"Interesting F-35 vs. Su-35S Comparison" Topic

I ran across this article, while looking for pics of the Su-35S:

link

Assuming the data for the comparisons is true, it doesn't bode well for our pilots, or those of our allies.

Also, apparently, the Sukhoi may actually field more missiles than are listed in the comparison as well, e.g. 12 – 14 seem to be bandied about fairly regularly for them.

This site is ran by a discredited muppet who wants Australia to be fielding F22s and F111s. Your Congress won't give us the former and the SuperHornet/cruise missiles are superior to the later.

RAAF is still betting that the F35 will be a winner. And with two LHDs with nothing but helos, we can dream RAN will get some vtol versions.

Here is the gist of why the report is considered wrong:

In response to Air Power Australia's criticisms, Air Vice arshal Osley said that "Air Power Australia claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020 and that Air Power Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities." Osley continued with, "these are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the U.S. services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment." He then said that he thinks that the Air Power Australia's "analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information."

Yes, there may or may not be compelling reasons to adopt or discard the F-35, but Carlo Kopp is not the man to know them.

Kopp seems to have very few supporters out there. VERY few. And most of them seem to be as paranoid as he is when it comes to Russia and China. I'd take anything he writes with a grain of salt.

SU-27s and SU-35s are great going up against older aircraft or nations who don't have a large amount of what are termed air battle assets. So many people(especially on TMP) get hung up on a piece of hardware against a piece of hardware, when in reality it is all the other tangible assets such as JSTARs, AWACs, jamming, battle management, etc., that puts aircraft in the correct position to win engagements. The USAF and USN practice these things every day, so anyone going up against F-22s and/or F-35s is going to get their head handed to them.

Don't get me wrong, the Flankers are awesome. Flanker versus F22 or F35 in a dogfight comes down to which bird has the better pilot.

But you have to get INTO dogfight range first, and the F22 is the best BVR fighter flying today, full stop.

"Flanker versus F22 or F35 in a dogfight comes down to which bird has the better pilot".

Or, better: thrust vectoring, helmet-mounted sights, agile missiles, fuel load, and top speed.

I agree with the F-22 comments, assuming the pilots don't pass out from anoxia during their sorties, but the F-35's design stats, weapons loadouts, and performance seem to be rather poor.

About the only things the F-35 has going for it is stealth, and that all-round sensor array, assuming both work as designed.

I expect LM and various Air Force personnel to say nothing less, since hundreds of billions of dollars are in the balance, if not a trillion plus ($1.4 trillion is the latest I've seen bandied about), and the latter want the jets for their programs.

I can't vouch for the validity of all the stats on the site, but from what I've seen of much of the open-source material, it appears his ratings are pretty close to the mark, if not a bit conservative, e.g. the weapons loadouts of the Sukhoi.

Obviously, as mentioned, there are a lot of other intangibles too, e.g. JSTARS, AWACS, jamming, cockpit design and ease of use for the pilots, etc., but it seems to me that the Sukhoi far exceeds the performance of the F-35, in many areas, save for stealth and perhaps the new, all-round sensor system (though rumors are that the Soviets may have been the first to deploy such a system, with their front and rear facing radar arrays, IRST, etc.).

However, if LM and the air force generals are wrong, and the air battle gets to the merge, I suspect the F-35s will be sitting ducks for the far more agile, faster, and better armed communist jets.

In the last century, guns were considered a throwback and discarded…most famously in the Phantom. The results bear that action out as a mistake.

I see the same issues surrounding stealth and proponents of information warfare. Granted both are game-changers, but what happens when your opponent (who generally do not like doing what you expect, desert nations notwishstanding) decides to maneuver in a manner that changes the game on you?

A fighter is a tool box, just like an infantryman. Guns, missiles, advanced weapons and advanced tech all have their place and will have their place until we start using saucers and beam cannons. A "superweapon" rarely is despite what the advertising might claim and a force that forgets "old" methods does so at its peril.

I saw a group of teenagers in the gas station the other day. Apparently a local cell network was under repair (enough people were lost and panicked so the owner had a small sign up concerning this potential for disruption) and they lost signal and thus none of their 4G superweapon phones could bring up relevant navigation data. The owner handed the teens a map. For free I might add. None of them could read it and apparently according to one, Wisconsin is now on the Eastern Seaboard. I am surprised they knew what happens at a gas station. One woman was apparently in tears over losing an Ebay bid chance due to the disruption.

The point is all weapons capability is valuable. And despite recent events, superior tech does not always grant victory if you tangle with a skilled opponent who knows to avoid your strengths.

The F35 has been, and potentially will be, an expensive boondoggle. It might yet bear fruit. However, to many it would seem, it might have been better to start with something could perform the basics superbly and then go to the advanced. Certainly I'd feel better about my aircraft if I knew I had to fall back to proven methods, it could at least match my adversary's proven methods.

F-22 and Su-35 are both designed as air-superiority fighters.

F-35 is primarily designed as a strike aircraft, with secondary air defence capability.

It's like comparing a Spitfire to a Mosquito and declaring the Mosquito to be crap because the Spitfire beat it in a dogfight.

Frankly it's a comparison.

Flanker versus F22 or F35 in a dogfight comes down to which bird has the better pilot.

Or, better: thrust vectoring, helmet-mounted sights, agile missiles, fuel load, and top speed.

Let's see here… F35 has thrust vectoring, will have a helmet mounted sight by the time it's actually in service, has a lighter fuel load than the Sukhoi…

And I'm not sure that the AIM9X is any less agile than the Russian dogfight missiles.

F35 has thrust vectoring, will have a helmet mounted sight by the time it's actually in service,

Su-30MKI and Su-35 both have TVC and even Soviet MiG-29s and SAAF Mirage F1s in 1980s had HMS.

As for lighter fuel load, that's bad if it constitutes to less time to engage in intensive dog fighting.

Even in 1982, Argie Mirages were hamstrung by insufficient fuel remaining for dog fight and getting back home.

Also 1 v 1 dogfight is an irrelevance.

In 21st century it's about:

a.) Disabling enemy airfields and IADS (either through stealth aircraft, cruise missiles or ballistic missiles)

b.) Dominance in electronic sphere of combat. If you do this, other guy has no radar, no command, no control, no communication nothing.

c.) Destruction of enemy support assets (e.g. Chinese J-20 is assumed to be a stealthy MiG-31 designed to kill AWACS and air-to-air refuellers. – F-35 autolosses if KC-135s have been shot down and it can't get back to base or can't use tanking to extend mission range to targets).

BVR is not yet 100% either – in recent exercises Polish MiG-29s used tactics to effectively counter Polish F-16s with AMRAAMS and then engage in dog fighting where MiG-29 has advantage.

Though F-16 absolutely dominated when supported by AWACS. However use a stealth interceptor to shoot down the AWACS or a conventional ballistic missile to destroy AWACS on ground.

"assuming the pilots don't pass out from anoxia during their sorties"

Is this BS still circulating?? It was an issue with a valve on an anti-G garment; the issue was fixed months ago, if not longer.