Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:F-22 on thermal camera. Look how we see nothing. Such low IR signature. My god we need a telescope to see it. It hides not only behind clouds but also behind molecules of H2O.  

Yep, quite invisible!

Yep, saw that video before. People wonder why the Su-57 doesn't have 2-D nozzles.......oh just the fact that the thermal reduction isn't as good as advertised, and it reduces thrust by 15%, and it makes it less manuverable.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:F-22 on thermal camera. Look how we see nothing. Such low IR signature. My god we need a telescope to see it. It hides not only behind clouds but also behind molecules of H2O.  

Yep, quite invisible!

Yep, saw that video before. People wonder why the Su-57 doesn't have 2-D nozzles.......oh just the fact that the thermal reduction isn't as good as advertised, and it reduces thrust by 15%, and it makes it less manuverable.

If they were to develop a special heavy strike version like the Su-34 for the Su-57 it could make sense to think about stealthier nozzles, but for a fighter the 3D TVC stealth ones we have seen look pretty much optimal to me...

Isos wrote:Strike version is the drone that comes with su-57. Even if for that a two seater su-57 would be better to control all the drines flying with thr su-57.

True. It was only an hypothesis, in reality I don't see likely that any such modification will be done to Su-57 at all.

Flat engine nozzles would be more effective on a high bypass turbofan engine like the new one based on the NK-31 for the PAK DA... the flat shape of the nozzle forces the mixture of the hot air going through the turbojet core with the cold air coming around through the bypass section in greater volume, so the IR signature would be effected most in dry thrust.

For a low bypass turbofan for a supercruising fighter the effect of the mixing would be greatly reduced... using the AB would be heating the cold bypass air and making the square nozzles pointless... in which case you would have square nozzles because they are easier to manage and use in a 2D thrust vector control setup.

Technical article in Aviapanorama comparing all the 35's: MiG-35 / Su-35 / F-35. Including numerical analysis of the success probabilities in dogfighting with and without the use of modern IR missiles. Also some considerations about BVR too. Very recommendable given these comparisons in the internet are usually school yard level.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/www.aviapanorama.ru/2019/02/v-borbu-za-nebo-vstupajut-35-e/

Dont miss the links in the article either

LMFS wrote:Technical article in Aviapanorama comparing all the 35's: MiG-35 / Su-35 / F-35. Including numerical analysis of the success probabilities in dogfighting with and without the use of modern IR missiles. Also some considerations about BVR too. Very recommendable given these comparisons in the internet are usually school yard level.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/www.aviapanorama.ru/2019/02/v-borbu-za-nebo-vstupajut-35-e/

Dont miss the links in the article either

And he says good things about the F-35, but the numbers don't lie.
Thanks for share

Thank you LMFS for the link.  Good read.

In theory, Russian equipment always seems to beat everyone else..."no analogues in the world"  :-) But their strategy is defensive for ever (Sweedish, Polish, French and German attacks) and everytime it came at a massive cost. I actually think it is kinda stupid to play that game...the argument that "we beat back everyone and don't poke the bear blah blah" is kinda stupid. Getting fooled once is understandable and may be twice but that many times...there is something wrong. So all these great toys wont be much if you don't send the message that you mean business....its like India vs Pakistan (India always on fucking defensive mode). The offensive ones generally win in the end (mongols vs chinese), Islamic invaders vs Indian Kingdoms (early 7th century) after trying many times. Look at it objectively...they did do well in Syria though. You don't want to fight wars on your soil...

I do not think US designs the conventional equipment to go one on one against Russian conventional weapons for a peer to peer confrontation....nukes are pretty good match. Strategy and purpose are completely different....

I do not think they are in the same class...Rafale may be better comparison

Note: One dimensional bubbleman, please keep your response short...if you chose to go haywire

One surprised thing for me was how close the su and the mig where.

dino00 wrote:One surprised thing for me was how close the su and the mig where.

Yeah, for me too, but in the end the MiG always was a pretty nimble plane and new TVC / FCS / engines gives it pretty much the same arguments the Su-35 has.

Very striking to me is the apparently small effect the new short range missiles capable of acquiring the target after launch have in the fight, once the kinematics of the whole engagement are considered. Minimum range is an issue, as well as their capacity to actually find the target by themselves after being launched. These elements are very difficult to analyse qualitatively so the study is very enlightening

My understanding is that they want the new short range weapons to have IIR seekers and datalinks so a target locked with helmet mounted sights or IRST or radar or any combination and be fired upon by a lock on after launch weapon that uses a datalink with the launch aircraft to ensure it goes after the target the pilot wants killed first.

Perhaps a few MiG-35 haters can pull their heads in and give credit where credit is due... but I doubt it... haters are going to hate.

GarryB wrote:My understanding is that they want the new short range weapons to have IIR seekers and datalinks so a target locked with helmet mounted sights or IRST or radar or any combination and be fired upon by a lock on after launch weapon that uses a datalink with the launch aircraft to ensure it goes after the target the pilot wants killed first.

This was the scenario in the simulation indeed, but even when the author acknowledges this technology allows an opponent to defend himself despite the positional inferiority and their guidance was simulated as flawless, the results were not that brilliant. That being said, we know essentially nothing about data and assumptions used for the analysis and that is where the trick lies, but the same author made some other analysis with different results. For instance against Rafale it was not so easy for Su-35, which makes sense if you analyse the aero qualities of the plane. If you would consider Su-57 with superior aero design, bigger wing and intake capture area, TWR and systems including DIRCM it may look even uglier for F-35.

I think the Rafale and the Typhoon and the MiG-35 and Su-35 are all better than the F-35 in most areas except stealth, and if you have things that can see past the stealth features like L band AESA radar and IRST systems, the F-35 becomes a very expensive fighter bomber more comparable to the British Buccaneer than the American F-16.

They wanted it to be a stealth F-16, but really it is a stealth Bucc... which makes it an acceptable medium range strike aircraft, but like putting AAMs on an Su-24 or F-111 and reducing their effective range and limiting them to 6 bombs each... but stealthy... and very very expensive.

Isos wrote:

WTF!!!
Is this real? I can't find the picture in is Instagram...

This is interesting, if true. This MFD is from Su-34, what mean Su-34 track F-22 through platan EO complex.

Medo I was just thinking that! That ain't no SU-35 !



SU34


Wow so how did SU-34 get on him!?!?! Where did that happen??

Your pic is from one of the prototypes. Serial one:

And it seems to have no lenses to increase rcs.

Wouldn't matter... Platan is EO and is not effected by RCS.

Well if they had Su-35s in the air it would have been pretty obvious from the radar signature from the radar in the nose of the Su-35 in X and Ku bands and the radar signature from the wing mounted antenna in the L band whether it was using reflectors or not... the detection range with L band should be fairly long range as the signal would not be effected by shaping or RAM, and the directional accuracy would be enough to point an EO system or a high power X or Ku band radar pretty much at the aircraft.

A full airspace scan might not pick up a stealthy target, but a small area scan at high energy levels should... from the radar return they got they will know how stealthy it should be... what would be the point of taking an F-22 into a combat zone and flying it in an unstealthy condition.... they might as well use an F-15 as that could carry more weapons further and faster and much much cheaper...

As shown in the image, stealth means nothing in EO systems...

Don't underestimate Su-34. It record well F-22 with its ELINT equipment, TV, IR Picture from Platan and RCS with V004 PESA radar. Su-34 radar is also very powerful and capable. I wonder if RuAF use those new ECM and recce pods for Su-34 in Syria. Those new pods would bring even more informations from F-22 and F-35.