crobato, please note that that current US and Russian planes have not implemented either the canard or pure delta designs. As mentioned earlier, atleast delta planes were brought into service by US and France, however none of the canard-delta planes have ever been introduced into service by US and Russia.

I stand corrected that the US and Russia have indeed experimented at least on the canard-delta designs. I was aware of X-31, however while typing the post it escaped my recall.

I disagree with the above. Note that up to only 8 months earlier, the Mirage-2000 also had active production; however it’s production was halted after the “wake” of Rafale. As late as 2006, France offered this plane to the IAF, and before the MRCA proposal was mooted, the Mirage-2000 was the IAF’s main choice for 126 planes.

Besides, it may also be noted as per the research paper posted by MiG-23 MLD (and various others available) that the experimental delta F-16 XL was concluded to be superior to the F-15 that was in service; however, the “momentum” with the F-15 was begun and so commitment towards it was not changed.

As discussed earlier, the Tejas’ elevons are independent of each other. A simultaneous pitch in the process of executing one roll can be performed by deflecting one elevon more than the other, in the same direction. A “pure” roll is performed by elevons equally opposing each other, while a “pure” pitch is performed by elevons equally assisting each other.

A delta plane can thus perform ALL the manouevers performable by a conventional tailed plane, as well as canard-delta plane.

I disagree with the above. In the frontal photo of J-10 while taxiing, the canards only appear “upturned” as their aft portion is hinged upwards (note that the aft is wider). However, as in the photo posted by me earlier in this photo, they are clearly oriented down at the wing, and in this photo they are clearly flat.

Actually presently canards in all planes are hinged (unlike Viggen’s canards, which were fixed and that had “elevon” like structures at aft). As I am unable to view the photo from CDF, you may please post it on this thread.

I disagree because as seen in this photo of Tejas ( photo courtesy : Colonel Ajai Shukla), it may be subjectively observed that the elevons are “huge” in size and so command a significant leeway over the incoming airflow. So they may not always be at “mercy” of wing wake, turbulence etc. Tejas’ elevons may also be seen in this photo also (magnifiable).

However, during flight, they are not seen trimming as much as shown in the photos because small trims suffice to achieve the manouevers. In contrast, smaller control surfaces have to trim more to achieve the same effect if they are the primary pitch authority; if assisted by elevons even if ‘washed’, the trim may not be as much.
To illustrate the importance of sheer size as a counter example, one may ‘imagine’ had the elevons on Tejas been 50% of their area (same as a canard’s size on the J-10). By this basic flight manouevers may have been impossible.

The above may be possible, however the rate of pitch will be the same regardless of positive or negative lift. Again the loss (or gain) of lift may be negligible of the order of not more than few feet. Also, the gain by canards will be negated by the elevons at opposite end, that will effort to lose lift.

I think the debate may not be continued further, as it is increasingly descriptive and speculative now. In my view, the J-10 and Tejas are likely to have equal agility.

Abhimanyu

The debate is not highly speculative simply you do not want to see realities, all the fourth generation fighters built after 1980 have tails or canards either in Europe, Russia or the US

1970 F-14 has tail
1971 F-15 has tail, Kfir has canards
1974 F-16 has tail
1977 MiG-29 and Su-27 have tails
1978 F-18 has tail
1978 Mirage 2000 has strakes (strake a mini canard in fact), tailess tough; Mirage 4000 has canards
1982 F-16XL tailess
1984 X-29 has canards
1986 Rafale has foreplanes, EAP has canards
1988 Gripen has foreplanes, Su-35 has canards and tailplanes
1990 YF-22 has tail;YF-23 tailess (winner YF-22), X-31 has canards
1994 Eurofighter has foreplanes
1997 J-10 has foreplanes; S-37 Berkut has canards and taiplanes (Su-47), F-22 has tail
2000 MiG1.44 has canards.
2001 LCA tailess

Each aircraft has compromises

The F-16 for example is better than the Mirage 2000 at low speeds and altitudes but at some speeds and altitude the Mirage 2000 is better than the F-16, same is even with the MiG-23 at some very high speeds and altitudes its wings allowed it to have a slight advantage over the F-16

It is not different case with the J-10 and LCA, it is almost a fact the J-10 is better at low speeds and altitudes due to its canards but there must be some speeds and altitudes were the LCA might have an advantage, however the J-10 very likely has the best ITR and corner velocity.

The J-10 also must be a good roller, a good aircraft in terms of instataneous turn rate (ITR) but due to its delta wing not a good aircraft sustaining a turn.

If you fly against a J-10 in a MiG-29 it will be difficult to keep the chase since the J-10 is a good roller will change direction very quickly and initiate a turn at a very fast angular velocity but it won`t keep that angular velocity long in that is better very likely the MiG-29, once in the turn the MiG-29 will probably surpass the J-10

If you see tails and canards are more used and the reason is flaps are used more freely with either one of them, tailess designs have too much compromises using the flaps

Because of the less thrust? :confused:

Yes it has less thrust and less advanced thrust vectoring system, canards were deemed innecesary in the Su-35BM simply because the 117S has thrust vectoring in the pitch and yaw axis so the canards are not needed and only produce drag

Give me a radius for a relevant mission!

Range with maximal fuel load, km:
Н=0, М=0.7 1,580
Нcr, М cr 3,600
Ferry range: 4,500
with 2 х PTB-2000 external tanks, km

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp

talking about range is more important for an interceptor patrolling and trying to catch up intruders in remote areas, but for a fighter range is not so important because no one has an air to air missile of 4000km of range it is either you run away or you face the Su-35BM for the Eurofighter, if you choose to face the Su-35 also is what is the range of your best BVR missile and what is your detectability.

You might have a lower RCS but if your enemy has a radar that still can detect you at longer range and has a missile capable of hitting your RCS is worthless.

Since both fighters have supercruise and missiles of long range the question what missile will be deployed when you fight if you deploy a Meteor and your enemy shorter range AA-10 well still the Eurofighter might win the battle, but if your enemy deploys new long range missiles or long range AA-10s the fight still is very even.

If your Eurofighter is playing the Intruder has few minutes to attack specially if it is intruding in Russia, the home team has always more more fuel to patrol remember the battle of England.

How good are the chaff an flares used to avoid enemies how good are your missiles and who plays better the hide an seek will decide the battle, but certainly the Su-35BM will beat the Eurofighter in a dogfight with only guns for sure, the AIM-132 or the IRST still mean the Eurofighter is perhaps in a small advantage over the R-74 SU-35BM combination

However remember the Su-35BM now can deploy the R-27 of long range with a range of 110km and the Meteor still is in projecthttp://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/649/665/?PHPSESSID=43f90cc68aa1b11f64d80396bf070a20

The claim “cheaper” has to be proven. Procurement costs might be lower, the lifetime costs is a different issue. At current oil prices, the fact that the Suchoi 35 uses at least 50% more fuel per km might have an impact.

“Bigger” is an undesirable attribute.
“More payload” depends largely on a mission. A Eurofighter can carry 10 missiles and still have respectable range, a normal CAP is flown with 6 or 8 missiles, depending on the situation. Having the ability to carry more does not really count.
“More range” is pure fiction. With 3 external tanks the Eurofighter will have similar range and endurance.
Last, the “larger EW suite” is based on what? The Suchoi carries two large pods. What is in these pods and how advanced the electronics are is a totally different matter. The Suchoi 35 has to cope with the fact that it is the larger target on radar.

Another question is the sortie rate you can generate out of a single aircraft under various conditions. I cannot judge here, but it has a large effect on overall fleet effectiveness. The back on back comparison is misleading, what you want is a maximum of (number of available aircraft) x (capability of each aircraft) / (cost per aircraft).

with an old version the SU-27 can carry more weapons than the Eurofighter and with supercruise capability it will be economical, by the way Russia sells oil to Europe so the loosers are the Europeans since they buy oil and barely have oil wells, so more expensive oil means more money for Russia specially if they buy it with Euros

Su-27SK is old. try Su-27SKM weights with LCD but still anolog backup. Su-27SK mis heavier CRTs. Su-27SK>Su-27SKM>Su-35. Su-35 using new lighter radar and avionics without mechanical backups along with Fibre optics channels. Not to mention lighter materials in structure.
Su-27SKM 9.4tons fuel, 8tons weopon load, 33tons MTOW. Su-27SK is limited to 4.4 tons for 30 tons MTOW. Su-35 increases fuel capacity to 11.5 tons.

SENS` calculations have a flaw, he does not count the ammunition and some of its projectiles are almost 900g, and i think his calculations might also exclude more details, therefore the weight of the Su-27SK is as Andrei Fomin say 16870kg and the SU-27B 16300kg he is adding weight and rushing into conclusion even claiming indirectly he has outsmarted andrei Fomin`s book which clearly states the weight is in the region of 16 tones, 16300 for the SU-27B and 16870kg for the SK

😮 Trying dirty tricks?

No way for biased guessing about R-27 weight, Sukhoi is specific. :diablo:

2xR-27R1 + 2xR-73E

The R-27R1 is 253 kg each and the R-73E is 105 kg each.

All data are from trustworthy Russian sources. 😉

?

Implying the Su-27SK weighs the same to the SU-27B also is not accurate or do you have too the weight for the Su-27B which is lighter too? no you do not have it you are making a generalization since the Su-27SK weight is not the exact weight of teh Su-35BM specially since it has other technologies applied and i will prove it

Характеристики Су-27

Масса пустого самолета, кг N/A 16000 empty weight for the SU-27 16000kg
Масса нормальная взлетная, кг N/A 22500
Масса взлетная максимальная, кг 25740 30000

see other datahttp://combatavia.info/index1su27.html

Масса, кг
пустого самолета – 16300 http://www.arms-expo.ru/site.xp/049049056052124051048050056.html

Unless sukhoi as come up with a very, very special RAM coating it still will have a larger, if not alot larger, RC than the typhoon. The su-35 has larger, boxy intakes, it has rear horizontal stabilisors that are below the wing height, therefore just as on show as the canards. You do not know whether eurofighter has a diffuser, sheers speculation and you must deal with facts.

Are you honestly saying the su-35 has a lower RS?

The typhoons intakes are not boxes anyway, they are curved top and bottom.

I am saying this the Irbis very likely has enough power to detect the Eurofighter first and fire an IR homing missile first and having supercruise the Eurofighter can not escape either, who is going to escape from a fighter that can fire its eight missiles at once and detect you first? it will fire the missile first specially if it can carry new models see the Russians want the Su-35Bm for their air force why? and they say it will carry new missiels some with the power of beating the Meteor

The Eurofighter is not a F-22 and its canards are a great source of radiation and drag that is the reason the Su-35BM also deleted them

They say they halved the RCS of the Suchoi 27, but they didn’t mention the original RCS. :diablo:
The Eurofighter itself is claimed to have some frontal aspect RCS features.

The problem with firing missiles at long range and then run away is that either you risk you missiles fall into nowhere as soon as your target changes direction or you give it some sort of mid course update. Otherwise you need to get close enough that your (active radar homing) missiles find its target when they leave the launch rail. Then you have used up any advantage by early detection.

Not necesarily the DATA LINK is used from other aircraft to guide a AAM like the Gripen does, you can run away and other will do the guiding also the Eurofighter needs recesing all those pylons becasue is small and its canards are draggy and not very stealthy, yeah there are marketing generation ++++ at EADS.

Also its boxy inlet is not very stealthy either, niether its fin.

The EJ-200 is not even an engine with 2D thrurst vectoring and its design is old, yeah old, only for political considerations its flying, a MiG-29OVT will thrash it at close combat and the Su-35BM at any range, with thrust vectoring and newer R-74s will turn in a dime and outturn it

and the Su-35BM uses missiles with IR with long range