Su-34 fifth generation title does not depend on stealth alone. and since russian claim they can deal with stealth. so F-22 becomes 4th generation fighter. u cannot develop missiles for some thing which u dont see. just the R-37 follow up will have more than 450 Km range.

I am sure u understand the meaning of very large and it is two way street.

u are again in deep denial. Su-34 is autonomous aviation complex (not fighter)
MKI cannot even see Su-34 let alone shooting it down.
Su-34 has special wings for low altitude flight and has greater fuel so it can catch MKI if it chose to run.

LOL!

Ive rarely ever seen so much nonsense on Key Limited, and when I have its been from like-minded individuals.

”Su-34 fifth generation title does not depend on stealth alone. and since russian claim they can deal with stealth. so F-22 becomes 4th generation fighter. u cannot develop missiles for some thing which u dont see. just the R-37 follow up will have more than 450 Km range.” You have browsed these forums long enough to have been ‘educated’, if you still share these flanker/mig fan boy fantastical views then there is no point in explaning anything more to you in relation to the F-22. The brochure stats for the follow on R-37 claim its range will be +- 300km if you choose to believe them. I think you are getting confused with the KS-172 which again supposedly has a range of about 400km. Both these missiles are intended to down AWACS type aircraft and not fighters. The AIM-54, R-33 were both intended for much larger less maneuverable targets, hence the limited success of the 54 against fighter size targets when used by the US. This will be the case with the R-37 and KS-172, perhaps why the Russians have developed and continued to develop the R-77, the Europeans have with the Meteor and the Americans with the AMRAAM; these are intended to down fighter type targets.

”u are again in deep denial. Su-34 is autonomous aviation complex (not fighter)
MKI cannot even see Su-34 let alone shooting it down.
Su-34 has special wings for low altitude flight and has greater fuel so it can catch MKI if it chose to run.”

What utter rubbish. MKI out-performs Su-34 as a fighter, faster more maneuverable, better acceleration, supersonic performance; while the MKI also retains a decent amount of fuel, in a lighter smaller airframe.
________
vaporizer
________
Z50M
________
Lamborghini jalpa specifications

I admire some peoples patience.
________
buy vapir vaporizer
________
hashish
________
WENDIE 99

As I said – those numbers (kill ratios) haven’t changed in 15 odd years, no change would lead me to believe no updates to the parameters – especially considering the EF being overweight, the F-22 having better than expected cruise capabilities etc etc etc

Fact – the head of stability and control for the YF-22/F-22 was here about 6 months ago and said so.

Well the fact that more aircraft have been included over the years and not just the ones on the website, the fact that the Typhoons ratio has increased also indicates its been redone. The fact that informed journalists have spoken to people from the JOUST evaluation stating its been redone throughout the 90’s and its last evaluation was in 2001 and then with that information posted it on the forum. Not all the information is available to the public. The fact that the Raptor program have just conducted a similar evaluation with similar results also leads me to believe if not the exchange ratios, at least the performance stats of each aircraft are relatively correct. They state the Raptor has a greater supersonic sustained turn rate then that of the Typhoon, whereas the Typhoon has a greater instantaneous turn rate at supersonic velocities. If you are correct about the TVC, then as I mentioned there are other factors that come into play other then size, large control surfaces, large wing area, low wing loading, internal weapons, superior T/W, huge L/D ratio and a limited TVC capability.

If the EF is overwieght then one can say the Raptor is overweight, it used to be considered in the 15000kg+- catergory now its in the 18000kg+- and ive seen figures of 19000kg+- catergory. When you claim the EF is overweight is that in relation to what EADS EF GmbH and the rest of the EF team wanted from the start?
________
DT125
________
New Mexico Medical Marijuana

I know what the TVC does for the F-22 in supersonic flight – still won’t stop the EF being more manouverable.

In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter’s acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22.

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.html

Sustained turn rates at supersonic velocities are the Bee all and End all of supersonic maneuverability in BVR engagments. As Paul Metz said, cranking helps evade missiles by either forcing the missile to make a high energy turn or if flying a LO platform by being able to escape the engagement as you make a supersonic turn outside of the detection range. It is true, as you say that the Typhoon has a lower mass then the Raptor. Mass and momentum however can be cancelled out by a change in thrust or an outside force being exerted on the object. This is where TVC comes into play. Say a combat loaded Raptor of 60000lb and a combat loaded Typhoon of 34300lb were in a supersonic turn. The Raptor would use its 20degree TVC and combine that with the experts estimation on its wartime thrust being between 38000lb-39000lb-40000lb per engine, which translates to(using simple trigonometry) 80000+-cos70 or sin20. That means it produces +- 27361.61147 pounds of thrust perpendicular to its horizontal plane, this would all help to cancel out its heavier mass and greater momentum. 60000lb – 27361lb = 32639lb. Empty(practically impossible) Raptor 40000lb vs Typhoon 24250lb ==> 40000lb-27361lb = 13639lb. Not to mention the control surfaces and wing area are much larger on the Raptor then on the Typhoon or any other modern fighter for that matter. This all would apply to supersonic pitch rates aswell.

As for the Raptor being aerodynamically inferior to other aircraft because of the compromises made for its LO tech. I disagree, look at the Raptor in its frontal aspect, the LO requirment meant that it needed to have a small frontal area, much much smaller then any of the Su/Mig series aircraft. The same aero priniciples apply to a large degree for angled(LO) jets as they do for non-LO jets, LO does not mean you are suddenly at a disadvantage. If LO was not a priority, im sure the US may have made an aircraft with better aerodynamics, however that does not mean the aerodynamic qualities of the Raptor are inferior to anything currently or about to be fielded, in fact they are superior. Now if you look at it in terms of reality, when the aircraft are combat loaded. The Raptor then will be out of any other jets league(except for the more cumbersome JSF), it would not even warrant a comparison.

Looking at maneuverability, again the US without any need for LO tech would perhaps have made a slightly more maneuverable jet. However that does not mean the Raptor is any less maneuverable then any other jet. Actually it is perhaps much more maneuverable, while it retains the less significant slow low altitude ‘super-maneuverability’ that the Su/Mig series perform it also is as good but perhaps better then the Typhoon/Rafale/Griphen in the supersonic regime(which is more important). Highest T/W, lowest wing loading, largest control services, largest wing area, state of the art FCS and TVC, means it performs as well as any aircraft in all the speed/altitude regimes, but again its supersonic maneuverability is more significant especially with the introduction of HOBS missiles and JHMC systems.

The JOUST exercise backs a lot of this up, which was last conducted in 2001 and not just in the early 90’s. The engineers that perfomed the tests also had information available to them that was not in the public domain. The F-22 team recently did a similar test which came up with similar results and exchange ratios, adding to the credibility of the JOUST claims such as 10.2:1. The F-22 evaluation will soon go into print in England where I live according a reporter for Aircraft Illustrated.
________
amber trichomes
________
Kitchen Measures