Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
@AKlover You obviously don’t keep up on the news. There are quite a few articles about how successful the F-35 is at when dogfighting, and quite frankly its maneuvers at airshows are a hell of a lot more impressive than the Su-57s. The F-35 has displayed much better high-g turns and shows it’s incredible power. All the Su shows is that it can go low and slow performing low-g maneuvers. Hell, the Su hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles in flight from its internal bays. And yes, the F-35 does have HMS, plus its pilots have binocular vision, the ability to see clearly at night, and they can see through the aircraft, which gives them a huge advantage, plus they can que their missiles, and link to other fighter’s missiles to shoot down their adversaries. Only the F-35B doesn’t have a gun, but a gun pod can be mounted if necessary.
34
-
18
-
6
-
@kvarnerinfoTV AESA radar has many advantages over PESA, including longer range, more accurate, detection and tracking of more targets, and it can jam PESA radars. It’s why to be considered a 5th gen fighter it must have AESA, and it’s why so many nations are upgrading their fighters to have it. If you do a simple search you’ll find why Egypt just increased its order for more Rafales. They found in exercises against the Su-35 that they could jam the Su’s radars and render them blind.
The F-35’s radar is the most advanced radar in the world. While the USA has been fielding AESA for over twenty years, and now puts in service 4th gen AESA, Russia still hasn’t put it into service in any fighter. The USA has it in thousands of aircraft and has a significant lead. Just to put things into perspective, during the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
6
-
6
-
@tonynemcich1756 Turkey only bought the S-400 instead of the PAC-3 because the US wouldn’t provide technology transfer as part of the deal. Turkey tried unsuccessfully multiple times to get the USA to change its mind. Erdogan also has not gotten along well with the USA, and he wanted to show that it can do as it pleases.
You won’t find any examples of Russian SAMS ever intercepting either ballistic or cruise missiles, not even in tests. Russia has a long history of lying and making fake news, they’re the king when it comes to propaganda. On the other hand, you can find many examples of US missile intercepts. Just search here on YouTube for SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, etc., for missile intercepts, and you can see both ballistic and cruise missiles getting shot down. There’s even amateur footage from several months ago of a Patriot intercepting a missile over Saudi Arabia, and according to them they have been quite successful.
6
-
5
-
What’s your source about the AMRAAMS success rate? I smell a lie. Tell me when was the last time a Russian missile had a BVR kill? Try never. Russian trolls will boast about their fighters great maneuverability, but show me any video of a Su-57 displaying high-g turns, which are essential for combat. Sorry, but going low and slow performing low -g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. And sorry, but dodging a missile isn’t that easy, especially when you don’t know it’s coming. The AMRAAM only locks onto its target at the last second, called the terminal stage, so that the pilot cannot react to it.
If the Su-57 was better, Russia’s longtime ally India wouldn’t have backed out of the partnership citing numerous problems with its stealth and engines, among other things. Russia would have at least one foreign order, but it has none, and it would have built more than two production aircraft, which the first one crashed. You can’t even find the Su-57 launching its missiles from internal bays or shooting its guns in flight. Sorry to break it to you, but unless Russia finds a foreign country willing to help pay for its costs, its future is in doubt.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
LOL, the Su-57 is barely even stealth. It’s RCS is similar to that of a clean F-18. The F-35 blows away the Su-57 with its radars, situational awareness, sensor fusion, stealth, etc. And so far I have not seen the Su-57 perform any essential maneuvers that are used in dogfighting, and sorry but going slow and low performing low g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. The F-35 has displayed far better instant high-g turns than the Su. The fact that Russia’s ally India left the partnership, and despite Russia’s attempts to bring them back have failed, shows how it’s a flop. The F-35 on the other hand keeps racking up sales, with more and more nations wanting to buy it. Countries like Japan and Israel like it so much that they’ve increased their orders for them, and an Israeli general called the F-35 a true game changer. Other than Russia, you won’t find any country talking highly about the Su-57.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@anthonybroomfield5162 That’s where you’re wrong. Look at the history of SAMs . Over time the number of aircraft shot down per sortie flown has drastically gone down, and that’s because there are so many ways to defeat them. It’s not just about having stealth, but jamming, spoofing, using decoys, hacking, special ops, stand-off weapons, drones, etc., have all shown to be extremely effective. Look at the war against Serbia. Serbia had a respected integrated air-defense network. It only shot down two aircraft out of tens of thousands of missions. Even those two that were shot down were flukes because they both flew predictable flight paths. It’s not that difficult to shoot down a fighter if you know where and when it will fly over, even if it’s stealth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The F-22 and F-35 are far better in every way imaginable. From stealth to avionics, radars, sensor fusion, situational awareness, recovery from bleed, etc., the F-22 and F-35 are better than the Su-57. If the Su-57 was as good as you claim, it would be racking up numerous sales, but it has no export orders, and only two production models have been built, with the first one crashing.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The F-35 is far superior to the Su-35. The F-35’s AESA radar is the most advanced in the world, and it can jam the Su’s antiquated PESA radar. It’s why having AESA radar is considered an essential element for an aircraft to being a 5th gen fighter.
The F-35’s avionics, sensor fusion, AI, are all superior. Even at dogfighting the F-35 has the edge. Stealth makes it more difficult to get a lock onto an aircraft. In exercises against a F-22, an English F-15 exchange pilot was quoted as saying he couldn’t get a kick even in visual range, and found the experience very frustrating.
In addition, the fact that the Su-35 carries its weapons externally increases its radar cross section, it also decreases its speed, and overall agility due to increased wing and drag weight. It’s specifically why when fighters go into battle they drop their fuel tanks to reduce the wing load. Watch a Su-35 closely and you won’t ever find the essential maneuvers needed for combat, I.e. top-end speed, ability to recover from high-g turns, and instant and sustained turn rates. The maneuvers you find in the more recent F-35 demonstrations show it performing much more higher-g turns.
The F-35’s AI instantly detects and tracks targets, shares this information with other assets in the field like his wingmen and SAMs below, it determines the probability of kill for each target, then it determines the best firing solution to defeat the adversary. It’s sensor fusion is unprecedented.
2
-
@InetCat You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The simple fact that you have to lie that the Su-35 has AESA already tells me that you know yourself that you're wrong. People don't need to lie unless they cannot accept the truth. Prove me wrong! You know you can't because it's not true. The Su-35 won't know that the F-35 is on top of it until it's too late. And if you just think for once, imagine how hard it is for a tiny missile seeker to be able to track and lock onto a F-35 is when a very large and powerful radar site is already having difficulties just detecting it. In exercises against the F-15C, which had at the time a very large and powerful PESA radar, it couldn't even get a lock onto the F-22 in plane visual site. That means those missiles the Su-35 carries are useless.. The F-35's AESA is by far the most advanced radar in the market. Russia doesn't have one fighter in service with AESA, while the F-15 had it over twenty years ago. For you to claim that Russia's is better is asinine.
You're hilarious to think that Russia's avionics come anywhere near the F-35's. You won't find one expert agreeing with you. In fact, during the MMRCA tender Russia's ally, India, stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars, and systems, and the US wasn't even offering its best.
Russian radars cannot detect stealth fighters at the ranges you cite. HAHAHAHA. That's hilarious. Russian made SAM sites haven't been able to do anything to stop Israeli F-35s from striking targets at will in Syria.
You need to get caught up on the real news, and stop reading the anti-US trash that you focus on reading. The F-35 only didn't fly in stormy weather during its early development until it had all the safety protocols established. It was only temporary.
[ From 40 to 60% of the F-35 are constantly in service and cannot be quickly combat-ready.] Why do you have to lie? It's because you're a Russian troll who only can lie because you cannot accept reality. "The Lockheed Martin-made F-35′s mission capable rate — which describes the percentage of aircraft that can meet at least one of its assigned missions — currently sits at 69 percent, falling short of the military’s longstanding 80 percent goal."
Do you have any proof that the F-35 cannot launch missiles at supersonic speeds? I doubt it, as all you've done is lie so far.
And the F-35 is doing exceptionally well, even at dogfighting, and you're a fool to think that the Su-35 isn't limited by carrying external ordnance. Engineers can only do so much. Like I said earlier, it's why pilots drop their fuel tanks before going into battle. Put it this way, the F-16 was one of the most maneuverable fighters in the MMRCA tender, but when conformal fuel tanks were added it came in dead last. Read "F-35 pilot: Here’s what people don’t understand about dogfighting, and how the F-35 excels at it"https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/f-35-pilot-heres-what-people-dont-understand-about-dogfighting-and-how-the-f-35-excels-at-it/ or "Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest" https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/pilots-say-f-35-superior-within-visual-range-dogfight-criticisms-laid-to-rest/
You're so focused on all the negative that you're too narrow minded to see that you're wrong.
You shouldn't talk about combat readiness. Russian aircraft are known for being duds. "During August 2021 the Russian Air Force lost five aircraft due to accidents in a two-week period. Four of them were in the air and one on the ground during maintenance. The lost aircraft include two MiG-29 fighters, a Su-24 fighter-bomber, an IL-112V twin-engine turboprop transport and a Be-200 twin-jet amphibious maritime patrol and transport aircraft. The MiG-29 was undergoing maintenance when it caught fire and was destroyed. Age, poor design and insufficient maintenance make Russian air force loss rates much higher than in the West. Clusters of losses like this are unknown in the West but not in Russia, where the reporting standards for civilian and military aircraft accidents and losses are different from the rest of the world"
You're right that the Su-35 is faster, but if you put it in a full weapons loadout, it's not so much. It's radar cross section becomes significantly larger, and it becomes an easier target. The F-35 doesn't even need to engage in dogfighting. Russian radars won't detect it until its too late. Yes, the Su-35 is better armed, and that's if the F-35 flies in a stealth configuration. However, aircraft from outside the kill zone, like the F-15 EX, which can carry 20 plus missiles can launch their missiles from BVR while the F-35 can guide them to the target. And the F-35 has shown me much more impressive realistic combat maneuvers than the Su-35. Sorry to break it to you, but going low and slow performing low-g maneuvers won't cut it in real combat. What matters most are high-g turns, both instant and sustained, the ability to recover from a high-bleed turn, and top end speed. The Su-35 demonstrates none of those. All it shows are maneuvers that a stunt plane can perform at much lower speeds. In fact, if the Su-35 tried those maneuvers in real combat, he'd be a sitting duck. If you watch any pilot fighter documentary, the pilots all say the same thing, that the key to survival is maintaining your energy, and the last thing you want to do is be a sitting duck.
The US and Russia aren't at war. If we were, the Russian aircraft never would have got photos of the F-22. Both Russian and US aircraft worked in close proximity with each other to attack targets so of course they're going to get close to each other. Tell me, where were Russia's Su-35's when US aircraft bombed Russian mercenaries for over four hours in Syria while F-22s flew cover? I'll tell you, at a base nearby only minutes away doing nothing about it because they knew very well that they would get shot down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ignaciomunizdiaz5194 The Su-75 won’t even get off the drawing board and it won’t supercruise either. The F-35 has the single most powerful jet fighter engine in the world, and I’ve seen the F-35 perform more maneuvers that are essential for combat than the Su-57. Nowhere does the Su-57 show its instant or sustained turn rates, and going low and slow performing low g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. And yes, the F-35 can control a drone, and it’s very near supercruise capabilities.
When it comes to sensor fusion, situational awareness,radars, etc., the USA is decades ahead of Russia. Put it this way, during the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You’re way off. The Su-57 is often criticized for not having enough engine power, a flaw that India mentioned early on. The F-22’s70,000 lbs of thrust is far superior, giving it a huge edge in dogfighting.
The F-22’s AESA is a mature 4th gen radar. Russia still to date hasn’t put any fighter into service with AESA, something that the USA did over 20 years ago and has a substantial lead
The F-22’s stealth, radars, situational awareness, sensor fusion, and maneuverability are all superior.
When it comes to weapons, the F-22’s beats the Su-57’s as well. During the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
2
-
@kumarraj_2199 3-D thrust does not give a significant advantage over 2-D with significant paddle movements. In fact, 3-D has a drawback because of its significant weight. Plus, thrust vectoring is especially useful at lower speeds, and the F-22’s power advantage gives it the ability to recover from high-g turns much better than the Su. Put it this way, in exercises against Malaysian Su-30s with 3D thrust vectoring, a F-18 came out on top three out of three times. Go to YouTuber Channel “The Ready Room” to see the video. And that’s against a clean Su without any ordnance.
Yes, AESA has been around for awhile, but Russia doesn’t have it in any jet fighter in service. The US has put AESA in its fighters from over two decades ago and has a significant lead. It’s essential to have if a fighter wants to be considered 5th gen, and it’s why all nations are trying to switch to it. It’s main drawback is that it’s costly to develop. If a nation doesn’t have the manufacturing capabilities to build high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently, like Russia, it is going to struggle putting it in service on large scale. And AESA does offer significant advantages, including the ability to jam PESA radar. The MKI has Bars, which is PESA, not AESA..
The Zhuk radar was tried on the Mig-35 in the MMRCA tender , and it failed to reach the desired acquisition ranges. Since then it hasn’t been put on any fighter in service.
The R-37 is a long range missile designed for taking out slow aircraft like an AWACS, not a maneuverable jet fighter. Quite honestly, Russia’s missiles are overhyped. When was the last time a Russian missile ever got a BVR kill? Try never. Russian missiles are not more advanced. For India’s Air Chief to state that the USA has the best weapons, radars and systems, when it wasn’t even offering its best says a lot. For India to have to go to Israel for BVR missiles after India’s last little skirmish with Pakistan says a lot.
2
-
@kumarraj_2199 Continued
Disadvantages of PESA: “While the PESA radar was groundbreaking in terms of speed and area, it has significant disadvantages. What it makes up for in range, it loses in accuracy, as the beams of radio waves it puts out are broad and cannot give the most precise location information back.
The PESA radar is also limited by its range capability and the fact that it has only one beam, which means it can send out only one frequency at a time. In addition, it has only one transmitter, so there is potential for system failure due to a single failure within the transmitter.
Size can also be a disadvantage, as PESA radar sensors are typically very large and heavy. They can also be prone to cooling problems since so much information is running through a central point.”
With AESA radar technology, radio waves can be sent out at different frequencies in multiple directions at the same time without moving any antennas. While PESA radar systems may be able to scan larger sections faster, AESA scans more precisely. In addition, by scanning at different frequencies, it brings back more valuable information to its user.
The benefits of AESA radar include:
Longer range
Ability to detect smaller targets
Better resistance to jamming
Since an AESA radar utilizes a broader set of frequencies, it is also much more difficult to detect among background radio noise. This helps vehicles remain undetected while defending themselves in their environments.
Finally, AESA radars are less likely to experience system failure, since they rely on not one, but dozens of TRMs to transmit their signals. Computer failure can be recognized and remedied much faster than the maintenance needed to fix a broken transmitter in a PESA system. Additionally, the functioning antennas in an AESA system can continue to operate while the single TRM or computer is fixed.”
So yes, AESA does offer better range, and it’s more accurate and reliable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Stephano.MBravo1 I have a lot of respect towards the Rafale, especially after how it humiliated Su-35s in Egyptian exercises. I can say the same argument to you, go and read about the latest Viper, the F-16V. Here’s a blurb about its AESA:
The APG-83 AESA radar enables greater detection and tracking ranges, multiple target track (20-plus target tracks), high-resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) maps for all-environment precision strike, interleaved air-to-air and air-to-surface mode operations for improved situational awareness, operational effectiveness and survivability; and robust electronic protection for operations in dense radio frequency (RF) environments. The APG-83 also provides greater overall system reliability and availability—three to five times that of legacy MSCAN radars.
Another key feature of the F-16V configuration is the new Center Pedestal Display (CPD), which provides critical tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6”x 8” screen. The high-resolution display allows Pilot to take full advantage of AESA and Targeting Pod data. The new CPD enables color moving maps, larger and easier to manage air-to-air Situation Displays, zoom functionality with the ability to switch information among displays, and digital display of Flight Instrument Data. The CPD is also compatible with the Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS).
2
-
@yaz2928 I guess you haven’t read how the F-35 is attacking targets at will in Syria. Syria has openly complained that their Russian made SAMs don’t work. What you don’t seem to understand is that if a large and powerful SAM site has difficulty even detecting the F-35, how do you think a tiny missile seeker head is going to do tracking and locking onto it? Not very well. In over 40 years only one stealth aircraft has been shot down after thousands of sorties being flown, and even it was a fluke due to human error of flying a predictable flight path.
In recent tests, the F-35 has guided a PAC-3 missile to intercept a cruise missile, and it linked to a USMC rocket to attack a ship. If it can guide a SAM to intercept a cruise missile, it sure as hell can guide one to intercept another fighter. The Su-57 has none of these capabilities.
Or how about how Russian made SAMs were decimated in Armenia? Drones over and over tore Armenian air defenses apart.
The F-35 is also a force multiplier. Not only can it launch its missiles from BVR, but it can guide missiles from other fighters to the targets. It’s software automatically and instantaneously tracks targets, determines the probability of kill for each, communicates this information with its wingmen, and then determines the best targeting solution for each. Russia has nothing remotely close to the F-35’s abilities. Russia hasn’t even put into service AESA in any fighter, and the F-35’s is 4th gen AESA. You need to be sensible. Russia isn’t going to pass the US after being behind for over two decades.
The F-35 has all-aspect stealth, something that the Su57 fails at significantly. And sorry, but IRST is a very short range tool that has nothing on the F-35’s passive sensors. IRST is also effected by differing weather conditions, and is not a good tool to ID targets at long range. Shooting targets without a positive ID can lead to fratricide, the last thing a pilot wants.
Russian fighters look good at airshows going low and slow performing low g maneuvers, that’s it. Watch YouTuber The Ready Room, a F-18 pilot, and how he beats a Malaysian Su-30 that has thrust vectoring three out of three times. Or how about how F-15s beat Indian Su-30MKIs over and over at Red Flag Nellis. Search here on YouTube for F-35 instant turn rate, and you’ll find it pulling many more g’s than the Su’s. And if you put ordnance on those Su’s, that will only increase their wing and drag weight, which reduces their agility, top-end speed, and their ability to recover from high-g turns. Face it, you’re wrong, and you won’t find one expert who agrees with you.
A good example of how useless Russian fighters are is the MMRCA tender where the Mig-35 performed so poorly. You can find many videos of it performing maneuvers that you think are so impressive, but it failed miserably in the competition. It only did well at top speed, but when it came to instant and sustained turn rates, and the ability to recover from high bleed turns, not so well.
If the Su-57 was so great it would not be having difficulty finding customers, and Russia’s ally India wouldn’t have left the partnership to develop it. Russia even approached India again, but India doesn’t believe the Su-57 design can be fixed to measure up against other 5th gen fighters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 Like I said, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about. Top end speed is rarely used in dogfighting, other than trying to get away. And the F-35’s top speed is more than what’s needed. Just look at how slow British Harriers fly, and yet they dominated the airspace against Argentina. Not only that but flying at top speed burns a lot of fuel, which allows fewer passes in a real dogfight. Plus, the ordinance added to a legacy aircraft will only hinder the Mig’s ability to turn, recover from high-bleed turns, reduce its top speed, as well as give it a larger RCS, which makes it easier to detect on radar.
Seriously, just do a simple Google search and you’ll see how it’s dominating in dogfights. Breaking Defense has an article titled “Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest”, which provides an example.
And have you even seen the more recent flight demos where it’s showing its climb and turn rates? It’s a hell of a lot better than the Russian crap at airshows where you see them flying low and slow performing low g maneuvers that in real combat would just get the pilot killed.
1
-
@startingbark0356 My gosh, you're clueless. First off, the Northrop F-5 was first built in the 1950s, and secondly US aircraft are always a generation ahead of Russia's so your excuse is a poor one. Just look at today's aircraft in service. Russia has just one Su-57 production model left after the first one crashed, while over 180 F-22's and over 700 F-35's have been built.
Show me any video of a Mig 21, or any Russian jet fighter for that matter, pulling the high-g instant turn that you'll find at the 1:05 or at the 2:10 mark in this vid of the F-35: watch?v=l2Y_I0Igl2E Not only that, but do you see how it continues to climb after the turn? You won't find any Russian jet climbing like that either, especially in a combat loadout, and you won't find any Russian jet pulling that amount of g's doing the same. When you watch a Russian fighter turn, you can see its tail drag, showing lack of power. You also won't find Russian jets having the climb rate either. Like I said, the F-35's 45,000 lbs of thrust is unmatched by any jet fighter, and even though the F-22 first flew over 20 years ago, Russia still hasn't put into the field any fighter that can match its 70,000 lbs of thrust. Russia is behind the US in jet engine tech. It's why Russia's ally India uses a US engine for its Tejas. You're saying that the Mig-21 can outclimb it is simpy ridiculous, especially considering its thust when in AB is under 16,000 lbs of thrust.
When it comes to dogfighting, the F-35 has the advantage right from the start. With its stealth and advanced sensors it can position itself in a favorable fighting position. You're intentionally chosing to not read the articles about how well the F-35 is dominating in exercises, even in visual range, because you just can't accept being wrong. That's the typical mindset of a teenager, and as you get older you'll find it's easier to admit when you're wrong because it has happened enough to make you humble.
"the F-35 cant be for long in stealth mode due its overheating problems" HAHAHA, now that's some funny crap there. Of course you misconstue what was publically released. The F-35's RAM can get damaged after flying very prolonged periods at max speed. What you don't get is that most fighters don't fly at top speed as it burns too much fuel. Pilots when retreating may go to full AB, but you don't see fighters going full speed in the dogfight.
The so-called "lighting issue" was only a precaustionary saftey measure taken during its initial development stages. Do you really think that so many nations would be buying it if it couldn't fly in a raimstorm? Try being sensible. You're grabbing at straws and showing your lack of knowledge.
As far as it fuel tanks go, they can be dropped just like how all other aircraft drop theirs. As far as top speed goes, even the Su-75's projected top speed is only Mach 1.8. That is what Russia wishes for it, but you can expect it to be lower, just like how Russia didn't meet the performance criteria set for the Su-57 when it was tested. Russia is well known for boasting about how maneuverable their aircraft are, but when used in combat or when tested against other Western aircraft in a head-to-head competition they lose. The MMRCA tender is a good example. Russia brought its best Fulcrum, the Mig-35, to the competion. Guess how it did against the Western aicraft in the tender? Horribly. The only area where it excelled was top speed, but when it came to agility the Western aircraft outperformed it. It performed so poorly an article was released afterwards titled "For Heaven's Sake Don't Buy the Russian Mig-35."
I don't know why I am wasting my time on you. You're probably a young teenager who spouts off BS without having any knowledge or supporting facts to back up your words. Next time you comment, which I am sure you will, because you can't accept being wrong, provide supporting articles to back your opinion. I know you can't because there aren't any credible and recent more ones that make such ridiculous assertions. Prove me wrong.
1
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 One of the reasons why the F-35 was built is because the US couldn’t sell the F-22 by law. The F-35 can’t just be sold to anybody. Just look at how it’s not being sold to Turkey, a member of NATO. Russia has nothing close to the F-35’s abilities. It can detect and target adversaries hundreds of miles out, automatically and instantly determine their level of threat, determine a probability of kill for each target, communicate the information with other assets in the field, and determine the best targeting solution.
In recent tests, the F-35 linked to a PAC-3 missile, and struck a cruise missile over the horizon. You won’t find any Russian SAM to be able to do that as it’s radar cannot defeat the curvature of the earth. A F-35 also linked to an artillery unit to strike a defensive target at long range, and also linked to a marine rocket unit to strike a naval target. You won’t find any other fighter performing to this degree.
And put it this way, the F-35 has the most advanced AESA radar in the world. It can perform many functions, including jamming enemy radar. In recent exercises in Egypt, their Rafales jammed their Su-35s blind. It’s why Egypt just recently purchased an additional 100 Rafales. While the USA has had AESA radar in service for over twenty years and is in thousands of aircraft, Russia doesn’t have it in any fighter aircraft in service.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 LOL, keep dreaming. Haven’t you noticed how Russian SAMs are being made a mockery out of in Syria and Armenia? Israeli F-35s are striking targets at will over Syria, and Russian S-300s and 400s haven’t been able to do anything about it. Look at how Turkish drones easily took out Russian made systems, and the Russian electronic countermeasures equipment didn’t work like it was supposed to. Russian trolls love to brag about their SAMs, but if you look at the history of warfare you’ll find that their much less effective than they used to be. The number of aircraft shot down per sortie flown has drastically gone down over time, and it’s because there are so many ways to defeat them. Jamming, spoofing, hacking, using decoys, stand off weapons, special ops, drones, have all shown to be very effective. Once they activate their radars they become a target, and they’re too slow to get away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ross72A But look at what's happened in Syria and Armenia, the same results where the S-300/400 have been ineffective. The same problem remains with SAMs: they're big, slow on the move, they emit tons of energy, are hindered by the curvature of the earth and other ground clutter, and there are many ways to counter them. Plus, and just like in the past, while SAM battery radars might be able to detect a stealth aircraft at further ranges today, the same problem remains that the tiny missile seeker head will have trouble tracking and locking onto it. You also need to keep in mind that along with stealth aircraft in the air, there will also be decoys, 4th gen aircraft, drones, jamming, etc., making it very hard to single out a stealth fighter to target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamnzi978 It is about performance, you just can’t accept it. Israel has been flying the F-35 whenever and wherever it wants over Syria. They have called it a true game changer. Japan at first wanted nothing to do with the F-35. They lobbied the US Congress for years to try to change the laws so that they could buy the F-22. However, once they got their hands on the F-35 they not only liked it and saw what it can do, they ordered more of them. The F-35 is winning competitions for sales by its abilities. It’s not like Russia’s POS Su-57, which to date hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles in flight from internal bays.
Face it, Russia is well known for overhyping its weapons. When the Apache helicopter went head to head against the Mi-28 in India, the Apache kicked its ass, and the Mi couldn’t even complete all the testing requirements. Same with the Chinook, and its beating out its Russian counterpart. Or how about all of Russia’s hype about the PAK-FA, aka Su-57? Russia’s only partner India backed out of the partnership citing numerous problems with its stealth features, engines, etc. Look at how poorly the Mig-35 performed during the MMRCA tender. Just Google “For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Buy The Russian Mig-35” and you will see why. How about Russia’s much vaunted electronic warfare abilities? According to Armenia they didn’t work in their recent battles. Or how about Russia’s premier aircraft the Su-35? Just search why Egypt recently ordered more Rafales, and you’ll find that they jammed the Su-35s and rendered them blind in recent exercises. Seriously, you Russian trolls brag, brag, brag about how great Russian equipment is, and it’s the same thing over and over that they’re more hype than anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The F-16, no doubt. There's a reason why Russia is having a hard time selling the Mig 29, while on the other hand the F-16 is continuing to rack up sales, where even old and used ones are being sold. Plus, the Mig-29 looks good on paper, hence, it has NEVER shot down an enemy fighter. The F-16 has numerous kills, including the Mig-29, and has never been shot down in a air-to-air battle. Russia trolls will make up excuses about the Mig-29's that were used, but that's all they are, excuses.
1
-
@antefran238 I agree for the most part. It’s why the Rafale won the tender in India. However, I do think that the F-16 can hold its own in certain areas, and that in the end it would come down a lot to pilot skill. During the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the the US wasn’t even offering its best. I do realize that weapons and systems have been upgraded through the years, but that applies to everyone. If I had my selection, I would pick the Rafale too. It’s a much newer airframe with more potential for growth, which are some of the reasons why both the F-16 and F-18 lost in the tender. In the end, it really doesn’t matter to me. Both fighters are on the same team, and both are superior to their adversaries warplanes. Just recently France got an additional order from Egypt for more Rafales, and it’s because the Rafales were able to jam their Su-35’s radars. Nothing is more pleasing to my ears to know that the US’s allies can take care of themselves and possible adversaries know it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ganeshkumar-gt9wx You’re not saying facts, just information that you learned from fake news that supports Russia. The real facts are SAMs aren’t as effective as they used to be. There are now so many ways to defeat them. Jamming, spoofing, using decoys, drones, stand-off weapons, hacking, stealth, special ops, etc. are all effective in countering them. It’s why aircraft aren’t shot down nearly as often as they used to be. For instance, Serbia had a well respected air defense network, but it was easily defeated because for the most part the Serbs were afraid to activate their radars knowing very well they’d be quickly targeted. Out of tens of thousands of sorties flown, only two US fighters were shot down, and even those were by fluke. They both flew predictable flight paths that made them easy targets.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it takes more than just detecting a stealth fighter. Today’s SAMs are fire-and-forget missiles, meaning they use their own internal radars to track and lock onto a target. The problem is that the tiny seeker head needs to be able to track and lock onto the fighter. Imagine how difficult that is when a large and powerful SAM site has difficulty itself. Put it this way, in exercises against the F-22 a F-15, which is well known for its powerful radars, couldn’t get a lock onto the Raptor even in visual range. The F-15 pilot was a British exchange pilot who said that the experience was extremely frustrating. Plus, the SAM site cannot guide the missile all the way to the target because that would reveal its position.
Your being Indian should help in knowing how your country is buying fewer and fewer weapons from Russia as time has gone by. Your Air Chief during the MMRCA tender stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the US wasn’t even offering its best. AESA radar is a great example. It’s at the forefront of radar for fighters, and is considered an essential need to be considered a 5th gen fighter. The USA has been fielding AESA for over twenty years in its fighters, while Russia still doesn’t have it in service in any of its fighter aircraft. It’s very expensive to make unless you have the manufacturing capabilities to build it on massive scale efficiently, which is what hurts Russia. It’s why the Chinese are surpassing Russia technologically.
Even without stealth, many of those other methods that I previously mentioned are very effective, and when you combine them together it makes it even more difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ignaciomunizdiaz5194 Not even. Google “Did you know the Su-57 Felon has the same RCS of a clean F/A-18 Super Hornet (and 1,000 times bigger than that of the F-35)?”
To be effective at BVR, it needs to be VLO, which it’s not. The Su-57’s stealth is one of its fallbacks. It’s one of the main reasons why India backed out of the partnership. The Su-57 is questioned if it even qualifies as a 5th gen fighter. When it comes to drones, Russia is significantly behind. It’s why after the conflict in Georgia that Russia bought Israeli made drones. If the Su-57 had any promise or potential, its ally, India, never would have left, and despite further Russian attempts to convince India to stay in the partnership, India has shown no interest. Russia has no export orders, which Russia desperately needs to help fund the program. The fact that only two production models have been built, with the first one crashing, that it has no exports, its close ally backed out, and that to date the Su-57 hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles from internal bays in flight, all are good indicators that its future is in doubt. You combine that with Russia never putting into active service any fighter with AESA radar further shows how far Russia is behind the West.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ignaciomunizdiaz5194 And like the typical Russian troll you revert to lying because you can’t accept reality. Face the facts, Russia has no fighter aircraft flying with AESA, and Russia has no fighter in service that matches the single engine power of 40,000 lbs of thrust in the F-35 or the F-22’s 70,000 lbs. For Russia’s ally, India, which has purchased Russian equipment for decades, to back out and cite numerous problems just shows how bad the aircraft is. Two critical areas that they found flaws were the engines and stealth, or lack thereof, in the Su-57. For you to argue that the Su-57 is the best shows how deluded your mind is, and you won’t find one expert who agrees with you. I don’t have time for your nonsense so feel free to have the last words with more of your lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andreyg.2388 I get my news from all over the world. You obviously watch too much Russian TV.
First off, the US doesn’t even need hypersonic missiles against Russia. Russia can’t even stop subsonic missiles that hit the Moskva, and it can’t stop HIMARS rockets that are only flying at Mach 2.5. Even when Russia knows exactly what is being targeted, like a bridge, it’s had no ability to stop them.
Secondly, Russia’s hypersonic capabilities are overhyped. The Kinzhal is just a modified Iskander that is dropped from a fighter or bomber. The US had this capability back in the 1950s when it had the GAM-87 Skybolt that flew around Mach 10-12. Russia’s other hypersonic missile is the Zircon, which has never been shown in flight for more than two seconds. Its design copies the US X-51 Waverider, which is just a test-bed missile. It broke the world record for hypersonic duration of flight around a decade ago, and it can be seen here on YouTube. Just search X-51 Waverider Breaks Hypersonic Duration of Flight Record (2010) to see it.
And finally, Russia depends on US made microchips for its advanced weapons. Search here on YouTube for EVIDENCE SUGGESTS RUSSIA’S ‘HYPERSONIC’ KINZHAL MISSILE IS POWERED BY AMERICAN TECH. With the existing sanctions, it will be very difficult for Russia to build any of its advanced weaponry as Russia has shown that it uses large amounts western parts in all of its more advanced weapons.
Remember, it’s Russia that has the long history of copying from the west, not vice versa.
1
-
@Rumbler298 Go to The YouTuber The Ready Room and you can see first hand the Malaysian Su-30 lose all three times to the F-18.
Funny thing is that Egypt has realized the advantages of AESA when their Rafales recently jammed their Su-35’s PESA radar. That hurts for Russian trolls like yourself.
Face it, you’re wrong, the Su-30 doesn’t have AESA radar. You won’t find one article supporting your opinion that an actual sale has gone through. Those kinds of sales are big announcements because it means hundreds of millions in sales. The fact that you have been unable to provide any proof of any kind just shows that you know yourself that you’re wrong. Making plans and actually going through with them are two different matters. Russia planned to have hundreds of Su-57s and planned to sell hundreds more, but look at what happened, India backed out of the partnership citing numerous problems with its stealth, engines, etc., and Russia has only built two production models, and the first one crashed. Seriously, prove me wrong by providing a credible link or STFU. All you have done is show that your words carry no weight because you can’t back them up with proof. No joke, every site that I’ve gone to about the Su-30 states they have PESA. And what you can’t seem to understand is that Russia doesn’t have the manufacturing capabilities to build high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently, like AESA. For you to think that people are just going to believe you without proof is asinine. Unless you provide something credible to support your words, I am done with you.
1
-
@yaz2928 LOL, is that why during the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best? Is that why both Algeria and Egypt canceled their Su-35 orders due to its antiquated PESA radar? Is that why AESA radar is considered an essential requirement for to be 5th gen, which Russia to date hasn’t fielded in any fighter, while the US did with its F-15Cs over twenty years ago, and now has it in thousands of aircraft. Face the truth, Russia is not known for being a technological leader as its main revenue sources are from raw materials. Russia also doesn’t have the manufacturing capabilities to build high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently. The Su-57 is a joke. Despite flying for over a decade it still has no foreign orders, its only partner, India, backed out citing numerous problems, only two have been built, with the first one crashing, and to date it still hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles from internal bays in flight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kosovoisserbia8937 “The routes used by the F-117s during the shoot down had been flown previously multiple times. This contrary to the F-117 operations in the 91 war where they flew into Baghdad, never repeating the same inbound track consecutively.
Perhaps this was due to over confidence in their equipment, and air superiority. During Operation Allied Force, the NATO air campaign, it was standard operating procedure (SOP) for all strike missions to be accompanied by electronic warfare aircraft [EA-6B Prowlers]. These aircraft flew with strike missions to detect, jam, and destroy enemy radar installations. Because of these aircraft, it was difficult for the Yugoslavian anti air forces to operating their radars and get target quality tracks on even conventional military aircraft. Keep in mind, during the 78 days of Operation Allied Forces we flew 38,004 air sorties and lost only 2 aircraft to enemy fire. The Prowlers were a big part of that unprecedented record.
‘Unfortunately, on the day Vega 31 would be taken out of the sky, the Prowlers were grounded due to weather. The decision was made for the F-117s to fly their strike mission unsupported.”
From “An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force”
NATO won on air power alone. The USA didn’t lose the life of even one soldier. You can talk about all the what if if you want, but that doesn’t change history. And history has continued where SAMS are nearly effective as they used to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1