The F-35 Just Showed the World That Russia’s Su-75 Is a Joke

[Vrenn]

Question;
if a PLANAF J-15 (which is a conventional aircraft) can take off from a ski jump carrier with an empty weight of 18t and a max. weight of 33t - then why couldn't an F-35 A/B/C take off from a ski jump?

They can. And the B and C do for the Brits. The J-15 Carrier version is also beefed up in airframe and landing gear like the F-18 and F-35C is. The F-35B lands a bit different and doesn't need the arresting equipment although it can use them. The F-35A is built for land based and has the best thrust to weight ratio and can take off heavier than either the B or the C using a ski jump. You just can't land the A back on the carrier more than a couple of times before you just shove it off the end of the carrier as junk.

 

[Kruska]

They can. And the B and C do for the Brits. The J-15 Carrier version is also beefed up in airframe and landing gear like the F-18 and F-35C is. The F-35B lands a bit different and doesn't need the arresting equipment although it can use them. The F-35A is built for land based and has the best thrust to weight ratio and can take off heavier than either the B or the C using a ski jump. You just can't land the A back on the carrier more than a couple of times before you just shove it off the end of the carrier as junk.

I am aware of this - thanks,

Just trying to find out the reasons as to why Mushroom - believes they can't.

 

[Mushroom]

You are giving the advantage to the carrier based fighters who often take off light of fuel only to meet tankers enabling them to take off heavy of weapons.

No, because even when sitting empty of all fuel and munitions, the F-15 comes in at over 5,000 pounds heavier than an F-18. An F-26 is a little better, at only 3,500 pounds heavier.

You know, if you had only taken a moment to actually do a little bit of research, you would have known that instead of just assuming something.

Oh, and those ground based fighters can also carry more munitions as well as more fuel. An F-18 can at most carry 10,800 pounds of fuel. The F-15, 13,500 pounds.

Max takeoff weights are similar. 51,900 pounds for the F-18. 68.000 pounds for an F-15.

You keep swinging and missing there. Even just sitting on the runway with no fuel or ammo, the Hornet is as light as they can make it.

Once again, name a single Navy in the world that operates ground based fighters off of their decks.

 

[Mushroom]

if a PLANAF J-15 (which is a conventional aircraft)

It is not a "conventional aircraft". It is a Chinese conversion of the Russian Su-33. And that is a navalized variant of the Su-27. The Soviets took the Su-27, and modified it to work off their aircraft carrying missile cruisers. They made significant changes to the undercarriage, as well as modifying the wings to operate on a carrier.

If you look up the three aircraft, the Russians and PLAAF use the Su-27. The Russian Navy and PLANAF use the Su-33, only the PLANAF uses the J-15.

Because if you look at the design lineage of the J-15, it is not based off of the Su-27, it is based off of the Su-33. Therefore, it is not a "conventional aircraft", it is a Naval Aircraft.

 

[Mushroom]

They can. And the B and C do for the Brits.

Once again, show any reference that shows the Brits are using or have any plans to use the F-35C.

YOu know, you have made this claim before and I also asked for proof before. Amazingly, you never seem to be able to provide any. I have looked myself, and found absolutely nothing.

Put up or shut up. Please give us any kind of reputable reference that the UK has or will use the F-35C.

 

[Kruska]

Once again, name a single Navy in the world that operates ground based fighters off of their decks.

The Indian Navy and the Mig-29, PLAN and the J-15, French Navy and the Rafael. (the latter AFAIK doesn't even use a ski-jump add-on).
All were and are land based aircraft - enhanced partially with e.g. foldable wings and arrest-hooks.

I am not going to split hairs as to the J-15 being a sole carrier designed aircraft, since it isn't. same applies to the J-11BH - a Naval version of the J-11B - also used and tested on PLAN carriers.
Saab has made several successful carrier landings in cooperation with the Brazil/Indian/Italian-Navy - using the Grippen E and is promoting the Sea-Grippen.

The Italian carrier Cavour - was the first Italian carrier to have the F-35B land and launched.

 

[Mushroom]

The Indian Navy and the Mig-29, PLAN and the J-15, French Navy and the Rafael. (the latter AFAIK doesn't even use a ski-jump add-on).
All were and are land based aircraft - enhanced partially with e.g. foldable wings and arrest-hooks.

No, India uses the MiG-29K Once again, based on the MiG-29, but it is not the same. The undercarriage has been greatly strengthened in addition to the wings.

The French Navy uses the Dassault Rafale M. Based off of the Rafale C, but once again greatly modified so it can operate from a carrier.

These arguments are like ignoring the distinct versions of the F-35, and saying the US Navy is using the F-35A. You brought up the common name of an aircraft, but not the fact that the naval forces are each using specifically designed navalized versions of those aircraft and not the land based versions.

Oh, and the Charles de Gaulle is a CATOBAR carrier. So they could operate with either the B or C variant of the F-35. But she can not operate with the F-35A.

 

[Kruska]

No, India uses the MiG-29K Once again, based on the MiG-29, but it is not the same. The undercarriage has been greatly strengthened in addition to the wings.

The French Navy uses the Dassault Rafale M. Based off of the Rafale C, but once again greatly modified so it can operate from a carrier.

These arguments are like ignoring the distinct versions of the F-35, and saying the US Navy is using the F-35A. You brought up the common name of an aircraft, but not the fact that the naval forces are each using specifically designed navalized versions of those aircraft and not the land based versions.

Oh, and the Charles de Gaulle is a CATOBAR carrier. So they could operate with either the B or C variant of the F-35. But she can not operate with the F-35A.

All these mentioned aircraft's are initially conventional aircraft, - later "enhanced" modified for a better carrier suitability.
It also can go the other way around in regards to suitable usage, see the F-111.
The J-15 didn't have fold-able wings in the beginning - just because an F-104G has an arrest hook doesn't mean it was designed for carrier landings.

So I still don't catch your reasons, as to why a F-35A/B/C couldn't take of from a ski-jump. If someone want's a F-35A to be used on an aircraft-carrier it will be modified
accordingly. Just as the Rafael or J-11B etc. etc.

 

[Vrenn]

I am aware of this - thanks,

Just trying to find out the reasons as to why Mushroom - believes they can't.

mushroom is a putin boy. The Mig-29K is much, much better than anything anyone else makes.

 

[Vrenn]

No, because even when sitting empty of all fuel and munitions, the F-15 comes in at over 5,000 pounds heavier than an F-18. An F-26 is a little better, at only 3,500 pounds heavier.

And the F-15E single engine puts out as much power as both engines in a F-18. The normal loadout for the F-18E gives it a .78 thrust to weight ratio. The normal loadout on the F-15E is right around 1 to 1 or better. Is the F-26 equivalent to a Mig-28?

You know, if you had only taken a moment to actually do a little bit of research, you would have known that instead of just assuming something.

I spent too many years loading out fighters.

Oh, and those ground based fighters can also carry more munitions as well as more fuel. An F-18 can at most carry 10,800 pounds of fuel. The F-15, 13,500 pounds.

F-15E Fuel capacity 35,550 including the 750 conformal tanks and two 300 gal drop tanks.

The total fuel capacity on a F-18E is 17,550 1lbs including 2 drop tanks

The fuel load on the F-15E is more than the empty weight of the F-18E. But then again, it's a huge bird. I think you are getting your information from the F-15C and the F-18C. Both are on their way out.

Max takeoff weights are similar. 51,900 pounds for the F-18. 68.000 pounds for an F-15.

You keep swinging and missing there. Even just sitting on the runway with no fuel or ammo, the Hornet is as light as they can make it.

Once again, name a single Navy in the world that operates ground based fighters off of their decks.

The F-15E max takeoff weight is 81,000 lbs with enough gas to deliver a nuclear glide bomb to Moscow and get back to England. You did get the F-18E weight right though. But you are comparing a medium or light fighter against a heavy fighter. The F-15E is capable of loading the weight of an empty F-18 as payload and it can carry hyper weapons that only the bombers can carry because they are just too big and heavy to fit on the F-22 (too long and fat) or the F-35 (too long and fat and heavy) and your F-18 (You would have nose to tail plus too heavy, wide) Plus, the F-15E can get up to speed to get the ramjet to fire if that is the power plant. You string one of those things under the F-18 and you somehow got it off the ground, you would be lucky to get it much over mach but it would need Mach 2 or more. There is a very good reason why the F-18 is out of production in 2025. and the F-15 is going to be in production for at least 40 more years.

 

[Vrenn]

No, India uses the MiG-29K Once again, based on the MiG-29, but it is not the same. The undercarriage has been greatly strengthened in addition to the wings.

The French Navy uses the Dassault Rafale M. Based off of the Rafale C, but once again greatly modified so it can operate from a carrier.

These arguments are like ignoring the distinct versions of the F-35, and saying the US Navy is using the F-35A. You brought up the common name of an aircraft, but not the fact that the naval forces are each using specifically designed navalized versions of those aircraft and not the land based versions.

Oh, and the Charles de Gaulle is a CATOBAR carrier. So they could operate with either the B or C variant of the F-35. But she can not operate with the F-35A.

The only reason it should not be used for the A model is for the landing. Takeoff will be fine. Even the landing can be fine if the AF brings along one of it's portable BAK-12 Arrestor Systems. It works just like the Carriers except it's a little less violent. YOu wonder why Ground Based USAF Fighters have arrestor hooks, well that's why. That means, for a short time period, a F-15 and F-16 can become full blown carrier birds. The F-16 will need the Ski Jump while the F-15 won't but will use it anyway if it's there.

Just keep saying over and over, B-25s can't launch off Carriers.

 

[AZrailwhale]

mushroom is a putin boy. The Mig-29K is much, much better than anything anyone else makes.

The MiG29K is a basket case. The only nation to use it as a carrier aircraft is India and they hate it. There were only 65 aircraft produced between Indian and Russian orders and a full ten percent have crashed in accidents. The Indians are replacing them with far more expensive western aircraft because they work.

 

[Mushroom]

It also can go the other way around in regards to suitable usage, see the F-111.

But the F-111B was not the same as the F-111A. And if you are not aware, the F-111B was a failure. It was too heavy for a carrier, and it was underpowered. They were looking at a new engine, but that would not have solved the weight program so ultimately the program was scrapped and they went with the smaller and lighter F-14. And the B model was significantly modified from the A model of the Air Force. The nose was shortened, the body was lengthened, and the undercarriage heavily modified.

So pointing out the F-111B once again is a failure. Only 7 were built, 4 of them were lost in crashes during testing.

So I still don't catch your reasons, as to why a F-35A/B/C couldn't take of from a ski-jump. If someone want's a F-35A to be used on an aircraft-carrier it will be modified
accordingly. Just as the Rafael or J-11B etc. etc.

The F-35B can take off from a ski ramp, it was specifically designed to be able to do that. I never said the B model could not use one, it obviously can as that is what the British are using, and they do use a ski jump carrier.

The A model can not, the landing gear is not designed to take that kind of stress. There is a reason why naval fighters have heightened undercarriages, both for the harder landings that carrier aircraft have to withstand than those that land on traditional runways as well as the additional stresses that they have to go through during takeoff (CATOBAR or ski jump).

And why in the hell would anybody "modify" an F-35A, when there is already an F-35C? If they did modify it, all they did was create an F-35C.

And the French and Chinese aircraft you bring up were modified. Just as the F-35C is not an F-35A, a Rafael M is not a Rafael C. And a MiG-29K is not a MiG-29A. Nor is the Su-33 a Su-27.

And a B-53H is not the same as a B-52G, a PATRIOT PAC-2 is not a PAC-3, nor is a PAC-3 the same as a PAC-3 MSE. They may look the same to many, but to somebody that knows the equipment there are major differences, and they can not all do the same things.

In fact, I bet that to most people those all look the same. But I can tell the difference between each of those. Even that the first one is not even an American PATRIOT launcher, but a German one.

 

[Kruska]

So pointing out the F-111B once again is a failure. Only 7 were built, 4 of them were lost in crashes during testing.

It failed in it's initial intended role as a carrier borne strike aircraft e.g. also due to the engines you pointed out. But it was conceptualized/designed from the very beginning as
a carrier based aircraft. Unlike the Rafael or the J-11, etc. that were conceptualized as tarmac based aircraft.

The F-35B can take off from a ski ramp, it was specifically designed to be able to do that. I never said the B model could not use one, it obviously can as that is what the British are using, and they do use a ski jump carrier.

I am aware.

The A model can not, the landing gear is not designed to take that kind of stress.

Okay so that's your issue - got you.

And why in the hell would anybody "modify" an F-35A, when there is already an F-35C? If they did modify it, all they did was create an F-35C.

Because not every country on this planet can afford the luxury and national state debt of the USA - due to e.g. building specific aircraft for NAVY, and the Air-force.
France e.g had build the Etendard and then the Super-Etendard for it's fleet air-arm, shit expensive and aside from e.g. Argentina no buyers.
Before the latter S-Etendard - trials had been done with the Jaguar, designated Jaguar M - due to political issues they decided to go for the S-Etendard.

So France decided to get it right this time via enhancing the existing tarmac based Rafael platform, to perform carrier based operations.
India is doing the same thing with it's LCA - adding a carrier enhanced version. Just as China with the J-11 and an existing stealth platform-enhanced for carrier duty.

The by far best combat-aircraft build in the past 50 years, IMO is the F-15. No other country on this planet would have come up with a F-14. (great looking aircraft and a funny movie) reportedly build around the Phoenix system. The latter proofed to be rather useless and super expensive for the US Navy.
But would have enhanced the F-15 towards a carrier suitable aircraft - just as the YF-17 was never intended or designed to be a carrier aircraft, but resulted into the F-18.

So this time the USA seems to have got it right too - the F-35 for all kind of missions and enhanced for specific operators.

I don't get your Patriot example - off course a weapon platform is always suited towards a specific operator. The Stridsvagn 122 "Improved S" also isn't just a Leopard 2A5.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah..it's facts like these that should make us all aware that Russian is a generation behind..and falling fast:

MSN

The Difference Between the F-35 and Su-75 Should be Clear at Aero India 2023 - At this week's Aero India 2023 Air Show – the largest military aviation event in Asia – Russian delegates are likely seeking to court investors from India to help fund the development of the Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate fifth-generation fighter.
By contrast, officials from the U.S.-based aerospace giant Lockheed Martin likely didn't have to talk much to make their point about its F-35 Lightning II.
As numerous Indian media outlets reported, at noon local time on the inaugural day of the biannual air show, two United States Air Force F-35s conducted a flyover, landing at the Indian Air Force's Yelahanka airbase.
The pair of advanced stealth fighters had flown to India from Hill Air Force Base in Utah and Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska.
Other U.S. aircraft that are being presented at this week's show include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which will perform daily aerial demonstrations – while static displays will include F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet multi-role fighters.
Though U.S. delegation officials have suggested it would be "too premature" for the United States to offer the F-35 to India, the presence of the aircraft likely won't help Moscow's efforts to convince New Delhi to partner on the Checkmate.
Yet, Russia was pulling out all the stops.
CEO of the Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport Alexander Mikheev told state-media outlet TASS in an interview on the sidelines of the Aero India 2023 International Air Show that Russia is presenting an opportunity for India to develop the Su-75.
This aircraft is believed to be little more than vaporware at this point.
Meanwhile, Russia reportedly had a nice mock-up of its Su-75 Checkmate to entice would-be buyers.

Question here is, does the US want to sell to India, a very, VERY unreliable ally, close to not being an ally. The only reason they're an ally is because they're opposed to China, and nothing else.

 

[Kruska]

Question here is, does the US want to sell to India, a very, VERY unreliable ally, close to not being an ally. The only reason they're an ally is because they're opposed to China, and nothing else.

The USA could give it a try towards Iran - I am almost 100% sure, that Tehran won't object.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The biggest difference between the two is that the F-35 is a real aircraft. They have been flying for over 16 years, and have been in service for almost 8 years. One can make a purchase order now, and have delivery in a year or two.

The Su-75 still only exists on paper. The first flight is not even expected until next year, and first delivery not until 2027 (according to Russian predictions).

And while India had long been a "Soviet-Russian kinda-ally", they have been trying to move away from that and closer to the West in recent decades. Russia did indeed help their arms industry and technological and industrial advancement in the middle of the 20th century. But more and more they are realizing that in many ways they have passed Russia by, and there is no longer any real advantage to maintaining that alliance.

Especially as they are now starting to flex their muscles as being one of the largest English speaking nations, and using that to gain more and more lucrative contracts providing tech support to other English speaking nations. They have seen their dependence on Russian dams and equipment replaced with access to US and Canadian dollars, and British Pounds much more to their advantage in the long term.

And I admit I did laugh at the spokesman for the Indian Air Force dismissing that they were considering the F-35. And I actually do believe that statement 100%, as I really can not see them buying the F-35A. However, if there was to be a customer in the Indian military for that I doubt it would be the Air Force. I would put money on it being the Navy, and the F-35B.

Back in 2013, the Indian Navy started using the INS Vikramaditya, the former Admiral Gorshkov/Baku aviation missile cruiser. And along with that deal and others came 45 MiG-29 fighters. And although those are largely new planes, it is still just a modification on a Cold War era aircraft. And with the sanctions now in place, I think India might be getting a bit nervous about access to future aircraft as well as parts. And the current conflict might be just the excuse they need to start distancing themselves and courting other options.

No, I bet if any branch wants the F-35, it would be the Navy with the B model. Their carrier can host 26 fighters in standard configuration, currently in 2 wings (one of MiG-29K single seat aircraft, and the other in MiG-29KUB tandem seat aircraft). And it is actually common for carriers to have several different models of aircraft, depending on the mission they might be sent out on. So migrating to the MiG-29 for one wing and the F-35B for the other would be a logical evolution. And that gives them more flexibility depending on mission needs at the time.

Especially as the capabilities of Russian naval aircraft is far behind that of the US. Russia has never really taken naval aviation seriously, and in that area they are unquestionably a generation or more behind the US. Their carrier aircraft have for decades simply been modified versions of their normal aircraft (the Su-33 is just a modification of the 1970's era Su-27). And I am sure the Indian Navy is just a bit perturbed that they are essentially flying Cold War relics, and want to get their hands on some really modern aircraft.

Indeed India has always played both sides for its own interests

 

[James California]

~ The Communist Chinese cast iron balloon will dominate military air superiority.

 

[Vrenn]

But the F-111B was not the same as the F-111A. And if you are not aware, the F-111B was a failure. It was too heavy for a carrier, and it was underpowered. They were looking at a new engine, but that would not have solved the weight program so ultimately the program was scrapped and they went with the smaller and lighter F-14. And the B model was significantly modified from the A model of the Air Force. The nose was shortened, the body was lengthened, and the undercarriage heavily modified.

So pointing out the F-111B once again is a failure. Only 7 were built, 4 of them were lost in crashes during testing.

They were chasing the Unicorrn Fighter. Believe it or not, the F-4 was a Unicorrn Fighter but got long on the tooth when more was asked and needed from it. The F-111 was the result of that. When the 111 failed (it also failed for the USAF who did find a mission for it anyway) there were two fighter programs started under the FX program. The Navy came out with the F-14 which owes quite a bit to the F-111 while the AF came out with the F-15 2 years later which used info from their own Vietnam experience. Almost nothing was shared between the F-14 and the F-15. That would come later. But they diid prove, had the F-15N been 2 years ealier, there may not have been a F-14. But history writes itself.

As for the F-18. let's use a bit of history. Let's start out with a F-5E. Now, let's improve it to compete with the F-16 but lose. And so does Northrups modified F-20G they called the YF-17. Believe it or not, the original F-20G was a better Fighter. The Navy needs a replacement fighter so northrup modifies their YF-17 for carrier by beefing up the bottom end and little else. By using the F-5E as the base, a lot of good came out of all this. The leading edge bleed air for lift, oversized flaps on leading and trailing edges. While not that quick, the F-18 became quick and versatile. But under all that is still a F-5E.

The F-35B can take off from a ski ramp, it was specifically designed to be able to do that. I never said the B model could not use one, it obviously can as that is what the British are using, and they do use a ski jump carrier.

No, the B model is specifically designed to not require either a cat or a ramp. He wasn't created to replace normal carrier birds pr STOLS. He was designed to replace the VTOLs.

The A model can not, the landing gear is not designed to take that kind of stress. There is a reason why naval fighters have heightened undercarriages, both for the harder landings that carrier aircraft have to withstand than those that land on traditional runways as well as the additional stresses that they have to go through during takeoff (CATOBAR or ski jump).

The point here is, the F-15 is so over powered (if there is such a thing) that it can take off without the assistance of either system off of a carrier. So could the F-22, SU-35 and SU- 57. Of course, it's going to take a full sized Nimitz or Ford Carrier. And for landing for the F-15, just string the BAR-12 across instead of the carrier barrier. It's much more gentle and the F-15 is designed to use it on a daily basis. BTW, the BAR-12 is very simple. It's a cable system on wheels and a base truck. It's portable. Just drive it into place, string the cable and start landing the AC. There is also no reason that the F-18 can't land using it as well.

And why in the hell would anybody "modify" an F-35A, when there is already an F-35C? If they did modify it, all they did was create an F-35C.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapon system ever. It makes the
B-29 and the Manhatton Program look like bargain basements. What you end up with is 3 birds that are almost right. Aftere you make them, you have to start modifying them to cover up for the problems. There really should have been 2 completely different fighters come out, not just one. Compromising is not a good idea.

And the French and Chinese aircraft you bring up were modified. Just as the F-35C is not an F-35A, a Rafael M is not a Rafael C. And a MiG-29K is not a MiG-29A. Nor is the Su-33 a Su-27.

And a B-53H is not the same as a B-52G, a PATRIOT PAC-2 is not a PAC-3, nor is a PAC-3 the same as a PAC-3 MSE. They may look the same to many, but to somebody that knows the equipment there are major differences, and they can not all do the same things.

Are you building your own Air Force now, The F-26, Mig-28 and now your bomber wing, the B-53. Is that the Luxemburg Air Force?

 

[Vrenn]

It failed in it's initial intended role as a carrier borne strike aircraft e.g. also due to the engines you pointed out. But it was conceptualized/designed from the very beginning as
a carrier based aircraft. Unlike the Rafael or the J-11, etc. that were conceptualized as tarmac based aircraft.

I am aware.

Okay so that's your issue - got you.

Because not every country on this planet can afford the luxury and national state debt of the USA - due to e.g. building specific aircraft for NAVY, and the Air-force.
France e.g had build the Etendard and then the Super-Etendard for it's fleet air-arm, shit expensive and aside from e.g. Argentina no buyers.
Before the latter S-Etendard - trials had been done with the Jaguar, designated Jaguar M - due to political issues they decided to go for the S-Etendard.

The F-18 was modified from a land based as well. It was modified from the YF-17 that lost to the YF-16 in the flyoff. The Navy woldn't even consider a single engine front line fighter at that time so when lockheed offered the YF-16 it was refused for many reasons. Besides, the F-16 fights at just below mach while a carrier based fighter needs to operate much slower.

Northrup took the F-5/F-20 and added the carrier requirements and improvements to it to get the F-18.

The lasts Carrier designed only fighter being created that was successful was the F-4. And there was one hell of a lot of compromises on that fighter that the pilots had to make up for.