WW3 Showdown: Russia’s Lethal Su-35 Fighter Can Take Down American F-15, NATO Triggers War

WW3 Showdown: Russia’s Lethal Su-35 Fighter Can Take Down American F-15, NATO Triggers War
Fighter Jets Gordon Tarpley/ Flickr cc
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on LinkedIn
Pin to Pinterest
Share on StumbleUpon
What's This?

The world is dreading what will happen should tension between Russia and NATO escalate to alarming levels. Russia seems adamant in making sure its military progress is at par, or better, than the West, which could only spell more trouble for both the U.S. and NATO. Will there be another World War, or is everything just a play?


Russia’s Lethal Su-35 Fighter Can Take Down American F-15

Jet fighters are one of the standards on whether a country can hold its own against enemies. Lately, the American F-15 Eagle fighter to Russia’s Su-35S “Flanker E” have been compared with the results potentially favoring Russia. If Russia has the better fighter jets, it could mean it has better military power and higher chances of winning the war – if any will ensue.

“The Su-35S has powerful Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array radar with a range of up to 400 kilometers; it is also effective against ground targets. However, the F-15’s APG-63 V3 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar is superior—harder to jam, higher resolution and harder to track,” according to National Interest.

Also Read: US Navy Positions to Attack, Russia Prepares To Retaliate

Like us on Facebook

“The Su-35 boasts an infrared search and track system (IRST), which allows it to determine the general position of aircraft within a fifty kilometer radius—potentially quite useful for detecting stealth aircraft at shorter ranges,” the report added.

America’s F-15, on the other hand, does not have an IRST which makes the difference. Furthermore, the F-15 was designed without “stealth” in mind. The Su-35 follows the opposite design.

Ukraine is the Trigger

As for details whether there should really be a war ensuing, part of the trigger for Russia could be Ukraine’s alliance with NATO. Professor Paul Dibb, an Australian Russian expert, said that if NATO considers Ukraine a member, it could be the fine line that separates the world from another world war.

“The red line in the sand is if NATO makes Ukraine a member,” News quoted Dibb.

“That will be seen as a call for war.”

Liked this story? Subscribe to our newsletter or follow us on Twitter and Facebook for more updates on America.


  • Eugene Kyle

    They once said that about the Mig-29, too. Turned out it was a paper tiger.

    • Robert K Falcon

      Exactly. There have been 12 recorded air combat engagements between the Russian built MIG 29, and the U.S. built F-15, and F-16. All 12 MIG 29s were shot down. No Russian built aircraft has ever shot down an F-15, or F-16.

      As an “Aggressor” pilot, I flew 7 sorties against German MIG 29s in Red Flag exercises. I went 7 and 0 against the MIG 29, in my “Viper”. It wasn’t even close. Some of the MIG pilots were former E. German Soviet block pilots.

      • Eugene Kyle

        Thank you for your service!

        • Robert K Falcon

          Thank you. It was a privilege to do so.

  • willowway

    Russia will do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their interests in that region. No matter. There is not going to be a “classic war”. That is not to say that Eastern Ukraine will not move itself in under the Russian umbrella. If that happens there will be some huffing and puffing but no European leader is going to authorize classical military action in that region to prevent part or, for that matter, all of the Ukraine from realigning itself with Russia!

    The European leaders all know that this is not a “third world” uprising. If insanity prevails then the full force of Russian air power would come into play. No Western nation has the stomach for that over the matter of who the Ukrainians are to be aligned with. In fact, it is none of their business and certainly none of our business.

    • Dave Roberts

      Regardless of the circumstances, Russia would lose a head-to-head war with the USA.

      • willowway

        There can be no such thing as a”head to head war with the USA”. The reality is that such insanity would become a global war. There would be no winners. That is why it is not going to happen!

        All this is just “sabre rattling” and the military / industrial complex are loving it.

        • Dave Roberts

          The military/industrial complex was a term coined by Eisenhower. He was referring to the CIA and certain parts of the defense industry that had essentially branched off and formed a 4th element of the US govt. But ignoring that, how is there was between the US and Russia without it being head to head? Anything less is either a war by proxy or diplomacy.

          • willowway

            What I am saying is that a “head to head war” between Russia and the USA will never happen. The leaders are not that insane!

            Discretion being the better part of valour they will find other means of settling disputes. That may mean making compromises over situations such as currently existing in the Ukraine. They will call these solutions “diplomacy” while not putting their own homelands at risk.

          • Dave Roberts

            It’s called diplomacy because it’s not war, it’s diplomacy. Remember the saying, “War is diplomacy by other means”.

          • willowway

            That is a very sad commentary on the state of humanity in your mind.

            Although Russia is not as powerful as the USA they do have the capability to inflict enough hurt to dissuade any sane President of the USA from engaging in an all out conflict with Russia. Hence no “head to head war” will happen.

            Thankfully, both sides understand this “Mutual Assured Destruction” doctrine.

            That being said, it brings me back to my comment about the military/industrial complex and how the bravado being spewed out makes it easy for the taxpayers to be convinced that Trillions must be spent on weapons systems that we know will never be used on anyone other than some unprotected third world nation.

          • Dave Roberts

            in all due respect, willow, I would have to suggest that you have a look at a history of the causes of WWI and WWII. Especially in WWII, both sides understood the horror that is involved in modern warfare since they had recently gone through WWI. In hindsight, it is generally acknowledged amongst historians that a partial cause of WWII was the weakness and indecision exhibited by the Allied governments in the post-WWI period.

            For example, in Britain, a country that had lost over 35% (!) of its young men to casualty, the leaders had personally experienced the war. Consequently they full well knew the dangers that they were facing should another war occur. Yet they still made the mistake of thinking that a strong army along with equally determined military action would provoke Germany. The opposite turned out to be true – Germany mistook their pacifist actions for weakness and took advantage of it.

            Our President in the US is making the same mistakes that they made – all for honourable reasons, but mistaken nonetheless. Russia is not pursuing a non-military path. Since 2012 they have been rearming full tilt, and we see the results in their invasion of Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and now Syria. Their President Putin isn’t a Hitler, but he does have a view of the world and his country’s place in it that is radically opposed to the US’s view.

            I wish that M.A.D. was truly understood and believed in by both sides, but if it was, why would Russia be currently building far more destructive nuclear weapons and building extensive underground shelters for their population? It isn’t because they think war is impossible – if they did, then they wouldn’t be spending the large amounts of money necessary for those items.

          • willowway

            The two web sites you use as confirming your “facts” are nothing more than another writer’s opinion.

            Let us agree to disagree as you seem to have bought in hook line and sinker to the media’s portrayal of Russia and Putin’s intentions. You may be right in accepting the position you have taken but I happen to think otherwise. Russia is viewing NATO / USA as a threat and is acting accordingly.

            Here is something to be considered:

            List by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2016 Fact Sheet (for 2015)

            Rank Country Military Spending ($ Bn.)

            1 United States 597.5

            2 China 145.8

            3 Saudi Arabia 81.9

            4 Russia 65.6


          • Dave Roberts

            Neither of the links that I provided are opinion pieces – they are factual news items. I could prove it easily by giving dozens of other links that would state the same facts; Russia is modernizing and expanding its nuclear armaments, and they are building new and extensive bomb shelters to protect their population from nuclear attack.

            Your defense numbers are accurate, well done willow. But the increases in Russian defense spending are somewhat shadowed by the fall of the ruble vs the dollar. For example, the US spends 3.5% of its GDP on the military vs. Russia at 4.5% of GDP. Regardless of that, we do indeed spend far more in real terms than the Russians – you are right.

            But to claim that Russia’s invasion of Crimea, the Ukraine along with its military activity in Syria and Iran is a response to US/NATO aggression? Well, if you are a general in the Russian armed forces, I could understand your viewpoint. But are you? Where are we being aggressive against them?

          • willowway

            Were the Russians being aggressive and provocative when they proposed to have military in Cuba? Us North Americans seemed to think so.

            Are we being aggressive and provocative when we intend to put troops on the Latvian / Russian border. Not surprisingly, the Russians seem to think so.

          • Dave Roberts

            I agree with you on Cuba … we should never have attempted all that crazy stuff with the CIA in the 1960’s. And the prolonged embargo has been stupid as well. Why not allow them to live in peace and as much prosperity as possible? All done for a few votes in Florida. I think that Castro might have been an ally if we had treated him fairly.

            But Latvia, now? Wouldn’t have happened had not Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine. It’s a defensive response by us and NATO. Putin has told us in advance that he thinks that it was a mistake by Russia to give up the old USSR domination of the Baltic. I’m glad that the President is finally listening to him. The Latvians are scared stiff that they are next on the list, and quite correctly so. They mobilized their reserves last October, long before we sent troops in.

          • willowway

            We are still waiting for some hard evidence that Russia invaded Ukraine. They probably have some special ops on the ground – as we do in…Iraq? They are understandably looking out for large Russian speaking minorities in the two eastern breakaway provinces who were being set up by a pretty corrupt regime out of Kiev.

            The Russians are only protecting their own interests. Putting our troops , armed with anti tank missiles, on the Russian border can only be seen by the Russians as a provocative action designed to goad Russia into a similar action. That is what the military / industrial complex wants. Business will improve!

          • Dave Roberts
          • willowway

            “Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s borders may indicate preparations for conventional military conflict”.

            What a joke! They will keep it a “conventional military conflict” until one of the major players start losing more than they are willing to lose. Then it will start escalating. The European leaders fear that scenario and therefore will let Ukraine go on its own. That would be the best outcome for the Ukraine from this nonsense.

            The West’s ill conceived ventures into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc has caused chaos in those countries. Small wonder that the Arabs hate us. Now the West wants to help the Ukraine in the same way. The Ukraine does not need that kind of help!

  • Bill Merritt

    Headline editors will do anything to hype a Non-story. What hogwash.

    • Daykayaker

      I especially like the stock image they chose to accompany the story. One that shows neither F-15’s or Su’s.
      I wont be so fast to click on another “MorningNewsUSA” article.

  • Robert K Falcon

    Reporters are such morons. The SU 35 (Flanker E) is nothing more than an SU 27 (Flanker B) with upgrades in avionics, and thrust vectoring. The thrust vectoring is actually a liability in a WVR fight. The SU airframe is 1970s Russian technology. I have had some experience with Flankers. A Flanker is no match for a “Viper” (F-16) in a WVR fight, nor would it be with an F-15. The F-15 has better targeting, and maneuverability than the Flanker. This article is garbage.

    • Reltih

      I hope Russia sinks the american navy that is all that matters.

  • 1nameme

    “If Russia has the better fighter jets, it could mean it has better military power and higher chances of winning the war – if any will ensue.”

    This is so misinformed it’s ridiculous. First, Russia does not have ‘the better fighter jets’. The F-15 is over 40 years old, and not our best fighter any longer, so you’re comparing apples to oranges. Try putting an Su-35 up against the F-22, and you’ll see quickly that the Russian planes are not superior, or even on par, with what they’d be going up against if war broke out with the US.

    Second, even if we were limited to F-15s, Russia still couldn’t win a war with the US. Not only is the F-15 not inferior to current Russian aircraft, but Russia’s military, while doing a respectable job of modernizing its equipment, is a shadow of its size during the Cold War. The US has many times more aircraft, and other weapons systems, and could still easily win, even if they had to suffer an unbalanced kill ratio in Russia’s favor (which they wouldn’t).

    Along the same lines, Russia’s economy could never support a war against the US. Their economy is tied to one single resource, petroleum, and isn’t very stable. Not only would they have far fewer aircraft to lose, they would be virtually incapable of replacing those lost, and would simply run out of planes to fight with and money to build new ones. The US took them down through economic warfare 25 years ago, and would have a far easier time doing it again now.

    As for the IRST, Russian planes, such as the MiG-25 and MiG-29, have had such systems for decades. F-15s (and other US aircraft) have been flying against Russian-built planes with such systems since at least the first Gulf War, and so far not a single F-15 has ever fallen victim to any Russian-built aircraft, while shooting down scores of them in return (one single F/A-18 is believed to have been shot down using it, but that’s it, and the MiG-25 that did it had to run rather than engage the other F-A-18s in the formation). As for it being useful against stealthy fighters, like the F-22 or F-35, at close range, that’s just stupid. The whole point of these advanced aircraft is that they kill extremely effectively at very *long* ranges (Beyond Visual Range, or BVR), long before any opponent knows they’re even there. Russian Su-35s going against them would all be dead long before they got anywhere near the ‘shorter ranges’ that the article discusses.

    In short, Russia is no longer a global power, but only a regional power. They could possibly win a local small-scale conflict in or near their own territory, but in a larger or more distant conflict they would be at overwhelming numerical, economic, and technological disadvantages.

    • Arc_Light

      The United States only has 187 operational F-22’s and no plans to build more due to the exorbitant costs involved. How long would they last in a shooting war?