F-35 BTFO

>>34696007
>3 AMRAAMS each
>at max range
I don't think that's right.

>>34696007
Missiles slows down as it approaches the plane ..??

can someone explain this? it either this Russian is dumb as bricks or I'm dumb as bricks, doesn't the AIM-120 have a rocket engine, how can it slow down?

and how can su-35 outrun the mach 4 AIM-120 ??

>>34696185
>can someone explain this? it either this Russian is dumb as bricks or I'm dumb as bricks, doesn't the AIM-120 have a rocket engine, how can it slow down?

The rocket motor burns out quickly. Most of a missile's flight is unpowered, unless it's really close.

>>34696208
i'm loving the Dos Gringos parts in this

>>34696197
Correction - a burn that maximizes for top speed without a sustaining time in the flight profile burns out very quickly. At Mach 3.8, the missile will exhaust its fuel very quickly, and rapidly lose speed to aerodynamic drag. Missiles have to be very big and heavy to sustain mach 3+ speeds.

>>34696197
>>34696232
but it says that the distance is 80km, and AIM-120C7 range is 160

I still don't understand

>>34696185
>>34696197
The AIM-120D gets its extra range by boosting to higher altitudes for a ballistic approach on its target. IIRC the rocket motors burn for a minute or two max.

That's one of the things that is very annoying about this "simulation." The approaching SU's would be very unlikely to detect those missiles until they're already in terminal guidance because the SU's radar doesn't constantly scan the areas the missiles would come from and would be unable to detect them at the ranges they're launched from and boost to altitude. So the idea that the SU's would see the launch and immediately start evading/returning fire is very unlikely to happen. Also I don't recall Russian AAM's having multi-frequency anti-radiation seekers built into them for them to just launch blindly towards the couple of radar signals they'd pick up from the LPI radar on the F-35.

>>34696265
A 50 mile range =/= the rocket motor burning for 50 miles. The rocket motor burns out quickly. The remainder of the flight is gliding.

>>34696305
>The rocket motor burns out quickly.

Sometimes. The burn profile of a solid fuel motor can be varied in flight by shaping the fuel, so that it can have a high burn rate at the start and a much slower burn rate to sustain its initial velocity with a smaller expenditure of the missile's overall delta-V capacity.

>>34696265
D yes. Not the C though as far as I know. It's not really obvious which one he's using for the example me thinks but he does list the D in that hit percentage chart. Not a good video really.

The Su-35 would probably dominate the F-35 if it came down to a dogfight. The issue is that it would rarely come down to a dogfight.

>>34696364
>The Su-35 would probably dominate the F-35 if it came down to a dogfight

okeeyy

>>34696327
It's almost as if it's propaganda aimed at trying to discredit something the vatniks are scared of and can't afford to legitimately counter.

>>34696364
The Su-35's maneuvering is impressive, but the aircraft tends to throw itself around the sky ballistically, even in the recent and very impressive airshow demonstrations. The F-35's nose pointing does not come at the cost of pilot control over the plane's orientation.

>>34696364
HOBS has really changed the way dogfights work so much in the last 10 years that we won't see how dogfights work now until one happens.

>>34696300
The simulation ignores LPI entirely and assumes that the Su-35 would be able to detect the F-35 emissions which betrays a surface level knowledge of the system s involved.

>>34696364
Furballs aren't necessarily won by the most agile aircraft. High angle of attack maneuvering, can leave an aircraft extremely vulnerable to attack from other aircraft and on the contrary rate fighting can take too long and allow the situation to change against you.

>>34696408
The issue is that the F-35 will rarely be carrying AIM-9X, since it can't carry them internally (and I don't think the trapeze for internal sidewinder carry has progressed any). It'll have to rely on AMRAAMs which, while still capable, won't offer as much at really close ranges.

The Sukhois have good energy retention and are great turning fighters when flown by semi-competent pilots. I don't think it's smart to downplay its ACM capability. I'm basing this off of what US pilots have said about fighting Sukhois close in with legacy 4th gens in exercises.

>>34696692
Considering all the work they're putting into it, including doing work on the C's wings to allow it to carry them, I doubt they're planning on not carrying the AIM-9X. Hell, Britain is designing a new ASRAAM variant just to carry on the F-35.

>>34696850
I doubt they'll carry them in non-permissive airspce. The increase in WVR capability is not worth the decrease in BVR capability. In any theoretical situation where F-35s face off against Su-35s, chances are that they won't have external sidewinders.

I could be wrong, maybe dragon will clarify.

>>34696850
The other guy is correct in that they won't fly with AIM-9Xs (or at least rarely will) if they're expecting to go up against modern fighters like the Su-35.
Something to keep in mind however is that F-35s will never fly solo, so while an AMRAAM might not be ideal for engaging a Su-35 from less than a mile away, it's unlikely that the other ~3 F-35 wingmen will also be tied up in ACM.
AMRAAMs are reasonably agile / are at least officially HOBS capable though.

>>34696007
I don't get it OP your video proves that the F-35 is better, the only times the Su-35 wins is when it he gives it an scenario where any fourth gen aircraft would win (ECM,AWACS, and right on top of the F-35's target)

Also another flaw where the Su-35 has the advantage is that when the F-35's decide "fuck it let's just retreat" the Su-35's enough fuel to chase them down and a convenient tanker to refuel.

>>34696914
I've heard ASRAAM is supposed to have an extremely stealthy profile though. Which makes sense since it looks much smoother than an AIM-9.

>>34696007
>Americans, just stop financing the Fail-35
(Please) t. Russia

>>34697082
well, their whole 5th gen program can be summed up as "five guys in a shed, beating together bits of plastic and metal while trying to stay warm", so i can see how they will use whatever edge they have

>>34696208
Is this DCS?

File: f35_su35.jpg (108KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1920x1080px

>>34696007
>Binkov is extremely generous to the Su-35
>F-35 still win

File: IMG_3285.jpg (156KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1334x750px

Wtf ???

>>34697974

Most likely 4+4chan's intel board.

File: 124124313.jpg (19KB, 351x468px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 351x468px

>>34697716

>>34698310
this image needs to die, it's not even that funny. I don't know why I keep seeing it everywhere.

>LRIP 11 includes 141 fucking jets, and the marines just increased their B buy by 13 jets

Good times

>>34698607
We know who you are.

File: goob_1.png (218KB, 239x470px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 239x470px

>>34698607
Is that so? May I ask you what makes you angry about it?

>>34699315
"hurr durr its a fatty with cream on his face" fuck off.

>>34699342
Its not ice cream

File: 1500951301561.jpg (377KB, 2500x1875px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 2500x1875px

>>34699342

>>34699354
motherfucker did I say ice cream? fuckin idiots man

File: 1498920473740.jpg (18KB, 351x468px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 351x468px

>>34699370

File: 13af8fd056ca11e28a7322000a1fa414_7.jpg (54KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x600px

>>34699382

File: Screenshot_2014-09-06-21-18-12.png (987KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 1080x1920px

>>34699408

File: 1401682346296.jpg (88KB, 472x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 472x600px

>>34699430

>>34698310
>>34699315
>>34699342
>>34699354
>>34699370
>>34699382
>>34699408
>>34699430
>>34699732
wtf guys

>>34698302
You have no idea. /intl/ very nearly destroyed ate chan's /pol/ and /int/

>>34698310
Is this supposed to be the vatniks face when he cannot refute what was said?