Russia Is Pounding The 5th Generation F-35 Into Oblivion With Its 4th Generation Su-35

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sukhoi-su-35-competes-with-the-f-35-2013-4?op=1



Of the jets in production that promise to take military fighters deep into the 21st century and beyond, the U.S. F-35, the Chinese J-20, and the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA are at the top of the heap.

Unfortunately, there are problems with all three 5th generation planes and the F-35 in particular is having global buyers back away much faster than it would like.

Russia is solidly looking to fill this gap with a known and dependable jet, the Su-35, to which it added cutting edge avionics and amenities for the 21st century.

Dewline reports that a pilot who took the Su-35 for a spin was blown away by the jet's abilities and it's low fuel consumption even at speeds faster than the speed of sound.

The Russian jet holds as much fuel as an older American F-14 but goes through it far more slowly, and allowed massively expanded flights past the speed of sound.


The US pilot with Tactical Air Support took the Su-35 for a spin and was shocked at its abilities.


The Su-35 tops out at mach 2.5 with a range of 1,900 miles, compared to F-35's 1200 mph and 1,380 mile range.

[Fumesucker]

1. I'm guessing that the Russian plane is not simply a means of funneling money to contractors

Unlike the F35.

[bemildred]

3. Yeah exactly, I'm sure it does that too, but in Russia that's not the only important thing. nt

[MineralMan]

2. I often wonder about the importance of these fighters

in 21st century warfare. They seem more suited for a style of combat that is obsolete.

[bemildred]

6. Complete waste of money.

Nothing you cannot do better and orders of magnitude cheaper by other means (except joyride.)

But the real problem is that mere flesh cannot keep up with what these machines are meant to do.

I'm not opposed to people going to space, but you start with machines, not people, until you learn where people can be safe and how to protect them.

[Fuddnik]

4. Military Madness

[n2doc]

5. A bird in the air is worth many in the repair hanger. n/t

[TexasProgresive]

7. just so it's an apples to apples comparison.

Mach 2.5 is approximately 1650 MPH. The F-35 would have a top speed of approximately Mach 2.

I suppose that was too much math for the writer.

[TNLiberal4]

8. Mach also depends on altitude

If I remember correctly Mach speed is also dependent on altitude (or perhaps pressure differences at different altitudes) though I don't think that will help the F35's case.

[TexasProgresive]

10. That is true

Barometric pressure and air temperature affect the speed of sound. My point was the top speeds should be listed in the same unit of measure for easy comparison. I call it lazy writing. It seems few will make an effort.

[brush]

12. That was my thought too.

The writer has to know that everyone doesn't know how many mph mach 2.5 translates to.

[LongTomH]

9. Interesting! Have we gone from: "Our fighters can beat the shit out of your fighters in combat.....

.....to "We can sell more of our fighters than you?" Of course, I'm referencing the line in the article: "......the F-35 in particular is having global buyers back away much faster than it would like."

US MIC contractors jack up the price of their combat planes for profit's sake. They know their lobbyists can influence Congress to buy their aircraft, even at exorbitant prices per aircraft and "cost per flying hour". If the plane isn't reliable, well, Congress can pony up the money to fix the problems.....and the next set of problems......and the problems after that.

It seems now that our possible customers for expensive killing machines don't have the deep pockets we do (check out the Aviation Week article linked from the BusinessInsider article.).

[appal_jack]

11. The Russians are good at simple, reliable, & durable.

The Russians are good at simple, reliable, & durable. Their Kalashnikovs and many models of Russian military helicopters are similarly superior. Our system favors the complex, the expensive, the whiz-bang, etc.

k&r,

-app

[brush]

13. Yep, simple and reliable — goes back to the T-34 tank of WWII