Over the past few weeks, I've read so many Western-denigrate writings, claiming that Su-57 is a failed project, personally I think, all just propaganda.
Remember that in the 1980s, the Su-27 was born after the F-15 a few years, during which time the Soviet Union used the MiG-29 as a main fighter. mostly with the NATO aircraft, on paper it is less than the F-15 in terms of long range attack capability, F-15 had better long-range radar, back in the 1970s, the United States had the F-14 with long-range missiles are better than the MiG-25 & MiG-23. At the time of the Vietnam War (1960s), the MiG-17/21 was much less powerful than the F-4, but the F-4 did not show a high rate of combat against the MiG-17 control by Vietnamese pilots. In this era, the F-35 and Su-35 repeat the history of the F-4 and MiG-21
The F-4 Phantom was a huge beast of a plane with two powerful J79 turbojet engines that could propel it up to two times the speed of sound, and a then-powerful radar housed in its nose. The Phantom was armed with new medium-range AIM-7D and E Sparrow medium-range missiles, as well as short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders AIM-4D Falcon heat-seekers.
The Air Force expected the Phantom would detect aerial adversaries from dozens of miles away, swoop down towards them at supersonic speeds and take out its foes with Sparrow missiles from up to twenty-eight miles away. Short-range dogfights were simply not intended or trained for, as the Phantom was not a particularly maneuverable bird.
Needless to say, this was not how things played out when U.S. fighters encountered North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets over Vietnam. Though the much lighter MiG-21 had only a weak radar, its pilots were guided to intercept American raids by ground controllers, per Soviet doctrine. Also, American rules of engagement forbade opening fire until enemy aircraft had been positively identified—usually within visual range.
When the U.S. fighters finally did get a chance to open fire, the faulty Falcon and Sparrow missiles achieved kill probabilities below 10 percent. The shorter-range Sidewinders were somewhat more effective with 15 percent kill rates, but getting into an advantageous position to launch the heat-seekers often involved getting into
knife-fighting range with the nimble MiGs. The kill-loss ratio of the more expensive U.S. jet fighters in general fell as low as 2:1 in certain phases of the Vietnam War.
Over time, the U.S. Air Force and Navy adjusted by fielding improved Sparrows and Sidewinder missiles, and retiring the older AIM-4 Falcon. Later, cannon-armed F-4E Phantoms were deployed, giving pilots a backup weapon in close range fights. Meanwhile, the Navy responded by forming the Top Gun school to teach naval aviators short-range dogfighting skills—lessons which resulted in the Navy Phantom pilots scoring a superior kill-ratio.
While today’s F-35 is intended to operate using long-range missiles and powerful radar, it trades the Phantom’s speed (the Lightning is considerably slower, with a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8) for a reduced radar cross section that will make it very difficult to detect and engage with long range sensors and weapons. Thus, while the Air Force concedes the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a close encounter with say an
Su-35 , in theory it should detect that Su-35 from further away, launch missiles at it from dozens of miles away, and then hi-tail it.
Air-to-air missiles have improved enormously since their first wide-scale employment during the Vietnam War. It doesn’t follow then that today’s AIM-120D, Meteor or R-77 BVR missiles will perform as poorly as the AIM-7E did in the past.
However, while testing of modern BVR missiles suggests a decent hit rate (around 50 percent is a common estimate) this was also true of preceding aerial missiles. More importantly, despite the increasingly long range of new BVR missiles, the vast majority of air-to-air shootdowns since 1970 have continued to be performed within visual range using both short- and medium-range missiles, as you can see in
this detailed history . Many of the BVR hits that were scored in combat were against poorly equipped and trained adversaries that lacked radar-warning receivers to alert them of incoming attacks—unlikely to be true of a clash between modern near-peer opponents.
Overall, the Vietnam analogy highlights potential vulnerabilities of the F-35, but also cannot definitively account for the different technologies in play when evaluating the Lightning’s adaptability to the air superiority role. Key performance parameters concerning the effective range of long-range IRST, radars and missiles used by and against an stealth jet are probably necessary for a fairer evaluation, but are likely to be kept under wraps by anybody in a position to know.
The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35?
The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles.
The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place?
As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes.
Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile
examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements.
Stealth fighters, like F-22's or F-35's, may be invisible to radar of 1970's technology but not to modern day radar. Stealth is a myth
Anything that moves through the air creates turbulence. And modern day radar can detect the air turbulence caused by either a small bird or a jumbo jet.
Russian airplanes are always in balance with the United States and the West, one generation apart, with no significant meanings in the sky.
Ex: Two Israeli F-15 and one F-4 was damaged in combat with the MiG-21 at lebanon war
http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47
In a well-known case from late afternoon of June 9, 1982, a Syrian MiG-21 pilot struck an F-15D with a single R-60/AA-8 Aphid missile. Despite severe damage, the pilot of the big U.S.-made fighter managed to fly it back to Israel for an emergency landing, and his aircraft was subsequently repaired.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94363
https://warisboring.com/has-anyone-ever-shot-down-an-f-15-in-air-combat/
Today Russia does not armed race with the United States, they will not repeat the mistake of the Soviet Union, they will follow their own path, they will not be armed with expensive weapons to follow the path of the Soviet Union. Su-57 still has production lines, Russians have not said will cancel it, they will produce it in large numbers someday, when the United States has Gen 6 or Gen 7. And continue to Gen 6 their. Let's see how the US continues to produce F-16F, F-15X
In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia struggled with economic hardship, thanks to arms sales and gas contracts. The Su-27 project has progressed to a new height: the Su- 30 and Su-35. While in the United States, they operated the F-117s and F-22s, however, the F-117s were completely useless to fight in the air, US projects in other words like money laundering. Considering the F-22 is expected to replace the F-15, however, that did not happen
