The Russian double digit SAMs and their guiding radars are true beasts, however, the US radars, missiles, decoys, jammers, tactics are different (not necesary better, but different).

I really can’t see why the stimulations made by the Russains using ASM against their own SAM (even ship-based) are more realistic than US simulations using dummy missile to test their ship-based SAMs. And BTW, a dummy missile can also simulate the terminal phase (non-balistic) of a ASM, not only its high speed.

-The +300 km figue for 1 sqm targets, is outstanding if it is for RWS mode (which is the usual mode in hostile areas –that’s a compromise between the search distance, scan volume, number of targets, and scan speed); however, if this figure is for something similar with vector mode at mechanical scan radars (where instead, let’s say, 140 deg scan angle and 70 deg/sec scan speed, the radar will scan a much smaller area with a slower speed), that’s not so impresive for such a big radar;

– the figure 120 Nmiles (unoficial, of course, because USAF did not release anything) is for 1 sqm target; that the ‘oficial’ area for aerial targets in US;

– I repeat, a PESA, no mather how powerful it is, will never match an AESA/stealth combination; as Sferrin said a 20 kW radar will be like a huge lighthouse; even a current RWR will pick an Irbis a 1.5-2 times the Irbis range; by slaving the radar in the described vector mode, even a current blk. 50 will find a Su 35 easily; while for the EW systems in F 22/F35/FE/Rafale, will be a joke to locate the Russian plane without radars; the same goes for an F 16 with HTS (HARM tageting system, that can find also the range, not only the bearing);

What’s wrong with that?

Nothing, if they would have mentioned it… :p

I am sure you meant EVERY advertising material

Corect; however, unlike the Russians, US companies don’t mention the exact figures.

From what is advertised IrBis-E is a humongous beats!

That it will be the most powerfull for a fighter, it is no doubt; but still not AESA.

I think u should read a little bit carefully. They say the weight of Equipment inside Su-35 is ligher than Su-27 and Engine thrust is 16% more. So the thrust to Weight ratio is improved by More than 15%. It is more than 15% atleast. It can be any figure above 15%. They havent touched anything about aircraft materials yet. So no need to go there.

You don’t understand; in another article, it was a claim that the weight (total weight of the plane) was reduced thanks to using advanced materials).

It is the same as BARs MKI radar advertizement like range is not less than 140KM against Fighter size target. Now it can be any figure above 140KM. But RMAF found out that it was more than F-18E offered radar with even assume equal to F-18 AESA in 2001.

That pure, genuine BS! First, in 2001, the APG 79 wasn’t ready yet. The IOC was in 2005! Also, RMAF did not tested the AESA-equiped F 18 E/F!

The problem with RCS figures is that they’re overwhelmingly subjective. When you see an RCS figure, it is typically going to be the smallest figure for the object. That is typically only going to be achieved from one angle, and in the case of the F-22A it is probably from a head-on aspect, which is what it needs being designed as a fighter anyway. Put a radar directly above an F-22, F-117, or B-2, and I’d bet you’ll get a significantly higher figure due to the much greater surface area and the more favorable aspect angle for the antenna. The F-22 is equipped with what it needs to take the most advantage of the low head-on RCS of course, all of the radar and ESM gear will tell the pilot where the targets are so he can act accordingly and put himself in the best position to get a first shot opportunity.

So yes, the F-22 could have an RCS as low as 0.0001m2, but it’s not going to be an overall, every aspect angle figure.

In the attachement there is a picture of the Raptor cockplit. Here, (middle display) the Raptor pilot knows its relative RCS (in blue) and how to act accordigly. So, the relative RCS can be 0.0001 sqm frontal and even 1 sqm lateral. The thing is the pilot knows it.

Developers of the Su-35 decided to return to the aerodynamics of a “pure” Su-27. … The weight of the present Su-35’s aircraft equipment is less than its predecessor, and at the same time it will be equipped with the upgraded 117S ((sic)) engine with increased thrust in afterburner to 14,500 kilograms. The basic AL-31F engine, witch which all airplanes of the Su-27 family are equipped today, has a maximum thrust in afterburner of 12,500 kilograms. Thus, the Su-35 airplane’s thrust-to-weight ratio is being increased more than 15 percent. The Su-35 also is equipped with an all-aspect rotating jet nozzle that allows in combination with the airplane’s decreased weight achieving essential improvements of its dynamic characteristics (rate of climb, acceleration and the like), bringing it to the level of super maneuverability.

Despite the fulminant claims, typical for Russians saling stuff, one little info is deductible. If the thrust increased with 16 % (14,500/12,000=1.16), and the T/W ratio increased with only 15%, it resulted that there is no weight reduction for the 35… :p (remember, they say that thanks to new materials they achived a 25 % weight reduction) :diablo:

Improvement of the maneuvering characteristics has allowed giving up the canard. Owing to the creation of a modern control system, the Su-35 crew has been decreased to one man, and equipping the airplane with a modern fly-by-wire control system has allowed giving up the braking flap, the role of which deflecting planes ((OTKLONYAEMYE PLOSKOSTI)) now fulfill.

Wow, they even manage to copy the “virtual speedbrake” of the F 18 E/F and F 22. These guys are really good. :p

I have read an article about F-22 not meeting the original requirements regarding stealth. But I am not sure which part of the low observability was meant, stealth is not just RCS.

Anyway, the 0.0001 sqm figure looks like nonsense to me.

But a 3 sqm target at 400km, as advertised by Sukhoi, is OK for you ?

That the 35 will be a beast, there is no doubt. However, a little reserve when reading Russian advertising material is good.

if Morocco is willing to spend 2.4 billion $s on 24 F-16s, that too (at least appears to be) without the weapons and infrastructure, instead of Rafales, then there must be something wrong in Morocco as well, not just with French armament sales..:rolleyes:

-w/o weapons maybe (there is no mention on that, indeed), but no w/o infrastructure; if you follow the link posted by bnaf, you will notice that under the “1 unit level trainer” (I supopose that’s the simulator) there is mentioned all the infrastructure, training, services, repairs needed;

-about the price: don’t forget that Morocco is a first time buyer; these a/c are more expensive; if they would allready operate F 16, the unit price will be lower;

-also about price: as I mention in some recent post, people tend to forget the Euro/$ exchange rate. The unit price (program not fly-away) is 100 mil. $, that’s ~ 68 Mil. Euro; how much do you think a Rafale or Grippen would cost?

-I think one of the reson the Rafale didn’t perform so well on international markets (despite being the best Eurocanard) is the narrow choice of weapons-French only. These days, if you have normal relations with US, there is no way (except some healthy bribes :p ) an air force would not go for AMRAAMs or JDAMs Paveways etc.

Let us see! F-35 is a fighter aircraft and not a F/A-35. “F” is standing for Fighters!
The bomb bay in F-35 is only a “Bombay” for AA-missiles and therefore only for dogfights or long range intercepts like what the Gripen can do.
There are no enough space for bunker bombs or cruise missiles.
Do You really think a F-35 fighter pilot in the future dare to meet a Su-35 Flanker crew with a 1,600 module AESA radar, helmet mounted sights, AA-missiles doing 30 g`force manoeuvres and perhaps several future UCAV fighters in the front aspect? There are a really a need of new thinking than build up a defence with already old stealth fighter systems as F-35 and with only one operating pilot each. In fact, F-35 is fatally only equipped with one seat for one pilot who also in the future are going to superintend future unmanned airborne vehicles (UCAV) to defend him self and to do him superior in the air. He also have to be joint with other services and reading well the AESA radar. I can never else imagine a 9 g`force superpilot settle all that new future tasks. The future F-35 pilot is going yet to be only a fighter pilot with a very limited capacity in combat air support. It is to deceive any buyers declaring other provided not stupid defence politician influenced by fanatically military forces which have an abundance of money in their filled bank. It is a resource waste to buy such an aircraft and for that price.
JAS 39 NG is a small aircraft and sufficient stealth, like the F-35, but cheap.
Many experts have not enough been understanding how much effective the little big plane from SAAB is and are going to be after 2010.

Is this a joke or what?
-The F 35 will carry 2 x 1000 lb JDAM or 8 small diammeter bombs or 2 NAMS mini cruise missiles.
– F 35 is an already old stealth fighter???? A plane that is going to enter in service some 6 years from now? 😀 😀
– The JAS 39 NG is even farther to operational statul than F 35. At least the F 35 test prototype already flew.
– Since when the grippen is stealthy? :diablo: :p 😀 Not to mention stealthier than F 35? 😀 :diablo: :p
– If a a F 35 pliot won’t dare to confront an Su 35, do you really think a grippen (be it a NG Grippen) will dare???? :p :p :p

Actually russians used HMS first. In the 80’s all MiG-29 even downgraded foreign versions used it. It is hard for russians to cope with modern innovations since USSR break up and following years hurt russian economy more then WWII!

Here we go again…The first to use HMS were the Americans in mid 70′ on some 500 F 4 Phantom. The Russians copied the idea and use it with a good missile (R 73) in mid 80′.