I don’t see why you need to color code it, it’s not really that impressive.

A: Just try to make the post more beautiful to see…..:D

Basically, the two biggest components they are emphasizing are the new engine and radar. The former is overhyped, it’s TW ratio is overrated..

A: Do you mean it can’t reach the thrust class that it is declared ~ 14,000 to 14,500 kg class ??

Stuff like KS-172 are only useful against AWACS (even that is contested by people), but fanboys love clamouring about the 300 km range. Realistically, who is going to do BVR engagements of even 50 km?

A: Iran AF’s F-14A did use AIM-54 to shoot down Iraq’s fighters at the range of 73 to 100 km class during the eight years war between the two countries in 1980s.

I think it is true that the engaging range of more than 100 (or 150) km is unrealistic for the BVR combat between the fighters in most circumstance now and foreseeable future, especially if the fighters have a certain degrees of low-observable techonology, excellent SEP, good enough EW systems, and well trained pilots.

Even the range, 3600 km is measured under most optimal conditions.

A: That is very natural for any fighter’s manufacturer when it makes the advertisement for its fighter.

Has Rafale been able to supercruise with standard A2A config ?

A:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_8.pdf

Page 8

Rafale M with the configuration of two Magic II, two MICA, and one belly 1,250L external fuel tank:

1. Climbing to 40K fts under 2 mins.

2. Supercruising with dry power.

3. Flight endurance of 2 hours.

As I’ve mentioned before ~ just wait and see the results of DACT exercises between the EF-2000 and F-35B of RAF after 2017, and many endless argues today shall have the confirmed answers.

It is not that simple, because every country has different needs and a different security situation. One point of Schorsch does convince me, most of that countries are in need of some “air-police” in small numbers only, if at all.
A lot of African and European countries did come to my mind.
The last conflict in Georgia did show, that even 24 Typhoons on the Georgian side had not changed that outcome really. We are intrested in military aviation, but a judge by logic does show, that most countries are not even in need with that kind of air-force at hand already. 😉

I just wants to prove a previous declaration “When in reality 9 out of 10 of the world’s airforces currently sport nothing better than an F-5 or even worse.” is not right.

It is true that no matter what kind of fighters do the small country buy won’t change the result of fighting with the super power by itself. However, buying the better fighters is still very useful for acquiring the victory of local war between the small countries.

That is why many very poor countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea still willing to buy the relatively expensive fighters for them like Su-27.

Toan nice summary , how did you reached that M1.4 supercruise capability ?
What about supercruise with usefull load , any guesses ?

This information is from Kanwa military magazine and a military researcher in Taiwan. Both of them had some interviews with the people of Sukhoi before, and I guess they got this information from the interviews.

However, since Su-35BM has just started its flight test, this information is still nothing more than an anticipation. All that I can say now is that with the lighter airframe and the more powerful engines, it seems that the T/W ratio and specific excess power of Su-35BM now may be no less than EF-2000, or even being close to Raptor.

What does the Su-35 offer them that the Su-30 doesn’t already provide?

Well, according to the advertisement and declaration from Russian:

1. Empty weight: 16,500 kg, or around 7% lighter than Su-30MK.

2. Thrust: 14,000~14,500 kg class*2, or around 12~16% more than Su-30MK.

3. Internal fuel: 11,500 kg, or around 22% more than Su-30MK.

4. Range with internal fuel only: 3600 km, or around 20% longer than Su-30MK.

5. Predictive supercruise capability of 1.4 Mach class.

6. Maximal radar detective range: 2 to 3 times longer than any radars for Su-30 series.

7. Maximal radar horizontal search angle: +/- 120 degrees, comparing with the 60 to 90 degrees of any other Russian and Western fighters’ radars today.

8. The capability of TWS 30 flight targets and engaging 8 of them at the same time, which is about 2 to 4 times better than any radars for Su-30 series.

9. More processing power (two new Solo-35 fire-control computers) and better ECCM capability.

10. The capability of using ultra-long range BVRAAM such as R-37 and KS-172 for hunting AWACS, traditional bombers, tankers, traditional fighters with large enough RCS at the range of more than 300 km.

11. Much better capability for engaging low RCS, low altitude flying targets, such as sea-skimming / cruise missiles.

12. Improvement and upgrading in cockpit and EW system.

JSF worries me. It seems a lot of us are putting too many eggs in one potentially fragile, expensive basket. The lift fan version looks frightening, but it appears to work so far. I am pleased to see the UK carriers have some CTOL potential. I just hope we have a ‘Plan B’ in case something is wrong with JSF.

Plan B in case that JSF gets a catastrophic problem:

USAF: “Well, unfortunately, we have to buy more F-22A now…..:D”

USN: “Its time for Super bug’s world !!!!!!”

Ally AFs:
Eurofighter, Rafale F3+, Gripen NG, F-15 PLUS, F-16E Block70, F/A-18E/F Block3, and domestic NG fighters like KF-X…..

I wonder what kinds of SAM systems did the red force stimulate in this Red-Flag exercise ?? Including SA-10/12/20 (which should make Rafale’s 100% successful penetration quite an achievement…..) ?? or just SA-2/3/6/8 (then Rafale’s 100% successful penetration is not so unusual……) ??

“Delete”