Su-35S vs EF Typhoon/Rafale/Super Hornet

Who knows?  Considering a Rafale can defeat an F-22 with TVC, it can probably hold its own against Su-35 as well.  



One must realise, French fighter pilots fly 180hrs a year, our pilots only get a fraction of that unless they are instructors.

Currently French pilots are getting tops around 150 hours per year....and with current cuts, only 40 of those will be on fast jets!

Russian units that fly new birds will be flying at least that (Kursk pilots already flew 150 hours pr year in 2012) and AFAIK that is all in fast jets.

Vladimir79 wrote:Who knows?  Considering a Rafale can defeat an F-22 with TVC, it can probably hold its own against Su-35 as well.  



One must realise, French fighter pilots fly 180hrs a year, our pilots only get a fraction of that unless they are instructors.  

I read somewhere that around last year, the average flight hours was around 120h for Russian pilots, which is a huge step up from the average of 80 or less in less than 10 years ago.

TR1 wrote:Currently French pilots are getting tops around 150 hours per year....and with current cuts, only 40 of those will be on fast jets!

Russian units that fly new birds will be flying at least that (Kursk pilots already flew 150 hours pr year in 2012) and AFAIK that is all in fast jets.

Over the last year hours were cut to 150, but that isn't permanent.  The proposed plan is for second tier fighter pilots to cut to 40hrs on their aircraft and 140 in advanced trainers.  The first tier would retain 180hrs on their aircraft.  This is something we already do but even our instructors don't exceed 150.  The difference is our junior pilots are lucky to fly 50hrs and our simulators in service do not compare to that of the French.  New ones are only just arriving and not enough by far.  We should observe how France implements our tiered model and take notes, i am sure it will end up being superior to our corrupt training system. The way we treat our pilots disgusts me.

SU-35's most dangerous adversary -with Rafale-. I wish to understand what the russian specialist say, but unfortunetly, there is no english translation. If someone among you could translate or to say us what it was said in this video.



The EAF Typhoon is very dangerous because this fighter is very manoeuvrable, I know that Mig-35, and SU-35 too.

nemrod wrote:SU-35's most dangerous adversary -with Rafale-. I wish to understand what the russian specialist say, but unfortunetly, there is no english translation. If someone among you could translate or to say us what it was said in this video.



The EAF Typhoon is very dangerous because this fighter is very manoeuvrable, I know that Mig-35, and SU-35 too.

1.) Step one: click on the 'Youtube' icon on the bottom right corner of the video to get to the main youtube website.

2.) Step two: click on the 'CC' caption icon on the dark blackish-grey bar at the bottom of the youtube video. It should automatically have Russian captions setting on.

3.) Step three: click on the 'gear-cog' emblem to the right of the 'CC' captions icon to bring up video options. A transparent grey box should show up with some options, within that a dark grey box their is a white bar that has a 'Subtitles/CC' title to the left of it. Click on the black 'down arrow' and a white box should pop with caption/subtitle options, and click on the very bottom option with a grey divider line above...it should say 'Translate Captions'. It should bring up a dark grey box with a title 'Translate...', with a white bar with the name of languages. Click on the language bar, then scroll down till you find 'English'. Click on that, then click 'OK'.

...After you complete those steps you should get rough translations, however keep in mind it's far from perfect...it has a hard time translating fast speech, slurred words, some trouble with accents and slang...but with that being said you should get a good enough rough translation that you can get a basic understanding on what they're talking about.

The problem is the Youtube translator is terrible!

In short, he says the Su-35 is better as multirole aircraft while the Eurofighter is more optimised for A-A and the Su-35 will be able to detect and lock onto the EF much earlier thanks to it's powerful radar

Going from Cyberspec's summary of the video... (You'll be lucky if Google translate on Youtube videos is even close to on topic, definitely WIP)

Implying that the Eurofighter would be an issue to the Su-35S is kind of funny. For a start the EF is hardly fielded in adequate numbers (essentially a European F-22/F-35) and really isn't a threat in A2A due to it's manoeuvrability, pretty sure the Flanker-E has a far better performance at both spectrums of AoA (high and low speed limits), and it's thrust-to-weight (empty) ratio is 1.3 approx as opposed to the EF's 1.25 approx. As for BVR combat we know the Su-35 dominates all legacy platforms here.

Eurofighter is a multirole fighter and both Eurofighter and Rafale have good maneuverability. But in my opinion, both Su-30SM and Su-35 are better air dominance fighters with more powerful radars and IRST sensors, with equal ESM equipment and more powerful jammers, not to say, they have better agility with TVC engines, which Eurofighter and Rafale don't have.

SU-35S vs Eurofighter Typhoon.

Who will beat who in one on one battle?

Ives wrote:Who will beat who in one on one battle?

This one is easy, Su-35.

People are focusing on appearance and keep forgetting that that monster is jacked up beyond belief.

PapaDragon wrote:

Ives wrote:Who will beat who in one on one battle?

This one is easy, Su-35.

People are focusing on appearance and keep forgetting that that monster is jacked up beyond belief.

But why is that? Doesn't Meteor missile give EF some edge?

Sent from Topic'it App

The Su-35 should be compatible with the RVV-BD, which has a range of 300km in the domestic model and the Su-35 has the radar range to actually detect and track targets at that range.

The Su-35 is faster and has better range/endurance and can pretty much carry the entire range of Russian air to air and air to ground weapons.

GarryB wrote:The Su-35 should be compatible with the RVV-BD, which has a range of 300km in the domestic model and the Su-35 has the radar range to actually detect and track targets at that range.

The Su-35 is faster and has better range/endurance and can pretty much carry the entire range of Russian air to air and air to ground weapons.

But wait, isn't rvv bd made against 8g targets? Typhoon is 9g as i remember.

Sent from Topic'it App

Isos wrote:

Ives wrote:

GarryB wrote:The Su-35 should be compatible with the RVV-BD, which has a range of 300km in the domestic model and the Su-35 has the radar range to actually detect and track targets at that range.

The Su-35 is faster and has better range/endurance and can pretty much carry the entire range of Russian air to air and air to ground weapons.

But wait, isn't rvv bd made against 8g targets? Typhoon is 9g as i remember.

Full loaded it is not. And it will know it is targeted by the r 37 just when its radar goes active like maybe 20 sec before the impact.

So, the given numbers of maximum g-load are usually given for empty planes, right?

Sent from Topic'it App

Isos wrote:

Ives wrote:

Isos wrote:

Ives wrote:

GarryB wrote:The Su-35 should be compatible with the RVV-BD, which has a range of 300km in the domestic model and the Su-35 has the radar range to actually detect and track targets at that range.

The Su-35 is faster and has better range/endurance and can pretty much carry the entire range of Russian air to air and air to ground weapons.

But wait, isn't rvv bd made against 8g targets? Typhoon is 9g as i remember.

Full loaded it is not. And it will know it is targeted by the r 37 just when its radar goes active like maybe 20 sec before the impact.

So, the given numbers of maximum g-load are usually given for empty planes, right?

Depends where you look for those type of numbers. On the net most the producers will give the max numbers for evry spec when the condition are optimal. Max detection range, max range of missiles, max range of OLS ...

The reality is that most of those things depend on many factor and most of the fight will occure at 50-70 km in reality for BVR because you can't just be lke "yeah my missiles are 400 km range so let's lunch them at 400km because my radar has 400km range against fighter according to wikipedia and the guy in front can see me just at 32.5km because I'm stealth and I calculate with wikipedia numbers..."

Physics applies to evrything. You can't outpass them. Just look when a Typhoon is fully loaded with air to ground munitions and you know that will be impossible to do 9g manœuvres. That's the same for everyone. Russian planes even if they are more manoeuvrable they won't have the same manoeuvrablity if they carry 2 r-77 + 2 r-73 and when they carry 6 Kh-31 + 2 r-73. For western fighter is worst because they put like 3 munitions per pod for air to ground nd they always carry tanks with them so they are always full and even if they relase their tank and weapons, they internal tanks will be full.

Why do NATO fighters always carry tanks?

Sent from Topic'it App

Ives wrote:
Why do NATO fighters always carry tanks?

Sent from Topic'it App

Limited internal fuel capacity especially in single engine aircraft like the EF and F-16. A bigger fighter = more tankage.

JohninMK wrote:

Ives wrote:
Why do NATO fighters always carry tanks?

Limited internal fuel capacity especially in single engine aircraft like the EF and F-16. A bigger fighter = more tankage.

Typhoon is twin-engine.

Sent from Topic'it App

Ives wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Ives wrote:
Why do NATO fighters always carry tanks?

Limited internal fuel capacity especially in single engine aircraft like the EF and F-16. A bigger fighter = more tankage.

Typhoon is twin-engine.

Sent from Topic'it App

Yup, stupid mistake by me. I should have said compact size rather than single engined. One of the main trade-offs when making the plane small is that internal tanks are very much reduced but when able to operate with air tankers this is not much of a problem especially when dealing with a non peer opponent.

It becomes much more of a problem when those tankers become the really important first strike target forcing them to stand-off at much longer distances. Which brings us back to the thread topic. Perhaps an interesting SU-35 with its big tanks tactic will be to encourage the EF to burn more fuel. Nothing like a fuel low warning to distract a pilot!

The first things the Su-35 will be looking to take out with long range missiles are NATO inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS aircraft plus JSTARS.

The ability to pull 9 gs depends on a lot of factors... at low flight speeds it is actually impossible to pull 9gs.

At supersonic speeds most aircraft have more limited ability to pull gs too.

The Flanker can't pull 9gs with full fuel tanks, but few external fuel tanks are rated for 9 gs anyway, so with external fuel it would have the same limitation.