F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[WorldWatcher]

Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier.

I enjoy reading the thread but don't pop in very often but I'll comment on the above speaking as someone involved with Naval Aviation for 20 years working both the flight desk and as aircrew on multiple fixed wing platforms.

I doubt if "pivoting" an F-22 to carrier capability is possible at this point (irregardless of the cost of firing up production lines again).

(Not in priority order, just mental wanderings.)

#1 - The landing gear would have to be strengthened to account for carrier landings (along with the underlying fuselage).

#2 - The nose gear would have to be strengthened to account for catapult launches (along with the underlying fuselage).

#3 - The rear fuselage would have to modified and strengthened to for an arresting hook and the stress of carrier landings.

#4 - The size of the F-22 is significantly larger than the F-35 in terms of ground footprint and there is a fixed amount of space on the deck. The F-22 was not designed with swing wings or folding wings so that really hurts.

#5 - Carrier birds need slow and low performance in the carrier recovery phase to be able to land on the ship (which is one reason why the F-14 incorporated swing wings, for slower speeds).

#6 - In-flight refueling would have to be changed to the basket model used on Naval aircraft.

#7 - Avionics would have to added and incorporated for the carrier environment.



Basically you are talking going back to the drawing board and redesigning a completely new aircraft (my look similar but different under the skin). Most of those things are going to add weight in the order of tons to the bird and have a negative impact on performance.




>>>>

 

[sakinago]

Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier.

I enjoy reading the thread but don't pop in very often but I'll comment on the above speaking as someone involved with Naval Aviation for 20 years working both the flight desk and as aircrew on multiple fixed wing platforms.

I doubt if "pivoting" an F-22 to carrier capability is possible at this point (irregardless of the cost of firing up production lines again).

(Not in priority order, just mental wanderings.)

#1 - The landing gear would have to be strengthened to account for carrier landings (along with the underlying fuselage).

#2 - The nose gear would have to be strengthened to account for catapult launches (along with the underlying fuselage).

#3 - The rear fuselage would have to modified and strengthened to for an arresting hook and the stress of carrier landings.

#4 - The size of the F-22 is significantly larger than the F-35 in terms of ground footprint and there is a fixed amount of space on the deck. The F-22 was not designed with swing wings or folding wings so that really hurts.

#5 - Carrier birds need slow and low performance in the carrier recovery phase to be able to land on the ship (which is one reason why the F-14 incorporated swing wings, for slower speeds).

#6 - In-flight refueling would have to be changed to the basket model used on Naval aircraft.

#7 - Avionics would have to added and incorporated for the carrier environment.



Basically you are talking going back to the drawing board and redesigning a completely new aircraft (my look similar but different under the skin). Most of those things are going to add weight in the order of tons to the bird and have a negative impact on performance.




>>>>

Very fair points, and I suggested the carrier launch version because while it’s still a jump in design, it’s still doable. After all we did it with the f35, which was planned with that in mind ahed of time, so it will be more of jump sure than the f35, but still doable. Sure at the trade off of some performance and spacing, but I still like the abilities of a lesser f22 vs any other plane out there, including the f35. And the ability to launch one from a carrier is huge advantage, and will go a long way in protecting not only the f35 on sorties, but also the entire carrier group. Imagine a small squadron of J-20s going up against a carrier group, even with f35s, that’s still kind of a scary spot. So spacing wise you trade off a few f22s for 5 or so f18/f15.... that’s still added value. Assuming we can even detect that attack coming (I hope we can).

At the very least I think that you could agree we should not have ended the f22 program...and maybe a carrier launch is probably a wise idea.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

 

[Bleipriester]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

 

[Bleipriester]

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.

Easy answer. You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar. You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it. That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.

 

[DrainBamage]

Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors.

Cost of F-35 is comparable to other modern fighters, but it is far more capable than any of them with exception of air-to-air role of F-22.

There are lots of challenges to this infrared panacea argument that pops up every once in awhile, but bottom line the farther something else the more focused an infrared sensor has to be to detect it and there is no reason radar won't continue to advance as well always giving the stealthier airplane the ability to get first look and pick and choose whether and how to engage.

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no.

F-35 can hit moving targets because it has a built in laser designator, F-22 has no such capability.
F-35 can carry 2,000 lb class weapons internally, F-22 cannot.
The ASQ-239 on F-35 has far more advanced electronic attack capabilities than F-22
F-35's DAS provides 360 degree coverage, it works with EOTS and the target database to have far better coverage of what is on the ground than AAR56 gives the F-22
F-22 dominates RF spectrum, but F-35 dominates RF, IR, and electro-optical spectrum, and it's computers are far more advanced to process and give the pilot information on what it sees.

Bottom line F-22 is the better air superiority fighter while is better strike, CAS, SEAD, etc. roles

 

[DrainBamage]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....

You've been chanting this in the thread for literally years now, yet cannot explain how F-16s have shot down so many MIG-29s that fly higher and faster.

If you look at stats on air-to-air engagements in the modern era the missiles are almost always launched at medium altitude and transonic speeds. You have this naive fantasy that every aircraft goes constantly jetting around at their maximum speed and altitude, that isn't the case they fly at an optimal cruising speed and altitude because that is the only way to effectively ingress/egress the battlefield.

It's also funny that you keep chanting it despite F-35s mopping the floor of F-15Es that have far greater top speed, altitude, and have newer AESA radars. We're not talking barely, we're talking 20-1 type kill ratios yet you are still in here blindly bleating the same thing about how the F-35s will all get shot down.

 

[DrainBamage]

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

I already tried once but I keep forgetting the level I'm talking to here.

You article from 2017 is basically a republish of the same one from 2015 with some formatting changes. Don't believe me? Here are direct pastes from them:

2015: America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?
While the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to become the mainstay of the Pentagon’s tactical fighter fleet, not everyone nation on Earth can afford to fly an expensive fifth-generation fighter.

Even Russia and China are not likely to attempt to develop an all fifth-generation fighter fleet—instead, for the foreseeable future, the derivatives of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker air superiority fighter will make up the bulk of their tactical air arsenals. The most potent Flanker derivative is the Su-35, which is a much-improved version with vastly improved avionics, engines and airframe. In the years ahead, this latest Flanker-E is likely to proliferate around the world.

2017: What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
While the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to become the mainstay of the Pentagon’s tactical fighter fleet, not everyone nation on Earth can afford to fly an expensive fifth-generation fighter.

Even Russia and China are not likely to attempt to develop an all fifth-generation fighter fleet—instead, for the foreseeable future, the derivatives of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker air superiority fighter will make up the bulk of their tactical air arsenals. The most potent Flanker derivative is the Su-35, which is a much-improved version with vastly improved avionics, engines and airframe. In the years ahead, this latest Flanker-E is likely to proliferate around the world.


Okay does Mr. "I posted something newer" finally get it that they are both the same content from 2015?

Now let's take it farther, try to stay with us here genius. The article is an opinion piece. It isn't "news" in that there is some new evidence that F-35 was inferior, the blogger/author was speculating because in 2015 we had never actually seen F-35s fight against other aircraft in exercises. Then SAME AUTHOR got to participate in an exercise and changed his mind, saying it was a real eye opener how much stealth dominates and that the F-35 was actually a potent air-to-air threat.

So you're choosing the believe SAME AUTHOR before he had hands on experience and changed his mind, while dismissing his his later opinions.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....

You've been chanting this in the thread for literally years now, yet cannot explain how F-16s have shot down so many MIG-29s that fly higher and faster.

If you look at stats on air-to-air engagements in the modern era the missiles are almost always launched at medium altitude and transonic speeds. You have this naive fantasy that every aircraft goes constantly jetting around at their maximum speed and altitude, that isn't the case they fly at an optimal cruising speed and altitude because that is the only way to effectively ingress/egress the battlefield.

It's also funny that you keep chanting it despite F-35s mopping the floor of F-15Es that have far greater top speed, altitude, and have newer AESA radars. We're not talking barely, we're talking 20-1 type kill ratios yet you are still in here blindly bleating the same thing about how the F-35s will all get shot down.

Years eh....and f-35 still isn't rdy for prime time.....blue clue right there

 

[DrainBamage]

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

You clearly don't know what the word invincible means. The states here are three numbers: air to air kills, air to air losses, and losses to ground fire:

MiG-29
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1

So your "invincible" plane went 0-2 in Lebanon, 0-5 in Iraq, 0-6 in Kosovo, and 3-5 in NE Africa. Note almost all of the Iraq/Syria/Balkans were in combat with American built aircraft, I think there was a Brit Tornado in there too and the Ethiopians were flying Flankers.

The only conflict it actually had a positive kill ratio was Cuba (against two Cessnas) and in Georgia against a spy plane.

So when you say invincible you mean the plane that has lost in combat with almost every peer adversary, and proven capable against turboprops and unmanned spy planes.

 

[DrainBamage]

Years eh....and f-35 still isn't rdy for prime time.....blue clue right there

Ready enough to throw a 20-1 kill ratio and convince one of the bloggers that used to be your hero.

And of course you're ready to continue conspicuously avoiding addressing how these MIG-29s keep getting dominated by planes that fly slower, lower, and how combat stats prove high speed is rarely in play when planes get shot down.

 

[Bleipriester]

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.

Easy answer. You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar. You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it. That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.

My airforce is the strongest.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder. Not a good use of experienced pilots. The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder. You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots. You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce. Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15. Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap. Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.

Easy answer. You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar. You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it. That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.

My airforce is the strongest.

Stronger than what? I will admit that your Air Force is stronger than Luxemburgs. So your Air Force is so strong you can afford to lose most of it's pilots and ground installations? You keep posting these lies over and over again, Comrade.

 

[DrainBamage]

His Air Force has the "invincible MIG-29", which is 3-18 versus peer adversaries.

It is difficult to set the stupid bar higher than calling that plane invincible, but BlowPuffer always manages to surprise us.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

His Air Force has the "invincible MIG-29", which is 3-18 versus peer adversaries.

It is difficult to set the stupid bar higher than calling that plane invincible, but BlowPuffer always manages to surprise us.

India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29. Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates. Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.

 

[Bleipriester]

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.

You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27? The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29. Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill. It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged. Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.

Easy answer. You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar. You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it. That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.

My airforce is the strongest.

Stronger than what? I will admit that your Air Force is stronger than Luxemburgs. So your Air Force is so strong you can afford to lose most of it's pilots and ground installations? You keep posting these lies over and over again, Comrade.

We Germans have the largest stealth air fleet on the globe. Our airforce is that stealthy, it is not even there. How do you want to fight our airforce when it isn´t there?

German airforce is better off with colorful balloons...

 

[DrainBamage]

India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29. Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates. Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.

Yeah it's funny the way they present upgraded versions of aircraft that are decades old as a new model. SU-27 -> SU-35, MIG-25 -> MIG-31, MIG-29 -> MIG-35, etc. just update the avionics a bit, maybe add a new engine and hey that aircraft designed in 1977 is now a new aircraft designed in 2006. Then you get pinheads like BluePeeter gushing about the glories of the new high-tech planes being produced by his heroes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29. Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates. Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.

Yeah it's funny the way they present upgraded versions of aircraft that are decades old as a new model. SU-27 -> SU-35, MIG-25 -> MIG-31, MIG-29 -> MIG-35, etc. just update the avionics a bit, maybe add a new engine and hey that aircraft designed in 1977 is now a new aircraft designed in 2006. Then you get pinheads like BluePeeter gushing about the glories of the new high-tech planes being produced by his heroes.

The Mig-31 design dates back to the Mig-25 to the early 60s. Here are a couple of pictures

Some say that the F-15 is a copy of the 25 but the 25 stole from this bird

The A-5 is from the 50s. It grew out of the XF-108 cancelled program.