Russian analyst: SU-35 clubs F-35 like...

[Loke]

This just in:

http://www.avia.ru/press/13366/

Google translated:

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=ru&tl=en

These outcomes indicate that the Su-35 fighter has a vast superiority over its rival. With better mobility characteristics, he 2,55-3,39 times more frequently accessed the conditions for the use of missile weapons, and 3,54-5,24 times more often these attacks ended defeat the goal. The probability of success for the F-35 completion of the fight with Su-35 does not exceed 0,21-0,28.

Seems to be a WVR analysis. Interesting...

Comments, anybody?

L

[djcross]

The missing piece of the analysis is the probability of getting to the merge. Since the SU's detection range against stealth is tiny, the F-35 has the advantage of avoiding the SU completely or springing a BVR ambush against the SU.

[RSM55]

The missing piece of the analysis is the probability of getting to the merge. Since the SU's detection range against stealth is tiny, the F-35 has the advantage of avoiding the SU completely or springing a BVR ambush against the SU.

The article is biaised and sometimes plain wrong, but your assertion unfortunately also. The radar system of what is called Su-35 extremely powerful, and whereas the detection range against a F-35 is off course less than against a non-stealth opponent, it is nevertheless impressive enough and allows the Su to use its weapons way before entering a sure danger enveloppe. Weapon effectiveness will be the decisive factor here.
Depending on the Lightning II mission, it will either try to avoid the Su-35 altogether or call in Raptors for terminal fighting capabilities. The Lightning, as a fighter, is imho totally overestimated.

[wrightwing]

This just in:

http://www.avia.ru/press/13366/

Google translated:

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=ru&tl=en


Seems to be a WVR analysis. Interesting...

Comments, anybody?

L

Sounds like marketing to me. The F-35 hasn't even finished flight testing, so for him to unequivocally state what the performance parameters are is a bit specious. His T/W numbers are incorrect, and the assumption is that the Flanker has managed to get within WVR without the F-35 already engaging.

[wrightwing]

The article is biaised and sometimes plain wrong, but your assertion unfortunately also. The radar system of what is called Su-35 extremely powerful, and whereas the detection range against a F-35 is off course less than against a non-stealth opponent, it is nevertheless impressive enough and allows the Su to use its weapons way before entering a sure danger enveloppe. Weapon effectiveness will be the decisive factor here.
Depending on the Lightning II mission, it will either try to avoid the Su-35 altogether or call in Raptors for terminal fighting capabilities. The Lightning, as a fighter, is imho totally overestimated.

Where is he wrong? The Irbis has a claimed capability of detecting .1-1m2 targets at up to 90km. The tracking range will be less. Of course the RCS of the F-35 is generally considered to be considerably less than that figure, which means that the Flanker will be within the AMRAAM's NEZ zone by the time the F-35 is detected.

[bgnewf]

The article is biaised and sometimes plain wrong, but your assertion unfortunately also. The radar system of what is called Su-35 extremely powerful, and whereas the detection range against a F-35 is off course less than against a non-stealth opponent, it is nevertheless impressive enough and allows the Su to use its weapons way before entering a sure danger enveloppe. Weapon effectiveness will be the decisive factor here.
Depending on the Lightning II mission, it will either try to avoid the Su-35 altogether or call in Raptors for terminal fighting capabilities. The Lightning, as a fighter, is imho totally overestimated.

With due respect, I think you missed the point. Yes the Su-35 has better radar than the Su-27 family does, but the JSF is significantly stealthier than the average 4+ generation opponent it might come up against. I am not a really big fan of the F-35 (glorified bomb truck) but the stealth characteristics it will apparently have will allow it to get the first shot off against the Su-35 before the merge, better radar notwithstanding.

Very biased article by the way.

[wrightwing]

With due respect, I think you missed the point. Yes the Su-35 has better radar than the Su-27 family does, but the JSF is significantly stealthier than the average 4+ generation opponent it might come up against. I am not a really big fan of the F-35 (glorified bomb truck) but the stealth characteristics it will apparently have will allow it to get the first shot off against the Su-35 before the merge, better radar notwithstanding.

Very biased article by the way.

I think you're short changing the F-35 with that categorization. It's at least as manueverable as an F-16/18, if not moreso, and has far more sophisiticated A/A avionics.

[signatory]

Sounds like marketing to me. The F-35 hasn't even finished flight testing, so for him to unequivocally state what the performance parameters are is a bit specious. His T/W numbers are incorrect, and the assumption is that the Flanker has managed to get within WVR without the F-35 already engaging.

Yeah sounds like....

F-35 at least 400% better in air-to-air combat against Russian Sukhois says Lockheed Martin Link

[Schorsch]

Comments, anybody?

How come the "analyst" can make an assessment with double digit precision of the expected exchange ratio, when he doesn't know:
- the weight of the F-35
- the engine thrust setting
- the aerodynamic performance
- no info about electronics (offensive/defensive)

Not worth discussing, even the results from RAND were laughable.

[bgnewf]

I think you're short changing the F-35 with that categorization. It's at least as manueverable as an F-16/18, if not moreso, and has far more sophisiticated A/A avionics.

Maybe so, but I will reserve final judgement until I see performance data based on actual in squadron service F-35 hardware. Frankly this Russian "journalism" piece looks like marketing fluff to me.

[toan]

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...hter-jets.html

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.

The JSF accomplishes this feat by relying on its incredible suite of sensors, its stealthy airframe, and a surprising level of agility. The F-35 is not only equipped with the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA), which according to Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley, is the most advanced fighter radar system in the world, but also a host of other sensors. The radar can track an enormous numbers of targets in the air at phenomenal ranges while simultaneously operating air to ground modes, Beesley said.

Complementing the radar, the F-35's airframe is also lined with antennas that gather vast amounts of electronic information from the jets surroundings. The system allows the fighter to target and identify the electronic emissions of hostile radars in the air or on the ground with startling precision, Beesley said. The data gathered from these sensors allows the aircraft to track, identify and attack the sources of these signals without giving away the F-35s' position.

Furthermore, the F-35 has two separate types of infrared sensors that allow the jet to track targets passively. The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a system of cameras that feeds an infrared image of the planes' surrounding to the pilots' helmet, Beesley explained. The computer fuses the images from the six cameras and merges the images into a single seamless picture that allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around the aircraft, including through the cockpit floor and indeed the pilots' own body. The DAS also acts as a missile warning system (MWS) that alerts the pilot to incoming missiles. The second infrared sensor, called the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), allows the aircraft to target, track, and identify object in the air or on the ground at long ranges and high resolutions, Beesley said.

In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally. The jet can also carry air to air missiles externally should the need arise and stealth is no longer a concern, Davis said.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.

The most challenging mission for the JSF is where the F-35s will have to penetrate deep into a dense integrated air defense system reinforced by enemy fighters and strike a target with no support, Davis said. This is the most difficult mission for the F-35, but it is also one that is near suicidal for current aircraft such as the F-16. Modern Russian built surface to air missile systems such as the SA-20 are deadly to conventional aircraft, Davis explained. A package of four, six, or even eight F-35s would have to divide up the responsibilities for the suppression of enemy air defenses, mapping out the target, clearing the skies, and striking the target, Davis said. The larger number of aircraft is necessary since the F-35 "doesn't have the kinematics of the F-22", Davis explained, "we're a slightly fatter, slower aircraft, so it takes a few more planes to get the job done."



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...modele=release

"The F-35 transitioned from subsonic to supersonic just as our engineers and our computer modeling had predicted," said Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin's chief F-35 test pilot. "I continue to be impressed with the aircraft's power and strong acceleration, and I'm pleased that its precise handling qualities are retained in supersonic flight, even with a payload of 5,400 pounds (2,450 kilograms) in the weapons bays."

Beesley said it was also a significant achievement for a test aircraft to fly supersonic for the first time with the weight of a full internal load of weapons. The milestone was achieved on the 69th flight of F-35 aircraft AA-1. Beesley climbed to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) and accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour, over a rural area in north Texas.

The F-35 accomplished four transitions through the sound barrier, spending a total of eight minutes in supersonic flight. The flight was preceded by a high-subsonic mission earlier in the day. Future testing will gradually expand the flight envelope out to the aircraft's top speed of Mach 1.6, which the F-35 is designed to achieve with a full internal load of weapons.

[Sens]

Sounds like marketing to me. The F-35 hasn't even finished flight testing, so for him to unequivocally state what the performance parameters are is a bit specious. His T/W numbers are incorrect, and the assumption is that the Flanker has managed to get within WVR without the F-35 already engaging.

I see it similar. In the same "quality" like the advertisement "youtube-video" against the Typhoon.

[echonine]

Sounds like more fan boy whining.

What no one has considered here is the use of ECM, which clearly helps the Sukhoi a lot more.

[toan]

F-35:

1. The frontal RCS of Golf-ball size.


2. American AESA fighter's radar only second to APG-77 in Air-to-air combat modes.


3. The most unique and advancing Cockpit + HMD + IIRST/MAW + Datalink + IEWS systems in the world.

Complementing the radar, the F-35's airframe is also lined with antennas that gather vast amounts of electronic information from the jets surroundings. The system allows the fighter to target and identify the electronic emissions of hostile radars in the air or on the ground with startling precision, Beesley said. The data gathered from these sensors allows the aircraft to track, identify and attack the sources of these signals without giving away the F-35s' position.

Furthermore, the F-35 has two separate types of infrared sensors that allow the jet to track targets passively. The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a system of cameras that feeds an infrared image of the planes' surrounding to the pilots' helmet, Beesley explained. The computer fuses the images from the six cameras and merges the images into a single seamless picture that allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around the aircraft, including through the cockpit floor and indeed the pilots' own body. The DAS also acts as a missile warning system (MWS) that alerts the pilot to incoming missiles. The second infrared sensor, called the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), allows the aircraft to target, track, and identify object in the air or on the ground at long ranges and high resolutions, Beesley said.

The F-35 is able to transmit the wealth of data that the warplane gathers to other aircraft and to ground forces. Not only does the F-35 carry the standard Link-16 data-link to transmit information to over 100 other types of NATO platforms, the jet will carry data-links to communicate with ground forces and other stealth aircraft. A next-generation data-link called the Multifunction Advanced Data-Link (MADL) which will be carried by the F-35, will allow the plane to stealthily share data with the F-22 air dominance fighter and B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, enhancing the capabilities of all the aircraft involved.


4. Capable of flying to Mach 1.6 with 6 to 8 tons internal fuel, two 2,000 Ib JDAMs, and two AIM-120.

With the possible exception of MIG-25/31, any other fighter in the world today with the similar fuel and weapon loads can hardly surpass Mach 0.9.......


5. Subsonic acceleration and maneuverability: as good as a clean F-16C Block 50, and very close to Raptor.


6. Post-stall manoeuvrability: The F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases.

[Sens]

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...hter-jets.html

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane.

With that technology at hand, even a F-35 with the flying performance of a F-5E will be a winner most of the time as the SH is already.
Most military are aware about that, when he does still point to flying performances for unknown reasons. It does seem that cold logic is overruled by emotions sometimes.

[toan]

With that technology at hand, even a F-35 with the flying performance of a F-5E will be a winner most of the time as the SH is already.
Most military are aware about that, when he does still point to flying performances for unknown reasons. It does seem that cold logic is overruled by emotions sometimes.

It seems that the flight performance of F-35A in A2A configuration shall be the combination of clean F-16C Block50 and F/A-18E:

1. Acceleration, climbing rate, T/W ratio, G-loading, turning rate, and flight-envelope: similar to clean F-16C Block50.

2. High AoA flight performance and Post-stall manoeuvrability: similar to F/A-18E.

Although not as invincible as F-22A, this kind of combination should still be a very respectable dog-fighting machine in WVR engagement, especially when it includes the most unique and advancing Cockpit + HMD + IIRST/MAW + Datalink + IEWS systems in the world.

[over G]

There are some things we must consider as strong points that the su-35 will have over their foes;

1-3D TVC, which means high mobility at altitude (a great help for BVR tactics), no gentlemen it has nothing to do with post stall pirouettes or air shows.

2-The agile antenna of the Irbis, meaning it can point over the target at a safe direction, im sure the Irbis means a lot for pasive tactics, remember the RCS is not absorved, it just goes to another place

3-The very-long range missiles, treating AWACS.

And then is not about the su-35, but about the integration and modernisation over older planes, specially of the 2 last items.

Although not as invincible as F-22A

overoptimist claim..

The frontal RCS of Golf-ball size.

At K band perhaps? -other than this claim is not confirmed, like the original B-1 RCS claim -, and again, the RCS is not absorved, it just goes to another place, i bet, not very far.

Still remains to see which will be the operative ceiling of the su/F-35, something which will have a lot of influence on the performance, even for the electronic one, as far it seems the IRST on the f-35 seems more optimiced for ground combat than for aerial one.

Anyway, i also consider the claim as pure marketing crap, but hey!, the russians are learning from the best ones , you know?

[wrightwing]

Sounds like more fan boy whining.

What no one has considered here is the use of ECM, which clearly helps the Sukhoi a lot more.

Does the Flanker fly around with its ECM emitting at all times? What is the real world performance of its ECM? What is the chance that HOJ mode might be used if the answer to the first question is yes(or even an AIM-9X when the F-35 is within range)? My assertion is that the Flanker won't be running its ECM at all times, as that'll give its position away to ESM, just like it's Irbis will set off any RWR/ESM. The F-35 will be within the AIM-120's NEZ by the time the Flanker knows it needs to jam/evade, if we're doing a 1 vs. 1 comparison.

[wrightwing]

There are some things we must consider as strong points that the su-35 will have over their foes;

1-3D TVC, which means high mobility at altitude (a great help for BVR tactics), no gentlemen it has nothing to do with post stall pirouettes or air shows.

2-The agile antenna of the Irbis, meaning it can point over the target at a safe direction, im sure the Irbis means a lot for pasive tactics, remember the RCS is not absorved, it just goes to another place

3-The very-long range missiles, treating AWACS.

1- does nothing to help detect low RCS target sooner
2- an agile antenna does nothing for detecting returns that aren't headed in the direction of the antenna. It only means that it has a fast scan rate for azimuth and elevation.

3- if the Flanker is shot down prior to launching those missiles, how does this factor in to your scenario?

overoptimist claim..

This is based upon what?

At K band perhaps?

I'm not sure about K band, but X band for sure.

Still remains to see which will be the operative ceiling of the su/F-35, something which will have a lot of influence on the performance, even the electronic one, as far it seems the IRST on the f-35 seems more optimiced for ground combat than for aerial one.

Nothing I've seen would lead me to believe that the EOTS/DAS is optimized solely for A/G. It is touted by the USAF/LM as one of the important features in A/A, along with the AESA, and ESM systems.

[over G]

wrightwing, i bet a formation of a flanker at 15000 mts and other at 5000 mts of altitide can detect an F-22 at 300 km of distance, in a game of 1 vs 1 the 22 will win, but on a game of 5 vs 5 with 5 Irbis, im sure their stealthness is useless , but is ok, time will tell.

but X band for sure

Your "source" never claimed the frequency, you know?, the difference between the radar propagation of an 10 Ghz and 20 GHz is huge. other that is another nice claim without any support

[wrightwing]

wrightwing, i bet a formation of a flanker at 15000 mts and other at 5000 mts of altitide can detect an F-22 at 300 km of distance, in a game of 1 vs 1 the 22 will win, but on a game of 5 vs 5 with 5 Irbis, im sure their stealthness is useless , but is ok, time will tell.



Your "source" never claimed the frequency, you know?, the difference between the radar propagation of an 10 Ghz and 20 GHz is huge. other that is another nice claim without any support

It won't matter what elevations the Flankers are flying at, if they're all at the frontal aspect of the Raptor, and it's doubtful if the Flankers will be flying higher than the Raptor.

300km?

You do realize that not only is the signal deflected away from the source, but at greatly reduced strength over that of a conventional aircraft's return.

Fire control radars are X band. One could deduce that this might be a frequency you'd want to be stealthy in. I would surmise that the smart guys and gals at LM, and the USAF have spent some time thinking about this stuff.

[echonine]

Does the Flanker fly around with its ECM emitting at all times? What is the real world performance of its ECM? What is the chance that HOJ mode might be used if the answer to the first question is yes(or even an AIM-9X when the F-35 is within range)? My assertion is that the Flanker won't be running its ECM at all times, as that'll give its position away to ESM, just like it's Irbis will set off any RWR/ESM. The F-35 will be within the AIM-120's NEZ by the time the Flanker knows it needs to jam/evade, if we're doing a 1 vs. 1 comparison.

The moment the F-35 fires its AIM-120 that close, it's going to get shot out of the sky right back with either an R-27TE or R-77M.

At that point, you may as well say the F-35 losses, since the Flanker's 3D TVC would give it evasive advantages.

Remember the ECM talk from that USAF rep after the latest Red Flag?

[typhoon1]

[QUOTE=echonine;1324063]
At that point, you may as well say the F-35 losses, since the Flanker's 3D TVC would give it evasive advantages.

QUOTE]

Assuming the engagement has just got WVR (6 miles at least), how would TVC give an advantage whatsoever against HMS, HOBS missles and an airframe capable of F-16 like performance? Simply it won't.

[wrightwing]

The moment the F-35 fires its AIM-120 that close, it's going to get shot out of the sky right back with either an R-27TE or R-77M.

At that point, you may as well say the F-35 losses, since the Flanker's 3D TVC would give it evasive advantages.

Remember the ECM talk from that USAF rep after the latest Red Flag?

Because the AIM-120 wouldn't have to go active if it's using it's 2 way datalink, or HOJ, so the Flanker wouldn't have much reaction time. Notice I said the Flanker was in the NEZ, which means there's not a lot the pilot's gonna do anyhow. It wouldn't necessarily be close either(especially with the C7/D models).
Red Flag represents worst case scenarios for weapon systems, so that pilots get training value. If their weapons/sensors etc.. had a 100% effectiveness, the plane with the longest range missiles/radar would always win.

[ATFS_Crash]

The article seems to be more hype to promote Soviet patriotism and aircraft and weapons sales. The SU-35 is a legacy aircraft that is basically just a larger upgraded version of outdated legacy aircraft. While it is a formidable aircraft to be taken seriously; I think it would be laughable to assume that this lumbering noisy legacy aircraft is superior to the JSF. Sure the SU-35 might make a great truck, but it’s definitely not a stealth fighter. The SU-35 already is a huge lumbering target, adding more missiles to it just makes it easier to shoot down. Odds are an F-22 (the same might be true for the JSF) will spot you and shoot you down before you can detect it or return fire. SU-35 has very powerful noisy radar that just screams, I’m an easy lumbering target, come and get me.

Using the logic in this article we should still be flying the Fokker Dr.I, since is it more maneuverable than monoplanes.

The SU-35 is a formidable aircraft and its potential for threat should be taking seriously; but the same should be said for the JSF. They both have their niche and depending on the scenario and other conditions they both have their strengths and weaknesses. They are not the same class of aircraft, they are apples and oranges.

[pfcem]

Another MOBILITY STUDY incorrectly being used to assess fighter capability.

Note that RAND issued a retraction because ignorant people where mischaracterizing its MOBILITY STUDY...

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

[bgnewf]

...
Using the logic in this article we should still be flying the Fokker Dr.I, since is it more maneuverable than monoplanes...

Well said.

Stealth is a game changer that our Russian friends do not seem to want to acknowledge or account for. No matter that 4+ gen aircraft like the Su-35 might be extremely formidable, if they do not have the capability to have a reasonable chance of getting off a first shot before the merge they are a cooked goose most of the time. WVR is only a small part of the puzzle.

Datalinked systems, IADS, AWACS, GCI, Phased array radars, you name it, will all be degraded in performance to some significant degree against a stealthy opponent. Unless the Russians have developed some significant new technology that allows it's aircraft to counteract the effects of stealth on sensors then it will be a one sided fight almost every time. Incremental performance in conventional sensor and avionics technology will not be enough I believe to level the playing field.it would take a revolution like satellite sensors or laser radar (LIDAR) perhaps to give a stealthy warplane any worries against a 4th gen opponent.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. If the Russians assigned to market the Su-35 want to compare their plane to another then perhaps they should use the Block 50 F-16. it is about the most numerous competitor it might fight and would be a much better comparison considering they are developments of aircraft that are contemporary with one another. Comparing 4+ and 5th gen aircraft against one another is not a winning proposition.

[DJ.]

I did not know that LM has managed to develop "Stealth Radars"... since apparently they can detect SU35 BVR and fire off shots while poor old SU has not clue Raptor/Lighting are there...

Only thing worse than Russians with head up their **** (author of the article which is total crock) .. are Westerners with head up their **** accusing russians of having head up their ****. :diablo:

[djcross]

Too bad so many posters have a "Snoopy vs The Red Baron" mentality. Air-to-air combat is a very distant second place to killing ground targets.

The primary users (i.e. military services who are buying the most jets) will use F-35 as a light attack airplane, not as an air superiority fighter. Therefore, the F-35 design is optimized for the light attack role (with respectable self-defense ability), capable of penetrating sophisticated IADSs, which includes SU-35s.

The first objective of the attack airplane is to kill it's assigned ground targets. Ideally, the attacker would avoid DCA to keep from "kicking the hornet's nest". But if DCA was preventing successful completion of the mission objectives, then DCA would be engaged with AIM-120s. DCA doesn't have to be K-killed. A mission kill would be satisfactory as long as the ground targets are destroyed.

[djcross]

I did not know that LM has managed to develop "Stealth Radars"... since apparently they can detect SU35 BVR and fire off shots while poor old SU has not clue Raptor/Lighting are there...

Only thing worse than Russians with head up their **** (author of the article which is total crock) .. are Westerners with head up their **** accusing russians of having head up their ****. :diablo:

Knowledge is lacking...

Your reading assignment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_pro...y_of_intercept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...pport_measures
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/cate...itary/845.html