Here is a 2000+ word blog post comparing the capabilities of the F-16V Block 72 and the Russian Su-35 fighter jets:
Introduction
The F-16 Fighting Falcon has been a mainstay of Western air forces for over 40 years. Originally designed as a lightweight, daytime air superiority fighter, the "Viper" has evolved into a versatile multirole warplane flown by over 25 countries. The newest F-16 variant, the F-16V "Viper" Block 72, features upgraded avionics and radars that keep it competitive against even the most advanced fourth-generation fighters.
One such advanced 4th-gen rival is Russia‘s Su-35 "Flanker-E" . As an evolution of the venerable Su-27 air superiority fighter, the Su-35 claims to dominate air combat through superb maneuverability, advanced radar and sensors, and powerful weaponry. Russia touts the Su-35 as superior to rivals like the F-15 and F-16, while China has purchased the jets to strengthen its air combat capabilities as well.
But does the Su-35 definitively overmatch the F-16V Block 72? Let‘s analyze their capabilities to determine who reigns supreme.
Background
First, some history on the F-16‘s development into its newest variant. The lightweight, single-engine F-16 was designed from the outset as an agile dogfighter that could out-turn opponents. Unlike heavier twin-engine jets like the F-15 that maximize range and payload, the Falcon was designed for pure kinetic performance – accelerating and turning tightly with an adversary in close-in aerial combat. Its relatively simple controls and fly-by-wire system made it easy to fly and very forgiving of pilot errors.
The F-16 won most international fighter competitions through the 1980s and 90s to become a ubiquitous NATO and allied jet. It has seen extensive combat action in wars across the Middle East, the Balkans, and South Asia, proving its effectiveness while gaining the nickname “Viper" from pilots. The F-16 will continue serving with many air forces for decades to come through a series of mid-life upgrade programs.
The newest comprehensive upgrade creates the F-16V configuration, otherwise known as the Block 70/72. Key changes include upgrading the original analog radar and displays to modern active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and digital glass cockpits. This keeps the F-16’s sensors, situational awareness, and network-enabled capabilities competitive against advanced fourth-gen threats for years to come.
The Russian Su-35 isderived from the long-lived Su-27 Flanker air superiority fighter. With its large and aerodynamically refined airframe, advanced fly-by-wire controls, and ultra-powerful twin Saturn engines, the Flanker family matches Western jets like the F-15 in speed and range while excelling in maneuverability.
While the original Su-27 entered service in 1985 and shocked Western observers in air shows, later Flanker variants incorporated improved avionics, weapons, and multirole capabilities. The Su-35 represents the latest evolution with upgraded radars, a sophisticated self-defense electronic warfare and jamming suite, and lower radar observability than prior variants.
Highly-agile thanks to canards and thrust-vectoring engines, the Su-35 is dubbed “Super Flanker” by Russia. Its advanced sensors and long-range missiles can reportedly engage multiple air, sea and land targets simultaneously. Russia produced over 60 Su-35s for its own use while China purchased 24 in 2015 and 2016 – showing confidence about its capabilities.
Flight Performance
Aerodynamic and engine performance largely determines a fighter’s flight envelop and maneuvering capabilities. The Su-35 enjoys advantages in raw power and wing loading that facilitate excellent instantaneous and sustained turning ability.
Each of the Su-35‘s two Saturn AL-117S engines provides 31,900 lbf of afterburning thrust, while its maximum takeoff weight is around 48,000 lb. This gives it an excellent thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.3:1 when fully fueled. In comparison the F-16V has only one General Electric F110-GE-132 jet engine providing 29,500 lbf of thrust, for a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.08:1 based on its typical loaded weight.
Furthermore, the Su-35‘s large wing surface area and moderate weight combines to give it an excellent wing loading of ~94.8 lb/ft^2. The heavier F-16 actually has a slightly poorer ~107 lb/ft^2 wing loading. Together, these factors give the Su-35 better climbing ability and sustained turn performance.
While the F-16V can accelerate faster in a straight line and probably has a higher instantaneous turn rate, the Su-35 can maintain higher rates of climb and sustained turns / nose pointing ability down to lower airspeeds. This could grant critical advantages in maneuvering fights.
Sensors and Avionics
Perhaps just as important as aerodynamic flight performance are the advanced sensor, avionic, and radar systems that allow fighters to detect threats, process information, and guide weapons. Russia‘s aerospace industry lags behind Western counterparts in microelectronics design and manufacturing, making avionics a possible weakness for the Su-35.
The F-16V upgrade centers on installing an advanced, compact Northrop Grumman APG-83 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar in place of earlier mechanically-scanned units. This radar provides much greater detection ranges against air targets, better resistance to jamming, and the ability to track more targets simultaneously. The F-16‘s JHMCS helmet also employs modern sensor fusion to better present situational information to the pilot.
The Su-35‘s avionics are also substantially modernized with highly integrated systems and multiple high-resolution color multifunction displays in its glass cockpit. At its heart is the powerful NIIP Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array radar – claimed by some Russian sources as able to detectfightersized targets from up to 250 miles away.
However, AESA radars like the F-16V‘s APG-83 still enjoy advantages in closer-range resolution, jam resistance, and interleavedmodes allowing both air-search and advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. The F-16V‘s sensor fusion and networking may also be superior thanks to decades of refinement through concepts like the Observe, Orient, Decide, Act loop.
Armament and Combat Employment
Both jets can carry advanced beyond visual range (BVR) and short-range air-to-air missiles, guided air-to-ground weapons, and electronic warfare pods to search for threats or jam opponents. The Su-35‘s larger weapons loadout – especially long-range missiles – poses a dangerous threat at a distance. However, the survivability difference may diminish at close ranges where pilot skill and experience pay off.
The Su-35‘s main air-to-air weapons are the powerful long rangeR-37M/RVV-BD missile with around 250 miles of range, mid-range radar-guided R-77 missiles analogous to the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and the agile short range R-73 / AA-11 "Archer" missile that can hit targets behind the aircraft via helmet sights. For strike missions it can employ anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles, and guided bombs using targeting pods and satellite navigation. Several hardpoints areplumbed for external fuel tanks to extend range, while self-defense is enhanced by an electronic warfare and countermeasures suite to search for threats and deploy active jamming.
Meanwhile, the F-16V Block 72 comes from Lockheed Martin configured for its Advanced Counter Air mission with no strike capability. Weapons are focused solely on defeating enemy aircraft at beyond and short visual range. Its main BVR weapon is the AIM-120D AMRAAM with around 100 miles of range – outmatched by the R-37. For visual range engagements, it carries the agile AIM-9X Sidewinder and helmet-sight cued AIM-9M missiles. While it lacks the raw missile capacity of the Russian Su-35’s 12 hardpoints, the advanced AIM-120D and AIM9-X match or exceed the capability of competing Russian missiles.
Other Factors and Wildcards
Besides flight characteristics and combat systems, other factors differentiate the F-16V and Su-35 too. The American F-16 likely enjoys substantial advantages stealthand electronic warfare technology due to decades of combat experience and refinement. U.S. fighters pioneered concepts like Low Observability to reduce sensor and radar signatures against threats with great success. While not nearly as stealthy as an F-22, the Block 70/72 F-16‘s airframe and engine treatments almost certainly reduce its frontal radar cross section.
Countering stealth, the Su-35‘s advanced electronic warfare suite supposedly can geolocate and jam enemy communications and radar from long distances. Russia frequently upgrades its EW capabilities, prompting claims that the Su-35 can "shoot down" F-22 and F-35 jets who are blinded by jamming. However, Russia‘s jamming gear remains largely untested against modern Western AESA radars and EW countermeasures. Western equipment like the F-16V‘s improved electronic "counter-countermeasures" may effectively negate or sidestep Russian jamming.
Reliability, sortie generation rates, pilot training, and real-world experience also impact combat effectiveness. The F-16 will leverage decades of institutional knowledge and combat operations – factors the relatively young Su-35 lacks. But Russia‘s jets are no strangers to harsh conditions and austere air bases that China‘s Su-35s could operate from during conflict.
So Who Wins?
Declaring one fighter definitively superior to another requires analyzing many mission-dependent factors. While the Su-35 claims excellent speed and maneuverability, advanced sensors, and long-ranged missiles, the upgraded F-16V Block 72 closes many capability gaps.
In Beyond Visual Range scenarios, the Su-35‘s maximum missile range exceeds the F-16‘s. But credible assessments of stealth and jamming capabilities make it unlikely Russian fighters could achieve missile lock on an F-16 before it comes within firing range itself. In Close-In dogfights, pilot skill and advanced short-range missiles may determine victory more than airframe performance.
Each jet has areas of advantage in the air-to-airarena, making matchup highly dependent on context and ideal tactics. The Su-35 enjoys advantages in raw kinetics up close and the F-16V in detection range and advanced technology. But outcomes would change immensely based on supporting assets, rules of engagement, pilot competency, and allies on both sides.
While shopping for jets, many nations face a choice between expensive but highly advanced Western aircraft or cheaper but moderately capable Russian fighters. For countries like China seeking air superiority over regional rivals rather than global expeditionary operations, “good enough” Russian jets like the Su-35 are tempting options. And for scenarios involving flooding airspace with numbers or contesting disputed zones, mass fielding Flankers to overwhelm Western technological capability gaps makes sense. The advantages of the Su-35 even make it an attractive consideration for European air forces seeking to replace aging fleets affordably.
But in one-on-one matchups, the improved avionics, higher reliability and networked systems of frontline U.S. airpower like the F-16V and F-35 are telling advantages that Russia continues working hard to counter. The F-16V retains a decisive edge against the Su-35 if employed properly using its advantages in stealth, sensors, networking, and BVR combat. In fact, exercising against visiting Su-35s gave U.S. forces valuable experience confronting some of the latest Flanker capabilities as they enhance tactics and future platforms.
So while the flashy aerobatics and raw power of advanced Flankers like the Su-35 appeal widely abroad, American F-16 upgrades show program maturity and innovation in keeping the Viper potent for decades to come. Compared side by side, the F-16V Block 72 matches or exceeds the Su-35 in most respects, retaining its crown as the “ultimate dogfighter".