blackadam

So how good is Pakistan’s JF-17 fighter? Analysis from RUSI think-tank’s Justin Bronk Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26,660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat.jpg Created in China, perhaps based on an Russian idea, the JF-17 is solely in service with the Pakistan Air Force. Comparable in thrust and weight levels to the Swedish Gripen, the JF-17 is an intriguing design, but how effective is it? We asked Justin Bronk, from the Royal United Services Institute for his opinion. “The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.” jf-17_thunder-planform_view.jpg How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of within-visual range (WVR) and beyond-visual range (BVR) fighter capabilities? “WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.” JF-17 Thunder Dubai air show Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC)Pakistan and China Aviation Technology Import-Export Corporation (CATIC) Paris Air Show siplay pakistan air force paf plaaf sd10pl1210 c802ls56ft562missile.jpg https://hushkit.net/2018/01/25/so-how-good-is-pakistans-jf-17-fighter-analysis-from-rusi-think-tanks-justin-bronk/

F-22 is not stealthed, it only reduces RCS. AWACS, radar, OTH radar, Russian IRST can still detect it Quit the Internet legend of the stealth supernatural, it is advertising, an aircraft will create turbulence on the radar. F-35 was detected on radar ATC (Air Traffic Control) https://theaviationist.com/2018/05/24/image-of-israeli-f-35-flying-off-beirut-with-radar-reflectors-as-well-as-more-details-about-the-adirs-first-strikes-emerge/ And don't remmenber F-117 was shot down https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-down/ The Russians had the MiG-31, Su-27SM3, Su-30SM, Su-35S with R-37M, K-77M and K-100 supersonic missiles. The F-22 has absolutely no equivalent, The F-22 always advertises look first firing first but it can't, In dogfight aircraft more maneuverable like the Su-27/30 will prevail over, the number does not matter. In Vietnam, the MiG-21s were smaller, but they were more successful than the larger numbers F-4, the F-105, combined with the vietnamese dense air defense. The F-22 does not have the same HMS capability as the Su-27 (HMS + R-73), which has upgraded the HMDS for the F-22 but still marks a completion?

There are more than 100 F-22s completed, however, both F-22 and F-35 are not capable of effective weaponry (AIM120D is not yet available for F22 / 35, AIM9X is not yet available for F22 / 35) , numbers are only dominant when dogfight. And even with the AIM120D, the F22 still has a lower range than the Su-35 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-air-force-has-plan-guarantee-the-f-22-dominates-the-24286 https://sputniknews.com/military/201706141054637332-russian-su35s-vs-f22/ Russia is on the defensive side, they have S300 / 400, Buk-M2E and Pantsir-S1. NATO is the offensive side, they do not have that, the obvious disadvantage lies with the attackers, during the Vietnam War the air force and air force of the US Navy suffered many casualties in front of the Vietnamese air defense and air force Mixed Vietnam

AN / ASQ-239 is an ELINT and RWR replacement system, it does not fool missiles The F-22 has never been able to replace the F-15, the forthcoming F-15X. The F-117 was shot down, and the Americans canceled the F-117 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492 Su-57 reduces RCS better than F-35 export version (0.5m2 vs. 0.15m2). Su-57 has a comprehensive ECM system. It has many strong point: stealth + super maneuvers + many ECM/ELINT + IRST + long-range missiles (R37M, K77M). It outperformed the F-22/35.

Su-57 and Su-35 rely on ECM to survive, F-22/35 based on stealth ECM is better, stealth can not help you survive

This is obvious, but you can not deny that the Su-35 is good and balanced with the F-22. It also outperforms the F-15.

The Su-35 is balanced with all NATO aircraft. Su-57 is too much for the F-15 or Rafale Even the F-22, The F-22 has absolutely can't comparison dogfight with the Su-57 Russia needed only a few Kirov-class and Typhoon-class to balance with the NATO Naval during the Cold War, similar to the Seawolf class. And you say Seawolf is a most worse submarine?

The Su-35 / 30SM and MiG-35 are still a threat to the F-15/16/18 and the F-22/35, why Russian must need the Su-57? Russia will not run expensive arms race with the United States, they will not follow the tracks of the Soviet Union Those who hate the default that stealth is power, the F-22/35 has stealth and it definitely wins in the battles to fight Su-35/30, read my post above. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3594574&postcount=2

Over the past few weeks, I've read so many Western-denigrate writings, claiming that Su-57 is a failed project, personally I think, all just propaganda. Remember that in the 1980s, the Su-27 was born after the F-15 a few years, during which time the Soviet Union used the MiG-29 as a main fighter. mostly with the NATO aircraft, on paper it is less than the F-15 in terms of long range attack capability, F-15 had better long-range radar, back in the 1970s, the United States had the F-14 with long-range missiles are better than the MiG-25 & MiG-23. At the time of the Vietnam War (1960s), the MiG-17/21 was much less powerful than the F-4, but the F-4 did not show a high rate of combat against the MiG-17 control by Vietnamese pilots. In this era, the F-35 and Su-35 repeat the history of the F-4 and MiG-21 [​IMG] The F-4 Phantom was a huge beast of a plane with two powerful J79 turbojet engines that could propel it up to two times the speed of sound, and a then-powerful radar housed in its nose. The Phantom was armed with new medium-range AIM-7D and E Sparrow medium-range missiles, as well as short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders AIM-4D Falcon heat-seekers. The Air Force expected the Phantom would detect aerial adversaries from dozens of miles away, swoop down towards them at supersonic speeds and take out its foes with Sparrow missiles from up to twenty-eight miles away. Short-range dogfights were simply not intended or trained for, as the Phantom was not a particularly maneuverable bird. Needless to say, this was not how things played out when U.S. fighters encountered North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets over Vietnam. Though the much lighter MiG-21 had only a weak radar, its pilots were guided to intercept American raids by ground controllers, per Soviet doctrine. Also, American rules of engagement forbade opening fire until enemy aircraft had been positively identified—usually within visual range. When the U.S. fighters finally did get a chance to open fire, the faulty Falcon and Sparrow missiles achieved kill probabilities below 10 percent. The shorter-range Sidewinders were somewhat more effective with 15 percent kill rates, but getting into an advantageous position to launch the heat-seekers often involved getting into knife-fighting range with the nimble MiGs. The kill-loss ratio of the more expensive U.S. jet fighters in general fell as low as 2:1 in certain phases of the Vietnam War. Over time, the U.S. Air Force and Navy adjusted by fielding improved Sparrows and Sidewinder missiles, and retiring the older AIM-4 Falcon. Later, cannon-armed F-4E Phantoms were deployed, giving pilots a backup weapon in close range fights. Meanwhile, the Navy responded by forming the Top Gun school to teach naval aviators short-range dogfighting skills—lessons which resulted in the Navy Phantom pilots scoring a superior kill-ratio. While today’s F-35 is intended to operate using long-range missiles and powerful radar, it trades the Phantom’s speed (the Lightning is considerably slower, with a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8) for a reduced radar cross section that will make it very difficult to detect and engage with long range sensors and weapons. Thus, while the Air Force concedes the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a close encounter with say an Su-35 , in theory it should detect that Su-35 from further away, launch missiles at it from dozens of miles away, and then hi-tail it. Air-to-air missiles have improved enormously since their first wide-scale employment during the Vietnam War. It doesn’t follow then that today’s AIM-120D, Meteor or R-77 BVR missiles will perform as poorly as the AIM-7E did in the past. However, while testing of modern BVR missiles suggests a decent hit rate (around 50 percent is a common estimate) this was also true of preceding aerial missiles. More importantly, despite the increasingly long range of new BVR missiles, the vast majority of air-to-air shootdowns since 1970 have continued to be performed within visual range using both short- and medium-range missiles, as you can see in this detailed history . Many of the BVR hits that were scored in combat were against poorly equipped and trained adversaries that lacked radar-warning receivers to alert them of incoming attacks—unlikely to be true of a clash between modern near-peer opponents. Overall, the Vietnam analogy highlights potential vulnerabilities of the F-35, but also cannot definitively account for the different technologies in play when evaluating the Lightning’s adaptability to the air superiority role. Key performance parameters concerning the effective range of long-range IRST, radars and missiles used by and against an stealth jet are probably necessary for a fairer evaluation, but are likely to be kept under wraps by anybody in a position to know. The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35? The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles. The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place? As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes. Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements. Stealth fighters, like F-22's or F-35's, may be invisible to radar of 1970's technology but not to modern day radar. Stealth is a myth Anything that moves through the air creates turbulence. And modern day radar can detect the air turbulence caused by either a small bird or a jumbo jet. Russian airplanes are always in balance with the United States and the West, one generation apart, with no significant meanings in the sky. Ex: Two Israeli F-15 and one F-4 was damaged in combat with the MiG-21 at lebanon war http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47 In a well-known case from late afternoon of June 9, 1982, a Syrian MiG-21 pilot struck an F-15D with a single R-60/AA-8 Aphid missile. Despite severe damage, the pilot of the big U.S.-made fighter managed to fly it back to Israel for an emergency landing, and his aircraft was subsequently repaired. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94363 https://warisboring.com/has-anyone-ever-shot-down-an-f-15-in-air-combat/

Vice Prime Minister Yuri Borisov sees no reason to force the mass production of the Su-57 Borisov said that such a "visor" can always be played when the aircraft of previous generations will lag behind in their characteristics from similar aircraft of the world's leading countries [​IMG] MOSCOW, July 2. / TASS /. Vice Prime Minister Yuri Borisov believes that to force mass production of a multifunctional fighter of the fifth generation of the Su-57 does not make sense. "The plane proved to be very good, including in Syria, confirmed its performance and combat capabilities.You know that today the Su-35 is considered to be one of the best aircraft in the world. Therefore, we do not make sense to speed up work on the mass production of the fifth generation aircraft, "Borisov said on the air of the Rossiya 24 television channel. "This is our" visor ", which we can always play when the aircraft of previous generations will lag behind in their characteristics from similar aircraft of the world's leading countries," he added. The perspective aviation complex of front-line aviation was first launched into the air in 2010. In August 2017 it became known that the aircraft received the serial name (index) of the Su-57. December 5, 2017, he made the first flight with a new engine. Pilot design work for the Su-57 should be completed in 2019, then it is expected to begin deliveries of aircraft to the troops, it is planned that the installation lot will be 12 vehicles. http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5340291

America's F-15 Eagle vs. Russia's Su-35 Fighter: Who Wins? The eagle vs. the bear...in the sky. by Dave Majumdar The Boeing F-15C Eagle has been in service with the U.S. Air Force for nearly 40 years and will likely serve for decades to come . Over the years, the mighty F-15 has been upgraded to keep pace with evolving threats, but does the venerable Eagle still have what it takes to dominate the skies? The answer is yes—absolutely. The Eagle may be old, but it’s still one of the best air superiority fighters flying. The only operational aircraft that is definitively superior to the F-15 in most respects is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor—other machines have the edge in certain aspects, but the F-15C is still competitive overall despite what the business development departments at various rival contractors might say. Perhaps the most advanced threat the F-15 is likely to encounter is the Russian-built Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E. While there are more advanced threats in development, those aircraft are likely to be too expensive to ever become commonplace. The Su-35 isn’t the most common potential threat out there, but there is a good chance it will proliferate. Indonesia has reportedly decided to purchase the Su-35 , and we know that the Chinese have had discussions about a potential purchase. The Su-35 is a genuinely dangerous war machine , and in many metrics, it matches or even exceeds the capabilities of the latest upgrades for the F-15. In terms of pure kinematic performance, the Su-35 is slightly slower than the F-15C in terms of max speed but it can out accelerate the Eagle with its powerful twin Saturn Izdeliye 117S engines, which put out 31,900lbs of thrust each. Further, when the jet is relatively lightly loaded, it can maintain supersonic speeds without the use of its afterburners. While excellent acceleration at high altitude to supersonic speeds is a huge advantage, the F-15C is no slouch—and it wouldn’t be a decisive edge for the Russian jet. However, where the Su-35 does have an insurmountable edge is at low speeds. The Flanker-E has three-dimensional thrust vectoring and is unbelievably maneuverable at low speeds. However, given the advent of helmet mounted cuing systems and high off-boresight missiles like the AIM-9X and Russian R-73, more often than not, close in visual encounters tend to be “mutual kill” situations as many pilots can attest. A lot of it is going to come down to pilot skill and, frankly, luck. At longer ranges, the F-15C and the F-15E still have the advantage over the Su-35 with their active electronically scanned array radars. The Raytheon APG-63 (v) 3 and APG-82 (v)1 on the two Eagle variants are still considerably superior to the Su-35S’ Tikhomirov IRBIS-E phased array radar. The Su-35 does hold a fleeting advantage for now for passive sensors since it has a built-in infrared search and track system (IRST), but the F-15 fleet will receive a very capable IRST in the near future—nullifying the Flanker’s edge. One area the Flanker-E probably holds the edge is with its electronic warfare suite. The Su-35S boasts a potent digital radio frequency memory jamming suite that can wreck havoc with the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile . While American missiles are likely to eventually make it through, it will take many more missiles to achieve a kill than planners were counting on. The Su-35, meanwhile, carries a huge arsenal of air-to-air missiles versus the F-15 fleet’s obsolete defensive electronics. The U.S. Air Force is keenly aware of the problem, which is why it places such emphasis of on the $7.6 billion Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System upgrade . The real dilemma is that the Su-35 and the current day F-15 Eagle are comparable—and that’s what is worrisome for the U.S. Air Force. The service is used to fighting adversaries where it has a huge technological advantage—against the Su-35 that deficit does not exist and the Flanker-E even has some advantages over the Eagle. Overall, if all things were equal, even a fully upgraded F-15C with the latest AESA upgrades would have its hands full versus the Su-35. But that would mean the United States would be fighting a war against Russia or some other great power—like China. That’s not likely to happen. More likely to happen is that a F-15 would run into a Su-35 operated by some Third World despot. The pilots are not likely to have the training, tactics or experience to fight against an American aviator with a realistic chance of winning. Further, Russian jets are not exactly known for their reliability , combine that with poorly trained maintenance crews and lack of spare parts, some random Third World power is not likely to be able generate a fully operational jet much of the time. Furthermore, other than Russia and China, a potential adversary is not likely to have an AWACS or full ground controlled intercept capabilities—which further hampers the enemy. Bottom line: unless the F-15 is fighting World War III, the Air Force is probably going to be ok keeping the Eagle in service for another two decades. It might not be the one-sided turkey-shoot the Air Force has gotten used to, but the United States isn’t in danger of losing air superiority. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-15-eagle-vs-russias-su-35-fighter-who-wins-13815?page=0,1 Here's What We Know About the F-15X Super Eagle A new report reveals details on the F-15X, Boeing’s latest version of the world famous F-15 Eagle fighter jet. The F-15X will be packed with weaponry, more than any dedicated stealth fighter. The new jet will also have an astoundingly long lifespan, and be considerably cheaper to fly during than other fighters. The War Zone has details on the F-15X, whose existence was revealed a week ago. For one thing, the F-15X does not carry more than two dozen air-to-air missiles as originally reported. It carries “just” 22 missiles thanks to Boeing’s new AMBER missile racks. Still, this level of armament would enable the F-15 to act as a missile carrier for stealth fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, carrying many more missiles than either newer jet could. In a mixed air-to-air and air-to-ground role, the War Zone says, the F-15, “could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000-lb. bombs and eight air-to-air missiles.” That’s a weapon load far greater that what earlier F-15s and existing stealth jets can carry, since they must fit their meager payloads inside internal weapons bays. [​IMG] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PHOTO. The F-15X is also set to be affordable, coming in at “well below” the $95 million cost of the F-35A. The newest Eagle would cost about $27,000 per hour to fly—again, well below the $45,000 an hour to fly the F-35A. Finally, Boeing claims that the F-15X will have a whopping 20,000-hour service life, enabling it to serve for decades. By comparison, the original F-15 was built to serve only 5,000 hours . The F-15X is a fully modernized jet, with a flatscreen glass cockpit, Joint Helmet Mounting Cueing System II helmet targeting system, APG-82 active electronically scanned array radar, the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance system, and Legion targeting pod. It’s important to note that the F-15X would supplement, not replace, the F-22, F-35, or any future stealth jets. It would act as a glorified missileer, launching missiles on cue from its stealthier cousins. While the Air Force had previously sworn off non-stealthy jets, the price of stealth aircraft, and the cost to keep them flying, is proving exorbitant. A mix of stealthy and non-stealthy jets, working as a team, could prove a cost-effective way to grow the service’s fleet of modern combat aircraft. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22563768/super-eagle-f-15x/ All of the Reasons Why America Should Fear Russia's Su-35 Fighter [​IMG] Is it a match against the F-22 or F-15? by Sebastien Roblin The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles. The Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E is the top Russian air-superiority fighter in service today, and represents the pinnacle of fourth-generation jet fighter design. It will remain so until Russia succeeds in bringing its fifth-generation PAK-FA stealth fighter into production. Distinguished by its unrivaled maneuverability, most of the Su-35’s electronics and weapons capabilities have caught up with those of Western equivalents, like the F-15 Eagle. But while it may be a deadly adversary to F-15s, Eurofighters and Rafales, the big question mark remains how effectively it can contend with fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. History The Su-35 is an evolution of the Su-27 Flanker, a late Cold War design intended to match the F-15 in concept: a heavy twin-engine multirole fighter combining excellent speed and weapons loadout with dogfighting agility. (This first appeared in 2016.) An Su-27 stunned the audience of the Paris Air Show in 1989 when it demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra, a maneuver in which the fighter rears its nose up to 120-degree vertical—but continues to soar forward along the plane’s original attitude. Widely exported, the Flanker has yet to clash with Western fighters, but did see air-to-air combat in Ethiopian service during a border war with Eritrea, scoring four kills against MiG-29s for no loss. It has also been employed on ground attack missions. The development history of the Su-35 is a bit complicated. An upgraded Flanker with canards (additional small wings on the forward fuselage) called the Su-35 first appeared way back in 1989, but is not the same plane as the current model; only fifteen were produced. Another upgraded Flanker, the two-seat Su-30, has been produced in significant quantities, and its variants exported to nearly a dozen countries. The current model in question, without canards, is properly called the Su-35S and is the most advanced type of the Flanker family. It began development in 2003 under the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO), a subcontractor of Sukhoi. The first prototypes rolled out in 2007 and production began in 2009. Airframe and Engines The Flanker family of aircraft is supermaneuverable—meaning it is engineered to perform controlled maneuvers that are impossible through regular aerodynamic mechanisms. In the Su-35, this is in part achieved through use of thrust-vectoring engines: the nozzles of its Saturn AL-41F1S turbofans can independently point in different directions in flight to assist the aircraft in rolling and yawing. Only one operational Western fighter, the F-22 Raptor, has similar technology. This also allows the Su-35 to achieve very high angles-of-attack—in other words, the plane can be moving in one direction while its nose is pointed in another. A high angle of attack allows an aircraft to more easily train its weapons on an evading target and execute tight maneuvers. Such maneuvers may be useful for evading missiles or dogfighting at close ranges—though they leave any aircraft in a low-energy state. The Flanker-E can achieve a maximum speed of Mach 2.25 at high altitude (equal to the F-22 and faster than the F-35 or F-16) and has excellent acceleration. However, contrary to initial reports, it appears it may not be able to supercruise—perform sustained supersonic flight without using afterburners—while loaded for combat. Its service ceiling is sixty thousand feet, on par with F-15s and F-22s, and ten thousand feet higher than Super Hornets, Rafales and F-35s. The Su-35 has expanded fuel capacity, giving it a range of 2,200 miles on internal fuel, or 2,800 miles with two external fuel tanks. Both the lighter titanium airframe and the engines have significantly longer life expectancies than their predecessors, at six thousand and 4,500 flight hours, respectively. (For comparison, the F-22 and F-35 are rated at eight thousand hours). The Flanker airframe is not particularly stealthy. However, adjustments to the engine inlets and canopy, and the use of radar-absorbent material, supposedly halve the Su-35’s radar cross-section; one article claims it may be down to between one and three meters. This could reduce the range it can be detected and targeted, but the Su-35 is still not a “stealth fighter.” Weaponry The Su-35 has twelve to fourteen weapons hardpoints, giving it an excellent loadout compared to the eight hardpoints on the F-15C and F-22, or the four internally stowed missiles on the F-35. At long range, the Su-35 can use K-77M radar-guided missiles (known by NATO as the AA-12 Adder), which are claimed to have range of over 120 miles. Is it a match against the F-22 or F-15? by Sebastien Roblin For shorter-range engagements, the R-74 (NATO designation: AA-11 Archer) infrared-guided missile is capable of targeting “off boresight”—simply by looking through a helmet-mounted optical sight, the pilot can target an enemy plane up sixty degrees away from where his plane is pointed. The R-74 has a range of over twenty-five miles, and also uses thrust-vectoring technology. The medium-range R-27 missile and the extra long-range R-37 (aka the AA-13 Arrow, for use against AWACs, EW and tanker aircraft) complete the Su-35’s air-to-air missile selection. Additionally, the Su-35 is armed with a thirty-millimeter cannon with 150 rounds for strafing or dogfighting. The Flanker-E can also carry up to seventeen thousand pounds of air-to-ground munitions. Historically, Russia has made only limited use of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) compared to Western air forces. However, the capability for large-scale use of such weapons is there, if doctrine and munition stocks accommodate it. Sensors and Avionics The Su-35’s most critical improvements over its predecessors may be in hardware. It is equipped with a powerful L175M Khibiny electronic countermeasure system intended to distort radar waves and misdirect hostile missiles. This could significantly degrade attempts to target and hit the Flanker-E. The Su-35’s IRBIS-E passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar is hoped to provide better performance against stealth aircraft. It is claimed to able to track up to thirty airborne targets with a Radar-cross section of three meters up to 250 miles away—and targets with cross-sections as small 0.1 meters over fifty miles away. However, PESA radars are easier to detect and to jam than the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars now used by Western fighters. The IRBIS also has an air-to ground mode that can designate up to four surface targets at time for PGMs. Supplementing the radar is an OLS-35 targeting system that includes an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system said to have a fifty-mile range—potentially a significant threat to stealth fighters. More mundane but vital systems—such as pilot multi-function displays and fly-by-wire avionics—have also been significantly updated. Operational Units and Future Customers Currently, the Russian Air Force operates only forty-eight Su-35s. Another fifty were ordered in January 2016, and will be produced at a rate of ten per year. Four Su-35s were deployed to Syria this January after a Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16. Prominently armed with air-to-air missiles, the Su-35s were intended to send a message that the Russians could pose an aerial threat if attacked. China has ordered twenty-four Su-35s at a cost of $2 billion, but is thought unlikely to purchase more. Beijing’s interest is believed to lie mostly in copying the Su-35’s thrust-vector engines for use in its own designs. The Chinese PLAAF already operates the Shenyang J-11, a copy of the Su-27. Attempts to market the Su-35 abroad, especially to India and Brazil, have mostly foundered. Recently, however, Indonesia has indicated it wishes to purchase eight this year, though the contract signing has been repeatedly delayed. Algeria is reportedly considering acquiring ten for $900 million. Egypt, Venezuela and Vietnam are also potential customers. Cost estimates for the Su-35 have run between $40 million and $65 million; however, the exports contracts have been at prices above $80 million per unit. Against the Fifth Generation The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35? The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles. The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place? As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes. Keep in mind, however, that the former two technologies are imprecise and can’t be used to target weapons in most cases. Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements. The Su-35 may be the best jet-age dogfighter ever made and a capable missile delivery platform—but whether that will suffice for an air-superiority fighter in the era of stealth technology remains to be seen. Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring . https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/all-the-reasons-why-america-should-fear-russias-su-35-24420?page=0,2

This is a new UAV of Russian "Orion" it same UAV Wing Loong of China

Russia was a teacher of China, but now the Chinese have made some progress for Russia to learn Russia has just announced the Kh-47M2 missile, which is a variant of the Iskander, but that is not new, China previously had the CM-400AKG is a version of the SY-400 (equivalent to Iskander) http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/03/russia-kinzhal-missile-based-on-iskander-m.html https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/sy-400.htm The Russian sold out to China Su-27, however, China improved it with the J-11, the J-11B had advantages over the basic Su-27s such as reduced RCS, new technologics (Radar, HUD, HOTAS, avionics, sensor....). Russia was studied the china's concept. They has Su-27SM2, Su-35 also the same purpose

Note that ranges for AAMs are estimated for head-on encounters for fast moving aircraft at an altitude , and the range is significantly shorter when the same missiles are launched from stationary ground platforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAMRAAM I think the S-200 or S-75/125 of the Yemeni air defense was capture by Houthis had shot down the F-15, not the R-27 Houthis's R-27 could not get enough speed and range and heights to reach the F-15

I have a question ? How can the R-27 attack the F-15? Houthis modified it to become SAM, accelerations when firing from the surface would not be as accelerated as the R-27 was launched from high-altitude and high-speed aircraft. The R-27 will not have enough speed, range and well as a flying ceiling to attack F-15s flying at high speed Can be specific examples AIM7P vs RIM7P AIM-7P Sparrow Specifications Dimensions Diameter: 200 millimeter (7.87 inch) Length: 3.66 meter (144 inch) Wingspan: 1.02 meter (40 inch) Performance Max Range: 55,000 meter (29.7 nautical mile) Speed Top Speed: 1,190 mps (4,285 kph) Weight Warhead: 40 kilogram (88 pound) Weight: 227 kilogram (500 pound) RIM-7P Sea Sparrow Specifications Dimensions Diameter: 200 millimeter (7.87 inch) Length: 3.66 meter (144 inch) Wingspan: 1.02 meter (40 inch) Performance Max Range: 35,000 meter (18.9 nautical mile) Speed Top Speed: 1,190 mps (4,285 kph) Weight Warhead: 40 kilogram (88 pound) Weight: 227 kilogram (500 pound) http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/AIM-7P-Sparrow_a001156002.aspx For a big acceleration, SAM needs a bigger engine than AAM and SAM size is always bigger than AAM. The Patriot's rocket motor has a weight of over 600 kg and a thrust of more than 10 tonnes, helps it reach speeds Mach 2.8-4.1 (Patriot missile weighs 900kg) Thiokol TX-486 Single-Thrust Motor Length: 3.2m Diameter: 0.41m Propellant: 1,115 lbs (506 kg) of HTPB-AP, with an ISP of 258. Thrust: 24,052 lbf (10,910 kgf) for 12 seconds Weight: 1,400 lbs (635 kg) http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_SAMs.htm The AIM-120 missile rocket motor weighs 75.34 kg. The thrust is certainly not more than 10 tons but it still achieves Mach 4 speed. This is due to the high altitude and high speed launch from aircraft http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BC4RC4-P5iwJ:www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf+&cd=7&hl=vi&ct=clnk&gl=vn AAM's rocket motor is not able to achieve the same thrust and weight as SAM's rocket motor