Skip to comments.Forget The F-22 And F-35, Russia's New Su-35 Fighter Jet Blows Them Away
Posted on 06/18/2013 1:50:57 PM PDT by Carbonsteel
The Su-35 (NATO designation Flanker E), Russias latest version of the famous super-maneuverable multirole fighter jet has demonstrated its stunning capabilities during the first day of the 50th Paris Air Show at Le Bourget.
During its display, the 4++ generation aircraft has showcased some almost impossible manoeuvres, demonstrating unbelievable low-speed handling authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
It falls in line with what this present government wants... a permanent loss of our military edge. With homos in the ranks and women in combat roles, along with weapons inferiority... they’re moving right along toward their goal.
Lol. Just check out the comments at the link. Summary: nice for air shows.
BS. I’d venture that an experience Eagle driver could take him.
0bama's "new flexibility" most likely included providing specs and probably technical assistance to his comrades in russia.
“Summary: nice for air shows.”
Correct. Speed and range/TOT win jet modern dog fights.
Manuevarbility is nice, and damn handy, but going faster than the other guy (dive, straight, climb), is about 75%.
Won’t mean crap against a swarm of unmanned attack drones.
I have to allow that the moves it can pull in a tight hairball are extremely impressive, but is it STEALTHY?
If you can see it, you can kill it.
And I do love it’s looks —totally gorgeous.
My fave cammo scheme for that one.
Cute plane. But completely useless if it gets picked up on radar first and can’t fire.
Using proper jargon for today, wouldn’t that be better stated using “...unmanned ASSAULT drones?”
... that suddenly stop following your commands and attack your guys.
yea, you’re right. feel so much safer
Today, aircraft are vulnerable long before they are in visual range. If you see an F-22, you would have already been dead if the pilot thought you were a threat.
Unless the Su-35 pilot can detect an incoming Sidewinder or AMRAAM and out-maneuver it, it's just an expensive showpiece.
Get back to me when it's not detectable by radar and can cruise at supersonic speed.
The Rooskies seemingly build aircraft crudely, but tough as nails (gravel or rough runways...). I wonder if this is in the same mold?
I see Cenciotti keeps exposing the fact that he is no expert.
You get it!
Also 4+ gen without stealth? Sorry, that’s NOT 4+ gen.
Depends on what the ROEs are. We've heard your argument before which is why the Phantom II was fielded without a gun.
Sorry, but aerial battles are not fought at less than 200 mph.
If you tried most of those slow speed maneuvers at full speed or close to it, you bust that sucker up wouldn’t you.
So what’s the true value of some of that. Not much.
As for maneuvering to avoid a Sidewinder, good luck with that.
Stealth is history repeating itself.
The F-4 was a long time ago. The only close-in dogfights that occurred in Iraq were between an A-10 and a helicopter.
That was 40 years ago, With modern FLIR and seismic detectors it would be over in a year or less.
The next generation of drones can perform maneuvers that would kill a pilot. If the remote pilot/operator felt it was warranted he could use the entire drone as a weapon. Autonomous control systems are getting scary good at not needing human interaction.
You’d just paint a box on the screen and tell the drone(s) to kill anything that enters the box.
I remember the days when America was out in front and important. I remember when we were #1 in all things. Those days were before Michelle Obama became proud of our country, for the first time in her life. Those days were back when America actually had a Space program and we reached for the stars. Those were the days before homosexuals actually married each other and boy scouts weren’t faggots. Those were the days when we actually had a real president, one that loved our country and worked to bring us together. Those were they days when we actually had a Constitution.
So, should I learn to speak Spanish or Russian?
I believe ROE's in Vietnam required visual identification:
The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an internal cannon. For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic, as pilots would slow down in an effort to get behind their adversaries. Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to use multiple shots (also known as ripple-firing), just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although by 1965 USAF F-4Cs began carrying SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon, USAF cockpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights until the introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight. Some Marine Corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan on the F-4E.LBJ was a lousy C-in-C.
Can Ivan afford to fly these babies? He’s had some real difficulty getting his pilots flying time.
Of course the Zero has effectively grounded our Air Force too. That’s parity dumb everyone down.
(not really joking)
Drones in a dogfights? I dunno...
You're still governed by ROEs which you conveniently chose not to address.
I’ve considered that too, but it seems like a very difficult language to learn.
If ROE's universally require visual ID, it seems to me we're better off building a bunch of upgraded F-15's.
And net-centric capabilities.
F-22 is a generation ahead.
“We’ve heard your argument before which is why the Phantom II was fielded without a gun.”
The difference is the change in reliability of missiles over the last 60 years. The AIM-9 was pretty decent in the early 80s, when I was a WSO in F-4s, but the reliability now is much better. So is the weapons envelope, and so is the reliability of radar missiles.
In a modern dogfight, trying to go for guns is a good way of dying...
The F-22 has an internal gun that ‘pops’ out when the pilot pulls the trigger.
Why? Because we will never make the mistake again by designing a fighter without a gun (F-4).
Most A/A engagements will be pre-merge and the close-in phone-booth knife-fight will likely be very rare, but it is a capability we must have (and do).
BVR ROE can be restrictive and the politico's (Obama) would place restrictions where BVR shots can't be taken. And, there are times a friendly might be flying with less that capable EID, and that would require some sort of visual.
We have tactics for that.
Gun kills will happen.
The real problem with our making out with Communist China in my opinion, is the very radical differences between the Chinese way of thinking and the American way of thinking.
China is mono-ethnic.
It has an economy which absorbs foreign technology, in a way which absorbs the technology itself. It is very much oriented toward always advancing technologically.
We on the other hand are all about “sharing”.
That was ok for a while. But now China is bigger than America.
That is to say, China EXPORTS more than America.
We continue to operate like we’re the biggest guy on the block, and nobody really pays attention to the fact China has already passed us.
China has an aggressive, race-based system designed to overtake other countries.
It did not have to be this way, but we have developed China into a threat.
It is time to begin behaving that way.
We cannot continue to send industries there.
That has already gone on far too long.
geez...the 22 and 35 are in full operation and when was the last time a Russian plane was in combat?
I actually like the blue/gray splinter myself.
“lol...they thought the same thing during Vietnam...didn’t even put guns on our best fighter the F4...had to hang pods out in airstream to compensate and loose some of the muscle...
Stealth is history repeating itself.”
If stealth is history repeating itself, then why does the F-22 have a gun, and why do their pilots train to dogfight with said gun?
I couldn’t agree with you more, but I sure don’t see us turning around any time soon.
Check, check, check, and Check !
The demo plane is sort of like a pretty model strutting the runway.
To be of any value, the model must also be able to be a great lover, have kids, clean the house, cook, hunt, and raise the kids to be wise and productive.
Speed, weapons capacity, sensors, stealth, maintainability, are all equally important for a fighter plane.
Notice also in the video that the demo plane is dumping tons of fuel into the engines in order to keep up thrust for all of the cute maneuvers.
“The only close-in dogfights that occurred in Iraq were between an A-10 and a helicopter.”
Not entirely correct. There were a few post-merge kills.
That’s more for a ground-support role, really.
I work for an Israeli defense contractor and train US pilots on certain equipment (heads up displays and certain ground targeting equipment).
All that is cool and useful, but air-to-air, it’s actually pretty simple if your mission (like a Russian mission would be) is to “kill everythng in the air.”
To me, it seems only the West gives a hoot about not shooting the wrong thing.
thye most certainly can . I had to study Russian tactics and weapons and Russia in the military when I was up in the Arctic with NATO deployments and they can afford it and they now have massive oil and gas fields.
The days of poor Russia are over
“geez...the 22 and 35 are in full operation and when was the last time a Russian plane was in combat?”
An actual Soviet Air Force plane? Or a soviet built plane?
I know Soviet pilots flew in both Korea and Vietnam, they’ve probably flown “off the record” in some of the African “brush wars” over the past 30 years.
As far as the planes, the last outing of a Soviet outfitted airforce (Iraq) didn’t fare too well with most of them tucking tail and running, or being buried in the desert.
The Russians have almost given up on producing stealthy engines, it seems to me. (At least until GE sells it to them)
They can get the body down, but have been having a heck of a time with the exhaust, in particular.
Their attempts have resulted in very short engine life and really spectacular fires.
That said, I think they can create a plane that is stealthy from the target side vantage, right here and now.
Leaving downtown, however, is another matter.