Perhaps not weapon/software on this particular test(picture), but they might have newer KAB 250 version down the pipeline with same weight class and shape, in which case would make it entirely valid to fly with them.
And even if its a 5th gen bird, it would be outright idiotic not to give it full range of weapons trials.
You only need dumb bombs to blow up some bierdies out in the desert. No need for a 50.000$ bomb when you can make do with much less.
Future conflict will also be fought on the cheap(different doctrines).. By Russia, China among other nations.
And as time goes, VKS will get less of their average 3-4 gen workhorses jets and more PakFa.

To directly compaire how US operate their 5th gen assets with how Russia operate theirs, would in any case be outright a big mistake..

A KAB-250 doesn’t have the same shape at all, no PGM has the same aeorynamics as dumb bombs. That apart it would be a complete waste to use the T-50 as a low level dumb iron deliverer. For this you have Su-24s and Su-25s and in the worst case, in the future you still have other less expensive platform. Given the likely limited number of T-50s the RuAF will acquire it’s better to use them to the greatest possible effect and don’t waste it for what could be done by any tactical combat aircraft back to insophisticated types 40 years ago.

@Msphere

The ~4.5t figure applied to the original MiG-29M/K (9.15/9.31). For the newer models it’s about 5.2t IIRC, mentioned years ago in relation to the new MiG-29K.

The sole difference between the new MiG-29M and MiG-35 is the sensor suite. Could be that they have droppes the M designation and call all land based models -35. Would be news to me though.

Scroll up through the various posts over these last few pages. Take note of who posts links/sources and who doesn’t. I find it quite telling actually.

The last 8ish pages have been nothing but you and a few others getting corrected over and over and over again.

You cam flatter yourself as much as you want. You haven’t proven me wrong on any account. Using strawmen by argueing about different things is hardly correcting anyone. But no need to waste more time with you.

Nothing like a gross weight clearance or specifics of the envelope have been released (other than corner speed for 240-3)

The first mention of the 9g maneuvering requirement with full fuel once air to ground weapons expended is in the oft mentioned Bowman paper.
Second is from http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2012/november%202012/1112fighter.aspx
There are other documents but these two come to mind.

Thanks for the link. An interesting snippet that I found within this article is the ability to interrogate targets in the rear hemispehere. Would be interesting to know what kind of approach they have taken for this capability.

…and yet look how people around here are reacting. If you ever needed proof that many of the posters here are posting based on emotions rather than logic these last few pages are all you need.

That applies to yourself…:sleeping:

Back to the F-35 quite a lot of people here insist that the F-35A is/will be cleared for 9 g with full internal fuel. Is there any factual evidence available, possibly in the shape of a gross weight clearance? Is the aircraft actually cleared for 9 g or is this scehduled for 3F?

Rgr. But I was referring to the available power to compensate for the drag of 3 EFT. Without those ones, it looks like as if the power would allow the Typhoon to reach even higher Mach. The stated maximum seems more in line with arrested temp limitation for the CFRP material… My 2 cents.

The Typhoon was specified with a Mach 2.0 performance and matches this requirement. Whether the aircraft could go faster on grounds of aerodynamics and propulsion efficiency is unknown to me, a temperature limit applies, as you said and this is a definitely limiting factor.

I can’t tell to what extend the 1000 l drop tanks limit the speed performance wise, what I can tell you is that the drop tanks have a M 1.8 clearance. Whether the stated M 1.8 figure only reflects the drop tanks clearance or whether it coincides with the drag limit as well, is nothing I can tell you, however.

Thank you Sintra and FBW. I had a better read on a bigger screen.

So, it is an impressive performance, not quite useful at range but for a dash or a take off on alert, it does bring obvious advantage. M1.8 is as fast also as a Rafale can goes and it is allegedly even faster that a 35.
It sounds like the Eurofighter is material limited for its max speed.

There is a structural limit defined as KEAS, not Mach. Typically you wouldn’t go beyond M 1.5-1.6 anyway as it’s a good speed for weapons employment and one you can achieve within a very reasonable timeframe with a full AA load.