Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "F-35 vs Su-35: Part 2/2" video.

  1. still no a problem , combat planes top off before entering the combat zone. The US has a large tanker whereas the problem with the Su-35 is that Russia has an extremely small tanker force compared to the US. Next , the spec you used for the AIM-120 is the A/B model , The AIM-120 is currently D model which maxes out at 180km so your math is wrong. the Su-35 can pull 9G turns which again does not help them with a missiles. Missiles like the R-77, AIM-120, Meteor and MICA are designed to pull 20 plus Gs. Remember we are sticking to the video, so no MiGs help for the Sus Actually No. first Su-35s will be cruising at 500-600 per hour , going any faster will burn up too much fuel. the F-35s dont have to worry about fuel in either case and easily dash behind the Su-35 and fire and forget, Since the F-35s are firing from behind, the Su-35s MAWS wont detect the shot right away. planes are generally blind in the rear and strong in the front. the problem with the video is that is assuming that both F-35 and Su-35 are using bombs. When planes use bombs in contested air space, they will have a larger escort force most planes today prefer to use long range cruise missiles which allow them to attack without having to deal with the enemies defense force. For example the F-35 can use to JSM in stealth and strike from 345 miles away. In non stealth, they can use the AGM-158 and strike from 600 miles. the Su-35 can use the KH-59 and strike from 150 miles so basically the style of combat that video is implying is vintage 80s
    8
  2. the moral of the story is that the video is garbage. combat tactics 101 , why the F-35 fire on the Su-35 head on ? when it can easily vector around and gain position. The Su-35's Radar can only see stealth at 50 km ,an F-35 firing head on would compromise its stealth ,thus negating its advantage. In real combat, the F-35 would go behind the Su-35s and fire, then change position. When the remaining Su-35s change position to track their attackers, the second set of F-35s would fire on the remaining Su-35s from behind. the video just says complete garbage for tactics
    7
  3. The Su-35s are faster, true but does not help them. The F-35 can see the Su-35 at 200km plus and fire on them at 175km whereas the Su-35s can't see F-35s till 50km or if the F-35 does something to compromise itself. Getting behind the Su-35s puts the Su-35 in between two hostile forces ,not a place to be. Secondly by forcing the battle to long range , you force the attacking force to use up fuel. Lessons learned from past conflicts dictate that radars are the first to be taken out. Attacking targets but leaving the enemies radar sites functional is asking for trouble
    5
  4. Thats why defensively is better to engage the Su-35 at long range to make them use up precious fuel.
    3
  5. if its just NK vs SK , then NK loses within 3 weeks. NK has quantity not quality. Now SK has to take out NK nukes to minimize damage. Without nukes, NK can not inflict serious damage to NK
    2
  6. The F-22 being obsolete is because USAF didnt upgrade the F-22 full spec. Full spec is IRST. EOTS, side AESA,, the ability use to cruise missiles.
    2
  7. @ Stu never happen. The USAF/USN have spent billions ensuring air dominance. Dominance is not just about fighters , its the fighters and their support. Example, the US operates the largest tanker fleet in the world. KC-135, KC-130, MC-130,HH-130, KC-10 and the KC-46 on the horizion. These are how bombers are able to fly direct from the US to targets anywhere in the world. The USMCs KC-130 fleet is literally more than Russia and China's combined tanker fleet. So ability to strike globally check. New is AWACS/ECM support again the US leads that by miles. Ability to control the battlespace check. The last factor is weapons. you are correct, the fighters can be overcome but fighters can also be destroyed on the ground. One of the new lessons learned is destroy the enemies defensive capability fro the start. Knocking out air fields and sams makes it harder for the enemy to counter attack. Everyone still on the tactic of trying to fight fighter to fighter.
    2
  8. @Stu, the good thing about today is modern cruise missiles. Submarines can get point blank, say 50 miles off the coast line and fire a 1000 mile Tomahawk deep into enemy controlled space. Surface ships can also do the same. US SSGN like the Ohio can carry 154 cruise missiles. Subs can also carry special forces. Man portable weapons are deadlier than ever. a 6 man team can get within 2 miles of sam site and fire a 3 FGM-148s. That the radar, control truck and missiles destroyed. Send in 4 team and they attack at the same time, you can easily open up a massive gap in any defensive line. The same team carry other weapons and an attack an airfield. They can plant demo charges on fuel and weapon stowage with that destroyed, the enemy ability to counter attack is greatly reduced the base point, is that this modern warfare, control of the battle space can be achieved by air, land or sea.
    2
  9. @jim, excellent no, completely clueless yes. here is example, the F-35 is stealth , the Su-35 Irbis-E radar can only see the F-35 90km whereas the F-35 can easily it from over 200km in either case, the F-35 gains position on the Su-35 first
    2
  10. @Jawazh, you are confusing yourself. first the AIM-120C-7 range is 105km, the C-8 is 180. The Su-35s R-77 range varies however 110km is the accepted figure for most models. Only missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9 have short range. People see the range of the early AIM-120A/B /R77 models and mistake it for the range of the current models. the F-35 firing on the Su-35 without been detected is for certain. The problem with the video is that the maker does not use valid tactics. The USAF F-15s defeated MiG-29s 11 times because USAF planes had radar and combat control to vector them on target whereas the MiG-29 had neither. The Su-35 has very advanced radar and sensors in the front but like most planes is blind to the side and rear. The F-35 firing head on will betray its location which is why it would never do that against an advanced enemy plane.
    2
  11. @Ibrahim, Dealing with quantity is about having the right tools for the job. here are some examples The SK air force has 169 F-16s equipped with AESA which allows to use 6 AIM-120s to max potential the NK air force has 35 MiG-29s B and SE which are first gen Migs , state of the art early 90s as well 105 MiG-23s also state of the art early 90s. If NK loses its MiG 23 or 29, then it has nothing to challenge the SK F-16s. If SK loses its F-16s, they still have F-15K which easily outmatch most of the NK airforce NK has 585 planes to SK 518s The backbone of the NK air force is chinese copy, MiG 17/19/21 323 total 3rd gen plans wheres the SK has 4th gen and one 5th gen on order SK has air superiority right now despite NK numbers as 54 F-16s with 6 AIM-120s wipe out at least 300 NK planes in the first round
    1
  12. The F-14 could have been better if the Navy had taken the time to proper resolve its issues
    1
  13. exactly, The USN should have requested that grumman fix them ,mainly weight
    1
  14. The AIM-154 would only be useful if the weight and size reduced. The next model of the AIM-120 , needs the ability to target cruise missiles, engine like the Meteor , DRFM resistance. I would say guidance like the GBU-53. IIR, MMW
    1