SU-35 vs F-22

There have been conflicts where such things have happened, though I'm sure you can argue that they weren't fair in some way - and they didn't involve the USA.

My point is that you're bringing up something that isn't actually relevant. In the past when missiles failed a lot for a huge number of reasons, bringing more platforms to shoot missiles was the order of the day, and the numerical superiority would have mattered in the way you describe.

In most modern conflicts, the numerical superiority (if you have it) was about generating enough sorties to keep the airspace covered at all times. It's not like there were 5 aircraft attacking each single bandit, and that is exactly the implication you are making in the way you worded things.

Missiles have come a long way, and in all recent conflicts, regardless of who's planes they are and who's flying them, the main air to air weapon is the missile, and not the gun.

As for Su-35 and F-22, they're not similar generation or technology. They are contemporaries of each other, certainly, but the technological gap is still there - as an example, look at the difference in radars. That's not to say Su-35 is a poor aircraft, that is not my point nor do I believe that to be so. I would expect it to out-perform a non-Golden Eagle, any F-15 before that upgrade will probably be detected by the Su-35 well before it detects the Su-35, and will probably not be able to lock onto that flanker variant either (not talking about TWS here, though TWS might also be jammed given a modern enough jammer).

You are right. Same as in Iraq, the ratio was at least 5 to 1 in aircraft numbers alone. Not to mention technological and pilot training gap. There was no need to get CAC because if one missile miss, somebody else will shoot another one. Eventually, with numerical and technological superiority, tactical situation becomes very favorable and, a missile will eventually hit.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the missiles are totally bad. But, if every missile would hit, they would be called hit-siles, not miss-iles.

 

Also, here, we are talking aircraft of a similar generation and technology. One on one.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! Note: see GG's signature.

That is kind of my point...

It's like carry an extra gun in an ankle holster. It's good to have but if you have to use it, you have probably already screwed up.

It's like carry an extra gun in an ankle holster. It's good to have but if you have to use it, you have probably already screwed up.

EXACTLY

:thumbup:

It's like carry an extra gun in an ankle holster. It's good to have but if you have to use it, you have probably already screwed up.

I prefer the bayonet comparison; It's something you should train and equip yourself for as it may happen, but if you start using bayonet attacks as the base concept of general infantry combat, you need to find yourself a time machine and go back a number of decades in time.

In Iraq most air to air kills were shot down with AIM-7 and AIM-9's

From what I have read, most of these kills were BVR, The information I have is the only aircraft shot down with a cannon in all air engagements was that of the A-10A which shot down an MI-8 with it's gun which happened a few days into the gulf war.

Even in the later Iraq war, I don't think any aircraft was shot down with guns in air engagements. I agree, the thread should be\merged with "who has the better missiles" I doubt in this day an age aircraft will get close enough to engage in a gun on gun dog fight. It comes down to who has the better countermeasure systems.

These arguments always confuse me... neither of these planes are probably truly designed for 1v1 combat (least not in the sense I think of when you say 1vs1), more likely they are designed with the consideration of support from other air assets, etc... in a modern day superpower war situation, what would air combat look like? Probably not a lot of fancy dog fights... maybe the discussion needs to be US missile vs Ru missile ;)

Lol, good point.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the missiles are totally bad. But, if every missile would hit, they would be called hit-siles, not miss-iles.

Yeah! Not like those cannon projectiles, that hit each and every time! ...sorry, but that's just a smarmy slogan that doesn't even address the issue at hand. No one is saying missiles hit every time; they're saying modern missiles hit often enough to make closing to a guns fight relatively unlikely. After all, if you're fighting numerical parity, and fighters each carry a fairly pedestrian 4 medium-range active radar missiles, it only takes a whopping 25% hit rate. If we start considering something like a 4-on-4 fight, you really only need a 12% hit rate- because if half the flight was shot from the sky at BVR, do you REALLY think the other half would continue to push?

Also, I would like to point out the screaming hypocrisy of simultaneously claiming that air-to-air missiles aren't reliable enough to decide aerial engagements, yet also claiming that surface-launched missiles are some kind of magical stealth anathema. Because, you know, it's even EASIER to hit stealth aircraft, while shooting from a position of huge energy disadvantage vis a vis gravity.

Seriously, I'm a little impressed. How do you manage to state such obviously diametric views in a single post without your head exploding?

In Iraq most air to air kills were shot down with AIM-7 and AIM-9's

 

From what I have read, most of these kills were BVR, The information I have is the only aircraft shot down with a cannon in all air engagements was that of the A-10A which shot down an MI-8 with it's gun which happened a few days into the gulf war.

 

Even in the later Iraq war, I don't think any aircraft was shot down with guns in air engagements. I agree, the thread should be\merged with "who has the better missiles" I doubt in this day an age aircraft will get close enough to engage in a gun on gun dog fight. It comes down to who has the better countermeasure systems.

Aim-9 kills are BVR?? am I missing something???

Yeah! Not like those cannon projectiles, that hit each and every time! ...sorry, but that's just a smarmy slogan that doesn't even address the issue at hand. No one is saying missiles hit every time; they're saying modern missiles hit often enough to make closing to a guns fight relatively unlikely. After all, if you're fighting numerical parity, and fighters each carry a fairly pedestrian 4 medium-range active radar missiles, it only takes a whopping 25% hit rate. If we start considering something like a 4-on-4 fight, you really only need a 12% hit rate- because if half the flight was shot from the sky at BVR, do you REALLY think the other half would continue to push?

 

Also, I would like to point out the screaming hypocrisy of simultaneously claiming that air-to-air missiles aren't reliable enough to decide aerial engagements, yet also claiming that surface-launched missiles are some kind of magical stealth anathema. Because, you know, it's even EASIER to hit stealth aircraft, while shooting from a position of huge energy disadvantage vis a vis gravity.

 

Seriously, I'm a little impressed. How do you manage to state such obviously diametric views in a single post without your head exploding?

I like that hit probability of yours but even if A\c are flying at say 900Kmph so the closing rate is 1800Kmph and first missile is fired at say 40Kms and at 3800Kmph it takes 40-45 seconds to reach the target in the mean time the launching aircraft has traveled 11.25 Kms and both aircrafts are approaching each other so 22.5Kms but lets say they both have fire on each other and they only travel 15 Kms towards each other combined leaving them only 25Km apart and then they will just have a chance of one more volley before and some 50 more seconds until they are in WVR. So a flight of jets opposing 4 jets and each craft had only chance of firing 2 medium range missile totaling to 8 by fight of 4 jets. So if we consider your 12% hit probability only 1 jet from both side have been shot down and now they are just 10Kms apart or may be even less. So now there are 2 flights of 3 jets 10Kms apart, how long do you think will it take for these three jet to get into maneuvering dog fight. Guns or missiles they will need good maneuvering power.

How does his posting an animated explanation of the shortcomings of a maneuver put him in the same league as folks who have had no exposure to actual physics-constrained airc combat maneuvering?

 

I thought the video was a pretty good illustration: it showed that the average gun engagement is at significantly greater range than would be required to force an overtake before a gun shot could be taken, it showed that it removes almost all lateral motion of the target aircraft, and it shows that the target aircraft presents a large, plane-view target. About the only thing it really missed was how little energy the Sukhoi is left with on exit of the maneuver (assuming it survives that long!).

The scripted cobra in flaming cliffs is no where near the one that is performed by real jets and you are not going fly straight if there is a bandit behind you. If you do a cobra while performing a loop you will surely throw the opponent off. Sukhoi's are known to recover energy faster then other jet if you miss that part.

Again if maneuverability was not so important against high-tech sensors and missiles F-22 would have been looking more like B-2 or may be YF-23 would have won.

All AIM-9 kills in Desert Shield/Storm or even before in the Peace for Galilee operation were relatively close range, I've read most of them and often the fight could have easily ended in a guns kill, atleast that's what I presume from the pilot descriptions. Some Sparrow kills were also WVR (some were launched because AIM-9s failed to defeat flares).

Technically AIM-9 BVR kills are possible especially considering WVR starts closer in against a smaller target.

One interesting thing to note many Sparrows failed back then, some of those describe one or even two of them failing to launch or guide in need. I would expect that tendency to be much better in favor of missiles not failing as often nowadays.

I like that hit probability of yours but even if A\c are flying at say 900Kmph so the closing rate is 1800Kmph and first missile is fired at say 40Kms and at 3800Kmph it takes 40-45 seconds to reach the target in the mean time the launching aircraft has traveled 11.25 Kms and both aircrafts are approaching each other so 22.5Kms but lets say they both have fire on each other and they only travel 15 Kms towards each other combined leaving them only 25Km apart and then they will just have a chance of one more volley before and some 50 more seconds until they are in WVR. So a flight of jets opposing 4 jets and each craft had only chance of firing 2 medium range missile totaling to 8 by fight of 4 jets. So if we consider your 12% hit probability only 1 jet from both side have been shot down and now they are just 10Kms apart or may be even less. So now there are 2 flights of 3 jets 10Kms apart, how long do you think will it take for these three jet to get into maneuvering dog fight. Guns or missiles they will need good maneuvering power.

It's all down to tactical situation. During past IRL operations it was not uncommon to have numerical advantage, superior situational awareness, or were committed to a VID, etc.

Aim-9 kills are BVR?? am I missing something???

 

I think he just meant that most kills were Aim-7 or Aim-9 and most of those kills were Aim-7 BVR

As for Su-35 and F-22, they're not similar generation or technology. They are contemporaries of each other, certainly, but the technological gap is still there - as an example, look at the difference in radars.

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

Su-35 is better for pilot health :) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-air-forces-f-22-fighter-jet-making-pilots-sick/

Su-35 is better for pilot health http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-air-forces-f-22-fighter-jet-making-pilots-sick/

Yeah that is great but a little more digging and you see that this has been LONG RESOLVED...

...and so has the F-35 carrier hook issue

......and so has the helmet issue..

.... yet also claiming that surface-launched missiles are some kind of magical stealth anathema. Because, you know, it's even EASIER to hit stealth aircraft, while shooting from a position of huge energy disadvantage vis a vis gravity.

F-22 may have a better radar, but it can not turn it on against Su-35.

It can and it will. But let's look at the corrolary: Can the Su-35 turn on its radar against F-22?

Let us look at the engines for example, Su-35 has more advanced engines.

To me it seems they've just caught up with F-119 technology, and it was a difficult and long road for them.

I think they mean Suck-oys are better for the pilot's health when he's not busy flying them into crowds of spectators. -_-

You are way off the charts here. The"reminder: SAM = stealth STOP" is just a response to GG Tharos signature that goes "SAM = Speed bump". When put into a proper context, GGTharos as well as my statement about SAM's are correct. One SAM system against 10 airplanes clearly does not stand a chance, so in that case SAM is just a speed bump. Same as, with one airplane against 10 SAM systems (50 or so SAM missiles), the airplane does not stand a chance, therefore SAM = airplane STOP.

Yeah, not a chance I'm biting on that one. I've seen your other posts when it comes to how "useless" stealth (and US kit in general) is and your strident defense (in the face of logic) of everything Soviet. You have previously stated that you believe F-22 and F-35 would be hopelessly outmatched by anything more modern than an SA2. You don't debate from a base of good logic, and certainly not from consistent logic applied equally to both sides.

Also, it's a lot easier, given the relative agility of the systems in question, to mass 10 aircraft over one SAM than it is to mass 10 SAMs under 1 aircraft. Highly unlikely scenario you've got there.

It can and it will. But let's look at the corrolary: Can the Su-35 turn on its radar against F-22?

To me it seems they've just caught up with F-119 technology, and it was a difficult and long road for them.

And I did say that F-22 has some technological edge, for sure.

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

F-22 may have a better radar, but it can not turn it on against Su-35. Let us look at the engines for example, Su-35 has more advanced engines. F-22 is stealth (by shape) and Su-35 is super-maneuverable. Su-35 has more fuel capacity, thus longer range. And we can go on and on. So, contemporary or similar, it is a choice of words to describe slight differences and many similarities of these two weapon systems. F-22 has technological edge in some ares for sure.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

Please do explain how the Su35 has a terribly useful maneuvering advantage. Both are limited in turning largely by the pilot's G tolerance- they can both do 9+. Both are capable of sustained high-angle, low-speed controllable flight. They have roughly comparable thrust-weight ratios (with the F-22 having a slight advantage). In dry weight it's F-22 at 43k pounds vs Su35 at 40k pounds, but they respectively generate 23.5k/35k lbs thrust per engine, vice 19.4k/32k per engine. That makes 1.09 dry/ 1.63 reheat TWR for the F-22 (dry weight) and 0.97 dry/ 1.60 reheat for the Su35. Oh, and the F-22 is flying aerodynamically clean, without any of that crap hanging off the wings... so I find it hard to believe that the Su35 would accelerate faster, or even AS fast as the F-22. Any "advantage" the Su35 has in thrust/weight is solely because it was computed with a lighter fuel and weapons loadout. F-22 is going to maneuver damn near as well as the Su35 (close enough that it isn't really a factor)... it just has stealth in addition. Divest yourself of the illusion that it's a choice between stealth OR agility.

*edit* oh, and weren't you one of the blokes arguing that high wing loading is the main reason why the F-35 allegedly "can't turn"? I would swear you are. I should note that the F-22 has significantly lower wing loading (77lb/f2) than the Su35 (84.9 lb/f2). That must mean the F-22 turns better, right? Remember what I said about how you don't apply the same logic and evidence equally depending on what side of the argument you're taking? Yeah, THAT.

Yeah, not a chance I'm biting on that one.

I've seen your other posts when it comes to how "useless" stealth (and US kit in general) is and your strident defense (in the face of logic) of everything Soviet. You have previously stated that you believe F-22 and F-35 would be hopelessly outmatched by anything more modern than an SA2.

You don't debate from a base of good logic, and certainly not from consistent logic applied equally to both sides.

No Su-35 will not turn the radar on, it will use EOS. F-22 has very advanced and powerful radar, however, when it turns it on, it says "I am here". Thus F-22 will do all it can NOT to turn its radar on, instead it relies on off/board sensors for targeting and i think, even guidance of missiles.

I believe you are making a rather big assumption regarding EOS, radars, and RWRs, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's my view on it:

EOS is very short-ranged when it comes to search compared to radar, even the modern suites. This is why they haven't replaced radar as the main sensor on fighters.

At the end of the day, the F-22 will use its radar to detect the Su-35, but the Su-35 won't see anything on his own radar - can you compute a firing solution from RWR? Maybe. The F-22 has an ESM suite that can allegedly do such a thing, but what its accuracy is, who knows: After all, the main sensor is still the radar, and poor firing solutions are not a happy thing when you're trying to target a stealth aircraft with a missile seeker that is smaller than the sensor you used to detect that F-22 ... in other words, you are not getting the first shot with a Su-35, and this is about the first shot.

Su-35 has 3D vectoring engines option.

And I did say that F-22 has some technological edge, for sure.

Please do explain how the Su35 has a terribly useful maneuvering advantage. Both are limited in turning largely by the pilot's G tolerance- they can both do 9+. Both are capable of sustained high-angle, low-speed controllable flight. They have roughly comparable thrust-weight ratios (with the F-22 having a slight advantage). In dry weight it's F-22 at 43k pounds vs Su35 at 40k pounds, but they respectively generate 23.5k/35k lbs thrust per engine, vice 19.4k/32k per engine. That makes 1.09 dry/ 1.63 reheat TWR for the F-22 (dry weight) and 0.97 dry/ 1.60 reheat for the Su35. Oh, and the F-22 is flying aerodynamically clean, without any of that crap hanging off the wings... so I find it hard to believe that the Su35 would accelerate faster, or even AS fast as the F-22. Any "advantage" the Su35 has in thrust/weight is solely because it was computed with a lighter fuel and weapons loadout. F-22 is going to maneuver damn near as well as the Su35 (close enough that it isn't really a factor)... it just has stealth in addition. Divest yourself of the illusion that it's a choice between stealth OR agility.

Yeah that is great but a little more digging and you see that this has been LONG RESOLVED...

So what was the reason, then? Just being curious, here, as I just saw the vid. I know they thought it was the pressurized vest, at some point, but pilots have been experiencing the same problems after the vest removal, from what I've found.

F-22 may have a better radar, but it can not turn it on against Su-35.

I'm curious, does the Su-35 have a capability to fire at targets based on what the RWR detects? Otherwise the Su-35 is still at a disadvantage:

If both Su-35 and F-22 turn on their radars at a relatively large distance from each other, both will detect the other with their RWR. However, the Su-35 won't be able to track the F-22 on radar (due to the Raptor's stealth), while the F-22 will be able to track the Su-35.

So the F-22 still has the advantage. So I'm not sure why the F-22 wouldn't be able to turn on its radar against the Su-35.

[EDIT] Sniped by GG himself. :)