What's new

Su-30 vs. F-35

Max The Boss

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
How would a Su-30 go up against an F-35?

As I understand it, the F-35 isn’t fully stealth capable, only
Partial stealth capable? Is that right? Whereas the Su-30 stealth capable?
So how would a Su-30 go up against an F-35? Can a Su-30 defeat an F-35?

I am interested how the China Air would force Su-30MKK & Su-30MK2 fighters
Stand against Australia Air force buying F-35 fighters?
 
How would a Su-30 go up against an F-35?

As I understand it, the F-35 isn’t fully stealth capable, only
Partial stealth capable? Is that right? Whereas the Su-30 stealth capable?
So how would a Su-30 go up against an F-35? Can a Su-30 defeat an F-35?

I am interested how the China Air would force Su-30MKK & Su-30MK2 fighters
Stand against Australia Air force buying F-35 fighters?

F-35 is far batter and advanced then su30.
F-35 is full stealthy.
F30 is compareable with F16 block 60, F15, Eurofighter, Raffel etc.

As far as China is cncerned there are news that China is working on J-XX stealth craft equalant to F-35
 
How would a Su-30 go up against an F-35?

I am interested how the China Air would force Su-30MKK & Su-30MK2 fighters
Stand against Australia Air force buying F-35 fighters?

sir look at the distance between the two countries. this is at best going to happen on the Text books not actually.
 
How would a Su-30 go up against an F-35?

As I understand it, the F-35 isn’t fully stealth capable, only Partial stealth capable? Is that right? Whereas the Su-30 stealth capable? So how would a Su-30 go up against an F-35? Can a Su-30 defeat an F-35?

I am interested how the China Air would force Su-30MKK & Su-30MK2 fighters Stand against Australia Air force buying F-35 fighters?
No...Your understanding of 'stealth' is incorrect.

For starter...There is no agreed upon 'radar cross section' (RCS) value that any aircraft must descend in order to be considered 'stealth'.

An aircraft's RCS value is not constant. For any aircraft, its head-on aspect to the transmitting radar will present the lowest possible RCS value to that radar, from the C-5 transport to the 747 airliner to an F-15 to an F-22 down to a missile, and yes, a missile is an aircraft. When the F-117 debuted, its RCS value, from any aspect, was so low from what is expected that this aircraft became the unofficial standard for 'stealth', it was accidental not intentional.

To date, no aircraft is totally invisible to radar and the US have never made such claim. Keep in mind that the goal of radar detection is about recognizing the target from as far away as possible. The intent of RCS reduction is to reduce that distance where the radar can definitively say 'Yes' there is an aircraft at so-and-so position in the sky. It does not matter if the radar is ground or airborne. The shorter this distance, the shorter the reaction time for the defenders. A crude example would be at 500km the radar say 'No' and continues to say 'No' as the 'stealth' aircraft approaches. At 100km out the radar begins to say 'May be'. At less than 100km distance and it is weapons release for the 'stealth' aircraft. The defenders are still trying to decide if they should respond to the 'May be' or not.

The reason I say 'May be' is because radar detection is essentially a statistical process. One pulse may produce a return but one pulse is statistically uncertain because the target is moving. Several pulses, accounting for signal strength loss, called 'atmospheric absorption', may produce less than %100 of total transmitted pulses. In other words, ten pulses may give you ten or even as low as three or four returns. Not exactly what you want but certainly is better than one or none. But now not only do you have to deal with atmosphere induced losses of your radar pulses, the aircraft itself is purposely designed to some degrees manipulate any pulses impacting its body. To be generous, for example, out of 10 pulses you would receive 7 or 8 returns at 100km but with a 'stealth' aircraft you get none at that distance and may 1 or 2 at 50km.

Is the F-35 a 'stealthy' aircraft? Of course it is when compared against other aircrafts, excluding the F-117, the F-22 and the B-2.

Is the SU-30 a 'stealthy' aircraft? Just from a visual perspective, I can definitively say the SU-30's RCS value is nowhere near the F-35's, so the answer is 'No'.
 
That aussie airpower article has been beaten to death on fora. Basically it is like the Cope India nonsense, a play for a better aircraft (In this case the F-22)

But then what about all the comparisons, details and specifications it gives about all the aircrafts? Were they lying in their data?

I dont think so!
 
According to this source, both indian and chinese su 30s are better than f35

Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power
I have read that article by Carlo Kopp and while I do have a good deal of respect for Kopp's analysis, my opinion is that often he conveniently omit certain technical details that may balance out his criticisms.
In the beam and aft sectors the JSF may be also quite vulnerable to an active or semiactive radar guided missile shot - its beam and aft sector radar signature reduction is much less refined than that in the forward sector.
This is applicable to ALL aircrafts EVER CREATED AND FLOWN.
Another factor for the JSF is its radar emission - making it vulnerable to a long range shot with an anti-radiation seeker equipped R-27P, R-27EP, R-77P or when eventually deployed, ramjet R-77MP.
This is applicable to ALL aircrafts that employs radar.
While some Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) techniques may reduce vulnerability to anti-radiation missiles, radar modes for closing missile shots typically require high update rates and favour the anti-radiation seeker.
Really?

Here is what the F-22 can do...

If the F-22's radar warning receiver (RWR) detects a radar transmission, from any direction, the RWR system is able to calculate the distance and direction of that source, sends that information to the AMRAAM, and the fire control computer will launch the missile. All without the F-22 transmitting its own radar to provide the AMRAAM with initial targeting data. This is the next step up from sensor integration and into sensor fusion.

The F-35's avionics will operate with the same ideas that as long as its opponent(s) is/are transmitting in trying to detect it, the aircraft will use their radar transmissions to calculate evasive paths and/or retaliatory responses. Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) sets have been able to calculate direction and distance of radar transmissions for decades. That is one of the main ECM defensive measures for any military aircrafts. Of course, if no one transmit, then no one will be able to detect the F-35.

I do not need to debunk Kopp, only provide the readers with appropriate counter arguments, but in doing so, it would take far more space than the forum's software would allow.
 
But then what about all the comparisons, details and specifications it gives about all the aircrafts? Were they lying in their data?

I dont think so!

It appears you don't think much at all ...read gambits detailed response.

Here is a question for you....Why would the US create a aircraft (That is going to be the backbone of its airforces) That is inferior to something already in service?
 
Here is a question for you....Why would the US create a aircraft (That is going to be the backbone of its airforces) That is inferior to something already in service?

Correct, sir. These are common sense questions, really. The entire purpose of the JSF program was to give the US qualitative aerial dominance well into the 21st century, particularly over Russian and European fighters. It is comical when you see threads like "Su-30 vs F-35" or "LCA vs Eurofighter". Seriously, I saw a British article the other day comparing the Harrier's capabilities to the F-16, seriously.

Just goes to show, nationalism is blind.
 
Considering you are going to buy 2-4 Su-30s for a single JSF and the JSF is not going to go into a many vs 1 engagement and live it's just not a great fighter to use as the backbone of your air force. That's why the US has the F-22.

Even the US has no illusions about its stealthiness. The US Global Strike Task Force consists of F-22s, B-2s and standoff weapons in the first wave. No JSFs are anywhere to be seen until the IADS has been heavily suppressed or degraded sufficiently and only then do they move JSFs in.

If the JSF maintained its sub-$50 million dollar price tag as per initial program requirements it would be well worth it. At its massive cost overruns it's overpriced and underperforming. Then again, so are most of the other 4.5 gen fighters compared to the Su-30/35.
 
Here is a question for you....Why would the US create a aircraft (That is going to be the backbone of its airforces) That is inferior to something already in service?

Of course we could turn that around completely and ask why the US created the F-22 if the JSF is in fact qualatively superior to everything already in service.

And we might ask why the US created the F-16 which was, from the get go, not intended to be superior to aircraft the US already had in service (eg F-15).

That is not a convincing argument no matter which side is using it.
 
Of course we could turn that around completely and ask why the US created the F-22 if the JSF is in fact qualatively superior to everything already in service.

And we might ask why the US created the F-16 which was, from the get go, not intended to be superior to aircraft the US already had in service (eg F-15).

Basic research is essential to understanding the reason for the F-35.

The JSF program, initiated in the 80s, saw increased interest from the USAF, USN and USMC after the end of the cold war, in the 90s. The F-22 is the best fighter to have, no doubt, but its price tag was a huge drawback. The Americans just could not justify the acquisition of a large number of F-22s after the Soviet threat was over. No country can build a strong aerial back-bone on such an expensive plane, not even the US. Hence, the JSF program. Increased commonality and reduced cost. while maintaining the advantage of air dominance, it was a win-win for the DoD. Therefore,"why create the F-22 if the F-35 is the best" is a pretty simple-minded question, and not one that one would ask after conducting the most basic of reasearch on the subject. The biggest reason for the increase of the JSF's cost was that fewer would be purchased; which does not make it any less deadly, it just means that there isn't a great need for it.

Also, one F-35 for three Su-30 is a pretty damn good deal in any Air Force's calculations. The US never had quantitative advantage over the Soviets/Russians, therefore, the objective of the ATF and JSF programs was to keep the scale tipped towards the US through dominant qualitative advantages. If you don't think so, well, US intelligence is not one to be overshadowed by overenthusiastic bloggers.
 
What is the weather condition What support is available to each side (ground based radar, AEW&C, SAMs etc)? What avionics suite are the su30 carrying? What altitude are the different flights at? What arrangement (split into how many flights etc) and formation are the f-35s in? Where would the intercept take place and from what angle (including the approach of the su30)?

Paint a full picture of the conditions of the fight before you ask the question.
 
SU 30 is just a peace of Crap and nothing else and moreover it's baseless hipe created by Indians about it that it is mighty, it's this it's that blaaa blaaaa and mostly unappropriate things related to it spread total nonsense.

F-35 is a great plane no doubt about it as compare to baseless total hipe hipocrate plane SU-30.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom