Su 35 or f 22 which is better. What do Western experts not understand? Computer combat check
With the start of the anti-terrorist operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria, interest in the Russian military aviation, and in particular to advanced developments in this area. The successes of our Aerospace Forces in Syria have confirmed: in this component the Russian Army has - full order, even though aircraft developed back in the 1970s are sent on combat missions from the base in Latakia (the basis of the VKS aviation group is the Su-24M and Su-25, as well as the Su-30M cover fighters). The pride of our military aircraft industry, the Su-35, is not participating in the Syrian operation. However, the forces and means that are deployed in Syria are sufficient to fulfill the tasks set by the Russian leadership. Although, I think, many would be interested in comparing the combat capabilities of the 4++ generation Su-35C with the main 5th generation fighter of the US Air Force F-22A “Raptor”. Some may ask why the F-22, but what about the more modern F-35? The fact is that the F-35 has not yet been finally adopted for service - the introduction of the F-35 into technical operation was postponed from 2015 all the way to 2019(!) due to serious problems with the propulsion system and aircraft software. It also has shortcomings with the load-bearing elements of the weapons. The prospects for the F-35 are generally quite vague - many NATO countries are already refusing to buy this “pig in a poke”, or are significantly reducing the number of purchased vehicles, so it is more appropriate to compare our Su-35 with the F-22, which has been in service with the US Air Force since 2005 .
The story of the birth of the dinosaur, "Raptor" - as the F-22 was dubbed - is very interesting. The idea of creating a 5th generation fighter arose in the Pentagon back in the late 1970s, of course, in light of the confrontation with the USSR. In 1981, at the height of the Cold War, the US Air Force began to formulate a mission to develop a fifth-generation advanced front-line fighter (ATF) to replace the already aging F-15 Eagle. In July 1986, a competition was announced for the design of a fifth-generation fighter, and by the beginning of 1990, 2 prototypes of the future flagship of US fighter aircraft were built - YF-22 and YF-23. However, by the end of the 80s, such huge amounts of money were spent on the ATF program that, as a result, the initial requirements for the fighter were significantly reduced in order to avoid a further increase in the cost of development and testing, and then the production aircraft themselves.
A year later, on April 23, 1991, the US Air Force announced the Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics group of companies as the winner of the competition to develop and produce a fifth-generation fighter called the F-22 “Raptor.” Its main features were supersonic cruising flight speed at low engine speed, high maneuverability, good takeoff and landing characteristics, long range and combat load comparable to the combat load of the F-15 fighter. An important feature of the aircraft should have been its low visibility in the radar and infrared ranges, achieved as a result of the use of “stells” technology. The first pre-production F-22 took off on September 7, 1997. But eight whole years passed before, on December 15, 2005, a ceremony was held at Langley Air Force Base (Virginia, USA) for the commissioning of the Lockheed Martin F-22A “Raptor” multi-role fighter by the US Air Force. The media scattered laudatory epithets in honor of the new fighter, America's military leadership and the US military-industrial complex. It seemed that air supremacy was guaranteed to the Americans forever...
But the music did not play for long. On December 13, 2011, the last production F-22A fighter with tail number 10-4195 left the Lockheed Martin assembly shop in Marietta, Georgia, USA. It became the 195th F-22A produced since 1997, and on May 2, 2012, became the last, 187th production F-22A fighter to be delivered to the United States Air Force. What was the reason that instead of almost 1000 fighters planned for release, in the end, less than 200 units were adopted by the US Air Force. The answer is simple - price!
On this moment The F-22A aircraft is the most expensive fighter in the world in service with the Air Force. According to the US General Accounting Office (GAO), at the end of 2010, the full price of one F-22A aircraft (including all indirect costs, including the cost of the development program) reached $411.7 million. This high cost is mainly due to the repeated reduction in the volume of purchases of this aircraft - due to the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, only 187 units were purchased out of the originally planned 750-900. In 2006, a joke appeared that the F-22 was “worth its weight in gold” (“costs more than its weight in gold”), which was literally true - at that time the cost of 19.7 tons of pure gold (the weight of an empty F-22A) was the same 400 million dollars. Almost half a billion for one plane - how do you like it?
Well, yes, God bless him, with the Raptor, we should be more interested in our advanced developments. We, of course, cannot compete with the Pentagon’s military budget, but we have always taken advantage of others - reliability, high service life and breakthrough technical solutions. And the Su-35 is precisely the living embodiment of Russian military engineering, which has always been ahead of its curve.
Su-35 (according to NATO codification “Flanker-E+”) is a Russian multi-role super-maneuverable fighter of the 4++ generation, equipped with thrust-vectoring engines. Serial modification for the Russian Aerospace Forces it is designated as Su-35S. The designation “generation 4++” is conditional and indicates that the characteristics of the fighter are very close to the characteristics of fifth-generation aircraft; The Su-35S satisfies most of the requirements for 5th generation aircraft.
The development of the Su-35 was a response to the appearance in the United States (and plans in a number of NATO countries) of fifth-generation fighters. The task to develop a new fighter was sent to the Sukhoi Design Bureau in the early 2000s, and in 2006 production of the pilot batch of the Su-35 began. The assembly of the first prototype Su-35 aircraft (no. 901) was completed in the summer of 2007 at KnAAPO im. Yu. A. Gagarin", after which the car was presented at the MAKS-2007 air show in a static parking lot. The first flight of the experienced multifunctional fighter Su-35 with AL-41F1S engines from NPO Saturn OJSC took place on February 19, 2008 at the Gromov Flight Research Institute. More than three years passed before the first production Su-35S (S means serial) took off on May 3, 2011. And then things went much faster - already on December 25, 2012, the Ministry of Defense received the first six production Su-35S fighters. And on May 9, 2015, 4 Su-35S of the Primorsky Territory took part in a parade held in Moscow dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War.
The Su-35 fighter is a deep modernization of the T-10S (Su-27) platform. It has a largely new strengthened airframe; unlike the “old” Su-27, it does not have a front horizontal tail surface and a brake flap - braking during landing is carried out by deflecting the rudders in different directions. The Su-35 has an advanced information and control system, a radar station with a passive phased antenna array "N035 Irbis", as well as new AL-41F1S engines with plasma system ignition and controlled thrust vector. These engines meet all the engine requirements for a fifth-generation fighter, including the ability to reach supersonic speeds without the use of afterburner. The Su-35 has a special conductive coating on the edge of the airframe and the canopy; special materials are used to reduce the ESR. Su-35 is equipped the latest system weapons control system, which includes an optoelectronic system, a multifunctional radar, and a digital weapons control complex. The multi-mode noise-resistant radar has a mode for attacking ground targets, the ability to map the earth's surface, and allows it to detect and "guide" air targets at a distance of up to 400 km, as well as ground - up to 200 km. According to the Sukhoi Design Bureau, the assigned service life of the Su-35 is 6,000 flight hours or 30 years of operation.
And now the most interesting thing - in 2013, the cost of the Su-35S produced for the Russian Armed Forces was $45 million in US dollars (the export version of the Su-35 costs $82-85 million, depending on the configuration). After the fall of the ruble exchange rate, the cost of the Su-35 in dollar terms fell to $20 million, which made our aircraft the absolute leader in the fighter aircraft market in terms of price/quality ratio. Judge for yourself - one F-22A got by American army$450 million, and the Su-35S costs the Russian one $20 million. Twenty times cheaper! One F22 against 20 Su-35?! You can hear objections, well, “Raptor” is the fifth generation, and our Su-35 is only 4++? And let the American military boastfully declare that one F-22 is capable of “overwhelming” 10 or even 30 of the latest Russian aircraft in an air battle, but we will not believe them, but will try to figure out how inferior the Su-35 is to the American F-22 and F- 35, – and is it inferior at all?
In July 2008, an air combat simulation was carried out with the participation of a Su-35 fighter against several American fighters- F-22, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, with an extremely sad result for the overseas military - only one victory for American fighters in more than 20 air battles against the Su-35. The simulation was conducted at Hickam Air Force Base ( Hawaiian Islands), which was witnessed by at least four representatives of the US Air Force and two representatives of Australian military intelligence. Australian MP Denis Jensen said F-22s and F-35s were "mercilessly beaten by a Russian Su-35 fighter" during a "highly classified simulation". Its ability to shoot down stealth aircraft is largely due to its super maneuverability. Power point The Su-35 allows you to perform a number of complex maneuvers, including the “Pugachev cobra”, “Frolov’s chakra” and the unique “pancake” (or “Pancake” - a horizontal turn of 360 degrees with minimal loss of speed).
American air combat tactics boil down to three principles - “first to find, first to shoot, first to destroy.” “With the advent of the Su-35, this tactic should be reconsidered. An F-22 or F-35 may be the first to detect the Su-35, but in order to fire the missiles it must move closer, at which time both adversaries will be able to see each other. In this case, the advantage of stealth invisibility is significantly reduced,” said Sweetman, a military expert at Defense Industry Daily. “Stealth technology is very useful, but it’s still not Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak.” In close combat the Su-35S with its supernatural ability flying at minimal speeds and at the same time rapidly accelerating to supersonic speeds turns into a hunter. The tactical advantage of performing maneuvers at ultra-high angles of attack with sudden changes in flight speed is that any air-to-air missile has an "intelligent element" that predicts (models) where the target will be after some time - but not in the case of “cobra” or “pancake”. “If an enemy aircraft flies with an unpredictable trajectory and is capable of changing it unexpectedly and very sharply without losing control, then it will be very difficult for the missile to hit it. Vigorous maneuvers performed by a fighter significantly reduce the effective launch range of enemy missiles,” says Sweetman.
Maybe the F-22 is good at getting through heavy traffic air defense enemy? According to another study conducted in 2012 commissioned by the US Air Force, resist Russian air defense not only incapable american planes F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, but even the fifth-generation multirole fighter F-22. According to the results of this study, in order to achieve overwhelming air superiority in the event of a war with Russia, the Pentagon needs to take into service at least another 400-500 F-22 Raptor aircraft. Otherwise, American aircraft will not be able to overcome Russia's layered air defense system. For example: the S-400 "Triumph" complex is capable of detecting and hitting a super-maneuverable small-sized target with an effective reflective surface (ERP), which a five-ruble coin has - 0.002 m 2 (the F-22 image intensifier is about 0.3 m 2, which is 150 times more area coins). During tests, the S-400 in normal mode hit air targets that were made using stealth technology, that is, “invisible” aircraft (including those with an image intensifier less than 0.1 m 2, which exceeds the performance of both the F-22 and F-35).
So, what happens: the F-22 is not at all as good as the American media and NATO “experts” describe it, and the Su-35S, on the contrary, in terms of efficiency/cost ratio is not just on par with American fifth-generation fighters, but an order of magnitude surpasses them. A nightmare for the Pentagon and NATO. Even worse for US Air Force is the fact that today they already see all the shortcomings and problems of the new F-35, when it has not even entered service yet, and yet somewhere by 2020 the “aircraft of the future” will appear - the Sukhoi PAK stealth fighters F. However, this is a topic for a separate article...
P.S. On February 1, 2016, it was announced that Russia had transferred 4 Su-35S fighters to the Khmeimim airbase in Syria for testing in combat conditions. It’s done – the best fighter in the world will soon appear in the skies of Syria! Approaching the day of victory of the Syrian people - in alliance with Russia - in the war against terrorism!
September 26th, 2013The usual thing. Remember how everyone dreamed of finding out who would defeat whom, Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, Sylvester or Arnold. Likewise, when discussing any weapon systems, it is interesting to find out who will emerge victorious from the battle. Of course, the most objective judge is such a process as “war”. But, thank God, this is not yet a widespread phenomenon. Therefore, there are many arguments about whose tank is better, whose plane will shoot down another helicopter faster. Let's read the opinions of various experts about the Su-35 and F-35.
In July 2008, a simulated dogfight was conducted involving a Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was "bludgeoned like a child." The simulation was conducted at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii and was witnessed by at least four Australian Air Force and military intelligence officials. Australian MP Denis Jensen knowledgeably stated that during a “highly classified simulation” the F-35 was “mercilessly beaten by a Su-35 fighter.”
“Black PR” appeared at the wrong time from the point of view of Lockheed Martin, the aircraft manufacturer. A number of countries have already decided to purchase this aircraft, and the information that there are aircraft that are both better and cheaper than the F-35 casts doubt on the feasibility of such transactions. The Boeing concern, which is persistently offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters to foreign buyers, also suspects Lockheed Martin of supporting Lockheed Martin’s black PR campaign.
As a result, the Pentagon stood up for the honor of the F-35. The head of the F-35 program, Major General Charles Davis, said that during the exercises, tasks of a completely different direction were solved without failing to notice the overwhelming superiority of the F-35 over all existing fighter models in the world, and therefore over the Russian Su-35.
Russian scientists have a diametrically opposite opinion on this matter. According to the data obtained as a result of mathematical modeling air battles Using different modifications of the US Air Force F-35 and Su-35 equipped with 117C engines, provided that the enemy weapons are identical, the Russian example has an overwhelming superiority over any of the modifications of the American fighter. The probability of a successful outcome of the F-35 battle against the Su-35 does not exceed 0.21-0.28.
The Sukhoi company presents the Su-35 as a 4++ generation fighter with some features of the fifth generation, that is, with stealth characteristics. Its ability to shoot down stealth aircraft is largely determined by its super maneuverability.
The Su-35’s power plant allows it to perform all types of complex maneuvers, including the “Pugachev cobra”, “Frolov’s chakra” and the unprecedented “pancake”.
Western analysts do not give of great importance super-maneuverability, believing that during real combat operations, stealth is much more important than super-maneuverability. Stealth is an option that stays with a fighter “any time, any day.” Northrop Grumman business program manager Pete Bartos says stealth was a core requirement for the F-35's development and therefore does not require high maneuverability.
However, the authoritative military source Defense Industry Daily writes that “stealth is very useful, but it’s still not Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak.” Indeed, the US Air Force is fixated on stealth, while the theory of air combat is constantly evolving. “In the 1940s and 1950s, the priorities were first height, then speed, maneuver and firepower. From the third and fourth generations of fighters, priorities shifted to speed, then maneuver, and finally, super-maneuverability. “It’s like a knife in a soldier’s pocket,” Sergei Bogdan, chief test pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, said in an interview with Aviation Week.
Aviation expert Bill Sweetman says the maneuvers demonstrated by the Su-35 at the Paris Air Show cannot be mistaken for air superiority. “However, these maneuvers are not aerobatic stunts. The unpredictable flight path of a fighter can lead to failures in enemy missile guidance algorithms; the fighter itself can launch short-range missiles from high probability defeating an enemy aircraft,” says the expert.
The F-35 is completely dependent on its stealth and prefers not to get involved in close air combat (“knife fight”), where it will be very vulnerable to the Su-35. Russian fighter has large arsenal lethal weapons, increased range flight and, of course, the legendary super-maneuverability, which has become business card Su-27 family.
Sergei Bogdan recalls that in 1989 the Su-27 performed a “cobra”: “A rapid change in speed can lead to disruption of Doppler tracking Control radar weapon of an enemy fighter. The maneuver is even more effective on the Su-35S, because after this maneuver the pilot can direct the aircraft in any direction.”
Equipped with three-axis thrust vectoring and a fully integrated flight control and propulsion system, the aircraft can perform maneuvers unmatched by any fighter jet in service, including bell, cobra and, of course, 360 turns. the hail is practically on the spot, as well as flying at very low speeds at an angle of attack of almost 90 degrees.
“Most fighters that are equipped with thrust vector control, such as the Su-30MKI and MKM, are capable of performing these maneuvers, but the Su-35S is different in that it has more engine thrust when performing the bell maneuver and can therefore stand quietly longer "in a vertical position, and can perform stable flight at a speed of only 120-140 km/h," says Bogdan.
The emphasis on "super-maneuverability" runs counter to many Western air combat tactics, which focus on maintaining high speed to avoid loss of aircraft energy. Bogdan, however, says that the super-maneuverability factor in air combat can be significant.
“A classic dogfight starts at high speed, but if you miss the moment when you could fire a missile first, the fight moves to close ranges, and high maneuverability is needed to avoid being hit by an enemy fighter, and this phase of the fight can be longer. After completing the maneuver, the aircraft will fly at a lower speed, but both opposing fighters must get into firing position as quickly as possible. Super maneuverability allows you to do this within three seconds and hit the enemy again,” says the chief pilot.
However, Bogdan emphasized that “you have to be careful when using this tactic. This is akin to the fact that a sniper cannot shoot many times from the same place he is in without revealing his position.”
Regarding the doctrine that prioritizes maintaining high speed, Bogdan noted: “The theory of air combat is in continuous development. In the 1940s and 1950s, the priorities were first flight altitude, then speed, then maneuverability and firepower. Starting with the third and fourth generation fighters, the priorities became speed, then altitude, then maneuverability. Super maneuverability became a new factor. This is a knife in a soldier's pocket."
Bogdan recalled the essence of the “Cobra” maneuver on the Su-27: a quick reduction in speed, which can disrupt the capture and tracking of an enemy Doppler radar aircraft. This maneuver is even more developed on the Su-35S, when after its execution the fighter can fly in any direction
Bill Sweetman says that the tactical advantage of doing a Cobra is that any air-to-air missile has an "intelligence element" that predicts where the target will be after some time, but this is not the case with the Cobra. “If an enemy aircraft flies with an unpredictable trajectory and is capable of changing it unexpectedly and very sharply without losing control, then it will be very difficult for the missile to hit it,” says the expert. Vigorous maneuvers performed by a fighter reduce the effective launch range of enemy missiles, Sweetman said.
To destroy the Su-35, the F-35 fighter must come closer, thereby exposing itself to the risk of being detected (the powerful Su-35 radar can easily do this, especially since this aircraft has in its arsenal the longest-range air combat missiles with a range of 400 km developed by the company “Vympel”, which is a world record – the source does not specify which missiles are meant – approx. “VP”).
The expert also reports that American tactics air combat comes down to three principles - “first to find, first to shoot, first to destroy.” With the advent of the Su-35, this tactic may be revised. The F-35 may be the first to detect the Su-35, but in order to fire the missiles it must move closer, at which time both adversaries will be able to see each other. “In this case, the advantage of stealth is significantly reduced,” says Sweetman.
In close combat, the Su-35S, with its uncanny ability to fly at minimal speeds and at the same time rapidly accelerate to supersonic speeds, turns into a hunter. The maximum speed of the aircraft is 2.5M, the flight range is 3600 km, in the air combat fighter configuration it can carry 12 Vympel medium-range missiles (probably referring to the R-77 missile launcher various modifications). The F-35 fighter can only carry a “handful” of missiles, its flight range is only 2222 km, and its maximum speed 1.6M seems to speak only of the desire to “die quickly.”
Deputy chief engineer of the Chinese aircraft manufacturing corporation AVIC Tang Yanshi, in an interview with the Global Times newspaper, expressed his undisguised pleasure at the maneuvers performed in the Parisian sky by the Russian Su-35S fighter.
The engineer said that he received “pleasure watching the flight of the Su-35S.” The fighter showed stable flight at an angle of attack of 70 degrees and almost on the spot made a horizontal turn of 360 degrees using a controlled engine thrust vector ((according to some media reports, the minimum radius of a horizontal turn of the F-22A by 360 degrees at low altitude is 750 feet, or 229 meters).
The ability of the Su-35S to make a 360-degree turn almost on the spot has a very important when conducting close air combat, the engineer says, by eliminating such a traditional parameter for determining the maneuverability of fighters as the turning radius. This factor allows the fighter to quickly take an advantageous position to launch infrared-guided missiles at the enemy’s tail.
The Americans also understand the importance of close combat, having equipped their F-22 and F-35 with cannons, since in some cases only cannons can be used to defeat an airborne enemy. Tang Yanshi said that stealth and super-maneuverability are the most important requirements for fighter aircraft at present.
Indeed, the F-35 does not offer the "extravagant capabilities" that most air forces around the world require. Conversely, the Su-35S offers performance on par with fifth-generation fighters. Even more frightening for the Western Air Force is the fact that they already see the vulnerability of the F-35 today, when it has not yet entered service, and yet somewhere by 2020, combat stealth fighters of the Sukhoi PAK FA will appear. There is still plenty of time left for many Western fighter pilots to change their profession to another, safer career.
or for example who was The original article is on the website InfoGlaz.rf Link to the article from which this copy was made -Immediately, many Russian online media published notes that “flight tests of the new Russian Su-35 fighter showed that, in its own way, technical specifications the aircraft exceeds the basic ones foreign analogues, including the French Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, as well as the American F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 Lightning II."
These and similar statements have appeared many, many times, but aside from skepticism, they cause little.
Let's start with the fact that the “comparison” was made incorrectly. The Su-35, which is a modification of the Su-27 family, is, according to the Russian classification, " heavy fighter", and according to NATO classification - an "air superiority fighter". This class of fighters includes the F-22 Raptor and the F-15 Eagle family of fighters. All other listed fighters belong to the "light" or "medium" class according to the Russian classification. , and according to NATO - to the class of fighter-bombers or “multi-role” fighters. If we compare Eurofighters, Rafales, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, then in the Russian Air Force nomenclature they are in the class of the MiG- fighter family. 29. And the F-35 Lightning II cannot be included in this list at all, since it is not only of a different class, but also of a different generation.
Speaking of disputes about what this most notorious “fifth generation” is.
It is clear that depending on the type of fighter, whether it is a “superiority” fighter or a fighter-bomber, different requirements are placed on its tactical and technical capabilities and tactics of use. Not by weight alone, as they say.
The tactics of using 4th generation superiority fighters required an overwhelming advantage in air combat at long range and middle distance due to better avionics (avionics) and missile weapons, advantages in close air combat due to better maneuverability, controllability and cannon weapons. In addition, 4th generation fighters were subject to increased requirements for survivability, that is, the ability to withstand serious damage during combat missions.
The F-15 Eagle was created according to these requirements in the 70s.
In 1982, the Israel Defense Forces Air Force was the first to use these aircraft in air combat and amazed the whole world with their superiority. In the battle over the Bekaa Valley, Israeli F-15s and F-16s, in 3 days, from June 9 to 11, they shot down 76 (according to Israeli data) or 68 (according to Soviet data) Syrian MiGs and Sushkas, without a single loss on their part . One Israeli F-15 was damaged but returned to base, was repaired and returned to service. This plane received an R-60 missile directly into the nozzle of one engine, but the built-in survivability function worked and the aircraft was able to return to its airfield.
There is also a known case when an Israeli F-15, as a result of a collision with a Skyhawk fighter during an exercise, lost almost its entire right wing, but was still able to return to its base and land. Incredible plane!
At a time when 4th generation fighters were just beginning to take wing, serious successes were achieved in the United States in the field of creating aircraft using stealth technologies - exactly a year before the battle over Bekaa, the F-117 Nighthawk made its first flight. Once military theorists became convinced of the benefits of stealth, naturally The idea was born to combine the highest combat capabilities of 4th generation fighters with the stealth technology of Stealth. This is how the concept of the 5th generation fighter appeared. In May 1981, the Pentagon approached aircraft manufacturers with a request for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program. Five years later, in 1986, the Lockheed Martin YF-22 and Northrop Grumann YF-23 projects reached the finals of the competition. Both aircraft combined the advanced capabilities of the F-15 with the stealth capabilities of the F-117.
4 years later, on August 27, 1990, the Northrop YF-23 took off for the first time, and a month later the Lockheed YF-22. The Lockheed project won the final victory in the competition and on September 7, 1997, the first flying prototype of the F-22 Raptor made its first flight.
8 years of testing and the very first “tests” in exercises showed that the tactics of use will have to be urgently and completely rethought. The inertia of thinking of military theorists led to “excessive” capabilities, which new tactics there was no use. Such “redundant” characteristics included super-maneuverability.
The stealth of the 5th generation air superiority fighter allows it not to engage in combat at close and medium distances with enemy fighters, and the advent of all-aspect missile weapons has generally made maneuverability an insignificant factor. At the same time, the use of controlled thrust vectoring significantly complicated both the design of the aircraft and the software of the on-board computers, plus it made the aircraft much more expensive.
The tactics of using the F-22 is to loiter at a very high altitude (18-22 km) and at supersonic speed (cruising supersonic) outside the detection radius of air and by ground means detection of the enemy. At the same time, thanks to a very powerful radar with AFAR, which is very difficult to detect by passive radar means, as well as network capabilities and powerful missile armament, the F-22 is capable of reliably hitting enemy fighters without coming into combat contact with them. This concept is briefly expressed by the phrase “first to see, first to shoot down.”
Super-maneuverability remained “out of the question.”
The error with super-maneuverability was taken into account when designing the second 5th generation fighter. This time they were designing a fighter-bomber.
It is clear that the requirements for an aircraft, which is more “tailored” to work against enemy targets on the surface than to shoot down enemy fighters, should be completely different than for a “fighter of fighters.” The tactics of application are different, the required characteristics are also different.
Super-maneuverability was replaced by spherical information awareness of a very large radius and all-angle missile weapons. There are no questions with this. “Getting on the tail” of such a fighter is just as deadly as having it on your tail.
But does this fighter need supersonic cruising? What speed does he need to perform his main tasks - supporting troops and destroying enemy air defense systems? It turns out that the optimal speed does not exceed 800-900 km/h. That's how it was built, with a cruising speed of 850 km/h.
The purpose of stealth for the F-35 is also different. The F-22 is stealthy in order to shoot down enemy fighters from long distances while remaining invisible, while the F-35 stealth is mainly needed to approach air defense systems of all levels unnoticed and destroy them while remaining unnoticed. Naturally, the F-22 can also “work” against targets and troops, and the F-35 can successfully destroy enemy fighters, but each of them is better at doing the job for which it was originally intended. Returning to the “5th generation fighter” concept , I note again that it is stupid to impose the same requirements on fighters for different purposes. So cruising supersonic is a requirement for a “fighter of fighters” and corresponds to the tactics of its use. At the same time, this characteristic is absolutely not required for a 5th generation fighter bomber. “a requirement for the 5th generation” cannot be. Super maneuverability has generally ceased to be a requirement for modern aircraft. It is expensive, very difficult, and in the conditions of using spherical information awareness in combination with all-aspect missiles, it is not only an “excessive” quality, but also quite harmful. We must not forget that these aircraft are not yet unmanned, and a person is not a machine. The impact of high overloads when performing “super” maneuvers sharply reduces the pilot’s capabilities, if not leading to loss of consciousness and an accident (for example, the F-22, crashed on March 25, 2009, when Lockheed's most experienced test pilot, retired Air Force Colonel David Paul Cooley, lost consciousness while performing a maneuver with over 9g at low altitude).
Super maneuverability is very spectacular at all sorts of “shows” for general public, but professional fighters have long called it a “trick.” It should be noted that in the late 80s - early 90s of the last century, Americans also paid tribute to super-maneuverability. Devices for 3-axis engine thrust vector control were developed, which were installed on experimental 4th generation fighters F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, but they quickly found out that this did not provide a significant increase in combat capabilities, and Now the complexity of control and computer programs become prohibitive.
The Air Force completed testing of the F-15 ACTIVE (with thrust vectoring and PGO) back in 1991, transferring the aircraft to NASA for their research work. The topic of controlled thrust vectoring did not receive further development in the USA. Let's return to NPO's newest fighter, the Sukhoi Su-35, with which I started this article. The Su-35 is a modification of the Su-27 fighter and its successor, the Su-30MKI, which is supplied to the Indian Air Force. In fact, except for some evolutionary development some avionics systems and (promised) new engines (the Su-30MKI thrust vectoring engines turned out to be disgracefully bad), this machine is no different. Everything is also aimed at developing maneuverability characteristics, which the Western school of aircraft engineering abandoned 10-12 years ago. A couple of years ago, the Indians took part in the Red Flag exercises, which are held in the United States, and flew in their Su-30MKI. Despite the bravura reports of the Indian press, a video recording of the debriefing of the exercises, which was conducted by an instructor-colonel of the US Air Force, was leaked onto the Internet. I don’t know if it will work, but I’ll try to put a video:
The Americans were very disappointed with this Drying. They pointed out the disgusting quality of the engines, extremely low reliability, and very weak programs of the on-board computers that control the flight. Very quickly, American F-15 pilots developed tactics that forced Indian pilots to maneuver using thrust vectoring control, resulting in sharp decline speed and “drawdown” of the Su-30MKI on the tail. As a result, during training close combats, all Su-30s were conditionally shot down, without causing damage to the mock enemy. The Sushki engines caused a lot of trouble for the exercise organizers. To take off from one runway, Sushki required an interval of at least 4 minutes. Otherwise, the engines could fail or "surge" could occur. At the cost of great effort, the Americans managed to reduce the takeoff interval to 2 minutes, but this is also unacceptable if hundreds of aircraft must take off. By the end of 3 days of flights, ALL engines were out of order and required replacement, and the transport with replacement engines was late. When the engines finally arrived, it turned out that replacing them would take several days (on the F-15, the standard time for replacing an engine is 8 hours for a team of technicians of 3 people. By the way, on the F-22 this standard is only 4 hours and for 2 Human). The hydraulics of the landing gear retraction mechanism caused a lot of criticism - constant leaks, puddles, adding fluids during maintenance, etc. As a result of massive breakdowns, the Indians refused to continue participating in the exercises. I would like to think that the Su-35 was able to largely get rid of these diseases.
Further, the Russian media write that the Su-35 radar can detect a target at a distance of about 400 kilometers. At the same time, they do not talk about what the characteristics of this “goal” are. This, apparently, is aimed at the suckers from the jingoistic public. All over the world, it has long been customary to indicate the radar range for targets by ESR groups: less than 1 sq.m; 1-5 sq.m.; 5-10 sq.m. and more than 10 sq.m. Otherwise these numbers are meaningless. Thus, the Raptor radar with AFAR - AN/APG-77 has proven its ability to detect, identify and track a target with an ESR of up to 1 sq.m. at a distance of up to 150 nautical miles (270 km). This radar is being prepared to be modified to increase its EPR range to less than 1 sq.m. up to a distance of 250 nautical miles (450 kilometers). I repeat, this is all in relation to a target with an EPR of up to 1 sq.m. To make it clearer, the ESR of the Su-30 in the frontal projection is over 12 meters, and the most “polished” of the Russian fighters, the MiG-35, has a frontal ESR of about 5 meters.
Accordingly, Rapotr, according to official reports from Lockheed and the company that conducted testing commissioned by the Pentagon, has a frontal ESR of 0.0001 sq.m. - approximately the EPR of a metal bead. What is surprising, of course, is Comrade Pogosyan, who “apparently” stated that the Raptor’s EPR is 0.5 sq.m., although where he got this from is one can only guess. Most likely, he decided so after consulting with comrade Surkov. It would be interesting, of course, to find out the real, and not paper, data of the radar that is installed on the Su-35 and I wonder what type of radar this is. If this is not an AFAR, then it will no longer be a radar, but a “radio beacon, shoot me down” - the radiation power is too high, it is too easy to detect it with passive sensors. I hope that this is, after all, the long-promised AFAR radar, although the one that was announced has less than 1000 transmitter-receivers versus 1800 for the American radar. So far it has been officially stated that the radar on the Su-35 is being installed on the already well-known Irbis-E (installed on the Indian Su-30MKI. Irbis is a radar with a passive phased array (PFAR), its characteristics are known more or less accurately, it has a range of 350-400 km has an ESR of about 5 sq.m. As the ESR decreases, its range drops sharply and a target with an ESR of less than 0.5 sq.m. cannot be seen beyond 30-40 km under the most favorable conditions. It will probably detect 18 Super Hornets with an ESR of about 0.25 sq.m. at 90-100 kilometers, but... won’t it be too late? The Americans have long been carried away by stealth... Even the old B-1Bs have a frontal ESR of less than 1. sq.m. A few months ago there was an interview with the Air Force Commander-in-Chief, in which he complained about the “lag” in avionics of the Su-35.
Please note that the Americans are not trying to improve the maneuverability of their fighters in any way. No - they reduce radio signature, they reduce thermal signature, they improve the already very strong avionics.
The new Igla has a sharply reduced ESR - according to the manufacturer, the frontal ESR is approximately the same as that of the F-35 (-35 dB, 0.0015 sq.m.?). The weapons are hidden in the internal volumes; the latest radar with APG-82(V)1 AFAR is installed on the aircraft.
Apparently, the Su-35 should have been positioned as a rival to this particular vehicle, but it looks like it won’t be able to handle it. Eagle will see Sushka much earlier and will hardly leave her a chance. So, by what characteristics has the newest Su-35 surpassed anyone there?
Su-35 vs F-35: Who will win?
The Su-35 and other modern Flankers are very capable aircraft. American fourth-generation fighters no longer have the undeniable technical advantages that they had in the past. The United States must invest in next-generation fighter jets to replace the current fleet as quickly as possible
The Russian Su-35 fighter jet has clearly made a splash in military capabilities mass media West - and not without reason.
Despite powerful sanctions and a weak economy that has certainly seen better days, Moscow continues to create new combat systems one after another, such as tanks, submarines, nuclear weapons platforms and so on.
Of course, much of this technology was planned and designed before the sanctions were imposed, but Russia is making great efforts to modernize its armed forces, and especially its air force, abandoning old Soviet systems. A clear example of such efforts is the Su-35.
How does the Su-35 compare to the best American aircraft? What are its chances against the US Air Force, which is clearly the best in the world? For example, how will the Su-35 behave in a combat situation when it is opposed by the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter? And how will the new Russian aircraft perform when faced with older American aircraft such as the F-15 or F-16?
News on the topic
Such scenarios are important, and not only in the context of the Russia-NATO confrontation or the situation in the Middle East. Now that Russia is about to supply the Su-35 to China, these comparisons become even more higher value. There are many places in the world where these paths can cross. deadly machines, and therefore comparisons of this kind are very relevant.
Below is a selection of three articles written last year by the editor The National Military Interest by Dave Majumdar. They explore these issues in depth and detail, and we have combined these articles into one for the benefit of our readers. So, let the debate begin.
Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to form the backbone of the Pentagon's tactical fighter fleet. However, not every country in the world can afford the use of expensive fifth-generation fighters.
Even Russia and China are unlikely to try to create an entire fleet of such fighters. Instead, for the foreseeable future, the basis of their tactical aircraft will be various variants of the Su-27 fighter, developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau and designed to gain air superiority. The most efficient aircraft from the "Flanker" family (Flanker - this is what NATO calls a series of Su aircraft models - approx. per.) Su-35, which has seriously improved electronics, engines and airframe. In the coming years, this version of the Russian fighter will most likely receive widespread in the world.
Photos from open sources
The US Air Force, Marine Corps and (to a lesser extent) Navy will have to rely on various variants of the F-35 to counter the various Flanker variants, even though it was never designed for air superiority. The F-35 was and remains a strike aircraft with advanced defense capabilities against enemy fighters, although the Pentagon touts it as a multi-role fighter.
How will four F-35s behave when faced with four Su-35s? Most likely, she will change course and call the F-22 (Raptor) and F-15C, whose tasks include establishing and maintaining air superiority, and she will happily fly on to her designated targets.
However, as history shows, in war it is not always possible to choose the optimal solution. Even if the F-35s have to make do on their own, they will have a good chance of dealing with the Su-35 - they just need to play their cards right. F-35 pilots will need to skillfully exploit their fighter's strengths—such as stealth, on-board sensors and stealth tactics—and prevent adversaries from taking advantage of their weaknesses. This means that, using stealth and detection devices, they will need to fight beyond visual range, avoiding closer contact, which would make them vulnerable.
News on the topic
Unlike the Raptor, which from the very beginning was designed primarily for air combat, the F-35 is not designed for this. The F-22 combines a stealth design with a high altitude limit and supersonic cruise speed (over Mach 1.8). Meanwhile, the F-35 barely reaches Mach 1.6 at full afterburner. In addition, the F-22 has excellent maneuverability in line-of-sight combat. It outperforms its competitors in turn rate, radius, angle of attack and acceleration at all altitudes.
The four Raptors, flying at supersonic speeds in a rarefied atmosphere at an altitude of more than 15.2 km, essentially can choose where and when to fight; and the four relatively slow F-35s flying below may find themselves having to engage in combat with superior enemy aircraft (if the pilots are not careful enough).
Moreover, the F-35's speed and the altitude it gains prevents it from imparting the same energy to its AIM-120 missiles as when launched from an F-22. Accordingly, when launched from the F-35, the missile range will be shorter. In addition, the F-35 cannot carry the same number of air-to-air missiles, which creates problems as the means electronic jamming with digital storage of high frequencies are quite capable of disrupting the operation of the AIM-120 guidance system.
In air combat, the F-35 does not have the maneuverability of the Raptor - or even the F-16 or F/A-18. If he has to engage in combat at short range, only the pilot's superiority over the enemy in experience and skills can save the plane. Further, the F-35, with stealth characteristics, is equipped only with internal weapons and cannot carry AIM-9X missiles, which are capable of hitting targets offset from the line of sight. If the F-35's weapons bays are ever adapted to accommodate the AIM-9X, the fighter will have to sacrifice AIM-120 missiles, which are better suited for its primary missions. Thus, an F-35 pilot must avoid close combat at all costs.
It is unlikely that the commander air force joint force will task the F-35 with air superiority if it has other options. However, since the United States has few Raptors, and the F-15C is becoming smaller, it is quite possible that the command will be forced to take such measures, using the F-35 to gain air superiority. However, in any case, in most regions of the world the main threat to American aviation remains modern complexes Air defense, not enemy aircraft.
Boeing's F-15C Eagle has been in service with the US Air Force for nearly 40 years and looks set to remain in service for decades to come. Over the years, the powerful F-15 has been upgraded numerous times to address growing threats; but does the venerable Eagle have what it takes to dominate the skies?
News on the topic
The answer will be: yes, undoubtedly. The F-15 is probably no longer young, but it still remains one of the best fighters gaining air superiority. The only operational aircraft superior to the F-15 in most respects is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Other vehicles have advantages in some respects, but the F-15C remains generally competitive, no matter what the customer acquisition departments of various competing companies may say about it.
American F-15E Strike Eagle fighter at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey Reuters
Perhaps the most serious threat to the F-15 is the Russian Su-35 fighter. Although there are other, more advanced aircraft in development today, they will likely be too expensive for mass production. The Su-35 fighter is not the most common potential threat, but the chances are very high that their number will grow rapidly. According to reports, Indonesia has decided to purchase Su-35 aircraft, and, in addition, we know that the Chinese are discussing the issue of acquiring it.
The Su-35 is a truly dangerous fighting machine, and in many respects the Russian aircraft is equal to or even superior to the latest versions of the F-15. In terms of purely kinematic capabilities, the Su-35 is slightly inferior in top speed to the F-15, but it surpasses it in acceleration, which is achieved thanks to its powerful twin engines (Saturn Product 117C), each of which creates a thrust of 14,500 kilograms . In addition, when this aircraft has a relatively light load, it is capable of maintaining supersonic speed without resorting to the use of afterburners.
While its superior acceleration to supersonic speeds at high altitudes is a huge advantage, the F-15C is no slouch either - and the result is superiority. Russian plane will not be decisive. However, at low speeds the Su-35 has an insurmountable advantage. It features three-dimensionally controlled thrust vectoring and incredible low-speed maneuverability. However, the use helmet systems display and aiming, as well as missiles with large targeting angles, such as the AIM-9X and the Russian R-73, with close visual contact will most often lead to a “mutual destruction” situation, as many pilots confirm. At the same time, a lot will depend on the pilot’s skills and, frankly, on luck.
At long ranges, the F-15C and F-15E maintain superiority over the Su-35, which is explained by the presence of radar and antenna arrays with automatic electronic scanning. The Raytheon APG-63 (v) 3 and APG-82 (v) 1 radars installed on the F-15C and F-15E are still significantly superior in their capabilities to the Tikhomirov Irbis-E passive phased array radar. , which are equipped with the Su-35. The Russian fighter still has a slight advantage in the field of passive sensors, since it has a built-in infrared search and tracking system, but the F-15 aircraft will receive a very advanced search and tracking system in the near future, which will negate the advantages of the Russian Flanker.
Where the Su-35 appears to maintain superiority is in electronic warfare capabilities. The Su-35S boasts a powerful electronic jamming system with digital memory technology that is capable of throwing a US AIM-120 AMRAAM missile off course. Although these American missiles ultimately, most likely, will be able to overcome the protection of the Russian aircraft, it will take more missiles than the designers expected. In addition, the Su-35 carries a huge arsenal of air-to-air missiles, while the F-15 is equipped with outdated defensive electronics. The Air Force is well aware of these challenges, which is why so much attention is being paid to the F-15's $7.6 billion Passive-Active Warning and Survival System (EPAWSS) upgrade project.
F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber Reuters
The real problem is that the Su-35 and modern models The F-15 Eagle is comparable in its performance - and this is what worries the US Air Force command. American pilots are accustomed to fighting in a situation where they have enormous technical superiority, whereas in the case of the Su-35 there is no such superiority, and in some respects the Russian aircraft is even superior to the F-15. In general, all other things being equal, even a fully modernized F-15C equipped with the latest active phased array radar will have a very difficult time against the Su-35. However, a similar situation is possible if the United States wages war against Russia or against some other great power such as China. But this is unlikely.
Rather, the F-15 may collide with the Su-35, which is in service with some third world despot. Pilots from such a country are unlikely to have the training, tactics and experience necessary to fight against American pilots, and therefore will have no real chance of winning. In addition, Russian fighters, as we know, are not particularly reliable, and if we add to this the poorly trained technical staff and the lack of spare parts, then some ordinary third world country will not be able to constantly maintain the fighter in working order. It is also important that the potential enemy - apart from Russia and China - most likely will not have an AWACS system and full-fledged ground-based interception systems, which will create additional problems for them.
The bottom line is that if the F-15 doesn't have to fight in World War III, the nation's air force will be using it for another two decades. Perhaps the one-sided advantage to which American pilots are accustomed will no longer exist, but, nevertheless, the United States is not yet in danger of losing air superiority.
The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon has been the backbone of the US Air Force and its allies for many years. Over the years, it has evolved from a light air combat fighter into a powerful multi-role aircraft, performing a wide range of missions, from suppressing enemy air defenses to fighting for air superiority. The Viper, as the F-16 is known to American pilots, has been in service since 1980, but the aircraft continues to improve and will remain in service with the US Air Force and other countries for several decades to come. But while the F-16 remains a formidable fighter, its potential adversary is beginning to catch up. Latest designs Russian aircraft such as the Su-35 are in many respects not inferior to the F-16 and even superior to it.
The Su-35 is more closely related to Boeing's F-15 Eagle, but Russia sells far more Flankers around the world than it does MiG-29s. It must be said that during major exercises like Red Flag or Red Flag Alaska, the US Air Force uses copies of the Flanker (usually the Su-30MKK) rather than the MiG-29 as enemy aircraft. The thing is that American pilots have the best chance of meeting this massive twin-engine Russian aircraft in the air rather than any other.
The Su-35 is not the most common variant of the Flanker, but it is the most combat-ready one created to date. In good hands (trained pilots, support from ground operators or AWACS aircraft), the Su-35 can pose a powerful threat to any Western fighter except the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 will probably perform well too - if pilots make good use of its stealth characteristics, sensors and networking capabilities. The most important thing here is tactics and level of preparation.
Su-35 Photos from open sources
What about the workhorse F-16? The Viper, unlike the latest upgraded F-15C, does not have a massive active phased array radar and cannot typically launch AIM-120 missiles at the speeds and altitudes the Eagle achieves. But the F-15C was designed specifically as an air superiority fighter. Most F-16s in service do not have AFARs at all. Upgraded F-16E/F Joint United Arab Emirates They have an APG-80 AFAR, which has excellent capabilities, but there are very few such aircraft. In the US Air Force, F-16s are not currently equipped with AESA, which puts them at an extreme disadvantage compared to the Su-35 and other Flanker variants.
The US Air Force is well aware of this problem. The command intended to modernize approximately 300 F-16 vehicles by installing airborne active phased array radars on them as part of the CAPES program. But this program was canceled due to sequestration, as the automatic reduction of budget items is called. However, the Air Force knows that it urgently needs to equip the F-16 new radars, and the sooner the better.
News on the topic
This year, the Air National Guard submitted an emergency request to install AESA on its F-16s that fly homeland defense missions. These radars are needed for tracking cruise missiles and other small and hard-to-detect targets. The Air Force is also aware of this problem, and in March the command submitted a request for information about a new radar for the F-16. That same month, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the House Armed Services Committee, "We need to develop a fleet-wide AESA modernization plan."
The US Air Force does not primarily use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, and air combat is a secondary mission for it. This venerable aircraft needs AFAR so that it does not lose its relevance. Having an AFAR, the F-16 will likely survive a fight with the Su-35 at a longer range, although this will still be difficult.
At shorter ranges, everything will be determined by the skill of the pilot and the characteristics of the indirect fire missiles of each aircraft. With the advent of missiles such as the R-73 and AIM-9X, line-of-sight air combat will invariably follow a mutually assured destruction scenario. This happens quite often during training missions. Although the Su-35's controlled thrust vectoring gives it an advantage at very low speeds (it must be remembered that low speed means low energy state), it is not an insurmountable barrier for an experienced F-16 pilot who knows how to take full advantage of his strengths. cars.
AndIs America's most secretive combat aircraft, the F-35, easy prey for the Su-35 fighter? Some believe that this is an absolutely correct statement, writes indrus.in on July 26.
In July 2008, a simulated dogfight was conducted involving a Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was "bludgeoned like a child." The simulation was conducted at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii and was witnessed by at least four Australian Air Force and military intelligence officials. Australian MP Denis Jensen knowledgeably stated that during a “highly classified simulation” the F-35 was “mercilessly beaten by a Su-35 fighter.”
The Sukhoi company presents the Su-35 as a 4++ generation fighter with some features of the fifth generation, that is, with stealth characteristics. Its ability to shoot down stealth aircraft is largely determined by its super maneuverability. Very expensive Western fighters end up serving as “skeet targets” for rifle fire.
The Su-35 power plant allows you to perform all types of complex maneuvers, including the “Pugachev cobra”, “Frolov’s chakra” and the unprecedented “pancake” (Pancake - a horizontal turn almost on the spot by 360 degrees without loss of speed - “without loss of speed” is dubious statement - note "VP").
Western analysts do not attach much importance to super-maneuverability, believing that during real combat operations, stealth is much more important than super-maneuverability. Stealth is an option that stays with a fighter “any time, any day.” Northrop Grumman business program manager Pete Bartos says stealth was a core requirement for the F-35's development and therefore does not require high maneuverability.
However, the authoritative military source Defense Industry Daily writes that “stealth is very useful, but it’s still not Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak.” Indeed, the US Air Force is fixated on stealth, while the theory of air combat is constantly evolving. “In the 1940s and 1950s, the priorities were first height, then speed, maneuver and firepower. From the third and fourth generations of fighters, priorities shifted to speed, then maneuver, and finally, super-maneuverability. “It’s like a knife in a soldier’s pocket,” Sergei Bogdan, chief test pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, said in an interview with Aviation Week.
Aviation expert Bill Sweetman says the maneuvers demonstrated by the Su-35 at the Paris Air Show cannot be mistaken for air superiority. “However, these maneuvers are not aerobatic stunts. The unpredictable flight path of a fighter can lead to failures in the targeting algorithms of enemy missiles; the fighter itself can launch short-range missiles with a high probability of hitting an enemy aircraft,” the expert says.
The F-35 is completely dependent on its stealth and prefers not to get involved in close air combat (“knife fight”), where it will be very vulnerable to the Su-35. The Russian fighter has a large arsenal of lethal weapons, an increased flight range and, of course, the legendary super-maneuverability that has become the hallmark of the Su-27 family.
Sergei Bogdan recalls that in 1989 the Su-27 performed a “cobra”: “A rapid change in speed can lead to disruption of the tracking of the Doppler weapon control radar of an enemy fighter. The maneuver is even more effective on the Su-35S, because after this maneuver the pilot can direct the aircraft in any direction.”
Bill Sweetman says that the tactical advantage of doing a Cobra is that any air-to-air missile has an "intelligence element" that predicts where the target will be after some time, but this is not the case with the Cobra. “If an enemy aircraft flies with an unpredictable trajectory and is capable of changing it unexpectedly and very sharply without losing control, then it will be very difficult for the missile to hit it,” says the expert. Vigorous maneuvers performed by a fighter reduce the effective launch range of enemy missiles, Sweetman said.
To destroy the Su-35, the F-35 fighter must come closer, thereby exposing itself to the risk of being detected (the powerful Su-35 radar can easily do this, especially since this aircraft has in its arsenal the longest-range air combat missiles with a range of 400 km developed by the company “Vympel”, which is a world record – the source does not specify which missiles are meant – approx. “VP”).
The expert also reports that American air combat tactics boil down to three principles - “first to find, first to shoot, first to destroy.” With the advent of the Su-35, this tactic may be revised. The F-35 may be the first to detect the Su-35, but in order to fire the missiles it must move closer, at which time both adversaries will be able to see each other. “In this case, the advantage of stealth is significantly reduced,” says Sweetman.
In close combat, the Su-35S, with its uncanny ability to fly at minimal speeds and at the same time rapidly accelerate to supersonic speeds, turns into a hunter. The maximum speed of the aircraft is 2.5M, the flight range is 3600 km, and in the air combat fighter configuration it can carry 12 medium-range Vympel missiles (probably referring to the R-77 missile launcher of various modifications - note "VP"). The F-35 fighter can only carry a “handful” of missiles, its flight range is only 2222 km, and its maximum speed of 1.6 M seems to indicate only a desire to “die quickly.”
Indeed, the F-35 does not offer the "extravagant capabilities" that most air forces around the world require. Conversely, the Su-35S offers performance on par with fifth-generation fighters. Even more frightening for the Western Air Force is the fact that they already see the vulnerability of the F-35 today, when it has not yet entered service, and yet somewhere by 2020, combat stealth fighters of the Sukhoi PAK FA will appear. There is still plenty of time left for many Western fighter pilots to change their profession to another, safer career.