Read the forum code of contact
By: - 28th March 2013 at 04:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
near dogfight
weight second salvo - Negligible
sweptwing
aspect ratio
Wing loading
lengthening the fuselage
thrust-to-weight
thrust vector control
locator simultaneously monitors
locator simultaneously attacks
the number of points for weapons
RCS
overload g
acceleration
range
rate advantage over the Su-27
long-range air combat
high speed
cruising speed
range
range radar
locator simultaneously monitors
locator simultaneously attacks
the number of points for weapons
RCS
range
rate advantage over the Su-27
efficiency / cost
generation
success rate
The Su-35 is superior Rafale in close air combat 1.95: 1.29 = 51%, in the far dogfight 1.93: 1.27 = 52%
That is, the Su-35 before dying in battle destroy two Rafale
"Success rate." Rafale would be more likely implemented as a project by 30%
By: - 28th March 2013 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
near dogfight
weight second salvo - Negligible
sweptwing
aspect ratio
Wing loading
lengthening the fuselage
thrust-to-weight
thrust vector control
locator simultaneously monitors
locator simultaneously attacks
the number of points for weapons
RCS
overload g
acceleration
range
rate advantage over the Su-27long-range air combat
high speed
cruising speed
range
range radar
locator simultaneously monitors
locator simultaneously attacks
the number of points for weapons
RCS
range
rate advantage over the Su-27efficiency / cost
generation
success rate
The Su-35 is superior Rafale in close air combat 1.95: 1.29 = 51%, in the far dogfight 1.93: 1.27 = 52%
That is, the Su-35 before dying in battle destroy two Rafale"Success rate." Rafale would be more likely implemented as a project by 30%
Stunningly these conclusion come from a russian source...
By: - 28th March 2013 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mathematics is the same for all, and for Russian and Europeans
By: - 28th March 2013 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale vs. Su-35? I have a better idea: Rafale and Su-35. :cool:
By: - 28th March 2013 at 17:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mathematics are the same, but the real question is, what values are you using to calculate anything in there? where they come from? etc...
By: - 28th March 2013 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale vs. Su-35? I have a better idea: Rafale and Su-35. :cool:
I bet bean counters would love such a combo...
By: - 28th March 2013 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mathematics are the same, but the real question is, what values are you using to calculate anything in there? where they come from? etc...http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
By: - 28th March 2013 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-35 is an amazing machine: http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
So is Rafale!
It will depend on the tactics of each team, the level of training, and the supporting assets (AWACS, tankers, etc).
Also it will depend on what missiles they got. Rafale with Meteor would be a dangerous opponent for anybody!
By: - 28th March 2013 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think i comes down to level of training too,
there are russian show-off pilots that handle Su-35 better than mrs obligatory can handle her phone !
But that is not the common standard by ordinary pilots,
and by all metrics Rafale should be cheaper to practice on and so their pilots
should be better for the same money allocated to training
By: - 28th March 2013 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mathematics is the same for all, and for Russian and Europeans
.. and that way the Russians lost many time to their surprise. See some comparisons about that: MiG-29 versus F-16, MiG-23 versus F-4F, MiG-21 versus Mirage IIIC, MiG-17 versus Mytere IVA, MiG-15 versus F-86, I-200/MiG-1 versus BF-109E about that. Nothing more is misleading in arial warfare before the opponent is outclassed really. To be outperformed in some areas by raw data means nothing at first. Personal I have no problem to accept that the Su-35 has better raw data in most areas. In Mathematics and Statistics the Lancaster Rule shows to win over two [Rafale] with a high propability to win a single one [Su-35] has to be four-times as good at least. Russian military planner had just that in mind, when the learned the hard way that not all that nasty details had the same value in a specific situation not predicted that way before. What works in military exercises and staged maneuver does not so on a real battle field against an opponent not sticking to the rules. ;)
By: - 28th March 2013 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale was designed to listen for LPI signals. They use more sensitive receivers with more granular direction prediction. Situation awareness tips the favor every time. No doubt within a certain window of opportunity the Su-35 is lethal with certainty. The question is who operates with more discipline and has the better awareness. That will lend itself to the winner ignoring all other factors. But then explore operational tempo, logistic footprint, weapon ordnance available, etc. The other factors tend to be tipped to Rafale's favor, too. The Russians have some serious weapons on the drawing boards. Deployment has been lacking.
By: - 28th March 2013 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.. and that way the Russians lost many time to their surprise. See some comparisons about that: MiG-29 versus F-16, MiG-23 versus F-4F, MiG-21 versus Mirage IIIC, MiG-17 versus Mytere IVA, MiG-15 versus F-86, I-200/MiG-1 versus BF-109E about that. Nothing more is misleading in arial warfare before the opponent is outclassed really. To be outperformed in some areas by raw data means nothing at first. Personal I have no problem to accept that the Su-35 has better raw data in most areas. In Mathematics and Statistics the Lancaster Rule shows to win over two [Rafale] with a high propability to win a single one [Su-35] has to be four-times as good at least. Russian military planner had just that in mind, when the learned the hard way that not all that nasty details had the same value in a specific situation not predicted that way before. What works in military exercises and staged maneuver does not so on a real battle field against an opponent not sticking to the rules.
It's the same old tale again and again the one in disadvantage can't win, period.
Those MiGs more often than not were mere practice shooting for reasons that can't hardly be explained from a technical point of view.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We compare heavy fighter 2008, with a light fighter in 1986, what do you expect?
Rafale has only one advantage in air combat, the pilots of the aircraft have killed people, first in Libya, now in Mali. The Su-35 pilots still did not kill anyone.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 17:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We compare heavy fighter 2008, with a light fighter in 1986, what do you expect?
Rafale has only one advantage in air combat, the pilots of the aircraft have killed people, first in Libya, now in Mali. The Su-35 pilots still did not kill anyone.
Su-35 was not in war yet, but Su-34 was. Don't forget that 1 single Su-34 of two RuAF have in 2008, crippled Georgian air defense, which was the most modern up to now in actual wars and which have new Ukrainian ST-68 EW radars, BUK-M1 and Spyder SAMs. I think Su-35 is not worse than Su-34 in electronic warfare.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale doesn't even have thrust vectoring yet
By: - 29th March 2013 at 17:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We compare heavy fighter 2008, with a light fighter in 1986, what do you expect?
Rafale has only one advantage in air combat, the pilots of the aircraft have killed people, first in Libya, now in Mali. The Su-35 pilots still did not kill anyone.
The Su-35 is based on an even older design, when both have a comparable level in avionics. For what purpose fighters are developed and bought?! In general both can be used for the same mission, when the Rafale is more cost-effective under similar conditions.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 18:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cost effective in what way?
Hope not you mean all the Tankers that have to follow Rafale..
See Libya for clues..
Su-35S would be much less depended on Tanker support. And thrust me, Tanker support cost a lot!
By: - 29th March 2013 at 18:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cost effective in what way?
Hope not you mean all the Tankers that have to follow Rafale..
See Libya for clues..Su-35S would be much less depended on Tanker support. And thrust me, Tanker support cost a lot!
are you so sure about that? Indians bring their tankers for their MKIs in many other events.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 18:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-35 is an amazing machine: http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbpSo is Rafale!
It will depend on the tactics of each team, the level of training, and the supporting assets (AWACS, tankers, etc).
Also it will depend on what missiles they got. Rafale with Meteor would be a dangerous opponent for anybody!
so far the general arguements by fanboys in the rafale thread have been:
Pro Rafale =
more sensors
better avionics
lower life costs
Pro Su-35 -
bigger radar and that trumps any sensor advantage Rafale has.
By: - 29th March 2013 at 18:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
are you so sure about that? Indians bring their tankers for their MKIs in many other events.
Such as in RF 2008?
Yeah, guess even the MKI can't fly to US without Tanker support:rolleyes:
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito - 27th March 2013 at 22:41
The Rafale thread is bogged down by a big Su-35 vs Rafale discussion by jsr, hoponpop, eagle1, toocool, etc.
how about a separate thread for those wanting to discuss the best 4.5 gen aircraft one can get while avoiding American arms restrictions.