What's new

Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins?

Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins?

  • F-16 Fighting Falcon

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Su-35 Fighter

    Votes: 30 78.9%

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .

nadeemkhan110

BANNED
Joined
May 17, 2015
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Su-35%28901%29_%285767046140%29.jpg

The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon has been the mainstay of the U.S. and allied air forces for decades. Over the years, the aircraft has evolved from a lightweight visual range dogfighter into a potent multirole warplane that flies the gamut of missions ranging from the suppression of enemy air defenses to air superiority. Though it has been operational since 1980, the “Viper” continues to evolve and will remain in service with the U.S. Air Force and other militaries for decades to come. But while the F-16 remains a potent fighter, potential adversaries have caught up—the latest Russian aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-35 can match or exceed the Viper in many respects.
While the Su-35 is more of an analogue to the Boeing F-15 Eagle, Russia is selling many more Flankers than MiG-29 Fulcrum derivatives around the world. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force usually has its “red air” aggressors replicate Flanker variants (usually the Flanker-G) rather than the MiG-29 or its derivatives during large force exercises like Red Flag or Red Flag Alaska. That’s because derivatives of the massive twin-engine Russian jet are amongst the most likely aerial adversaries American pilots might face.
The U.S. Air Force does not use the F-16 primarily as an air superiority fighter—the air-to-air mission is secondary—the AESA is needed to keep the venerable jet relevant. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge.


At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9X have turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios. Mutual kills are not uncommon during training sorties. While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds (mind you, low speeds mean a low energy state), it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome.



The bottom line is that the Su-35 and the other advanced Flankers are extremely capable aircraft. The Pentagon’s fourth-generation fighter fleet no longer enjoys a massive technological advantage as they did in years past. The United States must invest in next-generation fighters to replace the existing fleet as soon as possible.
Sources:
Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog
 
Su-35%28901%29_%285767046140%29.jpg

The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon has been the mainstay of the U.S. and allied air forces for decades. Over the years, the aircraft has evolved from a lightweight visual range dogfighter into a potent multirole warplane that flies the gamut of missions ranging from the suppression of enemy air defenses to air superiority. Though it has been operational since 1980, the “Viper” continues to evolve and will remain in service with the U.S. Air Force and other militaries for decades to come. But while the F-16 remains a potent fighter, potential adversaries have caught up—the latest Russian aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-35 can match or exceed the Viper in many respects.
While the Su-35 is more of an analogue to the Boeing F-15 Eagle, Russia is selling many more Flankers than MiG-29 Fulcrum derivatives around the world. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force usually has its “red air” aggressors replicate Flanker variants (usually the Flanker-G) rather than the MiG-29 or its derivatives during large force exercises like Red Flag or Red Flag Alaska. That’s because derivatives of the massive twin-engine Russian jet are amongst the most likely aerial adversaries American pilots might face.
The U.S. Air Force does not use the F-16 primarily as an air superiority fighter—the air-to-air mission is secondary—the AESA is needed to keep the venerable jet relevant. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge.


At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9X have turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios. Mutual kills are not uncommon during training sorties. While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds (mind you, low speeds mean a low energy state), it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome.



The bottom line is that the Su-35 and the other advanced Flankers are extremely capable aircraft. The Pentagon’s fourth-generation fighter fleet no longer enjoys a massive technological advantage as they did in years past. The United States must invest in next-generation fighters to replace the existing fleet as soon as possible.
Sources:
Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog
Su-35%28901%29_%285767046140%29.jpg

The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon has been the mainstay of the U.S. and allied air forces for decades. Over the years, the aircraft has evolved from a lightweight visual range dogfighter into a potent multirole warplane that flies the gamut of missions ranging from the suppression of enemy air defenses to air superiority. Though it has been operational since 1980, the “Viper” continues to evolve and will remain in service with the U.S. Air Force and other militaries for decades to come. But while the F-16 remains a potent fighter, potential adversaries have caught up—the latest Russian aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-35 can match or exceed the Viper in many respects.
While the Su-35 is more of an analogue to the Boeing F-15 Eagle, Russia is selling many more Flankers than MiG-29 Fulcrum derivatives around the world. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force usually has its “red air” aggressors replicate Flanker variants (usually the Flanker-G) rather than the MiG-29 or its derivatives during large force exercises like Red Flag or Red Flag Alaska. That’s because derivatives of the massive twin-engine Russian jet are amongst the most likely aerial adversaries American pilots might face.
The U.S. Air Force does not use the F-16 primarily as an air superiority fighter—the air-to-air mission is secondary—the AESA is needed to keep the venerable jet relevant. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge.


At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9X have turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios. Mutual kills are not uncommon during training sorties. While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds (mind you, low speeds mean a low energy state), it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome.



The bottom line is that the Su-35 and the other advanced Flankers are extremely capable aircraft. The Pentagon’s fourth-generation fighter fleet no longer enjoys a massive technological advantage as they did in years past. The United States must invest in next-generation fighters to replace the existing fleet as soon as possible.
Sources:
Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog

This is the Post I was waiting for and now atlast. Pls all the experts pls give some more information and enlighten us on this topic. Expecting discussion on
1. Dog fighting specially with the hands of Paf skillful pilots
2. Which will detect first and logical calculations
3. Explanation when Su30 MKI thrust vectoring will slow down its speed and will be the sitting duck why it is not possible for Su35
4. Calculation regarding the readiness why su35 is 100% ready and why Su30mki is 50%
5. How the size difference both the fighter will not come.
6. How one is sanction free and one is not.
 
F-16 is used in several WARS
Bus itna hi

Expecting discussion on
1. Dog fighting specially with the hands of Paf skillful pilots
2. Which will detect first and logical calculations
3. Explanation when Su30 MKI thrust vectoring will slow down its speed and will be the sitting duck why it is not possible for Su35
4. Calculation regarding the readiness why su35 is 100% ready and why Su30mki is 50%
5. How the size difference both the fighter will not come.
6. How one is sanction free and one is not.

Source: Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins?
 
Obviously Su-35. Better in BVR and dogfight.
 
SU 35 should be compared with someone of its kind. some 4++ generation aircraft like Su 30, Rafale or F15 ..
 
The U.S. Air Force does not use the F-16 primarily as an air superiority fighter—the air-to-air mission is secondary—the AESA is needed to keep the venerable jet relevant. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge.

At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9X have turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios. Mutual kills are not uncommon during training sorties. While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds (mind you, low speeds mean a low energy state), it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome.

1) F-16 isn't the right match (Apples to Apples comparisons), you should use either F-15E or F-18 upgraded for a direct match.

2) Even with the F-16's and it having a single engine platform, in BVR, its anyone's game. Although, SU-35 has a better chance of surviving one missile lock due to its superior TVC. But the F-16's won't fire one missile knowing this. It'll be a trail of two with some calculated difference to hit the SU-35 with the second missile, at a time when its recovering from a TVC maneuver. So its almost a must kill. Not much you can do when you are recovering from Bled energy. Even Chaffs and Flares won't save you from advanced missiles like the AMRAAM-D at that point or in a "kill window".

3) If this comes to the Dog Fight, again, which plane has better HOBS and AESA, plus the Pilot and Tactics factor. For an AF like the USAF, Israeli AF and the PAF, who train extremely hard on DACT, these pilots know how to handle it. For example, if a SU-30/35 did a Cobra or loop to go behind the F-16 in a Dog Fight, the Viper pilots know exactly how much time they have (in second) before the SU will start to pick back up the energy and will be difficult to shake due to its bigger size, which in Dog Fights from the rear end, supports low speed and is hard to shake, add a bigger radar and its much more complicated. So the second the SU in front of a Viper hits the vertical edge, the Viper pilot (very well trained in dog fights), would immediately know how much time he has to maneuver and either go head, or in the rear again within the few second he's got. He'll pick a S maneuver or a simple high speed loop and the JHMS would be ready to work the magic . Now the fight is back to HOBS and advance AIM's as its WVR.

4) On Strike missions, obviously, common sense wise, the SU whether 30 or 35 will act like long range weapons trucks due to their size, range and more heavier hard points. So no comparison there.
 
1) F-16 isn't the right match (Apples to Apples comparisons), you should use either F-15E or F-18 upgraded for a direct match.

2) Even with the F-16's and it having a single engine platform, in BVR, its anyone's game. Although, SU-35 has a better chance of surviving one missile lock due to its superior TVC. But the F-16's won't fire one missile knowing this. It'll be a trail of two with some calculated difference to hit the SU-35 with the second missile, at a time when its recovering from a TVC maneuver. So its almost a must kill. Not much you can do when you are recovering from Bled energy. Even Chaffs and Flares won't save you from advanced missiles like the AMRAAM-D at that point or in a "kill window".

3) If this comes to the Dog Fight, again, which plane has better HOBS and AESA, plus the Pilot and Tactics factor. For an AF like the USAF, Israeli AF and the PAF, who train extremely hard on DACT, these pilots know how to handle it. For example, if a SU-30/35 did a Cobra or loop to go behind the F-16 in a Dog Fight, the Viper pilots know exactly how much time they have (in second) before the SU will start to pick back up the energy and will be difficult to shake due to its bigger size, which in Dog Fights from the rear end, supports low speed and is hard to shake, add a bigger radar and its much more complicated. So the second the SU in front of a Viper hits the vertical edge, the Viper pilot (very well trained in dog fights), would immediately know how much time he has to maneuver and either go head, or in the rear again within the few second he's got. He'll pick a S maneuver or a simple high speed loop and the JHMS would be ready to work the magic . Now the fight is back to HOBS and advance AIM's as its WVR.

4) On Strike missions, obviously, common sense wise, the SU whether 30 or 35 will act like long range weapons trucks due to their size, range and more heavier hard points. So no comparison there.
GREAT.
 
Last edited:
Su-35--90 out of 100 times would win
F-16s fitted with Meteors with AEW&C support would be interesting. think the F-16 would come out the winner every time.


f-16i-block-52-sufa-1.jpg
 
In today’s world, air supremacy plays a vital role in achieving Military Objectives. The Pakistan Military has always been mindful of its meager resources and preferred quality over quantity.

The Pakistan Air Force is considered one of the best in the world due to its qualitative selection and professional excellence. The maintenance of this equilibrium depends on the continuous upgrading of its fleet.

The Pakistan Air Force currently operates a fighter force comprising F-16s, Dassault Mirage IIIs and 5s, Chengdu F-7s, and JF-17s. F-16s, with their tactical nuclear delivery capabilities, play a particularly important role for Pakistan in bolstering its conventional abilities against India. The Indian lobby is trying to isolate Pakistan within Washington’s power corridors, which may jeopardize the sale of more F16 to Pakistan. If so, Pakistan should seek to purchase Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets that are far more advanced than the F-16s. The Russian-made jets could be a great asset for Pakistan Air Force.

The general comparison between the Russia’s Su-35 Fighter and America’s F-16 Fighting Falcon shows that with properly trained pilots and support from ground controllers or AWACs, the Su-35 is an extremely formidable threat to Western Aircraft.

Over the years, the F-16 has evolved from a lightweight visual range dogfighter into a potent multi-role warplane that flies a gamut of missions ranging from the suppression of enemy air defences to air superiority. Though it has been operational since 1980, the “Falcon” continues to evolve and will remain in service with the US Air Force and other militaries for decades to come.

But while the F-16 remains a potent fighter, potential adversaries have caught up—the latest Russian aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-35 can match or exceed the Falcon in many respects. The F-16 doesn’t have the latest upgraded massive active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar nor can the F-16 usually lob the AIM-120 missile from high speeds and altitudes.

The US Air Force F-16s are not currently fitted with an AESA and are at a severe disadvantage versus the Su-35 or other advanced Flanker derivatives. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge. At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9Xhave turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios.

While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds, it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome. The bottom line is that the Su-35 is an extremely capable aircraft. With regard to the F-16s or Su-35s, the matter of Pakistan of adding additional fighters to its current fleet might come down to mundane matters of what is financially feasible.

Currently, the Indian Air force (IAF) is far larger with about 740 combat aircraft versus the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) approximate 400 aircraft, but everything is not as it seems.

What at first glance seems overwhelming odds against the PAF on closer examination does not seem as overwhelming. For instance, the IAF has far lower serviceability of its aircraft. Their pilot training as evidenced by Red Flag exercises with the US is also not yet up to par with the PAF and their maintenance crews are not as diligent. Their present Russian/Soviet technology is generally less reliable and less effective and a large part of their fleet of MiG-21s and MiG-27s are outdated.

PAF aircraft are either of Western stock or Chinese and are far more maintenance friendly. Pakistan has also been upgrading their aircraft massively and have incorporated a complex combination of technology from across the globe – from China to Brazil, from South Africa to the US. PAF pilot training is on par with the best in the world and its maintenance crews are trained on the level of Western maintenance crews.

The large number of IAF crashes because of low level of maintenance crew is indicative of this acute problem with one of the highest crash rates among Air Forces of the world. What compounds this problem is the age of large sections of the Indian fleet, which has large numbers of MiG-21s and MiG-27s that are, besides the Bisons, highly outdated and are sometimes referred to as “Flying Coffins” by their pilots.

Pakistan, on the other hand has a better pilot-to-aircaft ratio than the IAF — meaning it could sustain a greater sortie rate over a protracted conflict. PAF aircraft are also “pimped” in that they have been extensively modified. Thus, while on paper PAF is flying ancient Mirages that were bought second-hand from the Australians, when one actually examines any such model, one is surprised at how extensively they have been rebuilt – almost from scratch and the hardware is extremely lethal.

Other than the secretive BVR AAMs, the PAF has extensively incorporated the strike element into its Mirages, at a level only matched by the IAF’s Mirage-2000s and Su-30 FLANKERs, and even then some of the equipment has no IAF equivalent.

Pakistan should continue its policy of quality over quantity as it is the only way to keep an equilibrium in its hostile environment and to secure the nation’s existence. Additionally, Pakistan should keep all options open as sovereignty and independence comes first, rather than becoming affiliated to a particular group or alliance.

LINK
 
Back
Top Bottom