Nothing new, but a cross between prototype YF-23A and the production F-22A
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246766[/ATTACH]
Wow, a 2016 Su-35S actually has engines comparable to 1996 F-15E… that’s real progress
Except the Su-35S goes through two sets in its lifetime and spends more time getting maintenance, ignoring the TVC mechanisms. The F-15E goes through one set in its original lifespan, extending out to a second set to outlive Su-35S 3:1 in hours. Real progress
M = Modernizeerovannyy literally “improved version”
Better than Mishen (target)
Just remember the M in Soviet/Russian designs is for the Russian language equivalent to ‘improved’. It has nothing to do with multirole. And mostly the term multirole is a misnomer, because they were building for multipurpose. Multirole and multipurpose are different animals
Did you miss the point where I said there is evidence they – obvious reference to ex-Soviet designs – can be dangerous?
You may feel that somebody made a judgement based on lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, but that was never said. Clearly if a design was air superiority it could demonstrate it in practice. It hasn’t demonstrated air superiority ever due to the fact it doesn’t fly that well defined mission. Rather it is used in its defined role, as a counter air escort flying screens for attack missions. The Russian air services never defined it as air superiority. The Indians never did. Not even the Chinese have claimed their Flankers to be for air superiority. Because it wasn’t designed for that role.
It could probably accomplish that role in many environments. But until now it has never done that. Even the few MiG losses didn’t stop MiG ingresses. It only made the MiG pilots more cautious
BTW would it really matter if OP had used Foxhound or Foxbat? Regardless, the premise still ignores the fallacy of the premise
I would contend that F-22 uses the exact same missiles that have downed many ex-Soviet designs. Russia has at least one drone and an F/A-18C. The former was unarmed and the latter unaware. So there is evidence they could kill, just in practice they haven’t hit much if at all. Western aircraft on the other hand have dominated the engagements.
I’m not really against him per se, just dismissed the conjecture brought up earlier in this thread so nobody reading it thinks the nonsense has any basis. I’ve laid down easy arguments to research the basis whereas some of the other posts were pure fantasy. The basis of the OP was nonsensical, saying that the west had no Flanker sized fighters, which clearly wasn’t the case.
And yet the Americans fly with impunity. Last time I checked the Russians are equipped with AAMs more appropriate for the Cold War rather than 2016. And S400? Get real. That one battery they showed in propaganda didn’t contain all the elements necessary to operate. I have my doubts S400 is operational in Syrian airspace.
Compare the fan sizes and get back to MiG31bm about who doesn’t know what
Yet they stay away from US fighters. If Russia enjoyed air superiority then it would be the only air force in those skies. Point is, Flanker has never been about air superiority. It was designed for long range counter air. Not the same.
Burke’s are not exactly speedsters. They did violate sea etiquette passing on the left. If there was a collision it’s pretty easy to draw fault in this sort of case, and tort is no joke. The commander on the Burke class probably got a verbal on this one.
Once again JSR talking about the ‘mythical Flanker’ that still doesn’t exist to this day. Neither Su-30SM nor Su-35S is air superiority. The only superiority they’ve ever demonstrated was downing a small number of Fulcrums. Otherwise, there is virtually no real world examples of combat. And even the most evolved Su-30 – the MKI – only fared well playing technicality niche maneuvers against older F-15’s to take advantage of specific rules of engagement in the wargames.
Su-30MKI is fine against Pakistan, but it’s only a stalemate with China. The only advantage India has is the ability to build and service their own engines. Otherwise China has better ability to replace losses to attrition
We need a Third Rail or General Topics forum for this type of thread.
Until then PLEASE Lock the thread. It’s about politics not aviation