Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
it's clear that NATO is on of the real enemies to russia...
so, this comparison is in it's place...
I saw some rafale and typhoon fan sites,they always speak about wrong things like (SU-35 have azero chance towards modern aircrafts like rafale or typhoon )
wow seems su-35 came from 70 century !!
they said that su-35 is just asu-27 ,,what's new ??!!
they still believe that russia has no modern tech. to employ
also things like that !
http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2005/050113hol.htmlIn simulated combat against a Sukhoi Su-35, the F22 shoots down 10 for every one of its own losses. The figures for Eurofighter Typhoon are just under half that capability (some 4.5 Su-35s for every Typhoon lost). The next best capability is the Rafale C which loses one for one
..........
what i'm see here that su-35 has all specifications to face any european aircraft.
modern electronics ( the prove here is that russians get in 5th gen aircrafts,,european doesn't !!), X-band radar that is superior in power than any european radar ,although rafale and typhoon will have AESA 1 to 2 years, but irbis-E has apower like any current AESA (20 kilowatt )...
saying that rafale and typhoon is low observable than sukhoi,ok little LO but it will not make abig difference bec of this 20 KW of irbis-E ,can detect the two from big distances,
Su-35 is superior in weappons amount,,damn ,it's far superior in that point..
also in engine thrust,TVC,maneuver and detection range...
the experience of russians in IR fight is more than (as i think ) than europe,,russians used these systems for along times in the same thime that europians and americans neglect if for years (except france with OSF )..
saying that meteor is superior than any russian one ,no evidences for that !!
su-35 has R-172 ,anti awacs and tankers,,damn what will be asituation if an awacs destroyed ?!!
it's abig advantage,could make the su-35 face F-35 ,coz F-35 depend alot on awacs to make asilent attack closing it's radar ,so destroying this awacs will force joint to open clearly it's radar..that's good i think..
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5861/recent variants of the Flanker have an inbuilt data networking system, so each Flanker shares what it knows with its peers. Unlike the Flankers, which have impressive fuel reserves, smaller aircraft like the F-35 are heavily dependent on Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) tankers for persistence, and AWACS for network centricity. The F-35’s dependency on front-aspect stealth for survival forces “nose cold” entry into combat and heavy reliance upon off-board AWACS data for situational awareness, lest it give its position away by using its radar. A few indiscrete sweeps could trigger the sensitive ESM systems of the Flanker E Plus.
Your Ad Here
So, the reality is that in an intensive air battle, these so-called ‘assets’ become ‘liabilities’ that must be protected since readily available Russian technology includes ‘AWACS killer’ missiles – such as the 200 nautical mile R-172 and the 160 nautical mile R-37 Arrow. While it is difficult to shoot down a networked Su-35BM, the network centric AWACS and AAR tankers are big, slow, defenceless, lumbering targets.
In air combat scenarios, I always make the AWACS and AAR tankers the principal targets.
The attack plan is a simple overwhelming swarm: Offensive Counter Air (OCA) Flankers engage the Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) protecting the AAR tankers and AWACS, while other sections of Flankers simultaneously kill the AAR tankers and AWACS. The fuel and missile payload advantage of the Flanker over the F-35 makes this easy to do.
A probable scenario over vast areas of the Pacific Ocean where such air battles might rage, is that after the tankers are dropped, the F-35s exhaust their fuel and fall into the drink.
If you fail to recognise the vulnerability of AWACS and AAR aircraft, and the risks in heavy dependency upon these exposed ‘assets’, then any reasonable person might ask “who is the one who does not understand future air warfare?”.
or is it some different calender.
.
