SU-35 vs F-22

[Ktulu2]

Hi, yesterday i saw that a su-35 was better than a F-22 . It was a youtube video, so i don't know if its true, and i also doubt that it is so, as the su-35 isn't stealt. but anyway :

1- is it true in BRV

2-is it also true in WVR

Edited May 7, 2014 by Ktulu2

[Agiel7]

I think I know what video you are talking about, I should point out that you should pay attention to the user name of the person posting that video, which should clue you in to the bias.

 

Otherwise, everything in there is outright fabrications (and blatantly misinformed ones at that i.e. "results of Pacific Vision") and putting words into other people's mouths, and every single point made in that video has been viciously shot down by people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Agiel7

[Pilotasso]

The Su-35 plays catch up to some of other countries fighters. This is why the Russians are developing the PAK FA, though it seems clear now that this one design was also intended to reduce development costs. Thus it is not expected to surpass the Raptor which kinda answers the question about the flanker.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Pilotasso

[tsumikae]

I think that any #insert plane name# VS #insert plane name# or "is better than" video on Youtube should be seen with a small sarcastic grin on the mouth and a raised eyebrow.

 

Not that they are all completely false 100% of the time, but they are generally very biased. They are either fan made edits with spartiat infos, or national propagandas. Most of those 5th generation planes actually never met in combat.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I think that any #insert plane name# VS #insert plane name# or "is better than" video on Youtube should be seen with a small sarcastic grin on the mouth and a raised eyebrow.

 

Not that they are all completely false 100% of the time, but they are generally very biased. They are either fan made edits with spartiat infos, or national propagandas. Most of those 5th generation planes actually never met in combat.

 

And most erect this fallacious engagement of a one vs. one WVR dogfight where both aircraft see each other visually, as if this were still the day and age of Piston fighters. The individual making this comparison displays his bias toward his preferred side when, inevitably, all of the situations and tactics are advantageous toward one.

 

In reality, the dogfight is a largely antiquated notion. You kill the opponent on the ground, you do not allow him to scramble to begin with. You can field a dream-team task force of T-50s, F-22s, and J-31s, but if your opponent comes in with Malmo MFI-9s and either destroys them on the ground or destroys the means to get them armed an airborne, any advantage with maneuverability, BVR capabilities, and top speed are nullified totally.

[Ktulu2]

Thanks for answering :)

[combatace]

And most erect this fallacious engagement of a one vs. one WVR dogfight where both aircraft see each other visually, as if this were still the day and age of Piston fighters. The individual making this comparison displays his bias toward his preferred side when, inevitably, all of the situations and tactics are advantageous toward one.

 

In reality, the dogfight is a largely antiquated notion. You kill the opponent on the ground, you do not allow him to scramble to begin with. You can field a dream-team task force of T-50s, F-22s, and J-31s, but if your opponent comes in with Malmo MFI-9s and either destroys them on the ground or destroys the means to get them armed an airborne, any advantage with maneuverability, BVR capabilities, and top speed are nullified totally.

 

 

We saw dog fights way way way way way after days of piston engines were over. USAF might have chosen YF-23 over YF-22 if they were not thinking about dog fighting. But by that I dont say Su-35 is better then F-22.

[ironmarc]

This kind of thing is just so immature...

[OutOnTheOP]

We saw dog fights way way way way way after days of piston engines were over. USAF might have chosen YF-23 over YF-22 if they were not thinking about dog fighting. But by that I dont say Su-35 is better then F-22.

 

Aye, and we've seen soldiers fighting with long pointy objects well after the advent of the repeating firearm, but that hardly makes "bayonetworthiness" a prime consideration for how good an infantry weapon is.

[Odinochka]

Meh, am i the only one who's getting really tired of such kind of discussions? :)

 

<insert name here> is not stealth as <insert name here>

What do you understand as "stealth"? Stealth tech is simply bound to make the object(it applies to ships etc as well) as less visible to various detection systems as possible under certain circumstances(e.g. you can be nearly invisible to certain type of radar band in the frontal sphere, but suck at everything else, just as an example), thats about it. You won't ever be able to make a completely invisible object.

What is better? Hell knows, everything is totally and completely classified. All those videos and "expert" conclusions are just a plain simple propahanda. Why? Sipmple, it's money, a lot of countries based on overall people impression will buy the wonder-weapon so they would feel "safe".

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Neither F-35 nor F-22 will turn their radars on if they face each other. However, F-35 has EOS, therefore, it will be able to find F-22 even in environment of heavy airborne and ground based ECM's. I can not believe that F-22 does not have EOS.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

In reality, the dogfight is a largely antiquated notion.

Gun or cannon projectile is the only AA weapon that can not be defeated by ECM's or decoy's (chaffs or flares). There is a very good reason, right reason that F-22 has a gun.

 

While our doctrine is for sure killing opponent at a large distance, even in 1999, F-15's launched multiple AMRAAM's per target, out of which several missed. And that was in the environment where NATO had 10 aircraft for every one Yugoslavia had. There were two AWACS flying in the theater as well, and some Yugoslavian MiG-29's flew with broken Bereyoza's and no GCI. And in the air, the ratio of aircraft in battle was even higher. Thus AMRAAM's were launched in near ideal condition, but several missed the targets, for various reasons.

 

Thus, dogfight or close air combat is very likely scenario in the case of opponents being of near equal strength.

[pepin1234]

Well... see this Video.:D The Su-35 already won to the F-37 so the F-35 is getting old without be Serie produccion fighter. So the F-22 is over :music_whistling:

Edited May 11, 2014 by pepin1234

[Winfield_Gold]

This is a documentary from the Russian perspective based on 5th generation stealth programs. I found this quite interesting in regards to the thread.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=72a_1399700323

 

Is one "Insert Plane Here" better than one "insert plane here" is really a matter of opinion. Probably have to wait for World War 3 to answer the West vs East battle of the better plane designs. A wise man once said, "it's not the plane it's the pilot, this was proven in Vietman"

[pepin1234]

great video

[OutOnTheOP]

Gun or cannon projectile is the only AA weapon that can not be defeated by ECM's or decoy's (chaffs or flares). There is a very good reason, right reason that F-22 has a gun.

 

You mean, the same reason that infantry still carry bayonets?

 

Just because you plan for all eventualities does not make it probable, or even likely, that such event will come to pass.

 

*edit* also, you are quite incorrect: most modern gunsights compute based off the radar data and range. You CAN in fact jam them, vastly reducing their effectiveness. AAA systems even more so, as they cannot maneuver coplanar.

Edited May 11, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[PLP]

You mean, the same reason that infantry still carry bayonets?

 

Just because you plan for all eventualities does not make it probable, or even likely, that such event will come to pass.

 

*edit* also, you are quite incorrect: most modern gunsights compute based off the radar data and range. You CAN in fact jam them, vastly reducing their effectiveness. AAA systems even more so, as they cannot maneuver coplanar.

 

I am guessing that if you are in range for guns, you would be well within the burn-through range of any kind of radar jammer.

[PFunk1606688187]

I am guessing pilots who specialize in Air to Air like F-22 pilots will have lots of experience using eyes and standard wing-width gun funnels to go guns will be able to cope with not having a radar adjusted gunsight if it came to that.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

We saw dog fights way way way way way after days of piston engines were over. USAF might have chosen YF-23 over YF-22 if they were not thinking about dog fighting. But by that I dont say Su-35 is better then F-22.

 

Gun or cannon projectile is the only AA weapon that can not be defeated by ECM's or decoy's (chaffs or flares). There is a very good reason, right reason that F-22 has a gun.

 

While our doctrine is for sure killing opponent at a large distance, even in 1999, F-15's launched multiple AMRAAM's per target, out of which several missed. And that was in the environment where NATO had 10 aircraft for every one Yugoslavia had. There were two AWACS flying in the theater as well, and some Yugoslavian MiG-29's flew with broken Bereyoza's and no GCI. And in the air, the ratio of aircraft in battle was even higher. Thus AMRAAM's were launched in near ideal condition, but several missed the targets, for various reasons.

 

Thus, dogfight or close air combat is very likely scenario in the case of opponents being of near equal strength.

 

Reading a post in its entirety tends to help, you know. Specifically:

 

You kill the opponent on the ground, you do not allow him to scramble to begin with. You can field a dream-team task force of T-50s, F-22s, and J-31s, but if your opponent comes in with Malmo MFI-9s and either destroys them on the ground or destroys the means to get them armed an airborne, any advantage with maneuverability, BVR capabilities, and top speed are nullified totally.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

*edit* also, you are quite incorrect: most modern gunsights compute based off the radar data and range.

F-35 does not use radar for gun solution computation.

 

Other things you said is just plain silly.

[OutOnTheOP]

I am guessing that if you are in range for guns, you would be well within the burn-through range of any kind of radar jammer.

 

Yes... if you are using a white noise jammer, this is true. Most modern jammers are not white noise jammers.

[OutOnTheOP]

F-35 does not use radar for gun solution computation.

 

Other things you said is just plain silly.

 

1) this is irrelevant, as MOST aircraft gunsights do

2) Oh, REALLY? And where do you have it on such good authority that the F-35 does not use radar to compute gun solutions?

3) Do please explain how it is silly to point out that basing one's assessment of comparative air superiority performance on guns-only dogfighting is stupid, when it's the single least probable form of aerial combat?

[Ktulu2]

Yes... if you are using a white noise jammer, this is true. Most modern jammers are not white noise jammers.

 

Can you explain me that? I just never heard of jammers comparison, so I just would like to understand that statement.

[combatace]

1) this is irrelevant, as MOST aircraft gunsights do

2) Oh, REALLY? And where do you have it on such good authority that the F-35 does not use radar to compute gun solutions?

3) Do please explain how it is silly to point out that basing one's assessment of comparative air superiority performance on guns-only dogfighting is stupid, when it's the single least probable form of aerial combat?

 

 

You should go and check the data on air to air engagements that happened after the missile of any kind were introduced.

 

F-4 was built by someone having the same thinking as your but he was proved wrong. Guns were necessary. In later engagements after F-15 and F-16 were introduced most engagements were WVR and kills were made with IR guided missiles and yes that requires maneuverability.

[dumgrunt]

The F-4 was also developed in the time when mass launches of unguided rockets were used as an intercept weapon, and missilery was still in its infancy. Also in Vietnam the BVR engagements would have been outside the standing ROE.

 

I'm not saying that WVR combat is obsolete or that guns are superfluous. Im just saying that things have changed considerably since the 1960's when this was last a big point of discussion.

 

besides, as from what I have read about Red flag exercises. The Raptors do rather well against gen 4.5+++++ etc aircraft, which is what the Su-35 is. And the Raptor was designed and selected with the best ACM ability in mind.

 

and for the record, I'm all for "fix bayonets".

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

 

there is reason why they still teach it.