SU-35 vs F-22

>>34978469
/r/combatfootage when the footage of 35s getting flamed left and right comes out

>>34978469
Guns dogfight it's neck and neck, anything else the F-22 wins.

>>34978469
F-22 has better sensors, pilot, engine, maneuverability, stealth, cockpit, and weapons.

The Su-35 failed to attract orders from India or Brazil.

>>34978469
SU35

>>34978469
>>34979067

>SU-35 explodes before the pilot can stow away his smuggled vodka flask.

Why do people even keep making these threads? The F-22 is better in every fucking way. There isn't a Russian plane flying now or in the next 10 years that can compete (lol PAK FA). The YF-23 could eat the SU-35 for lunch too. By the time the Russians make a good gen 5 the US will have a gen 6. Stop resisting.

Ivan needs to stay on the ground, the sky belongs to GI Joe.

File: YF-23 2.jpg (468KB, 1280x943px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1280x943px

>>34979084
Ah, the YF-23. Faster, and even more stealthy than the F-22. The god damned thing looked like it flew out of fucking Area 51. A part of me wishes we went with it instead.

File: received_1662129120478602.jpg (231KB, 1800x1429px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1800x1429px

>>34979567
>Part of me wishes we went with it instead

Me too anon..... Me too.

File: RAH-66.jpg (30KB, 792x596px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 792x596px

>>34980223
>>34979567
Did the Raptor really won over her just because of looks?
So far I have only heard good things about the YF-23, there has to be another reason

there are no dogfights anymore

>>34978469

The F-22, what a weird question.

>>34980274
It won because of thrust vectoring

File: 1200px-YF-22.jpg (218KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1200x799px

>>34980274
Thrust vectoring and agility were it's advantages. I would imagine some lobbying in DC had to do with it as well. It's a potent aircraft, but imo they should've developed the F-15 S/MTD into something more than just a test bed.

>>34980366

At the time the US had Lockheed deliver the F-117 on time and on budget, while the Northrop Grumman B-2 was getting hammered in the media for being the most expensive plane ever

File: 1500835646384.jpg (75KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x750px

>>34980381
That too. YF-23 is vaporwave af though, I wonder if there's a picture of the two prototypes in formation with a vaporwave background or something

>>34980274
Man, that's another beautiful bird we lost. RIP Comanche. Just imagine how damn useful the thing would be. Hell, even Air to Air. Arm it with some stingers and have it hunt helicopters.

File: E524D5EC-E12E-46D1-BC9A-D475DC63009B-169-00000057577967F4_tmp.jpg (57KB, 600x418px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x418px

>>34979567
>A part of me wishes we went with it instead.

The next 6th gen jet will probably have more in common with the yf-23 than the f-22 anyway.

>>34979567
>ATF
Looks a bit excesive for removing dogs...

File: YF-23 2.jpg (96KB, 1441x951px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1441x951px

>>34979567
We all want it to some degree.

Su-35 has better electronics and long range missiles

>>34980519
kek

>>34980519
I'll play ball and give you missiles, but electronics? Come on anon, Russia has always always always been behind in radars

>>34980274
The Raptor's advantages were in agility while the YF-23 was supposedly superior in top speed and stealth (although it did have an odd angle where the fan blades were exposed).

However, the F-22 had a couple of other things going its way. It fit better into existing hangars and other infrastructure from what I've read, which made it the cheaper option to procure. The YF-23's weapons bay was also configured in such a way that it had structural concerns for maneuvering.

In the end, the USAF's focus at the time on supermaneuverability probably played a role as well. Although the F-22 did have a lot more factors going for it, the areas in which the YF-23 was superior certainly would be more desirable than supermaneuverabilty in today's battlespace.

>>34978469
That depends on the scenario.

You can't just decide which one is better than the other. They're tools of war. Are hammers better than wrenches?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-M9jA1INk8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjS8j2PWtK4

>>34980938
>the areas in which the YF-23 was superior certainly would be more desirable than supermaneuverabilty in today's battlespace.

Supermaneuverability is post-stall maneuvering, but the F-22 is plain more agile as well, which is highly desirable in BVR engagements that can't rely on pure stealth. Which will be the case.

>>34980965
Kill yourself for posting that no-nothing sock puppet unironically.

>>34980519
Electronics? I highly doubt it.
Missiles, yes. But only as of right now.

>>34981039
>>F-22 is plain more agile as well
Airframe, ruined by stealth measures against pure aerodynamic absilution, 2d thrust vectoring against 3d thrust vectoring, crippled "stealthy" radar, against full-powered one... I really can`t tell if you are joking, anon.

>>34981112
and I can't tell why you're in this thread when you're so cripplingly misinformed

>>34979055
Su-35 certainly has superior maneuverability.

That said, the 22 wins in essentially any and every situation which would actually arise. Comparison to the Su-57 would make more sense.

>>34981179
>Comparison to the Su-57 would make more sense.

And its still no comparison at all. Most of the components of the Su-57 are either lifted from, or are modified versions of those on the Su-35.

>>34980404
>Just imagine how damn useful the thing would be.
It would be entirely useless now that we have drones.

File: F-22 (2).jpg (2MB, 2700x1688px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x1688px

>>34978469
What dogfight? The Sukhoi eats an AMRAAM from 25 miles out.

>>34981179

The Su-57 is at BEST on par with the high end Eurocanards. F-22 and F-35 are beyond that.

It's definitely not a 5th gen.

>>34981243
Not in the slightest. It's still a light attack helicopter with stealth. Now, it's great as a reconnaissance asset. Much better than a large drone in a contested airspace. Smaller drones aren't anywhere close to the same role or capabilities either, and give information to an entirely different level.

For lasing targets for other aircraft, the Commanche would be far more survivable. Thanks, stealth and armor. For shooting, it can carry a whole lot more boom than even the largest drones. It can do so either while stealthy or not. If it's using external pylons, it can carry up to 14 Hellfires. An Apache carries 16.

>>34981538
It literally does nothing other than attack better than drones, and the Apache does that better.

It was cancelled because of this.

>>34979567
>even more stealthy than the F-22.
Yes and no.
IIRC the YF-23 was more stealthy in all aspect while the YF-22 had better frontal aspect stealth.
>>34980223
>>34980366
>>34980392
>>34980418
>>34980482
The reasons given for choosing the 22 over the 23 were that the 22 was further along in development than the 23 at the time of the competition, frontal aspect is more important than all aspect and air superiority fighters need the extra maneuverability that the 22 had over the 23.
Whether these are the real reasons or not, the 23 would have been the better choice with today's tactics. HOBS was still an idea on the drawing board, and the technology in the F-35 was just a wet dream when the RFI/testing was done for the ATF program.
Chances are the YF-23, or some derivative, will come back for the LRSF/whatever they're calling it now.

File: IMG_6097.jpg (51KB, 896x570px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 896x570px

>>34979567
>You will never see the bastard Syrup son of the YF-23 patrol the Great White North
:(

>>34981578
>It literally does nothing other than attack better than drones,
They can survive in an airspace where somebody could actually shoot at them and won't be useless just because someone's jamming them. Not to mention you've got pilots right there making the decisions. So really, the drone's only advantage is its long endurance in completely permissive airspace. For literally everything else, Commanche is better. It attacks better. It scouts better. It's more survivable.

>It was cancelled because of this.
It was cancelled because the Cold War ended and budgets dropped. As budgets dropped, size of the buy dropped, which caused unit cost to skyrocket, which formed into a vicious cycle. Thus, it was dropped.

Of course, it'd be nice if you had any actual arguments.

>>34981759
go easy on him. Don't make him cry damn.

SU-35
>full radar not make it for stealth shit,GSh-301, 3D thrust vectoring and airframe made just for dofight...

File: 56fe608d50428dde83e54611cbedcfef.jpg (348KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1920x1080px

>>34981304
All right, /k/, tell me this:

The F22 has a clear canopy, meaning that it is a single, uninterrupted piece. I'm assuming the reason for this is better visibility.

So, why don't other fighters have this? You won't find this shit in the PAK FA, F35, Jas 39 or what have you.

>>34979055
>better pilot

Ah, how American of you

>>34985269
If russian pilots are getting the same amount of flight time as their American counterparts it's no wonder russia's broke.
Engine overhauls aren't cheap

>>34985244
God bless the EAA

>>34985269
Its true though, Weapons School grads are superior to the "Snipers" the Russians put out.

>>34985244
Some J-20 prototypes had frame less canopies but they've dropped that since going into LRIP.

>>34985244
Pain in the ass to make, like really, really hard to make, my wild guess is you make 10 of those and in the end you throw 6 away, because they are simply not perfect. And dont even get started with the costs to make em.

File: IMG_0947.jpg (28KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 470x313px

Alright faggits, f22 vs su57.
Who wins?

>>34985887
I bet my dad could beat up your dad.

>>34985269
Russia can't afford to train its pilots like every other power does. In terms of flight hours they are behind the US, China, and India. They can't afford the costs of maintenance and fuel, an issue that will undoubtedly be made worse by the recent, and deep defense cuts.

>>34985887
F-22, the Su-57 is essentially an Su-35 in a body kit.

>>34985903
No way, my Da's a bogan. Hes been in jail.

File: images-2.jpg (14KB, 324x454px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 324x454px

>>34980965
Well, from my wigger background, I can tell you that a wench (or spanner, where I come from) can be a hammer, but a hammer can't be a wrench.

>inb4 "Ackshually".
>cute wench (not wrench), for your troubles.

File: 2013-03-22-183557-2.png (295KB, 1133x720px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1133x720px

>>34985903
Once he knocks of work at Nintendo, amirite?

File: tr.jpg (106KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x960px

>>34985244
Dat F22 should be on the far left, to keep things in order.
>fuck my OCD.

>>34980274
YF-23 carried 33% fewer AMRAAMs with no provisions made to increase its capacity. This cripples it operationally, since it won't be able to kill as many enemy fighters as a single F22. As far as we know it wasn't going to have any wing hardpoints.

>>34986368
Has the F22 ever seen combat anyway?

>>34986402
Yep.

>Inb4 it does not count, when somebody hand feeds you

File: 1427077431270.png (259KB, 289x413px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 289x413px

>>34978469
compared to the pampered American dog, Id have to say the russian dog wins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVy6pZS7lhI

>>34986482
The Russian dog is old, starved, and half dead.

>>34978469
>Implying the Flanker could reach dogfight range

File: 24C1323600000578-2913072-image-a-3_1421417499834.jpg (75KB, 634x467px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 634x467px

>>34986501
They look smart fat and they can use the subway!

File: 1492575990407.jpg (61KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 531x640px

>>34986482
>>34986501
>>34986594
Of course the top Kleptocrats are doing fine.

File: 1436943427432.jpg (124KB, 800x671px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x671px

F-22= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYy6jXl7Ifs

>>34986594
I was referring to the plane. Many of the components are modified versions of the ones that the older Su-27's had, the avionics are still years behind their contemporaries, and the pilots aren't getting the all the training they need because the air force cant afford the fuel/parts. Its a real mess that can only be fixed with the money they just don't have.

File: 1455682869807.png (1MB, 1200x950px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x950px

Think of it this way
The Ruskies are driving 1976 Mercades 450SL's
The Mericans are Driving around in 2017 Mercedes Maybach's.

With that said, The newer car is nicer in every way but can fail a lot faster.

And they both do the same damn thing, and its up to the driver!

>>34986402
yes, attacking ISIS ground targets in Syria, September 2014 iirc

>>34986692
>With that said, The newer car is nicer in every way but can fail a lot faster.

You don't know much about Soviet jet engines, do you?

File: 1447461726416.jpg (48KB, 960x609px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x609px

>>34987235
Sure do! They stole their jet engine technology from the VW Bug!

>>34981126
>>misinformed
Do you care co elaborate on this topic? Since it looks like you are sprouting the bullshit here. Su-35 have superior maneuverability, better radar, better missiles with off-bore lock-on capabilities. If we are talking about pure dogfight, as OP declared, F-22 is hopelessly outmatched.

>>34978469
Both are subsonic queens.

Modern air superiorty fighting would happen in transsonic/supersonic regime. And there you want a delta-canard aircraft.

>>34980965
>if you ignore half of what makes the F-35 good and use antiquated tactics it's still 'somewhat better'
>which one is the best depends on the scenario

The F-35 is better, that's a fact.

>>34985244
2 reasons:
1. It's harder to manufacture; note however that some jets with canopy bows (like the F-35) still have one-piece canopies.
2. Bird strike, etc safety - for the F-35, the US originally expected to have a frameless canopy, but the UK insisted on it because that bow significantly strengthens the canopy and they were paranoid. Also if you want to go really fast (Mach 2.5+) you want a frame because aerodynamic heating can soften the canopy material.

>>34988120
Why would you be dogfighting at transonic speed? The missile will be going mach four a mile from its launching platform, it's in you best interest to be able to turn inside that circle if you don't want it to kill you. Not at all geometries, but that is important.

An F-15 at corner speed will out turn anything close to supersonic, and play catch up using missiles.

>>34988354
he never said dogfighting. Modern air combat essentially consists of detecting enemy aircraft and launching missiles all at long distances. Stealth, FCS, and radar play the biggest roles in this equation

>>34988365
It was the only way the statement made sense. The F-22 can punch over Mach 2 with six slammers and a fuckhuge radar, so its not a slouch in the BVR arena by any means. In fact, canards just creat more induced drag and make it harder to go fast.

The statement nakes no sense relavent to BVR engagements.

>>34988478
100% agree, canards also increase RCS

>>34988478
>what is Energy-Maneuverability-Theory
>what is specific excess power?

File: c0nki05ewh3y.jpg (65KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x640px

>>34988512
>what is Energy-Maneuverability-Theory
outdated

>>34988518
>outdated

>>34988518
>basic premise of fighter design
>outdated

File: 1348114186905.gif (1019KB, 245x132px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 245x132px

>>34988522
>>34988528
>this concept developed based on the US experiences in the Korean War (a conflict that occurred in the 1950's where guided air to air missiles were not used) and the Vietnam War (a conflict that occurred in the 1960's, where guided air to air missiles were barely accurate enough to hit the broad side of a flying barn) is still applicable.

I bet you retards also wonder why the Army doesn't have line battles anymore.

>>34988546
Do you even know how low the kill chance of BVR missiles is? Stop trying to looks smart kid

>>34987972
>Su-35 have superior maneuverability
sustained turning? instananeous turning? climb rate? transonic acceleration? Gotta be specific here.
>better radar
Simply horseshit, as is the "gimped for stealth" claim which makes zero sense.
>better missiles with off-bore lock-on capabilities.
LOAL has been around for years.

>>34988905
and yet every airforce uses them as the main armament of all fighter aircraft. Makes the thinker think.

>>34988939
Not saying they are useless but a dogfight erupting even in this day and age is very possible.

Just look at Vietnam. USAF thought guns are obsolete and then the F-4 got rekt by Migs in dogfights

>>34988952
>Just look at Vietnam. USAF thought guns are obsolete and then the F-4 got rekt by Migs in dogfights

"rekt" as in still had multiple kills for every loss, and missiles were the primary method of getting those kills?

Fuck off with your facebook tier meme knowledge.

>>34988964
>hastily redesigned the f-4 so it can carry a gun

Educate yourself dumbass.

>>34988974
Had less of an improvement in k:d than the navy, that implemented asymmetric training, because that was the problem, not the lack of a gun. Missiles were still the top dog in terms of downing MiGs even with the gun.

How about you read a book on the topic and come back to me

>>34988988
You're spouting bullshit. Stop embarrassing yourself.

File: 56341.jpg (97KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x768px

>>34988998
>>34988988
>>34988974
>>34988964
>>34988952
>>34988939
>>34988905

>looks like there's a dogfight in the comments

>>34988905

The latest fighter software have more or less solved the IFF issue, the latest missiles have the seekers & energy to reach out a very long way, and LPI datalinks allow a fighter jet to use missiles from other fighters or even long range SAMs instead of their own to fight BVR without running out of missiles. Do you even know that pk is already taken into account?

>>34988998
The Navy, with Top Gun but no gun on F-4, was better than the Chair Force with gun implemented. Still, both had good K:D.

>>34989054
3/1 vs. 7/1 or something? One of you autists help me, I'm drunk.

File: 5mOXa.png (159KB, 689x512px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 689x512px

>>34989054
>>34989069
Something like that. The specifics are irrelvant, point is the training had more effect on the F-4's success than the gun

File: 1469822781139.jpg (316KB, 1000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1000x2400px

>>34989091
> you will never blow migs out of the sky using guns

why even bother making planes anymore?

>>34989091
Thank you, but specifics are always relevant.

File: flanker vs r22.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34978469
who indeed?

>>34989181
would pulling a cobra in a dogfight like that force your lungs out of your asshole?

>>34988120
>want a delta-canard aircraft
>what is wave drag

>>34989186
No, it's just make you a sitting duck because you're draining all of your energy for nothing, and if you would try it while someone is on your tail, you'd be gunned or risk a mid air collision.

>>34989181
Painful to watch

>>34988546
Not bleeding energy and turning into a brick in vertical and horizontal maneuvers is outdated.

Okay Mr aerospace engineer.

>>34989192
Well, delta canard has a favourable area ruling ratio.

>>34989204
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypRhjU-OHg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfkZKWQ-b0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHj3aJoy9lo

The game itself looks promissing.

>>34988952
>USAF thought guns are obsolete and then the F-4 got rekt by Migs in dogfights
No, the Air Force was dominated by bomber generals who cared more about "safety" than capability. And thought pilots were "universal".

And the training was complete shit.

The Navy had far better operational culture and training and never put guns on their F-4s. They had far better K:L rates the entire war.

>>34989289
the delta does, not the canards
there are wing profiles that exist that have superior area ruling compared to delta wings.

>>34989389
Canards generate more lift than the wing relative to the size which means the overall wing area can be reduce

>>34989454
They also generate far more drag when you use those canards for maneuvering

>>34989768
Effectively less than with twintails, especially in transsonic and supersonic regime.

The F-22 can only that with its TVC, which comes with an own bunch of drawbacks.

>>34989829
>twintails
Two different control axis my man.

>The F-22 can only that with its TVC, which comes with an own bunch of drawbacks.

What.

>>34989454
just so that we're on the same page, you do know what wave drag is, right? It's not at all like induced drag, it's not a viscous effect.

>>34990468
And the crucial part about wave drag is the area rule, which plays into the hands of delta-canard designs.

File: 1461887470170.jpg (179KB, 318x732px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 318x732px

>>34989091
>maneuvering tactics

>>34990468
The classic trasonic area rule optimized aircraft were all delta wing aircraft like the F-106 or Je-152

So what's the deal breaker here?

File: 730.jpg (46KB, 800x425px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x425px

Srs question guys? What if there is a way to overcome g-lock?

Some kind of anti-gravity device?

>>34988905
It depends, allot of missiles are fired without the expectation of a kill (suppressive fire basically) and this skews KP numbers.
Inside of the NEZ you are mostly fucked against a modern missile.
>>34988952
>USAF thought guns are obsolete and then the F-4 got rekt by Migs in dogfights
Mig-21s (the most successful and modern VPAF fighter of the war) got most of their kills through hit and run tactics with missiles, for example, the top scoring ace of the war was a Mig-21 pilot who got all of his kills with K-13/AA-2 Atolls (soviet sidewinder clone).

If you dissect Nguyễn Văn Cốc's (said ace) kills, you fill find that they consist of 4 F-105s (famously easy prey in ACM), an F-102 (not very manoeuvrable and no gun or close quarter missiles) and 3 gunless F-4 phantoms.

Why didn't he engage these targets in acm with his gun? they would all be easy prey there, at least according to you.

>>34990813
You go build something like that, and we'll get back to you on what it'll do for aerial combat when you've succeeded.

>>34988512
Yes, yoi give the missiles more energy by flying at twice the speed of sound, and then drop back subsonic if you get shot at, because pulling six g for a six mile radius turn isnt going to help you, but six g for a half mile radius turn will.

>>34981179
They're both Super-maneuverable you tard
They literally both can do the same maneuvers to be classified as that

>>34978469
It depends on a variety of factors is the real answer. Factors that we don't know about until a dogfight actually happens.

>>34991012
Do you know how aerodynamics work? Don't answer that.

>>34991157
He's entirely right.

>>34990690
close-coupled canard designs have noticeable wave drag penalties due to the shape of the canards and their position relative to the wing. The Typhoon's acceleration profile flattens out considerably at Mach 1.6 and you will not ever see it exceed Mach 2.05, even though it has thrust on par with the F14

>>34990582
It means getting them to crash trying to maneuver with you.

Like in the Gulf War, a Mig was tricked into lawn darting by an EF-111.

>>34991362
Wasn't a MiG, was a Mirage.

>>34991362
Didnt a MiG-23 trick a Hornet driver into the ground as well?

File: AbsolutelyInfluoridated.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

>>34988518
?

>>34985947
>behind the US, China, and India.
>behind India.
>India.
How will russia ever recover?

>>34978469
The demand for pilots wins

>>34992318
Looking at their economy and future outlook, they wont.

>>34985954
this so much

>>34978469

If you want a fair fight for an Su-35 you should go with a F-4 Phantom.

>>34979055
Why the US government acted that Brazil did not buy SU35 and because the Brazilian government is weak and wanted to economize

>>34996057
*because

>>34978469
The F-22 would engage it from miles away beforehand.

>>34985947
Can't they build simulators? VR stuff is probably really useful.

>>34996848
There's no replacement for flight hours, and Russians can't afford simulators.

>>34996899
But on a budget, it's the next best thing.

>>34978469
Neither. Dogs are animals silly not planes. Pitbulls are best at dogfights.

>>34996972
the number of people itt who will understand that pun is very small

>>34978469
Assuming it's a pitched BFM exercise starting at the merge, it's a toss-up dependent largely on pilot skill. The SU-35 has lighter wing loading, granting an edge in transient maneuvers at the start of the dogfight, while the F-22 has a superior thrust:weight ratio and therefore has a significant energy advantage in a protracted turn fight.

In any other (more realistic) scenario, SU-35 gets utterly BTFO.

>>34989040
IFF is a non-issue for any disciplined airforce and has been since the late stages of WWII. The only reason it was a problem at all in Vietnam is because USAF pilots were edgy cunts who kept turning their transponders off so that they wouldn't get in trouble when they accidentally over China or Laos.

>>34988914
>>sustained turning? instananeous turning? climb rate? transonic acceleration? Gotta be specific here.
All of those, actually.
>>better radar
>>Simply horseshit, as is the "gimped for stealth" claim which makes zero sense.
Better range, better resolution, better angle on ACTIVE radar is horseshit? Looks like you are still at it...
>>LOAL has been around for years.
Ability to lock on after launch don`t give you the ability to actually issue target to missile if you are not facing at it. And lol, no helmet mounted targeting system for your F-22 pilot.

>>34989181
Good CGI, idiotic scene. The moment the Su is behind F-22, radar lock is broken, hence no targeting data sent to launched missiles. Missiles continue to search target on last known vector (at best. More likely won`t launch at all, since such systems are fool-proof). Sukhoy will get the gun-kill. Due to F-22 brick-maneuvering.

>>34987972
>>34997519
Doesn't the 35 have a PESA? Which is vastly inferior to AESA

>>34997519
>All of those, actually.
prove it, I'm sure you can.
>Better range, better resolution, better angle on ACTIVE radar is horseshit? Looks like you are still at it...
You're using the term active in a very wierd way, and all the "stealth gimped" comments earlier, almost like you think the F-22's AN/APG-77 is purely passive. Which is hilarious.

The Irbis-E's fov is identical to the AN/APG-77, is smaller, and is a PESA, not an AESA.

>Ability to lock on after launch don`t give you the ability to actually issue target to missile if you are not facing at it. And lol, no helmet mounted targeting system for your F-22 pilot.

They have JHMCS, so.. yeah, they do.

>>34994212
Real talk, how long until their government shits the bed and there's another revolt.

>>34997899
Probably when Putin dies and there's no longer that unifying personality.

>>34987972
Now load that Su-35 up with a full fuel load and see what happens : ^ )
The rest of your post is wrong.

>>34997538
AIM-9X Block III is all aspect IR

i think

File: T-50-new.jpg (290KB, 1200x548px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1200x548px

>>34985954
Su-57, the F-22 is essentially an F-15 in a body kit.

File: PAK-FA.jpg (199KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1200x799px

>>34985887
Su-57!

>>35002665
Haha, but stop triggering my autism please. You know that's very untrue, especially for the F-15C.

>>34978497
Wrong, russia still has shit engines to deal with due to lack of foundries to create the proper alloys. Energy fighting would be suicide for russia.

>>34997588
Nah, AN/APG-81 ASEA.

>>34997519
>better radar
You didnt even source
>better stealth
Your engines are fucking exposed, radar is not only gonna see that, but IR will be on you like white on rice
>turns better
For how long? Also factor that su 35 engines still going to be overheated to sustain energy during turn. They still dont have foundries capable of making proper alloys to treat that problem.

>>35002665
The F-22 has a new radar, new engines, and shares nothing with the F-15; it is a completely different aircraft. The Su-57 has a new radar and uses a derivative of the decades old AL-31.

File: 1501641338595.jpg (2MB, 2100x1474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1474px

>>35003921
A Cadillac and a Mercedes both leave NYC at same time to drive to LA
Who arrives there first?

>>35005180
The one that doesn't need to have its engine replaced twice as often.

File: _cow_by_shock777-d662is2.jpg (145KB, 981x814px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 981x814px

>>35005180
They would both arrive roughly at the same time!
It depends on the Pilot, I mean driver!

>>34989181
That's some assault horizon tier nonsense

>>34980418
There wont be a gen 6. Willing to bet we'll go drones as main in the next 20 years. F35 was supposed to be our catch all. At least til then.

>>35003804
Are you reading impared? There was not even single word about "stealth". Su-35 is built with very little consideration about minimization of radar-reflection surface. So, you can just say it is "not stealthy". However, in a scenario given by OP (dogfight), "stealth" is an empty word, so F-22 is devoid of its only advantage.
>>better radar
>>You didnt even source
Are you banned in Google?
>>APG-77
>>Azimuth 120 degrees

>>H035 Иpбиc
>>Azimuth 240 degrees (!)

Detection range is irrelevant in this scenario, because at dogfighting range, both planes will clearly detect each other.
>>turns better
>>For how long? Also factor that su 35 engines still going to be overheated to sustain energy during turn. They still dont have foundries capable of making proper alloys to treat that problem.

Europe and America (Airbus and Boeing, to be exact) is buying those alloys... Tadaaam! From Russian manufacturers, because both of them can`t produce those heat-resistant alloys. So, you are misinformed, or just plainly lying. And in addition, even if we give the F-22 the better sustained turn ability (which is dubious, unless you load Su-35 to full capacity, for anti-ground or anti-warship mission), sustained turn give very little advantage. Turn fast, lock on, launch missile.That`s all. Sustained turn is really usefull in gun fight, but F-22 isn`t built for that. At least not on par with Su-35.

>>35007216
The Irbis-E cannot see 240 degrees. Its 120 when you include mechanical steering, and this is from Sukhoi itself.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/

>>35007216
>>Azimuth 240 degrees
You must be out of your mind if you believe this to be true. Neither Airbus nor Boeing manufacture engines, by the way.

>>34991247
Thats pure nonsense.

Deltawings... bad for supersonic. What the fuck I'm reading here? The Concorde used delta wings for a fucking reason.

Deltas typically produce more drag in subsonic regime but have a positive effect on the mach cone of an aircraft.

File: 1483010926644.png (74KB, 1069x558px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1069x558px

>>35007216
>Detection range is irrelevant
No. Not when it means the Su-35 dies before it even knows there's an F-22 out there.

Pic related, the F-35 and 22 are pretty close in front aspect RCS.

>>34978469
Irrelevant. Fighter jets like these are rapidly becoming obsolete. The future of aviation is with UAVs and autonomous drones.

>>34980274

Fighter Pilot Mafia went for agility. Also Lockheed had delivered the F117 on time and on budget while Northrop Grumman had infamous cost overruns on the B2

>>34986482
vatnikspastastico

>>35003762
He meant the Su-35 you dong

File: YF23.jpg (28KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x300px

>>34980392
Closest thing I could find, even though it's not what you asked for at all.

>>35013143
Noticed too late. brb, kms.

>>34980274
Raptor win wasn't because of maneuverability but rather the maturity of technologies associated with it. The YF-23 in particular featured variable cycle turbofans which were highly experimental at the time, which the Air Force is only really starting to consider the feasability of now.

Like >>34981590 said, given the USAAF's recent infatuation with the idea of variable cycle engines we might see it return in some form for the next competition.

>>35007368
120 degrees from central axis with mechanical assist. If you calculate same for F-22, you will get 60 degrees from central axis. 120x2=240, 60x2=120. Everything correct.
>>35011092
OP declared "dogright". That means distances less then 100 km. At those distances, Su-35 can detect 1square centimeter reflection area. More than enough for F-22 frontal projection, live alone side, top, rear, etc. projections. Same goes for F-22. On those distances range of detection and "stealth" became irrelevant, but angle of detection is more then effective.
Of course, that is purely theoretical engagement rules, hardly ever possible in actual warfare (in which F-22 is supposed to rely on AWACS and stealth and Su-35 on ground-based radar facilities and area-denial AA systems.)

>>35018002
>120 degrees from central axis with mechanical assist. If you calculate same for F-22, you will get 60 degrees from central axis. 120x2=240, 60x2=120. Everything correct.

No, you dumb nignog.

"turns the antenna by mechanic means to 60° in azimuth and 120° in roll. Thus, in using the electronic control and mechanical additional turn of the antenna, the maximum deflection angle of the beam grows to 120°. "

ITS 120

>>35018014
That's what he said.
>>35018002
Technically speaking though, the Irbis-E still only has a ~120 degree FOV; it does however have a ~240 degree or whatever Field Of Regard, while the F-22's AESA is static and therefore has the same FOV and FOR.

The issue with mechanically gimballed AESAs is that they're unstealthy, hence why the F-22, F-35, F/A-18E/F, PAK-FA, etc have static arrays.

>OP declared "dogright". That means distances less then 100 km.
A dogfight is either a close-in, WVR fight (<20km) or it's just a term for any kind of air-to-air combat. If OP means the former, then there's a decent chance it can get a radar lock, if he means the latter, then the Su-35 is toast.

>100 km. At those distances, Su-35 can detect 1square centimeter reflection area.
It can't; remember that 1cm^2 = 0.0001m^2, which by Tikhomirov's specs would only be detectable with some level of probability (90%, or 50% typically) at about 27km. That's also with the radar scanning a small area / essentially cued by the IRST.

>(in which F-22 is supposed to rely on AWACS and stealth
F-22's are probably the least AWACS-reliant aircraft on the planet, second only to the F-35.

>>35009133
Don't expect anything from /k/

>>35007216
>google it
Cop out, provide your source or gtfo
>russian alloy
A lie that also has yet to be proven with sources
>inb4 muh google
Link or bullshit the burden of proof is on you

>>35007216
>stealth is an empty word
The heat on your exposed engines are not very stealthy at all. Sidewinder anyone?

>>35007216
>Detection range is irrelevant in this scenario, because at dogfighting range, both planes will clearly detect each other.

How can you get close if you are detected from several hundred kilometers away?

>radar
>relevant

Have fun getting detected by radarwarners. It's all about full passive systems like IRST. And oh boy, the F-22 completely lacks the ability.

>>35019853
>>F22 lacks rwr
wew lad

>>35019906
>greentext
>wasn't said in the quoted post

>>35019853
Unless your aircraft has a very low RCS,radar will be very relevant.

File: 1479787810831.png (240KB, 640x320px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 640x320px

>>35019853
>he doesnt have LPIR

>>35020487
Falling for the meme