What's new

F-35JSF Vs Su-35S Comparison

Jigs

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 27, 2009
3,735
0
2,751
Im my opinion we can not only compare Aircraft by Aircraft, in Todays Air Warfare AWACS Support is playing an important Role and also the Capability to destroy enemy C&C Infrastructure is important. AWACS for example can copansate some disadvantages of an Aircraft when it lacks on Supercruise or TVC, that mean in BVR engagements F-16 can become a Deadly opponent for EF-2000 by using BVR Missiles guidet by Datalink. WVR Missiles with high Boresight Capability and TVC are also Capable of defeating the latest high manouverable Fighters in Dogfights.

In that Point I agree with you.
That is the main point i was trying to make. And yeah AWACS do play a large role in both information and BVR engagements with datalink. WVR for a F-35 would be as simple as letting its AN/AAQ-37/High Boresight missiles do the work. While in BVR engagements even without a AWACS its stealth and its Barracuda EWS would give it the advantage. So maneuverability in a 5th gen environment while still needed is less effective.
 
Last edited:

Patriot

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2008
7,714
0
6,325
JSF would win any day in the week.You can't shoot what you can't see.JSF would be long gone by the time it's missile hit SU35.
 

soaringphnx

FULL MEMBER
Jun 22, 2010
418
0
75
JSF would win any day in the week.You can't shoot what you can't see.JSF would be long gone by the time it's missile hit SU35.
Make a simulator in which one Su 35 will shoot down 100 F35 to satisfy yourself. :disagree:
The Joint Strike Fighter Dilemma

As Australia is considering buying a hundred Lockheed-Martin/Boeing F-35A fighter-bombers for USD 83 million a piece, reports have emerged that the much-advertised stealth aircraft was comprehensively defeated by Sukhoi Su-35 in August 2008 during classified computer-simulated war games in Hawaii conducted by the USAF with participation from other NATO members. While Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin officials hotly dispute the reports, at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation were said to have witnessed the simulation. The West Australian newspaper reported earlier this month that F-35s have been “clubbed like baby seals” by the simulated Su-35s.



Originally, Australia opted for the most “basic” version of the JSF – the F-35A, which lacks short or vertical takeoff/landing capability. Over the past few years the cost of this aircraft ballooned some 54% to $83 million for each aircraft bringing the total cost of the program, should Australia choose to go forward with it, to USD 16 billion. To put this amount in perspective, the latest Sukhoi Su-35 costs about $65 million and the Su-30M retails for less than $45 million. An article in Jane’s Defence Weekly by noted combat aircraft expert Pierre Sprey and defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler was highly critical of the JSF:

“It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at, too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods as they manoeuvre on the ground.”

On the other hand, pitting the F-35 against the Su-35 is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The American aircraft was designed primarily as a light strike aircraft with air-to-air capability, while the Russian Su-35 is a heavy air-superiority fighter with ground attack capability. The Su-35 is faster, has longer range, higher payload, and it can carry a greater variety of weapons than the F-35. And for every F-35 you can buy two Su-30Ms or one Su-35 with about USD 20 million to spare. While Australia’s South-East Asian neighbors are buying Sukhois, Canberra has its eyes set on overpriced Lockheed products. For some time now Australia has been trying to get the US to lift export ban on the F-22, which would be a much better match for the Russian-made jets but comes at a mind-boggling cost of USD 138 million.



Australia is too deeply entangled with the US military-industrial complex to make the right choice here. If Washington lets them, the Australians will buy the F-22 – the most expensive production fighter aircraft ever built – and, if not, then RAAF will be flying the “baby seals”. It is interesting that Australia even joined the JSF project in the first place, considering that it had no need for STOVL capability but has a requirement for maximum range in excess of 1,500 nautical miles, which F-35 cannot deliver. However, politics takes precedence over common sense wherever Australia’s defense strategy is concerned. And so Australia is betting on Lockheed’s “stealth”, which, apparently, is not a big problem for Sukhoi’s powerful new radars.

Source:

The Joint Strike Fighter Dilemma

Su-35 picture is from wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

soaringphnx

FULL MEMBER
Jun 22, 2010
418
0
75
The American aircraft was designed primarily as a light strike aircraft with air-to-air capability, while the Russian Su-35 is a heavy air-superiority fighter with ground attack capability. The Su-35 is faster, has longer range, higher payload, and it can carry a greater variety of weapons than the F-35.
This shows that the two aircraft have been designed for two different roles:

F-35 (5th gen): Primarily for strike capability with secondary air-to-air capability.

Su-35 (4.5 gen): Primarily for air-superiority with secondary ground attack capability.

So how can two aircraft of two different generations with different roles be compared? I agree with Jigs and Skywalker.
 

deepakclaw

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jan 27, 2010
91
0
32


---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fast

FULL MEMBER
Apr 5, 2011
1,033
0
518
A very nice article which bursts the F-35 hype.
A feel-good article to boost the Su35. Su35's RCS is so big that it can be spotted way ahead before it can detect the F-35. Also detection doesn't mean missile lock-on. Su35's RCS attracts missiles like honey attracting flies. F-35's stealth-like RCS makes it hard for the missile to lock on.

Su-35 is one generation behind F-35. In fighter, one generation means one-side turkey shot.
 

axisofevil

SENIOR MEMBER
May 10, 2009
3,953
-14
1,893
I disagree. Stealth can be extremely useful in today's battlefield's if used wisely. The question is, how effective the stealth technology is.
If the Russian radar can somehow manage to lock onto the JSF, then the whole point of the project would be meaningless, other than the experience gained for advancements in stealth technology.

This is something like DRM's by hollywood/video game companies to prevent piracy and pirates cracking those DRM's making them useless, and a liability for the people who buy the real stuff.
THe US just used stealth to nab OBL....
 

amalakas

FULL MEMBER
Feb 8, 2010
1,411
0
452
A feel-good article to boost the Su35. Su35's RCS is so big that it can be spotted way ahead before it can detect the F-35. Also detection doesn't mean missile lock-on. Su35's RCS attracts missiles like honey attracting flies. F-35's stealth-like RCS makes it hard for the missile to lock on.

Su-35 is one generation behind F-35. In fighter, one generation means one-side turkey shot.

ts ts ts

Su-35 carries a mix of missiles with varied seekers..
is it infra -red stealth also this fabled f35 of yours ?

personally in equally trained hands i don't think the F35 is a match for the Su35. but that is just me. time will tell.
 

500

BANNED
Aug 18, 2010
16,678
38
18,008
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
The holy crusade has a bit of truth to it.:agree:
"A bit" its a key words here ;)

These guys are part of the light fighter mafia, Thier bias is well documented. Fighter Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These guys are stuck in Vietnam era:

* They dont believe in BVR combat, although most of the kills in recent conflicts were donein BVR.
* They dont believe in stealth although its battle proven and accepted by all nations.
* They ignore DAS, JHMCS, Sidewinder-9X.
* They believe that best features of ground attack planes are high loitering time and ablity to withstand gun fire. They dont know that planes today attack with missiles and glide bombs well away from gun fire. And loitering is done by UAVs.

In addition they cheat when compare F-35 to F-105. F-35 has much more advanced aerodynamics, 70% more thrust and 20% more wing area.
 

amalakas

FULL MEMBER
Feb 8, 2010
1,411
0
452
"A bit" its a key words here ;)


These guys are stuck in Vietnam era:

* They dont believe in BVR combat, although most of the kills in recent conflicts were donein BVR.
* They dont believe in stealth although its battle proven and accepted by all nations.
* They ignore DAS, JHMCS, Sidewinder-9X.
* They believe that best features of ground attack planes are high loitering time and ablity to withstand gun fire. They dont know that planes today attack with missiles and glide bombs well away from gun fire. And loitering is done by UAVs.

In addition they cheat when compare F-35 to F-105. F-35 has much more advanced aerodynamics, 70% more thrust and 20% more wing area.
This logic is flawed.

BVR is only one aspect of battle. It cannot be the entire battle.
The additional flaw in this approach is that -one launch, one kill-. It doesn't work this way and missiles miss most of the time, not hit their target. There is no "absolute" no-escape zone for a missile.

In a live test done, identical missiles fired from identical planes at the same target drone had 50% hit rate. i.e. one missed. and it was fired 2 miles apart.
 

ViXuyen

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2010
1,280
-1
1,194
Country
Viet Nam
Location
Viet Nam
The selling pitch of the F-35-whatever version is that it has a claimed super small RCS that will render it non-detectable at a distant that other aircrafts usually get detected. Until I see this F-35 whatnot face a threat like the Su-35S with a radar like IRBIS-E or assets like S-300, S-400 then I take this claim of low detection more seriously:P

Maybe India can buy one F-35 to test it out and see if it is really low detectable like it is claim.:smokin:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads


Top Bottom