wrightwingWith due respect, I think you missed the point. Yes the Su-35 has better radar than the Su-27 family does, but the JSF is significantly stealthier than the average 4+ generation opponent it might come up against. I am not a really big fan of the F-35 (glorified bomb truck) but the stealth characteristics it will apparently have will allow it to get the first shot off against the Su-35 before the merge, better radar notwithstanding.
Very biased article by the way.
I think you’re short changing the F-35 with that categorization. It’s at least as manueverable as an F-16/18, if not moreso, and has far more sophisiticated A/A avionics.
wrightwingThe article is biaised and sometimes plain wrong, but your assertion unfortunately also. The radar system of what is called Su-35 extremely powerful, and whereas the detection range against a F-35 is off course less than against a non-stealth opponent, it is nevertheless impressive enough and allows the Su to use its weapons way before entering a sure danger enveloppe. Weapon effectiveness will be the decisive factor here.
Depending on the Lightning II mission, it will either try to avoid the Su-35 altogether or call in Raptors for terminal fighting capabilities. The Lightning, as a fighter, is imho totally overestimated.
Where is he wrong? The Irbis has a claimed capability of detecting .1-1m2 targets at up to 90km. The tracking range will be less. Of course the RCS of the F-35 is generally considered to be considerably less than that figure, which means that the Flanker will be within the AMRAAM’s NEZ zone by the time the F-35 is detected.
wrightwingThis just in:
http://www.avia.ru/press/13366/
Google translated:
Seems to be a WVR analysis. Interesting…
Comments, anybody?
L
Sounds like marketing to me. The F-35 hasn’t even finished flight testing, so for him to unequivocally state what the performance parameters are is a bit specious. His T/W numbers are incorrect, and the assumption is that the Flanker has managed to get within WVR without the F-35 already engaging.
wrightwingThe stealth which they talk about is largely against search and fire control radar waves, not the type in an active seeker. The F-22 is just as vulnerable to the current crop of active radar seekers as any other fighter out there.
What radar band are these active seekers? X? If so, they have the same limitations. In any event, the launch aircraft has to first detect/track the F-22 before it can fire a missile.
wrightwingIt is not superior for sure, but in combat it has its chances the odds i do not know perhaps of 4 Su-35BM shot down a F-22 will fall and if they get a radar that takes away stealth from the F-22 then it will be 1:1 exchange rate, because the Russians have a better thrust vectoring system, longer range missiles and perhaps parity in supercruise in the Su-35 only in stealth the Su-35BM is inferior
There is no such thing as a radar that takes away stealth(when talking about fire control radars that can be fitted into the nose of a fighter). You might can improve the distance at which you can see low RCS targets, but you’re not gonna change the fact that they are low RCS.
You’re fixated on 3D TVC, when the Raptor with 2D TVC, and the Eurofighter/Raftale with no TVC, have demonstrated extreme agility. The fact that the Su-35 has 3D TVC is not an advantage over the F-22 in any quantifiable way. You conveniently never mention the disadvantages of 3D TVC(higher IR/RCS/Weight).
The Flanker doesn’t have parity in supercruise, nor will it ever.
Longer range missiles are fine, if you’re engaging conventional targets. They offer no advantage in an exchange between a Flanker and Raptor. The Flanker pilot would be better off with 12 R-73s.
wrightwingThe F-22A does supercruise for 200 nm on 8200 kg internal fuel to have some radius left, when the main part is still subsonic.
The Su-35BM does supercruise for *** nm on 11500 kg internal fuel to have some radius left.
Without any knowledge about the inlet-outlet-system of the Su-35BM the related speed capability is unknown, but will be lower the installed basic thrust in mind, when not passing the transonic range in full.
With a lot more drag from external stores. That extra fuel will be compensating for that.
wrightwingThe Raptor is heavier in empty weight and carries less internal fuel and weapons than a Su-35BM so volumetrically speaking the F-22 carries too much dead weight, besides you can not know the true cruise capabilities of the Su-35BM those figures have not been realesed yet, by judging by ferry range there is no proof the F-22 is so superior as you claim.
You do understand the difference in speed and range right? You do understand that the Raptor has ~20,000lb more thrust than the Flanker, and is flying clean.
The Flanker won’t be carrying 8-12 AAMs and supercruising at M 1.7+.
wrightwingThat is not true
The F-22 has a very limted weapons load on internal weapons bays, nothing comparable to the Su-35BM, the Su-35BM can carry really big missiles, the F-22 is limited to a few JDAMs or eight air to air missiles (these missiles are light weight nothing comparable to a KS-172 or a R-37) if it carries them in internal weapons bays
it also can carry four fuel external tanks, and ironically it carries less internal fuel than the Su-35BM and carries more external fuel tanks.
And all of this is relevant to Ferry range how exactly? You might want to reread what you were responding to.
So your stealthy fighter is not the most wonderful thing in the world as advertized simply because Sukhoi is clear in data, why Lockheed is not?
It is not secrecy it simply is because for the price the aircraft is not as good as it is advertized.
That is the reason the russians are making an ultra agile PAK FA.
Let me get this straight- because the Raptor isn’t good, the Russians feel the need to make the ultra agile(stealthy) PAK FA?:rolleyes:
I wonder how many KS-172/R-37s it can carry stealthily.
Additionally, what exactly are you basing your assertion about Lockheed on?
Do you even have one piece of evidence to back that up, or is that a complete SWAG?
wrightwingThe Su-35BM`s supercruise capabilities are still unknown.
The true range of the F-22`s true range is still unknown.
however two things are known
The Su-35 and F-22 carry similar fuel and weapons load and the Sukhoi Su-35 has a ferry range of 1500km more than a F-22`s ferry range based upon the min figure quoted by Lockheed
See the F-22`s empty weight is 19700kg and its max weight is 38000kg
So it carries in fuel and weapons around 18300kg.
the Sukhoi Su-35BM has a max take of weight of 34500kg and carries 11000kg in internal fuel and 8000kg in weapons and external tanks this gives you a total of 19000kg.
So by range is possible both aircraft are similar and if the F-22 flies at Mach 1.5 a minimun ferry range of 2900km and the Sukhoi has a cruise range of 3600km then it is possible there is not too much difference in supercruise capabilities specially when the ferry range the Su-35BM has is 4500km.
The F-22 is supercruising fully loaded. That’s a big difference from supercruising in a clean configuration. Even in a clean configuration, the Flanker won’t match the Raptor’s cruise speeds.
wrightwingCEP is almost meaningless for deterrence.
CEP is only of relevance for first strike.
The context was with regard to the previous comment, that I was responding to.
wrightwingSLBM’s are not as accurate as land-based missiles owing to the fact that the launch position isn’t as clearly defineable. Up until recently that meant SLBMs had no first-strike capability. They cannot and were not, I believe actually are not, interchangeable for land-based missiles on all taskings. If you had the first clue of what you are mouthing off about you would know that.
The SLBM doesnt therefore provide the extra range to hit targets ‘anywhere’ eliminating any necessity for range beyond that developed by the two superpowers to clobber each other. The simple fact is they achieved the range to hit the target sets they needed to and STOPPED just as I said they did and you, sir, are grasping at straws trying to justify your position.
FWIW-
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.174/missile_detail.asp
12000km range
Hardened target capable w/ 90m CEP
wrightwingThe only thing i am saying is by the offical webpages you can not see if they are comparable or not in supercruise capability.
[B]fact A) Lockheed claims the F-22 can supercruise up to mach 1.5+
M 1.7 to 1.8 is > M 1.5 right?
Fact B) Lyulka saturn says the Su-35BM has supercruised
Have they claimed that it can supercruise at M 1.5+, or that it can supercruise with its full weapon load?
fact D) the F-22 has a ferry range with two fuel tanks of of more than 2900km and the Su-35BM has a max ferry range with two external fuel tanks of 4500km[/B]
A range of more than 2900km leaves a lot of room for what that range might actually be. If they’d said less than 2900km, that would be more telling, and demonstrate a significant disadvantage.
This data suggest basicly there is not too much difference in both fighters and a lot of data is inconclusive to determine the real capabilities of both fighters
This data shows no such thing. You can’t compare empty/loaded weights, along with other ambiguous claims, and draw a conclusion with regard to capabilities. The weight difference is ~3500kg, but the Raptor has ~20,000lb more thrust. It doesn’t have the drag/RCS penalty from external stores. There’s no comparison in RCS. I suspect the APG-77/ALR-94 far outclasses anything that the Flanker has.
wrightwingEver heard what jobs were taken by generals after retirement?
When you are responsible for military program you are limited in your freedom of opinion and have to find “compromises” too. Your are “allowed” to point to some “shortcomings”, when compensated by some gains. When not doing so, you can be blamed to be overtaxed, because you were unable to prevent that shortcomings in time. When a point of no-return was passed, the program has to go through, if it is a success or a failure.
Like a fighter at VĀ² on the runway, when a malfunction is recognised by the pilot.
The F-15s are in need of replacement. Non could have prevented the USAF to replace that with F-22As, which are in the alotted budget and specifications. The present F-22A program has the main purpose to divert some development cost of that program into the F-35 program. Despite that it is surfacing, that the F-35 program is not in the alotted budget and specifications too.
The people, which decided in the 90s to have no real competition and putting all eggs into one basket were wrong. They are cases for the military court, when they cheated the public against better knowledge. So there is a high intrest to name that programs a high success and blame the undeniable shortcomings to unpredictable circumstances.
-The production F-22 didn’t exist in the 90s, so it’s kind of hard to say that any General said to overlook its “shortcomings.”
-As for competition, do you mean after the F-22 won over the F-23 in competition?
-I seem to recall several Air Force Generals in the not too distant past losing their jobs because they felt the F-22 was important, and going against the SecDef/Pentagon.
-There have been many programs that got the axe(or at least major redesigns) when they were shown to be duds, before the military would accept them. I suspect for the price the Raptor costs, if it had major shortcomings, the USAF(or some whistle blower) would be having fits.
-Procurement officers/program managers are typically not the ones who are actively flying the planes(or utilizing whatever weapon system it is). The fact that many of the glowing reviews have come from much lower ranking pilots, would tend to debunk this conspiracy(unless every pilot is in on it, in the hope of working for LM).
wrightwingYou have to look into other sources to stay serious. Other wise you can post the opinions of Bill Gates and Paul Allen about VISTA or the Internet Explorer.
About range you show a more balanced view, but you are still guessing in the favour of the F-22A. At supersonic speed at height it is not the throttle setting, because the main thrust does come from the inlet-outlet-system already. Behind Mach 1,3 the transonic range and the related drag is left behind, because all parts of the F-22A are supersonic, except the inlet.
Maybe it is still difficult to accept, that the propulsion is affected by all athmospheric conditions except the change of day and night. So all data related to that are limited to specific conditions only.
Maybe you have that for that very mission related to range.
Combat radius: 410 nm [86] (471 mi, 759 km) is the official claim so far. š
So 3 of the USAF sources and the chief test pilot aren’t credible sources? Well I’m not sure what standard you’re holding me to then. Should I refer to Sukhoi, to get an unbiased source? I see Wikipedia info is considered credible though, even though first hand accounts are dismissed out of hand.:rolleyes:
wrightwingA couple of 100mm rounds on the side of an Ambrams would kill it too. Nothing suprising here.
If fired from close enough, and at the correct angle, etc…
Sign In
