean. From the description the pilots regularly give(i.e. chase planes needing to go into A/B to keep up), I don’t think it’s perposterous to assume it may actually perform better than the original specs called for. That’s why I said -we shall see.

Yep, I’ve read that, and no, I don’t take it as gospel. I don’t see how any of the information quoted there somehow reduces the Flanker’s survivability of an AMRAAM that it will see coming

The distance from which it sees the missile is pretty important here. The less warning, means less time to use ECM, missiles, violent maneuvers.

Given that the AMRAAM has never had to face self-defensive missile shots or any form of competent jamming before, I’m not surprised it has a good chance of shooting down an aircraft if fired directly on its tail with no prior warning.

The AMRAAM is all aspect.

I don’t know. And I don’t imagine you do either as it’s never really been tried. But the short-range defensive missile will have much better manoeuvrability than the AMRAAM, and the Flanker can guide any form of missile it likes while evading an incoming shot at the same time. And the Su-35BM certainly won’t have a shortage of missiles to defend himself with. The same cannot be said for the F-35.

If you’re gonna assume that the F-35 needs to ripple fire missiles to get a good Pk against a Flanker. How many defensive missiles do you suppose the Flanker will fire against incoming AAMs, to insure a good Pk(or more importantly a good probability of not getting killed)?

I agree that the F-35 will likely have excellent countermeasures. I still don’t really see how the F-35 is going to avoid an R-74M or even an R-27E or ET, though. And my whole point is that in any reasonable air-to-air configuration the Flanker honestly has little to worry about in terms of expended weapons.

I suspect the R-74 would be the greater threat, as the R-27 would never get to use its long range against an F-35.

Given the unit’s frankly monstrous size I’d expect it’d be a very significant proportion of the hemisphere directly in front of the Flanker, though it has a blind spot where the aircraft blocks its view obviously. Once the F-35 fires his missiles they will have a decent idea of where he is (not least because he will be very visible on radar when he opens his missile bays from any angle even slightly within the Irbis-E’s detection cone), and can then turn to engage using their IRST and radars to more accurately pick out a target.

The IRST may have a wide frontal angle of view that it can scan. What it won’t do is provide sea level to 30000m, with 270 azimuth, in one constant picture. The pilot will still want some general idea of where they want to be looking.

As for the Irbis detecting the launch bay doors- I’m not sure what sort of RCS change that presents, with regards to detectibility, but…..once that door shuts, the lights go off again so to speak. This is assuming that the F-35 was in the Irbis’ field of view at the time. Remember, one of the advantages the F-22/35 have is being able to optimize their position in relation to an opponent, for the most advantageous shot. In other words- they will be flying to their advantages, and not just like a legacy fighter, due to the huge increase of situational awareness they enjoy.

Is this datalink somehow invulnerable to ESM and ECM? Without full knowledge of the Su-35BM’s electronic capabilities you can hardly claim so. And operating a non-datalinked AMRAAM version certainly didn’t work very well last time they tried it; when tested in Europe it was outperformed by the Skyflash it was intended to replace.

The datalink is unidirectional, using a pencil beam, so it’s not being broadcast past the missile, or in other directions. This greatly limits any ESM detection.
The AIM-120D is significantly different than the A model, in pretty much every meaningful way.

Regarding radar upgrades, while the APG-81 is capable of being upgraded it’s not capable of being upgraded in any radical measure because of the limited and peculiarly-shaped aperture. I’ve also never heard of AESAs being upgraded in the manner you describe. The Flanker however is almost guaranteed of getting an AESA (and, if modern Russian radars and the vast aperture and power available are anything to go by, quite a good one) by mid-way through the next decade, when the first F-35s will be reaching IOC here.

You have to take into account the RCS of the plane. It is true that if you have 2 planes of equally low RCS, then the one with the more powerful radar will have an advantage. If one plane has a large RCS to go along with a powerful radar, the stealthy plane will still see them first, even with a smaller radar. As an example- the Su-35 is claimed to be able to detect .01m2 targets at 90km, which means that the F-35 will be much closer by the time it’s spotted(probably 30km or less). The F-35 on the other hand will most likely spot the Flanker on radar at well over 180Km, and even further using ESM(if the Flanker is emitting), not to mention the F-35’s DAS/EOTS which far exceeds the Flanker’s IRST in capability.

This is not a demonstrated capability and will not be for a significant period of time if they’re soon entering the first stages of LRIP with only studies on the possibility of this complete. I wouldn’t expect to see this for at least a Block or two after the fighter’s initial release, and I have grave doubts about Australia’s ability to sustain Block upgrades.

As far as we know, it hasn’t been done, but like the article says- it is being looked into. The higher priority has been getting all of the A/G munitions certified. In any event this is 2008. It’ll be 2015-2018 by the time any exports are made, and I suspect there’ll be a lot of new info/capabilities by then. The Su-35 hasn’t even finished being developed, much less operationally deployed, so it’ll be a number of years before it’d be a major threat in any event.

I don’t really see how this is relevant if it has no dogfighting missiles. Certainly it’s not going to be able to out-fly an R-74M or out-dogfight a Flanker.

Again, in strike configuration, the F-35 is at a significant disadvantage in WVR. Put an A/A F-35 against a Flanker, and there’s good likelihood, there won’t be any WVR fighting. If however there is, the F-35 has the AIM-9X and JHMCS, combined with better maneuverability than F-16/F-18s, so it won’t be quite as lopsided as you’re making it out to be.

Dunno where you’re getting your thrust-weight figures for the F-35 from but the military does not agree:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip
These state:
I would have thought they’d have known really. Especially as they’re frantically trying to sell this thing. And yes, external stores are an issue for an Su-35BM; not nearly to the extent of other ‘legacy’ fighters though, as it simply doesn’t need external tanks, automatically getting rid of a large normal source. Moreover this hardly reduces the thrust-weight ratio or the advantages gained through thrust vectoring (which are debatable but even if you discount them the massive wing area and other control surfaces still offer superb performance).

My T/W figures are from doing the math.

If an F-35 weighs 44400 pounds and has 48000 pounds of thrust that works out to 1.08:1. The production F-35s will likely be lighter, and they may have more thrust too.