so ur comparing non-fbw MIG-29 with 400 hr engine life with 4000hr engine life F-16. Remember engines loses thrust due to wear and tear. only 60 to 70% of thrust is available in real life.

I am comparing a stable Mig-29 vs the relatively unstable F-16 that has an engine compromised between performance and endurance yet still is reportedly superior to the Mig-29 above the low speed regime. If the F-16s engines were tuned to deliever 400 hours of thrust – imagine how much extra juice they would pump out.

Venky it’s clear you – like so many others – have little or no understanding of what is actually relavent, most of the time, in aerial combat. What Su-XX does, is bleed energy at a alarming speed while doing any of those post stall maneuvers – while watching the Typhoon – see how it seemlessly transitions from maneuver to maneuver – without significant speed or altitude loss… That is truely impressive and truely relavent.

People in the typical 90s TVC “fanboy” camp – that judge the Su-XX as amazing because of their post stall maneuvers are foolish at best. One reason the Eurocanards and the F-22 are not legacy aircraft – is because they have grasped a new concept in aerial warfare. One of top end agility and acceleration at high altitudes and speeds – things you cannot grasp by merely watching an airshow. Numerous “well respected” forum members here can’t grasp this concept – so I don’t blame you for not either. It’s not sprouted by the ignorant nor the Russian PR machine that has up till the PAK-FA – been stuck with legacy designs.

I’ll go find it, cannot remember exactly where its from, but it stands out in my memory because its a big point. I think it may have been an RAF typhoon article in AFM, not sure but I’ll go find it and post the relevant info.

It was based on an unknown letter with an unknown source… sent to one of the UK based mags. It was completely unstubstantiated – with no proof other than word of mouth. If that’s what we go by then there are similar claims from people around the Nellis range that say the F-22 is pretty much hammering the EF BVR in these “supposed” DACTs and that the EF is only competitive in WVR – where it can “see” the F-22. Even then in WVR – it’s claimed to be a similar to a match up of F-16/5 vs an EF – while we know the EF hammers them.

Now I personally don’t believe in any of these claims – especially since they are contradictory. While they generally have little to no truth and hardly any relavent context. The point is – don’t be to quick to quote unstubstaintiated rumours – that have no real source… other than word of mouth.

As Dj says… The F-22 – if reports can be believed – has without a doubt proven its combat capabilities – if RoE permit – as the foremost AD/Anti-system platform out there. Exact specs are irrelavent – as it brings a synergy to the fight that other aircraft can’t compete with. Whether it is relavent – or whether it’s cost effective are seperate issues. But questioning its ability to sweep up hordes of legacy jets – is finally a non-issue, even amoungst its greatest detractors.

And even from real-life we know those numbers are wrong. They present the F-35 as worse than the F-16, yet we know that the non-weight-optimized AA-1 F-35 is routinely out-running and out-climbing its F-16 chase planes

Yet they present the gap between the ‘superior’ F-16 and the F-35A as being larger than the gap between F-22 and F-15! (slide 79)

it doesn’t even begin to pass the sniff test

That’s because comparisons like TWR and Wing Loading are pointless – not just for strike aircraft – but for any fighter. They don’t reflect on the performance of an aircraft at all. They are effective for “ball-park” studies as the yanks would put it – they only give a general idea of where the performance should be. I have always understood this – but since going to university – and after being exposed to some of the test facilities – you get an idea of how truely one dimensional these statistics actually are – it gets quite funny to see journo’s quote them to support their own jet. TWR – is meaningless – T/W*D ratio is much more indicative of performance. Yet this is still dependent on a whole host of variable factors such as AoA – the Fluid and Thermodyamics of the engine at non static/non sea level conditions – altitude – velocity – use of external stores(which have a massive aerodynamic and structural effect – and many many more. Wing Loading is a disgrace aswell – it gives nothing relevant. One would need to rather understand the overall lift-drag ratios of the jet at differing altitudes, velocities and angles of attack – and what effect external stores have on the overall pressure differential above and below the jet – not to mention how the engine responds at angles of attack. Then base all that information in a ratio against weight for any relevant data on maneuvering performance.

But rather – silly/ignorant Journo’s – like the public – not being exposed to any of the real technical data in any of the engineering reports on these jets – take publically released static/sea level thrust values – wing loading figures – while just looking at the jet in an attempt to judge its drag with their eyes – and semi get a feel for what they believe out performs this and that etc and jump to stupid conclusions. I am simply astounded Rand did a cut and paste job from some of Kopps stuff. I truely believed they were privy to some of the real stuff – working closely with LM/Boeing/DoD etc.
________
List of gm bellhousing patterns specifications

AASM is certainly a huge advantage for Rafale, and will remain so until Typhoon has a stand off PGM (the new Brimstone, perhaps).

Or perhaps GBU-39.

Yes swerve – but what about the Aegis engagement envelope. Surely a cruiser located on the east side of Taiwan – would cover the Tanker support. I can’t see why the authors remove that aspect in the analysis.
________
Og kush seeds