Though I am from Turkey and not 100% objective about this comparison but:

Air to air:

T-129 is the smallest, lightest of 5. It also has relatively modern engine which was originally developed for RAH-66. All of this should translate to least IR signature. It also has the highest Power/weight ratio, which should translate to quicker climbs and accelerations than others, and better maneuverability than all but Ka-52. It will also have AIM-9X capability so it puts it to #1 in my list.

Anti-armor:

Depends. Ka-52 has excellent airframe performance and Vikhr has good penetration and range, 2 additional pylons for rockets are an advantage.

Mi-28 on the other hand can carry 16 ATGMs and still have 2 free pylons, 2xS-13 pods will be deadly for tanks.

Though biased as I am, I admire T-129’s flexibility; 2x Quad launchers on outer pylons. They can hold 8 UMTAS missiles. They are potent ATGMs, and passive IIR seekers are an advantage as it doesn’t warn the target vehicle. What is unique is that each one of the missiles can be replaced with Quad Cirit launcher, totaling up to 16 missiles per pylon. Internal pylons can carry 12 Cirit missiles each, so a single T-129 can carry 56x laser-guided anti-armor missiles, which are good for APCs/IFVs. Any combination is possible (5 UMTAS + 36 Cirit etc), and for a pre-assesed target group, very effective.

I would have thought that the engine at mil thrust would still increase the temperature of the airframe

Perhaps at the rearmost parts, but frontal heating is only due to aerodynamic friction. This is why many modern aircraft like Rafale use titanium at Leading edges, but can do away with aluminium and composites around engines.

As for this instance between the F-16 and the F-22, I guess that the F-22 is to the side of the F-16, pointing directly at it – thanks to the thrust vectoring. In that configuration, the F-22 presents only its airframe from the front and not his exhaust to the F-16’s 9X, whereas his AIM-9M can see the entire structure of the F-16 from the side as well as its engine exhaust. And when the F-22 does its exit maneuver by turning away and engaging the afterburner, it is immediately locked on by the 9X.

Maybe in that kind of configuration the F-16 would be better off turning off its afterburner.

In such close ranges during ACM, seeker heads can home in on the aerodynamically heated airframe. Despite what pilot claims I think engine throttle would be irrelevant; even if you remove engines entirely from the aircraft, airframe emits sufficient IR to be detected by the missile. Anything in excess of that threshold does not matter; it will lock either way. So, IMHO, its better to stick with superior specific excess power and be able to evade whats coming.

Well, a R-27T/TE has no guidance whatsoever if its not locked-on. SK manual says pilot can switch to a specific mode, and fire it blindly, but first he must align his aircraft towards the target (within a specific angle range, and with a specific angle away from sun, I dont remember exact quote). Missile will just fly straight and lock-on to the first target it sees in its search cone.

A LOAL missile like AIM-9X has datalink, it can properly maneuver towards its target, plot an intercept course, change that course if needed, and lock-on the target pilot actually wants.

In a practical example againist a target with reduced IR signature, a R-27T fired blindly may miss an F-22 if he could detect it and simply turn 50 degrees away from the missile and supercruises to the edge of the detection cone of the missile, its seeker may not pick it up. If launching aircraft has the means to track F-22, it can just turn his AIM-9X to proper direction via datalink. Speaking of F-22, such IR reduction is a huge advantage in this scenario compared to an F-15/16, as same maneuver would present their afterburners to R-27T; missile kinematics aside it would have made seekers job way easier.

A merge by defition indicates aircraft are passing very close to each other. Like others stated, even an age old R-60M will have no problems locking on to target.

In any cases, switching entire engine off in anywhere in midflight is very dangerous, let alone CAC. Turbine engines are not piston engines. They take several seconds, (or minutes if two engines are started by a single starter as in F-15) to spool up to its idle rpm. At higher/speed altitudes, there are several reasons engine may not even re-start at all.

Also at higher speeds, FADEC willl not simply allow to reduce engine to less than full military thrust, due to risk of compressor stall. On non-FADEC aircraft, there are specific guidelines on flight manual about how not to use the throttle stick. This holds true for any aircraft I know of.

Technically, switching-off AB and putting some great closure angle may have some uses for evading a IR missile fired LOAL (as in AIM-9X) or blindly (as in R-27TE) at long ranges, so aircraft will silently move away from the search cone of the IR seeker. However this is also problematic, as you need to know the missile fired first. I don’t think a MAWS will detect a R-27TE from 70 km away.

In 99% of the real life circumstance, aircraft is expected either a) to maneuver hard and evade the missile or b) maneuver away and outrun the missile. Both requires pulling high Gs esspecially at airspeeds that correspond to high turn rates. This will deplate the energy of the aircraft very quickly. As only “energy” source of the aircraft is the engine, its logical to leave it in full AB. In some cases, airspeed would be too high, so for turning tight throttle is reduced, but even then, its more logical to pull a high yo-yo if circumstanecs allow it, and conserve as much energy as possible.

This another gem. Turkish GDP is composed of garbage. It is never better than Saudi. same case is with China.

Why not post the entire paragraph? Because it doesn’t fit your dream world? Or because it doesn’t support your pathetic bullsh*ts?

Turkey provided convenient fly-over access to the military theaterfrom its military bases, and also curtailed the flow of Iraqi oil through its country. The USG sought ways to reward its allies for their support of American foreign policy objectives in the Gulf region. For Turkey, the USG promoted the creation of a “Turkish Defense Fund,” funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, to be paid over a five-year period.

This what you wrote. completely ignoring that you are comparing paper specification with Aircraft that is already certified to take those loads. 5 wet stations mean 5000kg minimum. 24.5 ton MTOW means 7.5 ton weopon load which already exceed Su-33.

So much idiocy in single sentence; 1- Paper spacification made by manufacturer also means aircraft is certified to take these loads. 2- 4 wet stations with 800 lt tanks mean ~4×650 kg ornanance, MiG-29 cannot carry armament centerline. Current max of MiG-29K is 4xKh-31s and 4xR-77s, which should be around 3200kg including the pylons/adatpers. THIS IS ALSO WHAT MIG SAYS, period. 3- MTOW has nothing to do with max weapon load or max fuel, as evidenced by F-18E, Su-34 which never reach MTOW even with full fuel and payload, and Su-27/Su-33/Tu-160 and many more, where aircraft cannot take off with full fuel and full payload due to MTOW limitation.

I don’t really get the slightest logic from your posts.

On Paper;
MiG-29 MTOW is 24,5 tons, with 5,5 tons payload capacity, Ferry range is 3000 km, says the MiG company.
Su-33 MTOW is 33 tons, with 6,5 tons payload capacity, armed flight range is 3000 km, indicating 3000+ km ferry range, says the Sukhoi company.

For the record, I chose to accept this as this is the scientific way of doing things. However since you don’t;

What is observed and proven by images/videos;
MiG-29 took-off (or just landed?) with 2x Kh-35s, and 2xR-73s, unknown fuel amount; that makes 2×520 + 2×105 = 1250 kg, excluding 4 pylon/adapters. Assuming full internal fuel, range is less than 2000km, which is ferry range.
Su-33 took-off with 4 R-27EMs, 2xR-27REs, 2xR-27TEs, 4xR-73s and full fuel fuel; that makes 4x~350 + 2×345 +2×348 + 4×105 = 3206 kg excluding 12 pylon/adapters and fuel for slightly less than 3000 km, which is flight range with 4 missiles.

If we are looking for what is seen, such payload is not only overshadows MiG-29, but apperantly many other aircraft as well; lets go with some funny facts, and see what other aircraft are OBSERVED to be capable of;
F-14D took-off with 6xAIM-54s, and 2x AIM-9s, 2990 kg, ferry range is 2960 km with 267gal tanks, though IIRC it never took-off with 6 AIM-54s AND EFTs.
F-18E took-off with 4xMk-83, 2x AIM-120 and 2xAIM-9s; 2314 kg payload.
F-18E seen landing with 2xGBU-24 and 2xAIM-9(IIRC?), 2270 kg payload.
F-18E seen airborne with 10xAIM-120s, 2xAIM-9s, 1690 kg.
F-18C seen airborne with 4xJSOW 1988 kg payload.

In fact, I couln’t find (or remember) a video/image of F-14/F-18/Rafale taking-off with heavier armament (not fuel tanks, armament) than posted above. I would really want to see one, I mean there has to be. It appears CATOBAR or not, Su-33 just took-off with one of the heaviest, if not THE heaviest armament from a carrier ever. (Recorded on a camera at least) I may just create a topic about this.

I thought I replied that a dozen times. I think this assumption goes similar to west’s “Yak-38 cannot do rolling take-offs” assumption, that was -for years- considered major disadvantage to the Harrier. As -unfortunately- most sources in the WWW belong to western ones, (even wikipedia was modified to delete Su-33 info several times), there are clearly nonsense data and misinfromation.

From Flankers book of the Midland Red Star series by the Yefim Gordon.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234555[/ATTACH]

Just some thoughts about this matter;
#1: Boeing says F-18E is capable of 66000 lb MTOW; it never-ever flied with such configuration, but no one has a problem with it. Sukhoi says Su-33 has 33 ton MTOW, and say Su-33KUB has 33 ton MTOW for *SEA* and 38 tons for Land. As only sea based take-off can be done from Kuznetsov, Sukhoi, -the manufacturers themselves- clearly indicate Su-33 and Su-33KUB can take off at 33 tons from Kuznetsov. But Suddenly, all that turns out to be weightless, all the because maker is not US but Russian origin, that some western commentators find it so hard to digest?
#2 = Why chose larger, longer ranged aircraft over the smaller one if you are not going to use its range or payload capacity anyway? They even designed an air-launched 4.5 ton AShM for it!
#3 = Why build a ski-jump carrier and operate in the first place, if it cannot launch an armed aircraft without a catapult? Seriously do Russians live in caves? How many ships their navy -literally- sacrificed to get Kuznetsov/Su-33 operational?
#4 = From the static T-2 ski-jump, two Su-27s made over 100 take-offs from 1982 to 1984, and Su-33 made over 800 take-offs before it even touched Kuznetsov. Do people really think in over 900 ski-jump take-offs they didn’t really attached some payload on it?

I think it is entirely plausible that China will not field a next-generation naval manned combat aircraft until late 2020s. Where we seem to disagree is what this suggests about China’s progress, either in absolute terms or relative to the global state of the art. I contend that a mature, CATOBAR variant of J-15 would be a formidable asset right through the 2020s and beyond, and as such am unmoved by the prospect that there may be considerable time before China fields an ‘answer’ to F-35B/C. I wonder if it is partly a matter of perspective: China is not attempting to impress us in the present, but rather to lay the foundations for a sustainable path towards global (or perhaps should we just say ‘USN’) standards over the next 20 years. Such a path must navigate cost, risk, and timeline constraints, and occur in the context of evolving national capabilities and requirements. Broadly speaking, and to the extent we can assess, I think China has plotted and executed her course very well to date, and I see no evidence that the nation’s carrier program is an exception to this.

I agree 100%. However this also brings us the question; Do Chinese want Liaoning to be a fully operational carrier, or an interim testbed for their future carriers? IMHO, it simply can’t be both, and latter is more likely.

J-10 is half backed Strike fighter let alone suitable for carrier operations.

Though I didn’t wanted to feed the troll; how you come to such ridicolous conclusion? J-10 has less wing loading and better T/W than any F-18 variant, and less wing loading than MiG-29K. Attach a hook between airbrakes and it will surely perform well enough.

I mean Su-33 hasn’t went through same weight diet and advancement that MIG-29K went through. its same old canard design and not enlarge spine or cockpit like MIG.

If the Russians had chosen Su-33 over MiG-29K today, I am 100% certain your comments would have favoured Su-33. One has to be beyond idiocy, beyond ignorance to claim for a second, that Su-33’s aerodynamics are inferior to MiG-29K. There is a reason MiG-29 got several changes in designs (MiG-29, relaxed stable MiG-29M, and MiG-35 with enlarged wings and krueger flaps) but Su-35 is still aerodynamically the same aircraft as Su-27. Not because MiG-29 had advancements, because it needed it, and Su-27 family didn’t.

Baseline Su-27 had maximum lift coefficient (Clmax) of 1.85 in maneuvering configuration (no trailing edge flaps). In simplest calculations, it could take-off from Kuznetsov with full fuel and 12 missiles *without deploying flaps*, should it use the longer station. No other aircraft that I know of has such high Clmax, not even airliners without utilizing flaps. MiG-29 has Clmax=1.5 (which is still impressive relative to other fighters), and higher wingloading than Su-27, it required FAR more modifications than Su-33, which it didn’t got; Su-33 added canards, two stage extending flaps, etc etc. Typically, such flaps alone triple the lift at given AOA, and double the clmax; those are simply ridicilous numbers. I am not counting additional lift from canards and downward deflected elevators which FCS software deploy. Older MiG-29K on the other hand only got larger single stage flaps and relaxed stability which Su-27/33 already had; really no suprise why it failed. Current MiG-29K adds somewhat improved two-stage flaps and krueger flaps; former is what Su-33 had in the first place, and latter is aerodynamically inferior to canards, albeit lighter and easier to implement. Irrelevant of claimed weight reductions (which I find doubtful), published data clearly shows MiG-29K has higher wingloading than Su-33 at standard take off weight. Summary= MiG-29K has clearly less lift performance and heavier mass per wing area than Su-33. So in terms of payload capacity, and take-off/landing aerodynamics, there is no-chance-in-hell current MiG-29K will perform even comperable to Su-33, or its copied brother J-15.

This is a nonsensical comparison between both ships. Do you have even a basic idea of the specifications of the Charles de Gaulle: CATOBAR, nuclear power, complement, or the capabilities and specification of the Rafale M it carries?

CATOBAR= Other than fielding E-2C -which is an advantage as I’ve stated- What is its importance really? Rafale still carries similar payload to Su-33 or MiG-29K and Kuznetsov can potentially carry more aircraft than Charles de Gaulle.
Nuclear power = Totally irrelevant for tactical comparison.
Rafele M = Has nothing to do with *carrier* develepment. When Russians land PAK-FA on Kuznetsov will it be a better designed carrier? No, it will still be the same ship.

Now look at the other side of the story; Kuznetsov has more self-defense than entire destroyer fleet of French navy combined, if we exclude two horizon class vessels.

Have you got a source for the Su-33’s ability to carry 6,500 kg as well as full internal fuel load? When did the Su-33 last take off from the Kuznetsov with such heavy warload.

Piotr Butowskis Flankers book page 91. It also says despite having 12 stations it has less payload capacity due to maximum take off weight. Also Su-33KUB is limited to 33 tons MTOW for ship-borne operations (like Su-33) instead of 38(?) tons for land based.

When = ? It never did -at least not operational Su-33. Kh-41 never went into service and Su-33 didn’t have Air-ground modes. It did take off with full fuel and 12 missile load, there was a video on a Youtube which I took a screenshot from. I can find it if you want.