Regardless of capability, the Su-35 looks like its from the F-14/15/16/18 era of aircraft design.

[edit on 7/7/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 7/7/2008 by prototism]

Originally posted by alienstar
I wonder how well this would do againt the f22...what you people think?

While the SU-35 may have some 5th gen avionics and manuevering ability, it does not have 5th gen stealth - so it probably would not fare too well against an enemy that may or may not be visible on the radar scope.

The Russians military policy is largely defensive, unlike the US's.

Stealth is less of a pressing issue for the Russians than raw kinematic performance, as these aircraft are largely intended to be defending their own territory from within their own air defense envelope, not penetrating & establishing air superiority in someone else's. The Russian public is not nearly as sensitive to casualty counts either, another political driving force in the US for prioritizing stealth.

US doctrine is all about force protection, and offensive operations in foreign countries. There is little attention if any given to domestic air defense, even after 9/11.

Russia (and China and India, their biggest foreign customers) are largely concerned with the defense of their own sovereignty.

amen bios, the su-35 wouldn't hold a chance against the F-22, unless they some how managed to get into a close in dog fight and even then it'd maybe be a real good fight, 3D thrust vectoring being its main advantage vs the F-22 2D system. if the fight is from any significant distance, the F-22's stealth, advanced radar, super cruise, etc. would put the SU-35 out of business before it even knew the 22 was their. just my opinion i'm just a little fan of the Raptor though so i could be prejudicial

raptor1

regardless of who kicks who butt...

That thing flys like a miracle, its AMAZING to watch how far we have come as a "species"... ( sorry to be all hippy sounding but it looks like we have surpassed birds!)

thanks

Its not meant to be a 1-to-1 comparative to the F-22.
So lets just can the discussions around that.
Its meant to be comparable to all fighters that fall below the 5th gen mark.

Though I'd like to do a comparison with the F-35.

Originally posted by raptor1
amen bios, the su-35 wouldn't hold a chance against the F-22, unless they some how managed to get into a close in dog fight and even then it'd maybe be a real good fight, 3D thrust vectoring being its main advantage vs the F-22 2D system. if the fight is from any significant distance, the F-22's stealth, advanced radar, super cruise, etc. would put the SU-35 out of business before it even knew the 22 was their. just my opinion i'm just a little fan of the Raptor though so i could be prejudicial

raptor1

The raptor will likely never face any aircraft in air-to-air combat because it will be grounded through most of its "operational" life due to budget cuts and corner-cutting.

The Raptor is a steaming pile of publicity, and that's it. It disgusts me every time I see the insult Lockheed rolled out onto the tarmac. The design features are pretty much nill. The reduced RCS is nice for avoiding ancient search radars, but more modern search radars (or even ones that have simply been updated with computerized filtering systems) will detect the Raptor with no problem at all (and shouldn't have much problem with the F-117 and B-2). Airborne Search and Tracking radars have no problem picking up most stealth aircraft simply because they are tracking aircraft from a wide range of angles that are difficult to guard against.

In short - the Low Observable features of the Raptor are really only a cost factor, and of very little operational value.

It is still quite a bit more difficult to get a long-range Radar-guided (or IR guided) missile to hit it, but mid-and-close range will not be much different from previous generations.

So any conflict between the F-22 and the Su-35 will likely be resolved at close-range conflict. The Flankers have excellent jamming systems and effective countermeasures - when combined with their superior maneuverability - that will make hitting them rather difficult (despite all of our gloating).

Once they close to range, the 22s will rapidly be disadvantaged. Both aircraft have combat networks that allow the sharing of missile locks with wingmen, which puts the likely more numerous and more maneuverable 35s at a huge advantage against the 22s.

The 22s, with a much smaller effective payload than the 35s, will be trapped in a merger that they will likely be unable to escape from and will have spent most of their teeth.

The ATF contract would have better gone to the 23 - which was better suited to rapid strikes against patrol aircraft and had adequate applications of Low-Observable technology (namely, better all-aspect stealth -namely IR- and Mach+ maneuverability) that would allow it to close with the target, avoid any fire, hit with effective weapons, and exit the combat space without "taking one in the ass."

But I expect the Su-35 to be capable of standing toe-to-toe with most of our aircraft. Though I could have sworn that this thing has been in service for a long time.... at least, it's been "on the drawing board" for a while.... I swear it was on Aerofighters: Assault - which was from about ten years ago.....

It isn't comparable to the F-22 but it would be cheaper to build and would do well against F-15s, Rafale, F-18s and maybe even the Typhoon... depending on the training of the pilots and situation of course.

There have been very few `BVR` kills made in the last 50 years , nerly all are WVR with IR missiles

Putting aside discussions of capability and the whole "Our plane is better than your plane" thing, it is a staggeringly beautiful and graceful machine.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

I love when people compare the F-22 to the SU-35.

Either it says something about the 35, or it says something about the 22.

With a machine like this, Russia is gonna kick some arse soooooo hard!

Originally posted by deltaboy
We are just bad invaders.

Haha what are you, anti-American or something?
We're the best at invading countries - just not so good at back getting out...

And no, there was nothing defensive about the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, it was on their border, and not the other side of the planet.

Anyway, back to the topic: I think my point is accurate, if politically a bit touchy - the US's reliance on and investment in stealth is in large part due to the fact that historically, we are usually trying to penetrate somebody's a/d network, rather than defending our own.

The Su-35's creators and most of it's likely customers see things in more defensive terms, and to them, stealth is not as high a priority. They intend to be operating it within or near their own territory.

Originally posted by xmotex

Anyway, back to the topic: I think my point is accurate, if politically a bit touchy - the US's reliance on and investment in stealth is in large part due to the fact that historically, we are usually trying to penetrate somebody's a/d network, rather than defending our own.

most interesting observation and point of view. Maybe true , but not for long all all major powers are pursuing stealth now. So its not going to be an American evil only for long

Originally posted by xmotex
Haha what are you, anti-American or something?

Aren't we supposedly all?

We're the best at invading countries - just not so good at back getting out...

Yup, and if it happens enough times one should begin to wonder as to how coincidental that could be...

And no, there was nothing defensive about the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, it was on their border, and not the other side of the planet.

So there was then something defensive about the Soviet intervention ( they were invited so lets work from there) in Afghanistan, right? If after all it wasn't defensive they could have done it in the 40's and 50's ( US intervention in Korea) right?

Anyway, back to the topic: I think my point is accurate, if politically a bit touchy - the US's reliance on and investment in stealth is in large part due to the fact that historically, we are usually trying to penetrate somebody's a/d network, rather than defending our own.

I think it is in large part to do with the mythical status as well and since LM/friends knows this they also know that they can milk the US taxpayer who presumes that such 'technology' ( yeah right!) must also be very expensive. It's just a regular con game by various US senate commissions giving massive subsidies to those corporations who are active in their states or who best rewards them in other ways. The USAF never asked for stealth at this price and the original specifications for the F-22 speaks large volumes about the air dominance ( lethality determined by presence; not the other way round) role the F-22 were intended to fulfill. As it stands the F-22 will in a modern war ( presuming a first world enemy such as France/Britain/Russia) be like the Tiger tank of Nazi Germany which if you your unlucky enough to run into the few ,that are operational at any one time, you better have many friends to ensure a credible threat or suffer the attrition your country can well afford; bad luck for the pilots involved but hardly a strategic coup. Since that is a unlikely eventuality you will for the most part be fighting enemies armed and equipped in much the same fashion as yourself where experience and planning will prevail.

The Su-35's creators and most of it's likely customers see things in more defensive terms, and to them, stealth is not as high a priority.

Presuming that stealth should be a priority to anyone? Why does stealth planes go into combat with the same EW support aircraft as other aircraft? What's the point of that if you could just invest in building a better , and far more numerous, mix of EW support and fighter aircraft? ISn't stealth all about pretending to be doing the best you can to avoid casualties thus invalidating the military maxim that those who are willing to sacrifice most usually wins? Isn't it just a display of weakness presuming suitably easily intimidated enemies and does that best explain why the US fights third world nations and still often losses?

They intend to be operating it within or near their own territory.

You don't need long range fighters to have a imperial agenda. The Germans relied on fighters with relatively short range ( even for the times) but perfected methodologies to capture airfields as they advanced with fighters and operational supplies being flown/trucked in with great speed. I know of incidents where cargo planes with personal and supplies landed on captured fields while they were still under ( inaccurate apparently) fire to refuel and rearm tactical fighters/bombers which then proceeded to continue operations ...

We should not presume that having a shorter range is all that telling and in this case i have no reason to believe that the operational combat range of the Su-35 will be shorter than the F-22's. The Su-35 also has the capacity to carry more external stores/fuel than the F-22 does without sacrificing the one thing that makes the F-22 obviously( but not THAT much) superior in heads on long range missile exchanges. Considering the prices involved ( even with lying thieving LM that will somehow find a way to double the cost) woudln't you rather want somewhere between 3-10 Su-35's instead of a F-22?

I know i would but what do i know any ways.

Stellar