Will Sukhoi SU-35 stand a chance in a dogfight against Lockheed

>>32131791
Up close and personal? I think yes, a chance. Lightning II's TVN can only increase it's maneuverability so far, when it's wing loading is higher than shit.

I know next to nothing about electronic warfare. :(

>>32131791
pugachev's cobra GOAT

File: Su35 TVC.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32131791
Su-35 is going to tear Lightning apart in a dogfight. But you need to cut distance first, that's different question.

File: dedde49f0819ac198d08674ecc85b729.jpg (90KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 736x552px

>>32131791

I know it's not relevant to OP but was playing AC6 today and man the forward-swept wing design of the SU-47 gives me a hard on

>>32131791
>dogfight
WHAT YEAR IS IT?

File: 14720007832660.png (78KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 768x1024px

That's two ridiculous questions OP. F-35 can't survive dogfights at all and there's no conceivable alternative to air superiority.

>>32131791
>Is air superiority even relevant anymore?
Yes.

However pilot superiority remains even more relevant. Imagine:

>Clean shaven Tom Cruise clone hammers it along the air space
>Notices a SU-35, grins and emits a generic "Mwahaha"
>Too much trust in tech, too confident, too relaxed
>Too little humility, too little care, too little situational awareness
>Readies to put a missile in that SU
>Hears a warning ... late!
>Remembers he hasn't checked his 6 o'clock the last 5 minutes
>Ejects just in time as a Soviet era missile plows into his engines from that second SU he forgot to look for.

Remember: it is the man in the box that counts.

>>32131791

Dogfights are done son. Now it's hitting targets half a world away. If something is in range to dogfight then something, nay everything, has gone horribly horribly wrong. Air superiority is literally the only superiority that matters. 1/10th the number of ground troops that are supported by air vs a larger contingent without air support will always have the advantage. Being able to force the enemy into that scenario will always be the opening objective.

File: nam air war.jpg (131KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x768px

>>32131928
>dogfights are done son

hey the vietnam war called
they want their line of thinking back.

>>32131791
No because that is not a SU-37.

>>32131944

Hey half a century called. Sounded like they missed you.

>>32131791
Nah man, space superiority is where it's at now.

>>32131958
You would have a point, I mean radar ranges have gotten longer right?

except jets have gotten faster too. Two aircraft approaching each other at Mach 1.5 get close REAAAAL FUCKING FAST. You go from BVR to knife fight in a phone booth before you know it.

>>32131944

Neck yourself.

The Vietnam war proved that BVR is the future and the dogfight is dead.

Just check the K/D ratios when the USN started applying good tactics and strategy for BVR.

File: the beauty of air combat.jpg (327KB, 1200x1828px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1200x1828px

>>32131958
yes, advancements in countermeasures/ECM and RWR technology also called.
Its not only missile Pk. that got better, but things that are supposed to make that Pk. go down.

Thinking dogfights will dissapear is wishful thinking at its best, unless your goal is lobbing active missiles at eachother from 40 miles out and turning away all the time to avoid being hit by the other party's active missiles, you gotta close the distance and duke it out.

In a dogfight, the SU-35 will slaughter the F-35.
The second question is dumb.

>>32131917

Is this even bait?

>>32131911
>that pic

So someone thought he was making a decent argument by putting that shit together ?

File: aim9x.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>32131797
The F-35's nozzle isn't thrust vectoring, not for anything other than when the B variant is landing or taking off.

>>32131975
Radar range has increased way more than aircraft speed. Even jets that can supercruise only plan to use it for about 10% of their mission; it still burns fuel like a mofo, just not as much as afterburner.

>>32131791
A Su-35 is more manoeuvrable than an F-35 in most ways, so if it came down to 1v1, guns only, the F-35 would be in trouble. Realistically though an F-35 will beat the Su-35 9/10+. Even if you close the gap to one jet, you still have the F-35's wingmen firing at you and you still have to worry about avoiding HOBS missiles that the F-35 can fire from any angle.

File: 50c7da6b3ecc3e6b97d931b46da45712.jpg (3MB, 3543x2362px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3543x2362px

Why is the SU-27 (and it's derivations) so sexy?

>>32132239
>HOBS missiles that the F-35 can fire from any angle
>US finally managed to copy early 80's Soviet tech
>US now the bestests, vatniks BTFO
lel.

Nevermind the fact that F-35 still can't carry Aim-9x's internally and externally carrying one is a +1m2 to RCS

I wouldn't want to be in a gen 4 fighter and have to face off against any gen 5.

>>32133055
Nevermind that Soviet 80's tech was not -high- offbore, or that AMRAAM's are high offbore.

>>32131791
>In a dog fight
If it can see its target, it stands a chance.
But then, it has to get close enough first and that's the catch.
F35 is the bastard child of an atmospheric MIRV and a very stealthy AWACS :
It get somewhere quickly, lock targets, deliver payload and get away asap.

>>32131944
Vietnam was the war that showed dogfights were a thing of the past.

>USN 13-1 kill ratio with only missiles

>>32132040
>Is this even bait?
No.

I tried subtlety in here. Once. Never again. My point remains though: the pilot counts the most.

>>32132327
>Why
The Soviets/Russians had limited access to computers but had very good mathematicians so they had to take the analytical approach, mathematically speaking, as far as possible and limit the need for fast, powerful computers.

And for some reason, when the mathematics is right the solution also looks right and has an uncanny attractiveness about it. Mathematicians will therefore talk about "elegance". And that is what you see here.

>>32133273
Using predominantly AIM-9s within visual range. You Vietnam showed BVR was the future are ultimately the worst.

File: aa11r.jpg (41KB, 447x391px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 447x391px

>>32132239
that webm

>>32133448
If you can see it, you can kill it.
And if you can see the bip on your radar, you don't need to see the plane in your window.

Sure, dog fight ain't dead.
But visual range is getting out of date.

>>32131879
1968. In Vietnam I assume.

>>32132002
It's funny because to even as far back as WWI aces used boom and zoom tactics and avoided dogfights like the plaugue. Dogfights are a bad strtegy, and if you get in one you're throwing away any advantage given to you by your airframe to waste time and fuel choking on your own mass without anywhere near a guarantee of victory.

>>32133931
Many of those top German Aces from WWII that people flaunt around for how the nazis were gods gift to aviation also tried to only attack enemy that weren't aware of them. For a long period of time, a large percentage of AtA kills were on pilots that didn't know they were about to be fired upon.

>>32131797
maneuverability means nothing. The F-35 will just spam AIM-9X's.