The Su-35BM will habe newer missiles

Well if we get into a fight with Venezuela in 10yrs, that might be of importance.
Nobody else thus far is buying them. Of course by then the F-35 will be in service along side the F-22, and the JDRADM will be entering service.:D

Well considering the R-73M/R-74 have longer ranges than all of those missiles, I’d say you’re pushing your luck with no evidence whatsoever.

The AIM-120D isn’t really that well proliferated as it has just entered production, and while it will be in service sooner than the RVV-AE-PD, when the new RVV variant is in service the AIM-120D will have met its match, not counting the even longer ranged Russian AAMs. At this point the US A2A weapons are really going nowhere now are they? With the R-37M and KS-172, Russian tech is going to be ways ahead.

The AIM-120C on the other hand is an eye-for-eye with the R-27ER and R-77.

When was the IOC for the R-37/KS-172 again?:rolleyes:
Why do you all keep harping on these missiles, when they were clearly not designed with Fighters in mind. IF they can hit a manuevering target, IT’S NOT gonna be at 400km. The R-77 has been a disappointment, which is why the R-27ER is preferred. The AIM-120D has a longer range than the RVV-AE-PD, and the C7 is already capable of similar ranges(but with a better seeker and pK). When the JDRADM comes online, there won’t be any Russian AAM of similar capabilities.

You have to understand India gets second best weopons from Russia with certain own modifications. There is no aircraft that can challenge Su-30MKI except F-22. Similar is case with MIG-29SMT. Enhanced engine/Radar/IRST/fuel/weopons. Even MIG-21Bison can challenge F-16/F-15 in BVR. There certain gap left between Russians and Chinese.

The only way any Mig-21 is gonna challenge an F-15/16 in BVR, is if they’re out of missiles. As for the SU-30MKI/MIG-29SMT, if they go up against a Western fighter with AIM-120C7/D in BVR, they’re gonna lose more often than not. In WVR, they’re gonna have trouble if they face the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python 4/5 in conjunction with a HMS.

Something you pulled out of your posterior in a dream?

:rolleyes:

You regularly make more fantastic claims than this.

Uhm…. did i mean that? is the question, i meant operational MiG-29s and Su-27s in the current russian air force are old aircraft with aging equipment, russia has not modernized a lot of her aircraft and most of modern Su-35s and MiG-29OVTs are too little or mostly prototypes.

Russia has excellent technology but it has mostly built modern versions for export and very few advanced super Flankers or super Fulcrums.

Most Chinese Su-27s were too simple and the Su-30MKK were more or less modern aircraft.

The CAPTOR of the Eurofighter is also an old type radar, most of what people claim for modernity are prototypes.

So the J-10 is more or less a modern operational airplane

Upgrades are costly and very advanced aircraft too, usually aircraft are standard and simplier designs

Star is gonna disapprove of these assertions. We all know that every Russian system has improved 400-800 percent in capability.:cool:

The F/A-18E has not even the same turn rate of the F-18C, it is not better, and armed with weapons it is not a aircraft that can keep a low RCS since all its weapons are carried externally, they reduced the RCS to increase the weapons carriage capability besides that the aircraft will advertise it self easily, that is the reason it will be replaced by the F-35, they know that fully armed the aircraft is a big billboard in the sky

the E/F’s limited improvement in engine thrust, coupled
with the fact that the E/F is a larger aircraft than the C/D, results
in the E/F having less air-to-air combat capability in sustained turn
rate, maneuvering, and acceleration than the C/D.

See more

Aircraft acceleration affects an aircraft’s combat performance in a
number of ways, ranging from how quickly the aircraft can reach its
area of operation to its ability to close the gap in air-to-air
engagements or to evade air-to-ground missiles. Navy data shows the
following:

— At 5,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.08 Mach7 in 21 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E will
take 52.8 seconds.

— At 20,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 34.6 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
50.3 seconds.

— At 35,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 55.80 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
64.85 seconds. The F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.6
Mach in 2 minutes
12 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 3 minutes and 4 seconds

and that is not the end of the story

Sustained turn rate,4 maneuvering,5 and acceleration contribute to
an aircraft’s combat performance and survivability by increasing its
ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. Navy
data6 comparing the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E shows the following:

— At sea level, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 19.2 degrees
per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 18 degrees per
second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 54 knots
per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 65 knots per second in
a turn.

— At 15,000 feet, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 12.3
degrees per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 11.6
degrees per second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C
is 62 knots per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 76 knots
per second in a turn.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96098.htm

Did you bother to look at how current that article is? Do you have anything that’s more recent than ’96-’98, with regards to the performance of the Super Hornet?

The F/A-18E is no more than a reduced inlet RCS F-18C with heavier weapons load keeping the same speed and agility, updated with better missiles, but still an old platform.
The aircraft is not a stealth aircraft and is not more agile than the F/A-18C, its inlets had a reduced RCS design to reduce its RCS increase due to a larger external weapons load and general size

J-10 is not much modern either since it is modernized Lavi, but in agility and performance is better and wait a few years more and it will surpass the F/A-18E in weaponry already it is a better fighter in terms of aerodynamics and performance.

New designs from russia and china like the K-30 and KS-172 will leave the current western weapons obsolete

-the E/F have greater range and speed, and more carefree handling.
-the E/F have lower RCS than the C/D. the reductions weren’t just to return the RCS to that of the earlier Hornets.
-the KS-172 if and when it ever reaches the market, is an anti-AWACS weapon. It’s not gonna have a 400km range against a fighter, and I’ve yet to hear that it’s designed to counter non-cooperative high manuevering targets.

http://www.boeing.com Even boeing does not claim Mach 1.8. It is only Mach 1.6. Typhoon cannot out accelerate upgraded Flanker. Chinese will continue to built J-11 and Russian will continue to upgrade Flankers and India will continue to buy MKI. EF is not wanted by those who invested in it. so u will never see upgraded engine for EF. and AESA will only be available when basically all fighters are delivered so whats the point.

Much like the LM site doesn’t continuously update figures on the F-35, the Boeing site gives very rough figures.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

(scroll down to mid page in the comparison charts between the F-18C/D w/ the F-18E/F (more than M 1.8)

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/fa-18ef_super_hornet.pl

(M 1.8+)

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/EF_overview.pdf

(M 1.8)

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

(M 1.8+)

Are you noticing a trend?