F35 JSF comprehensively beaten by Su35

[TarJak]

Interesting reports surfacing about the state of the JSF programme after reports of poor performance in computer simulation war games against the Su35 where it was comprehensivley "clubbed like a baby seal".

Sounds like the Australian Govt. might be better off buying something else...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/151m-planes-a-disaster/2008/09/13/1220857899066.html

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/us-stealth-figh.html

http://news.smh.com.au/national/jet-fighter-a-worry-lib-backbencher-20080923-4m3p.html

[Jimbuna]

What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

:lol:

[Skybird]

I can see the justificitation for a F-22-kind of interceptor (and even the F22 is not invulnerable), but the F-35 I never found convincing. If I were them I would go for some of the existing multi-role-fighter bombers, or skip the step and go for drones completely. So much for functionality. the price of the F-35 simply means a total waste of tax money - and this in the current financial situation of the US, and two wars needing to be financed. The cost-effect-ratio imo calculates extremely bad.

It were far cheaper forces that showed the limits of hightech warfare in Iran and Afghanistan, and it is far cheaper solutions from the Russian side that in these wargames show the limits of such expensive, prestigious hightech-systems. Quality can compensate for quantity only to certain degree, and not more. You cannot compensate without limits for being outnumbered by too big a ratio. and this: the fewer and the more expensive systems you use: the more hurting and painful is the loss of even just a single one of them.

[TarJak]

I can see the justificitation for a F-22-kind of interceptor (and even the F22 is not invulnerable), but the F-35 I never found convincing. If I were them I would go for some of the existing multi-role-fighter bombers, or skip the step and go for drones completely. So much for functionality. the price of the F-35 simply means a total waste of tax money - and this in the current financial situation of the US, and two wars needing to be financed. The cost-effect-ratio imo calculates extremely bad.

It were far cheaper forces that showed the limits of hightech warfare in Iran and Afghanistan, and it is far cheaper solutions from the Russian side that in these wargames show the limits of such expensive, prestigious hightech-systems. Quality can compensate for quantity only to certain degree, and not more. You cannot compensate without limits for being outnumbered by too big a ratio. and this: the fewer and the more expensive systems you use: the more hurting and painful is the loss of even just a single one of them.What worries me is that it's my tax dollar that will get wasted with this sort of mess.

I want my military to have good slick toys and all but not at any expense and if that means buying something less shiny then so be it.

@Jim, I hope it was a little more sophisticated than that. At least with someone who can land their plane.:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

You guys missed this part:

...It's not clear just how much Australian domestic politics have skewed the reporting on the exercise's results....

[mrbeast]

F35 No good?.........Beaten by the Su35 you say?

:hmm:

Answer = Buy the Su35 instead! :D

[XabbaRus]

What worries me is that this was a computer simulation for which few have access to the results.

The thing is the USAF want the F-22 and will use it as ammunition against the F-35.

Remember when there was the DERA simulation of the Typhoon vs every other current fighter and the only one that beat it was the F-22 and against the Su-35 it had a 10 to 1 win ratio. Everyone poo pooed it as unrealistic. This is the same.

Until a full up version gets in the air we won't know.

Personally as a multi-role aircraft for what the UK needs it is fine....after all the Typhoon is doing very well and unlike the Rafale can self designate its LGBs

[Bill Nichols]

For a different viewpoint, see this article:

"Lockheed Martin, Air Force defend F-35", at

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/ap_f35_defense_092208w/

[NealT]

My hope is that it makes no difference, in that it never has to be put to use.

Having said that, I know it is not going to become reality, so let's give the pilot the best we can to get the mission done and get out safely.

[Raptor1]

Seriously though, the F-35 is still under development, the Su-35 is based on a design that has been around for a very long time and has recieved several major upgrades

They should just redo this when the F-35 enters service

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

You guys missed this part:

...It's not clear just how much Australian domestic politics have skewed the reporting on the exercise's results....

Umm, will you take this part into account had the exercise said the JSF would have won by a mile?

[bookworm_020]

I just hope that the Plane we do get is up to what Australia needs, otherwise we will be up the creek. There has been a arms build up here in South East Asia, and while things are mostly stable, that can change quickly!

[baggygreen]

We're in big trouble arms-wise in the next 50-odd years.

China, india are both engaged in a HUGE buildup. Indonesia getting their kilos when we can't even keep a collins boat crewed. malaysia and SK getting scorpenes (iirc), and almost all the smaller SE asian countries getting new sukhois.

We're still using F111s as our main strike aircraft, and we're planning on pinning our hopes on a developmental aircraft. F18s, well, they're capable enough, but still getting on.

and ground wise, we're down to what, 60 odd tanks? in a country this size?? can you spell trouble?

[SUBMAN1]

You guys missed this part:

...It's not clear just how much Australian domestic politics have skewed the reporting on the exercise's results....
Umm, will you take this part into account had the exercise said the JSF would have won by a mile?I take everything with a grain of salt man. The SU-35 probably would beat this thing more often than not in a gun only knife fight. Add in AMRAAMS, AIM-9X's, and range and the story is very different. The SU-35 wouldn't have a chance.

The point being, it is the scenario that we really know nothing about. This thing is built as a penetrator that can hold its own if you really analyze it. No SU-35 is going to have a chance unless it gets a visual on it. Plain and simple. So how was the simulation run? That is the million $ question.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I take everything with a grain of salt man. The SU-35 probably would beat this thing more often than not in a gun only knife fight. Add in AMRAAMS, AIM-9X's, and range and the story is very different. The SU-35 wouldn't have a chance.

The point being, it is the scenario that we really know nothing about. This thing is built as a penetrator that can hold its own if you really analyze it. No SU-35 is going to have a chance unless it gets a visual on it. Plain and simple. So how was the simulation run? That is the million $ question.-S

Personally, I'm more inclined to take it as more or less realistic, given that the United States has not written a lot of scenarios where their new planes lose.

Probably, it involved a scenario where the F-35 lost part of its stealth advantage, through the use of VHF radars, IR detection, and/or counter-detection of the APG-81 (assumption that the LPI will eventually or even has been countered, or maybe its jammer mode gave it away). Or even that it just isn't as stealthy as we think it is after all.

Given such a setup, it is not surprising that the JSF, whose kinematics are not exactly the best (which is why, as you admit, it might well lose a gun fight) would get clobbered.

[bookworm_020]

The Australain government still seems commited, but it does sound like there is some worries

http://news.smh.com.au/national/jet-fighter-right-for-australia-govt-20080924-4n3a.html

[SUBMAN1]

I take everything with a grain of salt man. The SU-35 probably would beat this thing more often than not in a gun only knife fight. Add in AMRAAMS, AIM-9X's, and range and the story is very different. The SU-35 wouldn't have a chance.

The point being, it is the scenario that we really know nothing about. This thing is built as a penetrator that can hold its own if you really analyze it. No SU-35 is going to have a chance unless it gets a visual on it. Plain and simple. So how was the simulation run? That is the million $ question.-S
Personally, I'm more inclined to take it as more or less realistic, given that the United States has not written a lot of scenarios where their new planes lose.

Probably, it involved a scenario where the F-35 lost part of its stealth advantage, through the use of VHF radars, IR detection, and/or counter-detection of the APG-81 (assumption that the LPI will eventually or even has been countered, or maybe its jammer mode gave it away). Or even that it just isn't as stealthy as we think it is after all.

Given such a setup, it is not surprising that the JSF, whose kinematics are not exactly the best (which is why, as you admit, it might well lose a gun fight) would get clobbered.Its impossible to not be as stealthy as it is. IR detection is next to worthless in a the real world - just a nice gadget to have. Radars won't be able to see this thing for 20 years. Jammer? Doesn't need one. The advanced AESA RADAR it carries handles that now - as well as network intrusion and blowing out (destroying the electronics) enemy RADAR's as needed.

Lets put it this way, it is not an F-22, but it is still the 'second' best aircraft in the world for capability. Short of unknown US black programs of course.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For someone who claims to see everything with a grain of salt, you sure are drinking the American doctrine and propaganda down very hard.

The exercise probably reflected what happened when you stepped outside the American assumptions in air combat.

The radar is not orders of magnitude more powerful than everyone elses, and Americans don't get to escape Inverse Squared Law, so unless the range is absolutely point blank, it is not going to be blowing out anyone's electronics. What it will instead do is blow any LPI capability the radar had, since it'll have to match the frequency of the enemy's non-LPI radar to jam it, and then everyone gets a bearing track.

As for IR, it is getting better. And for the stealth, it still has to obey physics.

[bookworm_020]

This gives a little more information about how the results came to be

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24401242-12377,00.html

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Australia is considering making its biggest-ever defence investment - $15bn - by acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft, from US manufacturer Lockheed, as replacements for its ageing Hornet and F-111 fighter jets.
Critics of the JSF say it is an inferior aircraft to Russian-made fighters being used in the region. They have used the results of a computerised war game to back up their criticism.
Mr Fitzgibbon says he is one of the few people in Canberra to have seen the full classified briefing of the war game in which JSF was supposedly found wanting.
"On the basis of that briefing, I am absolutely satisfied that the data from that exercise was misrepresented,'' he said today.
"The exercise didn't compare particular platform. It was about something entirely different which I can't speak about.''
Oh, so it compared two squadrons, and the F-35 squadron got clubbed? :D
Seriously, while one understands the need for security, the opaqueness concerning this issue is worrying.
Mr Fitzgibbon said the media reports of the JSF's vulnerability were puzzling.
"It just bewilders me how anyone could come to that conclusion based on the information provided to me.''
Since you aren't willing to tell us squat about what that exercise was really about, we can't just decide to trust you on blind faith.
Lockheed says the Pacific Vision war game conducted last month was a tabletop exercise designed to assess basing and force structure vulnerabilities.
So, now it is a tabletop exercise? Does that mean a computer wasn't involved now? And I thought Fitzgribbon said it was so classified we aren't even to know about this? At this point, are we even really talking about the same exercise?
It featured no air-to-air combat exercises and no assessment of different aircraft platforms, the company said.
It just compared two different air forces, and if the press is getting it right, the air force with the F-35s are getting creamed. :)
How one can even analyze "force structure" vulnerabilities of aircraft without at least some air combat being simulated is beyond me. Or is it saying the F-35s were ruled as wiped out on the ground before they could take off, and that's why there was no air combat?
Claims the JSF is inferior to the Russian aircraft in visual range combat appear to stem from a powerpoint presentation prepared by thinktank the Rand Corporation.
It cites publicly-available data from defence publisher Janes as indicating JSF can't turn, climb, or accelerate as fast as Russian aircraft.
Mr Fitzgibbon was unswayed.
"I remain absolutely confident that if the JSF can produce the capability they have been promising, then we will have the right aircraft for Australia,'' he said.
"The outstanding questions then, of course, are when and at what cost.''
Lots of smoke, not a lot of specifics.

[TarJak]

And of course we the taxpaying public are left wondering whether our money is going to be spent on a white elephant platform or not. And again of course the politicians will play politics on the issue rather than making sure they are spending wisely.

I frankly don't care either way on the issue of the capability of the aircraft itself, only as to whether our government is going to spend this sort of money that they make sure enough due diligence is done to prevent mistakes.

Ironically the platform the F-35 is planned to replace the F-111 suffered terribly from criticisms of it's design when we first purchased them in the early 1960's and 1970's due to some unfortunate incidents early its life. http://www.raaf.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series3/A8.htm

[XabbaRus]

subman sure you don't post on the strategypage forums?

The JSF is a strike plane, so of course it can't turn and burn with a Su-35. However until the plane is operational all this fanboy stuff about how great it is etc is all speculation based on publicity articles...

The F-22 is a different matter tested at Red Flag and commented on by pilots who have flown against it.

[Sea Demon]

The F-35 is indeed a strike aircraft. But it is derived as a multirole platform. Meaning it can fight in the air-to-air spectrum as well. And will do so with some new revolutionary capabilities. Some of which you find in the F-22.

The Su-35 is simply a rehash of an old 1980's aircraft with newer and more capable upgrades. But it is simply just a newer derivative of the same old Flanker. It is not revolutionary in any way. The F-15C with it's sensor and weapons upgrades provides Su-35 with plenty of headaches on it's own. Su-35 and the upgraded F-15C are comparable in terms of their ability to control airspace. F-35 on the other hand brings in elements and capabilities neither one of these aircraft are capable of. I doubt Su-35 will be much of a match for F-35 once both are in their element. I believe F-35 will best it in both BVR and WVR in total. Not just in terms of aircraft maneuverability, but in weapons, sensors, detectability, and countermeasures. F-35 is a much better package in each of these areas.

[Zachstar]

The fanbois are out in force on this one.

F-35 to replace F-16.. F-16 not best in turn and burn dogfighting = F-35 NOT to be used to hold the air.

That is the F-22s job PERIOD.. The F-22 is much more expensive and advanced for beating the next gen threats the F-35 is what you send in to kill the next gen ground forces when they are packing more than 2 dollar SAMs.

But it does solidify the point that the F-35 needs to be the last manned fighter in the US fleet. It is only a matter of time before the enemies start to use mass drone tactics to defeat even F-22s.

[Sea Demon]

The fanbois are out in force on this one.

F-35 to replace F-16.. F-16 not best in turn and burn dogfighting = F-35 NOT to be used to hold the air.

That is the F-22s job PERIOD.. The F-22 is much more expensive and advanced for beating the next gen threats the F-35 is what you send in to kill the next gen ground forces when they are packing more than 2 dollar SAMs.

But it does solidify the point that the F-35 needs to be the last manned fighter in the US fleet. It is only a matter of time before the enemies start to use mass drone tactics to defeat even F-22s.

What's a fanbois? I don't understand. I'm not so sure that the F-16 can be discredited as one of the best in BFM combat. I believe it to be one of the best for sure. In fact, it is very good when used in that role. It does have an excellent turn performance, excellent sustained turn rate, and ability to hold high g turns with small turn circle radius. F-35 will probably perform very similarly from everything I've seen. Sukhois are also extremely maneuverable and excellent in WVR combat. But those super high Alpha maneuvers are energy bleeders. They totally suck the life out of the jet performing those maneuvers. And these Sukhois will never accelerate from low energy to high speed like an F-16. Bottom line, both of those jets have strengths and weaknesses, as do all aircraft. But I have yet to see Russia produce anything like the U.S. and allies are producing in the 5th generation cycle. Russia probably still uses the Flanker base because it has worked for them and is a very excellent aircraft. But I don't expect it to be able to overcome some of the new things coming their way.

[Sea Demon]

But it does solidify the point that the F-35 needs to be the last manned fighter in the US fleet. It is only a matter of time before the enemies start to use mass drone tactics to defeat even F-22s.

Perhaps. :hmm: Although, the U.S. has a headstart there as well. We may have the drones before they do.

[Zachstar]

What US drones? You mean the toys with a tiny payload that takes oogles of stuffz to work?

[Zachstar]

The fanbois are out in force on this one.

F-35 to replace F-16.. F-16 not best in turn and burn dogfighting = F-35 NOT to be used to hold the air.

That is the F-22s job PERIOD.. The F-22 is much more expensive and advanced for beating the next gen threats the F-35 is what you send in to kill the next gen ground forces when they are packing more than 2 dollar SAMs.

But it does solidify the point that the F-35 needs to be the last manned fighter in the US fleet. It is only a matter of time before the enemies start to use mass drone tactics to defeat even F-22s.
What's a fanbois? I don't understand. I'm not so sure that the F-16 can be discredited as one of the best in BFM combat. I believe it to be one of the best for sure. In fact, it is very good when used in that role. It does have an excellent turn performance, excellent sustained turn rate, and ability to hold high g turns with small turn circle radius. F-35 will probably perform very similarly from everything I've seen. Sukhois are also extremely maneuverable and excellent in WVR combat. But those super high Alpha maneuvers are energy bleeders. They totally suck the life out of the jet performing those maneuvers. And these Sukhois will never accelerate from low energy to high speed like an F-16. Bottom line, both of those jets have strengths and weaknesses, as do all aircraft. But I have yet to see Russia produce anything like the U.S. and allies are producing in the 5th generation cycle. Russia probably still uses the Flanker base because it has worked for them and is a very excellent aircraft. But I don't expect it to be able to overcome some of the new things coming their way.

Fanboi = Fanboy or person who is extremely supportive of something for little reason that has little to no impact overall.

For instance. Being a fanboy who refuses to accept that the F-35 may be weak in a certain role is NOT going to have ANY effect on future orders of the aircraft.

[Sea Demon]

What US drones? You mean the toys with a tiny payload that takes oogles of stuffz to work?

The Reaper program so far has been highly successful for example. And yeah, the US UAV's right now are pretty much setting the standard in the use of these systems for battlefield surveillance, and are most capable in carrying Hellfires for surface atttack. I don't see anybody truly surpassing the U.S. in UAV operations in the near term with the amount of effort we're putting into them.

[Sea Demon]

Fanboi = Fanboy or person who is extremely supportive of something for little reason that has little to no impact overall.

For instance. Being a fanboy who refuses to accept that the F-35 may be weak in a certain role is NOT going to have ANY effect on future orders of the aircraft.

Ahh. OK. Why not just spell it properly as "Fanboy"? :doh: At any rate, what does pointing out the inherent strengths of the F-35 have to do with being a so called "Fanboy"? I don't refuse to see any weaknesses, as every weapons system has drawbacks somewhere. I just see that some of the technologies proven in F-22 design for air-to-air will also be incorporated into F-35 as well. This includes weapons, sensors, countermeasures, radar and IR stealth which are all revolutionary by design. This jet will also have high thrust to weight characteristics combined with a maneuvarable airframe. I haven't seen anything credible to show any bigtime deficiencies in capabilities. Nor do I believe Su-35 will pose any large true threat on the F-35 and it's operations once it is in it's true air-to-air element.

[Zachstar]

What US drones? You mean the toys with a tiny payload that takes oogles of stuffz to work?
The Reaper program so far has been highly successful for example. And yeah, the US UAV's right now are pretty much setting the standard in the use of these systems for battlefield surveillance, and are most capable in carrying Hellfires for surface atttack. I don't see anybody truly surpassing the U.S. in UAV operations in the near term with the amount of effort we're putting into them.

They are still complicated, Expensive, and without large numbers (There was a small panic when a hawk was downed by an Iraqi Mig-25)

What I fear is that standard tech is getting to a point where large numbers of COTS drones can flood an airspace and cause damage that advanced fighters can't.

Then you are using a half a million dollar missile to down a 5000 dollar worth drone and you have 50 behind that. Using cheap russian heaters to eventually drive away even our 22s and 35s (Hard to get into gun range when you got heaters coming from all directions if even one drone detects you) And forget AAA when they will surely have anti-rad weaponry. It will be WW2 flak carpeting all over again.

That is today. What about in the future when they can be even more advanced? What if they were equipped with advanced visual detection or radar?

The more I think about it. The more it is dawning on me that the 35 will not be effective past 2020 except in some dirt poor country.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Su-35s aren't the problem. It's the stuff that's going to be around 10-20 years from now that's going to make us look goofy for dumping $300 billion or so into an already obsolete manned bomb truck.

PD

[joegrundman]

The more I think about it. The more it is dawning on me that the 35 will not be effective past 2020 except in some dirt poor country.

thems the ones you'll be fighting in

[Zachstar]

The more I think about it. The more it is dawning on me that the 35 will not be effective past 2020 except in some dirt poor country.
thems the ones you'll be fighting in

You will not catch me in a F-35 in 10 years. No way no how! I do NOT have a deathwish.

[Sea Demon]

Su-35s aren't the problem. It's the stuff that's going to be around 10-20 years from now that's going to make us look goofy for dumping $300 billion or so into an already obsolete manned bomb truck.

PD

Nah. The U.S. and allies will get more than 20 years out of them. We simply got more than 20 years from our generation 1 stealth platform before much of a counter was developed to deal with it. It's all the same as before. Every weapons system has countermeasures built against it eventually. But through modernization efforts, many of those counters can be greatly negated. The U.S. has been successful in it's modernization efforts to deal with newer and impending military threats. The F-35 program will see the same evolution. It's no different than what's occured in the past. By the time the F-35 has seen a decade of service, we may see some new credible counters o it. But it will still take a number of years to field and mass produce them. But at that time, ways to negate those counters will be in production for the F-35. You're assuming that any true counters to F-35 will be out on the same day or same year as F-35 roll-out. That's not going to happen on anything but an internet article.

Zachstar has a very good point about newer technology. But his views regarding masses of unmanned drones is a bit unrealistic. Nobody has anything coming out that is going to be revolutionary enough in scope to negate F-35 in the near term. Nor do any trends show anything forthcoming within the 10-15 year time. There simply is nothing coming out of either Russia or China at the moment that can be considered as earth shattering. Neither Flanker, J-10, or current SAM trends in both give no indication of too much trouble. Pak-FA doesn't appear to be advancing all that well, nor does the J-12/J-13. As far as the drones go. If Zach wants to know where the drones will be coming from, most of this capability is being advanced in the US military. Not too much seen from the potential opponents.

[SUBMAN1]

For someone who claims to see everything with a grain of salt, you sure are drinking the American doctrine and propaganda down very hard.

The exercise probably reflected what happened when you stepped outside the American assumptions in air combat.

The radar is not orders of magnitude more powerful than everyone elses, and Americans don't get to escape Inverse Squared Law, so unless the range is absolutely point blank, it is not going to be blowing out anyone's electronics. What it will instead do is blow any LPI capability the radar had, since it'll have to match the frequency of the enemy's non-LPI radar to jam it, and then everyone gets a bearing track.

As for IR, it is getting better. And for the stealth, it still has to obey physics.Educate yourself on AESA radar - yes it has the ability to do what amounts to something similar to an EMP attack, though in a limited frequency range that the radar operates in, and can jam, and there is some sort of requirement was for network penetration exists as well. That is the part that is unknown at this point - the network penetration portion. F-22 has this same capability.

-S

[AntEater]

I'm relatively critical of the F-35 myself.
Fortunately Germany didn't buy into that one. We don't have a carrier and won't get one anytime soon, so we won't need the VTOL version (which is what most foreign buyers want) anyway.
If you take the F-16, you have superficial similarities. A plane developed for a limited mission (basically a F-5 type light daylight only fighter) that developed into the best multirole aircraft in the world.
On the other hand, when the basic F-16A flew for the first time, it had a lot of reserves in power and gross weight.
I don't see such reserves on the F-35.
I don't share Subman's view on Radar. The IR sensors the US had in the 1970s were useless, basically for the same reason radar was limited in power.
There was no useful system to sort out "real" contacts from backround noise. Computers do that now.
Stealth has the disadvantage of limiting the plane to internal loads, and 2-4 bombs are not really great, even when these are GPS guided munitions.
Also, half of those missiles intended for the JSF have allready been cancelled, sometimes even the replacement of the replacement has been cancelled
:D
The F-35 has some great features, but it won't be the ultimate fighter. The fact that it is purposely inferior to the F-22 (which is 20 years older in concept) speaks volumes.
Electronically, the F-35 benefits from technological advantages made since the design of the F-22 was finalized, but the plane itself has nowhere near the capability of the F-22.
It often seems to me there are only two reasons why foreign countries want the F-35:
- they need a VTOL fighter for a future carrier
- they actually want the F-22 but can't order it because export of the F-22 is banned by law
It is strange that all those countries ordering the conventional F-35 want the F-22 despite it being for older technologically and despite the exorbitant price tag.
Some countries order F-35s for other reasons as well, like the Netherlands (officially bribed by Lockeed Martin!) or Turkey, who simply wants license production of the F-35 as a start point for developing their own fighter aircraft.

Now regarding the "Flanker menace"

Indonesia has a whopping 4 Flankers, with orders for another six.
These include single seat 2 Su-27 SKs and 2 twin-Seat Su-30MKs.
The Su-27 SKs are the export version of the cold war Su-27S, so they might be downgraded. The Su-30MKs are not on par with the indian, chinese or venezuelan Su-30MKK/MKI, but rather export versions of the baseline Su-30 originally intended for the VVS.
The further orders include 3 single-seat Su-27SKM, which is an upgraded variant, as well as 3 very capable Su-30MK2. This is a dedicated maritime strike variant used by China and now Venezuela.
So Indonesia has 4 baseline Flankers and will recieve a further six state of the art variants.
There are no Su-35s in indonesian service. The Su-30MK2 somewhat close in capability to the Su-35 as it has the same more powerful engines, but it is a maritime strike aircraft (which could be used as a fighter as well).
It appears that the original four are to train indonesian pilot on russian-style aircraft while the others are the operational aircraft.
These replace 12 early F-16s and over 30 Skyhawks. Sounds to me like the Indonesians simply replaced aging equipment with a smaller number of modern, very capable aircraft.
These 10 aircraft represent a threat to 71 F/A-18s and 21 F-111s?
Even if the F-35 is inferior, Australia will have far more of them than the indonesians will have Flankers.
Of course the indonesians could order more, but while Indonesia is currently economically sound, it does not have anywhere near the budget surplus of Venezuela, Russia or China to finance a drastically expanded military.
Also one must consider the fact that since the fall of Sukharno in the 1970s, the Indonsian air force is western trained and equipped. Also, the readiness and training level of this air force must've been hit hard by the 1990s economic crisis.
The turnover to russian fighters must be a really drastic change to a air force used to US-made planes, especially when the rest of the air force (transports, helicopters, etc) remains US-equipped.
Russian aircraft use metric instruments and generally have somewhat different approach to cockpit ergonomics. The recent perm air crash was most likely caused by a pilot used to russian instruments misinterpreting a western style ADI under stress. The same problems would magnify for combat aircraft.
The Flanker is a quantum leap from any combat aircraft of a third world nation, even an F-16. A F-16 pilot will suddenly have an aircraft twice as large, with much more power, unheard of flying characteristics and a totally foreign cockpit layout. Tactially, a Flanker opens up totally new possibilities with powerful radar and BVR missiles, none of which was sofar in service with Indonesia.
Also historically you cannot create an efficient air force by simply selling advanced fighter aircraft to any given nation.
The arabs did not suddenly become a capable air power because of the latest MiGs, while Israel managed to beat them with inferior aircraft due to a sound indigenous doctrine and good training.
You can't transplant either the US or the russian way of running an air force to any given air force and expect it to work. The indians are so efficient with russian planes because they allready had an air force build on sound traditions of the RAF.
The indonesian air force has none of all that. While their pilots are not dumber or less talented than others, they might still take years to learn to properly fly their Flankers, let alone fight them.
The russians might embark on a vigorous training programme, but traditionally, they just fly in the aircraft, teach some pilots to fly them and then leave.
Generally, the Flanker seems to have become the western air industries boogeyman (boogeyplane?)

The dreaded Su-35s are a collection of prototypes. Less than a dozen exist, and only in Russia.
Apparently new Su-35s are now being build for the russian air force, but the russians put priority on upgrading their existing Su-27Ss from cold war days to Su-27SMs by porting over Su-35 electronics to existing cold war age aircraft, much like F-15s were upgraded.
The Su-27S is underpowered compared to the Su-35, yet the move makes sense, as the baseline Flanker is still a very capable aircraft and since flying time during the 1990s was very limited at best, these aircraft are less worn out than the average F-15C.
Also, Russia is concentrating on the PAK-FA, so building a large number of interim fighters makes no sense if you have something totally new coming up.
The Flanker series still has some life in it though, as the Su-34 bomber and the Su-33 carrier fighter and the Su-30 series of twin seat multirole fighters for export.
The Su-35 might be retained as a backup if the PAK-FA is delayed seriously.
But it seems that most traditional russian buyers as well as some new customers are set on the PAK-FA, not on the Su-35.
The PAK-FA has not flown sofar (we don't even have any relyable concepts of it!) but I don't doubt that given the proper amount of financing, Sukhoi can produce something really capable. Maybe not an instant F-22 equal, but something very close.
It is a daring project of the russians to make a F-22 equal in about a quarter of the time it took to complete the F-22 (and much less time than the F-35), but much of the technology that was revolutionary in the 1990s is now commercially available, plus the russians have the money for it now.
Neither AESA radars nor radar absorbing materials nor any other technology used in the F-22 is a US state secret. AESA radars will become pretty much world standard in a few years.
Also, the russian military-industrial complex seems somewhat less convoluted to me than the US one.
To make it short: If the potential customers of the F-35 worry about the Su-35, what will they say about the PAK-FA??
On the other hand, I wouldn't expect PAK-FAs (Su-50s?) to end up in Indonesia, so unless Australia thinks about attacking Brazil, the RAAF might never have to face them in combat.
But unfortunately, the problems do not limit themselves to the PAK-FA.
Right now, the only serious contender for the western aircraft (US, Europe) industry is Russia, with China emerging just now.
But for the future, it seems everybody and his dog is trying to build indigenous advanced fighter aircraft!
India, Iran and Pakistan (with China) have fighter projects and states like South Korea and even Japan consider to design their own 5th generation fighters!
Brazil has joined PAK-FA and might develop some version of their own and sell it all over the world.
So the F-35 equipped nations will not only have to worry about Flankers anymore.
In fact the Flanker should be the least of their worries...


(An almost-Skybirdesque post by me, whew...)
:D

[XabbaRus]

Russian aircraft use metric instruments and generally have somewhat different approach to cockpit ergonomics. The recent perm air crash was most likely caused by a pilot used to russian instruments misinterpreting a western style ADI under stress. The same problems would magnify for combat aircraft.

Although this is off topic I don't agree with this given the number of hours the pilot had in that type of plane.

I do agree that Russian cockpit ergonomics were different but that has changed with the newer fighters they have moved to glass cockpits and better HOTAS.

[Takeda Shingen]

What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

:lol:

No. If it were, Dowly would have somehow blown himself up with his own AIM-9 and Hunter, as I understand things, would have then crashed and burned on the runway while attempting to land afterward. No one would want to buy either plane.

[Jimbuna]

What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

:lol:

No. If it were, Dowly would have somehow blown himself up with his own AIM-9 and Hunter, as I understand things, would have then crashed and burned on the runway while attempting to land afterward. No one would want to buy either plane.

Ah!....so you've flown with them both online as well have you :lol:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Educate yourself on AESA radar - yes it has the ability to do what amounts to something similar to an EMP attack, though in a limited frequency range that the radar operates in,

Yes, and the range it can actually do that effectively on is also constrained by the limited power it has.

and can jam,

I agree it will be a reasonably effective jammer in the X-band.

and there is some sort of requirement was for network penetration exists as well. That is the part that is unknown at this point - the network penetration portion. F-22 has this same capability.-S[/quote]

One must wonder how that last would work.

[Zachstar]

For someone who claims to see everything with a grain of salt, you sure are drinking the American doctrine and propaganda down very hard.

The exercise probably reflected what happened when you stepped outside the American assumptions in air combat.

The radar is not orders of magnitude more powerful than everyone elses, and Americans don't get to escape Inverse Squared Law, so unless the range is absolutely point blank, it is not going to be blowing out anyone's electronics. What it will instead do is blow any LPI capability the radar had, since it'll have to match the frequency of the enemy's non-LPI radar to jam it, and then everyone gets a bearing track.

As for IR, it is getting better. And for the stealth, it still has to obey physics.Educate yourself on AESA radar - yes it has the ability to do what amounts to something similar to an EMP attack, though in a limited frequency range that the radar operates in, and can jam, and there is some sort of requirement was for network penetration exists as well. That is the part that is unknown at this point - the network penetration portion. F-22 has this same capability.

-S

OOO the magic radar!!! YAY!!! You mean the same radar that some think will be like impossible to detect in use or somthing like that?

As for EMP attack? You mean the EMP that nukes give off and is easily defeated with a metal cage? You mean EMP effects that have been known about for decades?

[Sea Demon]

As for EMP attack? You mean the EMP that nukes give off and is easily defeated with a metal cage? You mean EMP effects that have been known about for decades?

That's not a very accurate assessment of what the radar will do. From what I understand it will negate an enemies ability to fully utilize their radars range and scanning through some type of electro-magnetic beam focused towards the emitter. It's expected to be able to negate any accurate tracking of the enemy emitter. I'm sure there may be some drawbacks to it's uses, but combined with the other stuff in the F-35 package, I expect it to just be another tool in the basket for this aircraft. If you can negate an enemy radar to a certain extent, it gives you a pretty sizeable advantage.