Scorpion82I can play that game too. Wake me when the Rafale has:
But you have to acknowledge that you have started that game as you call it and exaggerated quite a bit.
@EEL
The LEX are particularly useful for the low speed regime. No idea how much manoeuvrability could be improved by them, but I’m not so convinced that it would yield a 15% improvement in turn rates etc. It will help, but I don’t think to such an extend. What’s even more interesting was the good old EF2000 sim from DID published in 1995, the 3-D model of that aircraft featured LEX as well.:eek:
Scorpion82Thanks. However it demonstrates one thing, weapons testing has not been done yet so it will still take some time before the necessary clearances are obtained. Thus the blk 1 isn’t yet ready for employing AMRAAMs, JDAMs and GBU-12. It might be able to carry them and the aircraft’s systems might support them, but they haven’t done any separation trials yet, have they?
Scorpion82Thanks Spudman. Something I haven’t followed that closley are those F-35s at Eglin already blk 1 or still 0.5?
Scorpion82@EEL
there isn’t much out there about the proposed LEX aka apex strakes. I figured that I had an image from a wind tunnel model with those dating back to 2004 or so. The rest is known. DA5 was fitted with them and first flown on 13th September 2007. IIRC 10 test flights were conducted before DA5 was retired as the last DA on 30th October 2007. The Eurofighter 2020 proposal features them, but it makes me wonder why they don’t integrate it on other aircraft. It was described as a relative easy mod, though it would certainly require some further trials, also gun firing trials which might be the premier reason for not adopting them yet.
Scorpion82As far as the IOC dates:
For EF I started in 1986 (when the EAP flew) and work on the EF’s design began. I put it’s IOC date as 2003.
For the F-35 I used 2001 when the X-35 was chosen and the SDD contract was signed.
The Eurofighter programme was launched as the FEFA on 16th December 1983. Development phase was launched on 23rd November 1988. EAP has unrelated to the Eurofighter and was what the name suggests and Experimental Aircraft Programme. First flight of the Eurofighter was 27th March 1994. First formal hand over of an aircraft on 30th June 2003 (BT001 at Warton used as ground personal trainer).
The JSF programme was formally launched in August 1995. Development was launched following selection of Lockheeds X-35 on 26th October 2001. First flight of F-35AA-1 was on 15th December 2006 and the first aircraft were formally handed over mid July 2011.
So the facts compared:
Eurofighter/F-35
Development start: 12 years difference
First flight: 12 years difference
First delivery: 8 years difference
Btw Spudman if you have similar charts about the F-35s blocks as those for the blk 1 could you post/link them in the F-35 thread? Thanks in advance.
Scorpion82These are some interesting news. Also the first time that the designation of the ECM suite is unveiled as L403, next to the data link. Times are becoming increasingly more interesting.
Scorpion82Thanks for the replies guys. Looks like what I thought due to the lack of news, the MiG-35 might be dead for the RuAF and possibly as an operational fighter at all. Maybe we’ll see some its its specific technologies being carried over to a potential Russian purchase of MiG-29K/KUB.
That depends on whether the purchase falls within the remit of the approved defence budget allocation thru 2020. I don’t think it does.
Interestingly, this article claims Salyut is in negotiations to supply AL-31FM2 for the Su-34.
Interesting news. To my understanding the AL-31F-M2 was previously competing with the AL-41F1 for an interim engine of the PAK-FA and according the specs available this engine is even more powerful with a reheat thrust of 15200 kg.
Someone else mentioned an additional 40 AL-31F-M1 for the Su-27SM, I suppose that these engines will be retrofitted to earlier examples.
Scorpion82Are there any info available on the supposed type 30 engine? Last year it was stated that the new engine would be designated article 127 and was supposed to generate a reheat thrust of 157 kN.
Scorpion82You don’t need to go as far as the MiG-29M (which is ofc a radical redesign) to see how much they pushed out of the airframe capability and longevity wise post USSR. MiG-29SMT is what I was alluding to.
Understand, albeit my point was a different one which unfortunately got lost over the course of the discussion. It was merely related to the growth potential of the Rafale vs that of the MiG-29 which JSR was spreading nonsense about. My intention was to counter that false allegations.
Back to topic are there any news wrt a potential purchase of MiG-35s by the RuAF? My last known information was that the RuAF has expressed its interest in the purchase of possibly 48 MiG-35 post 2013.
Scorpion82Sorry, but this assumption is based on nothing but wishful thinking.
Assuming that F-16 or F-15 were designed for more demanding profiles than MiG-29 reflects your way of thinking where you automatically lean towards any argument favoring the western design without having even basic data to back it up.
I have no particular interest to push or bash anything here and the fact that a sh!tload of people try to associate all kinds of nationality to me and wants to accuse me for being a fanboy of this or that makes me smile. Over at F-16.net I have been called “Russo” fanboy because I was making a case for Russian fighters there. Other believed that I was American and that I’m an F-35 fanboy because I have defended the F-35 against exaggerated critics and even wrong perceptions. So what am I? A fanboy of everything?
Wrt the mission profiles you are right I don’t know the exact requirements of either aircraft, but its not a secret that the F-16 was first and foremost an air defence fighter for close in encounters. I don’t think that the profiles envisaged for the MiG-29 were any more demanding considering its mission and the way how it was employed in the first place.
I personally think that basic 9.12 Fulcrum was quite a piece of junk and that F-16’s airframe wasn’t any better.
I wouldn’t call either aircraft a piece of junk, but they all had their limitations and strengths as well as weaknesses.
Scorpion82Oh come on Scoprion, you know that’s a gross simplification. The Mig-29 had many of those perceived “faults” because it was designed specifically for the Soviet system, both in terms of supply and performance requirement.
The relative ease with which range, airframe life, and the like were improved post USSR makes this obvious, rather than a failure on the part of the original design.
Which itself is a gross simplification considering that the MiG-29M (9.15) was designed for the “Soviet system” as well. This aircraft was conceived in the 1980s and was in fact addressing many of the perceived shortcomings of the original design, like short range, low payload etc. It wasn’t a post USSR afterthought to push the aircraft’s chances on the export market. The original MiG-29 had its weaknesses like other aircraft had theirs. The early F-16s lack of BVR capability is described as a disadvantage in comparison to the MiG-29. It’s also owed to the requirements, but it doesn’t change anything about the fact, does it!?
Scorpion82No one paid for TVC, AESA, OLS-EM and RD-33MK for MIG-29. These are RSK-MIG own property. Dassualt is not even worth comparision.
And Rafale has an AESA in production right now, new M88-4E engines (though not uprated) are ready and a new OSF is ready as well as a new MLD. No in service variant of the MiG-29 features an phased array radar whatsoeuver, no comparable ECM and RWR, no LWR and MLD at all, not even a remotely comparable datalink, no sensor fusion and the list goes on. Technicially the Rafale is a newer and more advanced designed, with superior avionics, aerodynamics, comparable thrust performance and in fact better thrust/drag ratio, much lower signatures and superior range and payload performance.
Now it is case of sour grapes. how you came to conclusion it is not important?. I guess Sukhoi dont know why they are adding some thing that will not make difference but add weight and complexity.
Not important for overall combat efficiency and that’s what I said, maybe you start to learn reading.
Just look at manufacturer website. no need to look over all the places. considering that Su-35 serivce ceiling was increased by 500m. same can be true for MIG-35. and it is surely way more than Rafale.
Claims like these demonstrate that you have little clue whatsoeuver and the Su-35’s service ceiling is the same 18000 m as that of the Su-27.
It is implementation time line and over all capability of new MIG-29 that offers much more than current Rafale. you will not get Rafale with higher thrust engines but you can get MIG-29 with new weopons, TVC and Glonass sytem much sooner.
GLONASS is meaningless as is your trolling. The Rafale has GPS so no advantage for the MiG here. Stronger engines aren’t a stringent requirement. Rafale’s TWR is comparable to that of the newer Fulcrum variants in air-to-air configurations, but inferior at high TOWs as in strike missions. That’s owed to the fact that the Rafale has a vastly superior payload capacity in comparison to the MiG.
And you made hoopla out of it by saying there is so much weight increase. in fact. infact 1000kg will be due to using treated canopy, electronic scanning radar, auxiliary power unit.
As aforementioned you should better start learning to read. I made no hoopla out of anything, I pointed out that aircraft gain weight over their service life/production period and Russian designs are no exception. The Su-35 is heavier than the original Su-27, the weight increase is rather modest as the aircraft’s structure was significantly re-designed. Nonetheless weight growth occured in contrast to what you claimed! Your permanent change of arguments are annoying at best.
Scorpion82so in 7 years. more than twice MIG-29 were produced than M2K based on your own figures. not to mention MIG-29 was way more capable than M2K in its role.
Arguably Mirage 2000 production run was until 2005 or so and that of the F/A-18 was finished in 2000. You only built as many aircraft as are ordered and the F-16 surpasses total built numbers of the MiG-29 quite easily both in the mentioned time frame as well as in total. Your comparison of built numbers is largely meaningless here at all.
try to fit AESA radar in M2K and see how much range you can gain. AESA and higher thrust engines for M2k is non-starter.
Yes because no one will pay for them and Dassault has a successor named Rafale, RAC MiG has none! In the end of the day the discussion didn’t start with the Mirage 2000 whatsoever.
TVC is not big deal for MIG. the demonstrator is flying for 10 years. There is no such demonstrator for M2K or Rafale. They cannot attempt it. TVC wont help. all latest airsuperiorty fighters are implementing it.:rolleyes:
TVC is not that important at all, it helps here and there, but the overall performance and effectiveness hardly hangs on the availability of TVC or not.
ceiling & speed is more or less comparable?. have you looked at Rafale website.
I said ceiling dude is comparable. Some sources suggest a service ceiling up to 18000 m, most public sources state 16765 m, while many sources for the MiGs indicate between 17000 m and 18000 m. Not to dissimilar.
Dont compare export range of weopons with no export.
Kh-59Mk2, kh-58 and Klubir can surely pass the 300km mark.
Neither of these weapons is even integrated on ANY MiG-29 derivative… And “surely surpass” is based on what? Maybe or the Klubir but the rest?
either you have or you dont have it currently. MIG-29 TVC is flying and can be quickly implemented into production aircraft. You cannot implement Galileo globally.
What the hell have global satellite navigation systems to do with thrust vector controls? You don’t know what you are talking about!
so 1000 kg is such big deal. when all other fighters have gained so much more weight when you increase internal fuel capacity and implement higher thrust engines.
You asked for the weight difference between Su-27 and Su-35S I gave you an answer. End of debate.
Scorpion82The jobs cut by BAES are affecting its Warton plant and others. I’m not sure whether the plant at Samlesbury which produces parts for all Eurofighters. What is affected in the first place is the final assembly line. This line is not of relevance for India as only 18 aircraft will be assemble outside India and these aircraft are likely to be assembled at Manching anyway and not a Warton. However Warton might be required to assemble the remaining 48 Saudi Typhoons and could be required to assemble those for potential customers like Malaysia (not more than 18) and Oman (not more than 24 probably fewer). Japan is likely to assemble the aircraft itself.
Scorpion82Bear in mind that the F-16 Block 60 gained about that much for a similar jump in capability, on an airframe half the weight of the Flanker!
Considering that the early F-16A blk 1 weighed some 6607 kg only, the F-16E blk 60 gained some 3373 kg. But that wasn’t the point here. The Russians have done something that the west has rarely done and apparently not to such an extend, redesigning the airframe both structurally as well as aerodynamically.
Sign In
