SU-35 vs F-22

[Invader ZIM]

So....

 

How many Su-35's are actually in service currently?

[USARStarkey]

about 35, contrasted with 187 raptors.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks USARStarkey.

 

So what is the number of flight training hours of F-22 pilots currently? From what I've found RAF fast jet pilots typically receive around 210-230 hours of routine training and thus are at the higher end of typical NATO flying hour’s levels. The Armee De L’air apparently maintains a very respectable 180 hours ish, and the Luftwaffe something like 150-160 hours of routine flight time.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/February%202014/0214raptor.aspx

 

 

Though there are potential fifth generation challengers on the horizon, pilots and maintainers of the stealthy F-22 Raptor say they’ll own the competitive edge in air combat for years to come, not just because of the advanced technology embodied in their fighter but because of their comprehensive training.

 

In the period immediately following the F-22’s initial operations in 2005, pilots focused mainly on honing dogfighting skills and on a few large-scale exercises where Raptors were set apart from the bulk of the force. After eight years of exploring what the F-22 can really do, the Raptors have become more than a limited, silver bullet force and can now partner and integrate with other USAF combat systems and with those of the other services and allies.

 

Moreover, for every sortie of about 90 minutes, the debrief can last as much as six hours, as pilots scrutinize their every move in the airplane, looking for ways to improve

 

In countless practice engagements with any other type of aircraft, the Raptors invariably come out on top with a wildly lopsided margin of victory, its sparring partners “destroyed” before they even knew the F-22s were there. This performance is not a secret, and Huyck said it provides real deterrent value.

 

To keep combat readiness at a peak, training is incessant, and the aircraft are extremely well-kept. For two years, the 1st FW has beaten ACC’s goal of achieving an 80 percent mission capable rate. The stealth features of the F-22 are constantly checked and refurbished to go to war anytime. With little prep time likely if called to a real-world conflict, the F-22 fleet has no “tiered” readiness, Huyck said.

 

Even in initial training, a sort of triage is applied to spend flying hours as efficiently as possible. While the typical pilot gets 19 flights and 29 simulator rides at Tyndall, “somebody with 2,000 hours in the F-15 may not need 19 sorties,” said Huyck, himself a former Eagle driver.

 

“Within those sorties, I have certain requirements” that must be met to ensure pilots remain proficient, Huyck said. For example, each pilot must fly in a four-ship employment, fly in day and night, fly with night vision goggles, perform aerial gunnery, aerial refueling, practice alert and alert scrambles, and complete composite force training.

 

The latter—usually conducted with dissimilar aircraft from other USAF units or aircraft from other services—is essential, Huyck insisted.

 

“I need to find a way to integrate because it’s not just the strength of our platform. The strength of our Air Force is the systems integration, data link integration, fighter integration, composite force integration through all the services and all the platforms.” The F-22s are good, but they can make everyone better, he said.

 

Within those mandatory tasks, he said, are subtasks such as electronic attack, “going against jamming,” or operating under degraded or denied conditions, such as the loss of radio communications or GPS signals. Other subtasks that must be demonstrated on a 30-, 60-, or 90-day cycle include dropping bombs, shooting missiles, and distributed mission operations. In a DMO, F-22 pilots, either in the aircraft or in the simulator, fly with and against aircraft from around the world brought together in a virtual battlefield.

 

When the F-22 was new at Langley, the base also had F-15C fighters, providing at-hand adversaries for the Raptors. It wasn’t a fair fight, though, since the F-15Cs were easily seen on radar and the F-22s were invisible.

 

When the F-15s went away due to force structure cuts, the F-22s were left without a sparring partner on base, so the squadrons began to solicit training opportunities with Navy F/A-18s from NAS Oceana, Va., or Marine Corps F/A-18s and AV-8Bs from MCAS Beaufort, S.C. The F-22s also began to engage with Navy aircraft embarked on carriers in the Atlantic Ocean.

 

Those engagements have grown into a periodic exercise called Razor Talon, usually hosted by Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. Typically in four-ship deployments, the F-22s get to fight against and alongside other services’ aircraft and F-15Es from Seymour Johnson. The battlespace is usually area Whiskey 122, off the East Coast.

 

Dissimilar air combat training is vital for F-22 pilots, but one Air National Guard pilot said it can be hard recruiting F-22 adversaries.

 

“You don’t want to play if you never see the F-22 and you just keep getting shot down, no matter how many runs you make,” she said. “If you’re the adversary, you’re not getting good training.”

 

To provide more cost-effective dissimilar air combat training, the 1st FW hosts a unit of T-38s, which play the role of Red Air. Fourteen aircraft are currently on station at Langley, said Lt. Col. Brian Kelly, director of T-38 operations at the 1st FW.

 

The aircraft—Air Force-owned and -flown but contractor-maintained—are ex-Republic of Korea T-38A and B trainers once leased from the US, then returned when the ROK got T-50 trainers.

 

“It does its mission great,” Kelly said. “It’s a low-cost, high utility-type aircraft that can present air-to-air targets [and] simulate fighter-type targets.” The purpose of the T-38s is not to engage the F-22s in visual-range dogfights but to “provide long-range targeting problems,” Kelly said. Should a T-38 actually close to “the merge” with an F-22, “the training point has been made,” he said, meaning that if the T-38s got through, the F-22s did something wrong.

 

 

Huyck pointed out that F-22s fighting F-22s is like two blindfolded boxers feeling around for each other, trying to land a lucky blow. It’s not especially useful training.

 

The F-22s typically take on much larger forces and nearly always fight outnumbered. They practice this scenario constantly because it is probably the situation they’ll encounter early in a conflict. With embedded simulation on the F-22, the T-38s can be made to look like just about any other kind of threat aircraft.

 

“The importance of the T-38” cannot be overstated, Huyck said. Its value is not that it’s a nimble aircraft—which wouldn’t help it in an engagement with the Raptor anyway—but because “it’s another manned platform with a decision-maker” onboard, “a seasoned fighter pilot who is trained in air combat tactics, trained in adversary air.” When it shows up on the F-22’s radar as a foreign threat aircraft, “I can react based on that,” he said.

 

Why, though, use a T-38 when the F-22 is likely to face fourth generation or better enemies in real war? Why not use, say, F-16s or F-15s to simulate the Su-27 Flanker?

 

“If I tell you a Flanker is not going to see me and I’m going to be victorious at range, … why would I waste all the money to pay for an advanced generation fighter to go against when I can get the same training benefit out of a T-38?” Huyck asked.

 

“That’s the fiscal prioritization that the 1st Fighter Wing, the Air Combat Command, [and] … our Air Force, quite frankly, has to make with this F-22 platform.”

 

While he would “love to have a few extra millions around to have an adversary fighter squadron here,” it wouldn’t provide any additional training benefit, Huyck said.

 

“When I look at the way we fight, … the tactics and techniques that we use, the scenarios that we fight in, I can get myself to a level of training that’s fiscally responsible in the budget and flying hours we’ve been given, and I can transfer just a little of that into the simulator, to increase the fidelity of my training.”

 

McGinn said the T-38s also save money by relieving the Raptors of playing Red Air against other Raptors.

 

“If we don’t have the T-38s, then we have to provide our own Red Air” for day-to-day training. “Those Red Air sorties count as our combat mission readiness. ... So that is a huge benefit we get from the T-38s.” Instead of half of a 10-sortie mission being dedicated to Red Air, he said, eight or nine can be Blue Air missions, providing more realistic training.

 

The T-38s are also better than the computer-generated threats of the simulator, McGinn said.

 

“Even the best video game in the world can’t compare to a slightly dumbed-down live-fly event,” he said.

 

Asked what the biggest adjustment is for pilots coming to the F-22 from other fighters, McGinn said it’s the Raptor’s stealth.

 

“Incorporating the stealth piece ... is a significant mind shift,” he said, because the pilots have to unlearn the idea that everyone can see them, and they can operate “in that same portion of the airspace” and proximity to adversaries and remain undetected.

 

“That tactical jump is significant,” he said—the idea that “somebody isn’t necessarily shooting back.” The other adjustment is the change in spacing. Fourth gen fighters tend to fly closer together, while F-22s fly with “geographic separation.”

 

 

Given that Russia and China are both developing fifth generation fighters that they say they will export, do the F-22s ever train against a notional fifth generation threat?

 

Huyck did not address the question directly, but offered two comments

 

“One is that there is no fifth generation threat,” he said. “There is a challenge of a fifth generation threat [and] advancements in fourth generation.” At some point, he said, “there may be competition,” but he thinks it will be a long time before any potential adversary takes a fifth generation machine and wrings it out enough and trains with it enough to operate it systematically and reliably. Secondly, that challenge will only be a problem “if the F-22 is stagnant in training and capabilities and modernization and upgrades and maintenance, … which I don’t see happening.”

 

Senior USAF leaders have said in recent months that in addition to the F-35, KC-46 tanker, and Long-Range Strike Bomber, a top spending priority under sequester is to continue to enhance the F-22 and make it, as Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III said, “all it can be.”

 

Asked about photos circulating on the Internet of an F-22 in the crosshairs of an F/A-18 or French Rafale or Indian Su-27, Huyck said “Adobe Photoshop is a wonderful thing.” More seriously, he said Raptors have to practice fighting within visual range, just in case something goes wrong and they find themselves in that situation. The Raptor is considered the most maneuverable airplane in the world, so that situation isn’t a crisis.

 

 

 

“We know how to fight within visual range. We win, pretty much all the time, because of [our] advanced maneuverability,” he said. Moreover, while the F-22 always flies at its full combat configuration—full fuel tanks and weapons bays—most adversaries “probably [don’t] show up to that fight in anything other than a demo-clean configuration” and “maybe they burn off some gas on the way in, to get the max performance they can out of their airplanes.” The Raptor “puts ‘cuffs’ on itself” so adversaries can get something out of the engagement as well.

 

While an opponent may grab a rare photo of an F-22 in its sights during a dogfight, “you know what that does? That increases the stock of the F-22’s air dominance capability,” Huyck insisted.

 

“Everyone puts the prize fighter up on the wall as the target. We don’t do that as the F-22. We go out on a daily basis, we do realistic training, we know that we are the most effective combat force in our United States Air Force. ... Our mission is to fly, fight, and win. We don’t need to go post pictures.”

 

 

Eye opening stuff. Hard to compete with the kind of money they have for training live fire stuff, and simulation of numerous scenarios. And rather humiliating that an Su-27 type fighter is nothing more than a radar reflective modified T-38 to them.

 

 

And what of the number of Su-35 flight training hours? I've heard it's idealy up to 100 hours for tactical aviation pilots.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Invader ZIM

[JNASova]

"Stelt technology"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/kosovo032899.htm

[NineLine]

"Stelt technology"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/kosovo032899.htm

 

 

Point?

[GGTharos]

Here's an example of a real document you can read.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249880.pdf

Edited May 17, 2014 by GGTharos

[JNASova]

Is it invisivible or not.Some more details.

[GGTharos]

You can do a search on the forums to see we have discussed this before. You're way late to this party.

 

Is it invisivible or not.Some more details

[JNASova]

Here's an example of a real document you can read.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249880.pdf

 

I prefer to believe a true story, but what it says on paper.

[Basher54321]

about 35, contrasted with 187 raptors.

 

 

35 also being the designation of the only other aircraft currently in the same league as the 22 - that being the F-35...................

 

:thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Hasn't anyone taught you that exceptions to a rule do not make the rule? :)

 

I prefer to believe a true story, but what it says on paper.

[Basher54321]

I prefer to believe a true story, but what it says on paper.

 

Yet you use western media as a source?...........interesting :megalol:

[JNASova]

Yet you use western media as a source?...........interesting :megalol:

 

Yes :thumbup:.If I use Serbian or Russian,everybody will say thay lie,propaganda.Now,I am presenting to them what "thair" guys say.

 

As pilot of the F 117 said him self ,he is downed by missiles.Missiles are giuded with radar from the ground.So,stelt IS NOT invisivible.Same thing with F 22.

[ФрогФут]

Missiles are different.:)

[siipperi]

Point?

 

Trolling?

 

 

But ye, you aint going to win war with su 35, so that's about it..

[Basher54321]

Yes :thumbup:.If I use Serbian or Russian,everybody will say thay lie,propaganda.Now,I am presenting to them what "thair" guys say.

 

As pilot of the F 117 said him self ,he is downed by missiles.Missiles are giuded with radar from the ground.So,stelt IS NOT invisivible.Same thing with F 22.

 

Media is not a valid source of information from any country............

 

You don't seem to have any understanding of what stealth actually is if you think it implies total invisibility.

[Exorcet]

So,stelt IS NOT invisivible.

You could figure that out from the definition of stealth. Anyone well read knew this since before they entered the thread and I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the thread.

 

Still, the non invisible planes flew over enemy territory without being seen or stopped.

 

Trolling?

 

 

But ye, you aint going to win war with su 35, so that's about it..

 

It depends on the war. The Su-35 doesn't seem to be a bad plane at all and like the F-22, it wouldn't go into combat alone.

[Invader ZIM]

I don't think anyone said it was invisible, but it presents challenges to detect and then more challenges to actually guide a weapon to hit a stealthy target.

 

I know, wiki, so....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

 

 

Unknown to NATO, Yugoslav air defenses operators had found they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars after some modifications.[2] In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed in an interview suggested that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, allowing them to detect the aircraft when the wheel well or bomb bay doors were open.[3] In addition, the Serbs had also intercepted and deciphered some NATO communications, and thus were able to deploy their anti-air batteries at positions best suited to intercept NATO planes.[

 

At about 8:15 pm local time, with a range of about 8 miles (13 km) several missiles were launched. According to Sergeant Dragan Matić, who was identified in 2009 as the soldier who fired the missiles, they detected the F-117 at a range of about 50 to 60 kilometres (31 to 37 mi), operating their equipment for no more than 17 seconds to avoid being locked on to by NATO anti-air suppression.[2] According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature.[6]

 

The 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade also shot down a USAF F-16 fighter on May 2, 1999,[13][14] however these were the only two successes out of the dozens of ground–to–air missiles fired during the conflict.

 

It would appear that in order to get a single kill on what is considered a rather old 1st gen stealth plane, it still required a lot of things to go right. And even then the missiles were only able to hit at 8 miles. Even more impressive is that with it's bomb doors open it was apparently seen only at 50 to 60km.

 

So how many F-117's operated over Yugoslavia that weren't intercepted? Seems like the system wasn't very effective against 1st gen stealth and even less so against 2nd gen B-2 stealth systems since all did what they built to do, without being targeted.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Invader ZIM

[Presing]

 

A documentary about the crew of the Yugoslav air defense, which shot down a U.S. stealth plane F117, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. The documentary is for the first time bringing the facts about how and who done it.

 

Maybe they can explained you guys how that happen.

[NineLine]

Trolling?

 

 

But ye, you aint going to win war with su 35, so that's about it..

 

By asking him what his point is, I'd be-careful of accusing people of trolling.

 

You second line is trolling and OT, no one asked if the Su-35 would win a war, they asked how it would do vs the F-22.

Edited May 17, 2014 by NineLine

[JNASova]

You could figure that out from the definition of stealth. Anyone well read knew this since before they entered the thread and I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the thread.

 

GG Tharos and some others do not understand.Thay clame F 22 can kill Rafale and other planes,becouse thay can aproach unnoticed.Stelt technology gives him that possibility.So finaly,we are all agree.Stelt does not mean invisivible?Or we need more profs?

[NineLine]

GG Tharos and some others do not understand.Thay clame F 22 can kill Rafale and other planes,becouse thay can aproach unnoticed.Stelt technology gives him that possibility.So finaly,we are all agree.Stelt does not mean invisivible?Or we need more profs?

 

So you are saying that the F-22 approaching a fight is just as noticeable as any other fighter?

[TAW_Blaze]

GG Tharos and some others do not understand.Thay clame F 22 can kill Rafale and other planes,becouse thay can aproach unnoticed.Stelt technology gives him that possibility.So finaly,we are all agree.Stelt does not mean invisivible?Or we need more profs?

 

More like, you don't understand jack.

[Scrim]

It would appear that in order to get a single kill on what is considered a rather old 1st gen stealth plane, it still required a lot of things to go right. And even then the missiles were only able to hit at 8 miles. Even more impressive is that with it's bomb doors open it was apparently seen only at 50 to 60km.

 

Scratch the part about deciphering NATO codes. Until there's a non-Serbian source verifying it, I think it's safe to call BS of the highest degree on that part.

 

 

Re stealth during Allied Force: Only once, with stealth broken, when flying directly above a SAM battery, with absolutely no SEAD/DEAD or jamming efforts, could an old stealth design be detected and engaged. Most of the circumstances that made it possible were the direct result of NATO planning that night, or rather the lack of it.

[Invader ZIM]

You've got a point Scrim, thanks for the clarification.

 

I did say it was Wiki after all.