The price comparison is similar. Approx $120 million and $140 million for the F-22. At prices that high the difference losses its importance.

The tanker argument also does well for the Su-35BM, whose superior range allows it to fly longer missions for countries without refueling capabilities – which seems to be, most of the world’s nations anyway.

Added with the vast difference in the qualities of the weapon suites, the EF really doesn’t have much of a chance. And whatever the slight RCS difference may be, can only be guessed by the members here.

If you read the GAO reports the F-22 is more in the range of 170-200 mio. $, still a noticable difference.

The problem is that your so called “quality weapons” are not existent at all. Where are all those R-77PD or KS-172S-1? You guys are basically comparing a prototype+paper weapons to an operational platform+operational weapons. And the Meteor is at least on its way with info being available about its progress.

Just to show how unfounded such claims are, I’ll drop in a few numbers:

The miraculous Su-35 has a ferry rage of 3600km on internal fuel and 4500km with use of external tanks. That is understood to be without any weapons. We’ll see: Ferry range on internal fuel is good, but what is it good for?

The Typhoon has a ferry range of 3800km. Radius is not given.
For the Rafale a radius of 1000nm is given for a “penetration mission”, which would exceed the Suchoi 35’s ferry range.
F-15C is given with 1000nm radius for interdiction mission or a 5000km ferry range with CFTs and all wet hard points stuffed.

No source gives away actual mission radius for the Suchoi 27 or any derivative. In Wikipedia one very smart person translated the ferry range from Sukhoi’s website into a combat mission range, which is total rubbish.

It becomes apparent that the “superior range” is anything but superior, even compared to contemporary fighters.

Just some numbers from my years long research.

Su-27 Flanker B:
Ferry range 3680-4000 km
combat radius: 1500 km

Typhoon:
ferry range max: ~3700 km
max range on internal fuel: 2600 km
combat radius: 1400 km

Maybe that helps for further considerations.

According the interview with the Su-35 test pilot max range on internal fuel might be 4500 km (without tanks) it was posted earlier in this thread.

BTW here a video from a flight demonstration of the new Su-35, looks pretty impressive, though TVC isn’t fully used for spectacular maneuvers as known from the Su-30MKI/37.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfsjycSMMLo

I’m pretty sure that the Su-35 will be a quite advanced and capable combat aircraft, the best Flanker ever and one of the best combat aircraft in the world. As a multirole fighter the Su-35 impresses by a wide range of weapon options, high payload and long range. I’m sure the Su-35 will be a very good fighter either, but you guys should start to see things a bit more objective and realistic. You guys speak about the Su.35s radar range but ignore that such a range is just achieved in best conditions and in a special radar mode which is not going to provide the best SA. The detection range against a Eurofighter is unknown as is the tracking range which would be required to cue a missile. But no of the offen claimed missiles like the KS-172 or R-77PD are operational, there not even information about these weapons being fully developed and tested. You guys obviously ignore the value of ESM and ECM systems as well. The Su-35s performance in terms of acceleration, supersonic performance including supercruise are so far not really proven. Neither the low RCS nor a tactically useful supercruise capabiliy are proven so far. No one of you guys can really predict at which range the Typhoon’s radar could detect the Su-35 and ignore support assets as well. By the time the Su-35 will enter production more advanced versions of the Typhoon will be available as well. Aircombat itself is way to complex to limit it to 1 or 2 factors.

Well the graphic does not seem to represent the airframe performance but the engines thrust generation depending on altitude and mach number. He basically compares the F100 to the F119, with the later producing about the same or more thrust dry than the former on reheat. I don’t think the figures are that unreasonable at all. The F119 is optimised to generate a lot of thrust dry also at high mach numbers and altitudes that actually enables the F-22 to fly supersonically at very high altitudes on dry thrust only.

Is the really that difficult for you guys to spell Rafale?

I don’t know what some of you are talking about the MiG-29/35 twin seat or not looks better than ANY thing out of Europe especial ANY varient of that Raphel.

What in hell is the Raphel:rolleyes:

Read the link the 15’s range is 3450 miles, it’s nautical miles is 3000 READ IT!!!!!!!
READ THE LINK AND DO THE MATHAMATICS

Yes its the max range with tanks and CFTs, but at subsonic speeds not at mach 1.5.:rolleyes: