What makes you think that?

What use would such a small plane be, to an island nation like Japan?

I rate it 2/10. 😉

I treat his posts with the absolute disdain they deserve. A Rafale out-climbing a Typhoon? I mean seriously. Is the F-15C climb rate taken from the Streak Eagle or something? I can only imagine what other BS is in there if I could actually be bothered to analyse it. It’s because of groundless posts like this, with no official data or secondary sources to back them up, that we end up with 200 page tit-tat threads.

I have to agree. Andraxuss posted a complete wall of text full of statistics which may or may not be verified and which can not be placed into any kind of useful context.

Guessing by definition involves filling the gaps where we lack the “complete info”, so no, there IS point in guessing, and anyone can guess the way they want, be it just out of nationalistic bias or by methodic analyisis or rather scientific estimates. Problem is about convincing other party when neither side has “complete info”.

But isn’t the MiG-29 almost as heavy as the Typhoon, while having a lot less thrust – I think we can make a good guess here.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?88369-MiG-29-35-light-medium

Would depend on weapons too, however what we see in the video is a Eurofighter and MiG-29A with a single WVR missile. Both are equipped with a centerline fuel tank, we can consider them as dropped, or not.

As for avionics, I don’t think there isn’t much to discuss; For BVR, everything is clear. For WVR, both have IRST, HMS and HOBS missiles, so everything is clear on that too.

BVR: R-27 vs AIM-120C7 – everything is clear here. WVR: state-of-the-art Iris-T vs 1970s tech R-73? I think everything is clear too.

I think this is the point where I start the fire by saying;

Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft; If fueled for certain time in combat or certain range, Typhoon should get upper hand in kinematics. If both are fuelled at 50%, MiG-29 would have just as good kinematics in overall, too close to guestimate without having actual data about Typhoon.

Well, if you haven’t got complete info on the Typhoon, there’s not much point in trying to guestimate performance, is there?

Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft;

And what about weapons and avionics?

Head of Airbus thinks Antonov might fulfill “niche” but shouldn’t compete with Airbus.
That must be a surprise for some people, reading through this thread again.
Who could have seen this coming?;)

http://cfts.org.ua/news/airbus_ne_sovetuet_antonovu_konkurirovat_s_a400m_20200

And this is early days, just after signing the EU Association agreement.
Expect more concrete strangulation steps when the big loans start rolling in.

Well the An-70 can hardly be considered a rival of the A400 at this stage – how much of its flight test programme has it completed? Who has committed to buying the An-70?

So, a EJ230 is just an EJ200 with thrust vectoring? But nobody in western Europe are interested in TVC, or are they?

A Su-27 can go ~M1.7 with 4xR-73 and 6xR-27s and full fuel load. Also such payload allows Su-27 CG switch to negative stability above ~M1.3 which is not the case for a clean Su-27s. How fast a Typhoon can go with a)10 A-A missiles? b)10 A-A missiles and sufficient fuel to chase a Su-27?

Point haavarla making is; Su-27 is already too draggy and have too much thrust to be affected by the drag of R-27. Same is not the case for Typhoon.

Without EFTs, Typhoon won’t have enough fuel -by a long shot- to chase/outrun a Su-27; supercruise or not. To quote Gerry Gallop, a topgun instructor who flew Su-27;

According to this, Su-27 can maintain supersonic flight for 50+ minutes at M1.3, makes 1300 km. For how long a Typhoon can supercruise with full internal fuel?

So basically what you are saying is, the Su-27 is a bit like the F-35 – it’s equipped with drop-tanks it can’t drop?