Soo.. your conclusion, Sukhoi/KnAAZ own product brosure is full of ****??

The Su-35S has 16% more thrust.

16% more for Su-35, 14% less for Su-27. Both statements are accurate. Modern brochures just tend to be more conservative.

I fail to understand how anyone can possibly believe a single word that comes out of a Russian’s mouth following this incident. Last year we were provided with the “conclusive evidence” from the Russian military that they’d detected a Ukrainian Su-25 within close proximity of MH17.

https://www.rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

Yet just a few days ago when Russia released its “New Conclusive Evidence” in a press conference, the whole story had changed, yet again. No longer any second aircraft and not even a missile detected even though the radar station in the area was able to pick up a small UAV flying over the border.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1117&v=o8SHZriRbi8

Personally I think the world is justified in imposing sanctions on and remaining on guard from such a fundamentally corrupt nation that absolutely cannot be trusted. Russia’s actions regarding Ukraine, from the green men invasion to shooting down of MH17 to the internet spamming campaign that’s so obvious to spot on forums like these (seriously who do you clowns think you’re kidding?) can only be described as slimy.

Meanwhile China steals the entire South China Sea as its EEZ and nobody gives a crap even though it’s like 100 times larger than Crimea and the Donbass combined.

I’ve no interest in adding to the never ending ‘political’ debate, but it’s interesting to note how the two sides of this tragic event have reported it…

One side said
1. It was shot down by a Rebel operated Buk SAM system

One side said variously
1. It was shot down by a Ukrainian Su25
2. It was shot down by a Ukrainian Su27 (remember that ridiculous ‘satellite picture’)
3. Was shot down by a Ukrainian Buk, either in a failed attempt to kill Putin or to just the gain UN support for their war efforts
4. Was shot down by a Ex Ukranian Buk system after Ukrainian ATC deliberated diverted it into the target zone
5. Ok it was shot down by a Rebel operated Buk, but it’s not their fault as the aircraft shouldn’t have been there

Now the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine are a mixed bag of arguments, but the shooting down of a civilian airliner flying at 33000 feet is clearly beyond any justification to me. No right thinking person believes that the rebel operators set out to kill 298 innocent civilians, but by operating a high altitude air defence system this was a risk that any assessment of the situation should have identified.

On the fateful day they claimed a transport, but hit a airliner, the best solution would have been to admit their error and try to move on. However instead we’ve had the unsettling spectacle of seemingly never ending attempts to divert attention and justify the unjustifiable.

If deliberate it would be beyond justification but even the evidence provided by the opposite side indicates it was an accident. It’s murky. Fact is there would have been a Buk with only 3 missiles anyway, because one shot down a cargo plane.

Funny how others justify the decisions to make an allow a last minute divert over a war zone known to have non-MANPADS SAMs being operated by people with questionable training, with incomplete supporting equipment. If you argue that providing (again assuming) an incomplete SAM system is negligent, then the decision to divert an airliner over one last minute is at least 20x more negligent.

And yes, they had every indication it was there.

1. Reports of captured Buk TELAR (whether operational or not, it can be repaired).

2. Cargo plane shoot down 3 days prior, rumoured to be a Buk.

3. Comms intercept 2 days prior mentioning Buk system.

Well I won’t show a ****, not only because I don’t see any reason to prove my degree to you, but also because I use same nickname in all websites I visit, and the present state of the country I am living in makes me would prefer to be anonymous.

My bachelors degree diploma has a big color logo of the university in the background and tiny golden logos as the texture of it. In my graduation year less than 15 people were graduated. I have already said I am currently master student at the same university and my thesis is related to aerodynamics. There are less than 5 masters degree students in mechanical engineering department and currently only myself is writing an aerodynamic related thesis.

My IP is already enough to reveal my city and district. If I also reveal my school, I would be openly revealing myself, even if hide my name. I wouldn’t want to wake up with police at my door just because I may have insulted a politican years ago or wrote an inconvinient post here & there, just to prove myself to you, thanks. I could have easily faked a degree here, but instead, I write my reasons. If my word is not good enough nothing ever will be.

Oh I got the picture pretty well. Other than your claim regarding “EF” none of these aircraft claim M2.0+ top speeds.

F-22 can be an exception because it simply has great thrust, but surely it won’t be as fast as F-15 it replaces, PAK-FA is limited by materials but it does have a variable inlet ramps.

Do you think M2.35 limit of MiG-29 or Su-27 came for other reasons? ALL limits came from durability reasons. Aerodynamically, MiG-29 can sustain 10-11Gs indefinately. But its still a 9G fighter. Given a little cold air both MiG-29 and Su-27 will easily pass M2.35. But durability prevents even M2.35 speeds for F-15 Su-27 or MiG-29 to be used indefinately.

Ah kind of my point. You are right. F-15 was many times stated “M2.5 class” or “M2.5+”
Yet M2.5 is its top speed limit, and its top actual speed is M2,25 for PW-100, M2,45 for PW-220, and M2,3 for PW-229. So “M2,5 class” or “M2,5” doesn’t mean a s***.

So if a RAF Typhoon races with an Austrian Typhoon latter will win?

Ah I agree on that 100%. Then why bother with top speeds? Again, in your analogy, you are saying “M2.5+ F-15A is faster than M2.35 Su-27S, so it must have less drag, greater excess power and greater maneuverability”.

Fact is F-15 isn’t faster than Su-27, but some basic analysis will say its still less draggy when supersonic. Greater excess power and maneuverability is unbelievably dependent on altitude, attempted G, and airspeed, but generally at higher altitudes Su-27 is better at subsonic and high supersonic, and F-15 is better high transonic and low-mid supersonic speeds.

Lessons learned. 1-Such top speed claims are likely to be wrong. 2-Top speed doesn’t reveal which aircraft is draggy and which is not.

Well, no suprise you would be wrong again. 102% is Vmax graph. The large graph (obviously) is routine operations graph. With manual saying “Use of Vmax switch is strictly prohibited”, I wouldn’t say its comperable to normal operations of Su-27’s AL-31F. I could post the longer version from the manual about what Vmax does and after its use, how aircraft spends days inside the hangar with engines outside the aircraft, half dismantled perhaps.

Only embarrassing thing is you fail to grasp the fact MiG-29’s engine is not designed for supercruising. You claim yourself an engineer, I don’t understand how mentally retarded one needs to be to keep making this claim.

If I were to make same analogy as you do, your Typhoon cannot even do M2.5 yet MiG-25 with its huge weight and puny T/W can go 25+% faster.

Well my very first post was a “fixed inlet” will only work optimal only at a certain point, you cannot compare it with an inlet that is designed to work at optimal performance at a range of speeds.

In a sense you are right, I don’t see much of a performance between a fixed inlet types like DSI pitot etc etc. Not saying there isn’t, just saying there isn’t “much”; enough to be mentioned when comparing to a 3-5 oblique + normal shock inlets of various figthers.

Well, it was you that tried to include things like ascent angle to the discussion, so that overuse of technical terms would save you the day. Then I’ve asked the ascent angle at exact condition where MiG-29 achieved its 345m/s climb rate.

My claim was merely about climb rate all along; again you could have admitted your nonsense in ascent angle but you chose to humiliate yourself by saying 345m/s climb rate at M0,9 is impossible and I now no maths.. I don’t need to say SEP, neither I feel the need to distinguish two. I will post this one again:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248680[/ATTACH]

Vy, m/s vs M graph. This is easily the climb rate by Mach number graph by any definition you can find. Hence my comment, if you don’t like it, mail MiG design bureu.

Your choice of using 30000lbs is funny, as F-16 with full fuel load and 2 AAMs is 27316 lbs. Still I’ve noticed something curious: I’ve copied and pasted those 3 performance data from wikipedia I’ve thought they were exact same as quoted on eurofighter.com but somebody must have modified, upped and twisted these as well… Some guys really need a hobby…

This is the original claim:

Brakes off to 35,000ft / M1.5 <2.5 minutes
Brakes off to lift off <8 sec (Full Internals and Missiles)
At low level, 200Kts to Mach 1 =30 sec
Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic

This is the source: http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf 10th page general performance characteristics (as they are provided by official manufacturer not lukos or wiki)

I apologise for trusting the wikipedia sh!t without confirming it.

Also to quote myself:

So F-16 with its full fuel and full A-A payload is better accelerating than Typhoon.

Skimming the EM graphs, best profile for F-16 should be to accelerate to M0,9 at deck, climb to ~20k, and as excess power is better at supersonic speeds at higher altitudes, accelerate to M1,3 at 20k first then make climb to 25k at M1,3 then climb & accelerate to M1,6 and 35k feet.

Conclusion is; Typhoon is slower accelerating than F-16, but perhaps a few seconds faster in climbs even if F-16 follows an optimal climb/acceleration profile.

Then your current comparison is with MiG-29, Even just at 25% fuel, DI=0 F-16 can barely achieve ~320m/s climb rate tops. Assuming the induced drag remains same, it would have around 254 m/s climb rate at 100% fuel. (“Interesting” I’ve found F-16’s cited climb rate of 50k feet/min, so manufacturer must have given climb rate for full fuel load) MiG-29 makes 345m/s climb rate with nearly 57% fuel. With 100% fuel, it has 311m/s again assuming induced drag remains the same (for the record it remains the same for MiG-29).

At M1,6 30k point, F-16 blk50 has 124 m/s climb rate @25% fuel. At same conditions MiG-29 has 180m/s @57% fuel. When both are at full fuel, F-16 blk50 has 101 m/s and MiG-29 has 164 m/s climb rates respectively.

So I have, once again, proven F-16 with full fuel and 2 AAMs has ballpark similar time from 0 to 35000k feet M1,5 above. If we take the manufacturer data as our basis and not your beloved wiki. I am sure you will dig better numbers from somewhere around the web, but whatever.

When both F-16 and MiG-29 are at full fuel, starting from deck, MiG-29 has 22% climb rate / specific excess power advantage compared to F-16 blk50. At M1,6s 30k point it has 62% higher excess power.. Yet another example as to why variable inlets are not only slightly better, but they literally rock compared to fixed inlets. Typhoon is an OK match for F-16 in climbs and acceleration. I am willingly accept its a few seconds faster in climbs, but suggesting Typhoon for a comparison with in a climb/acceleration contest with a MiG-29A is a joke, I am sorry.

I won’t calculate the brakes off to M1,6 @ 35000 feet time of MiG-29, even though climb rate graph is all I need for that. I think I’ve made my point clearly enough…

Hahahaha you are hopeless. Air is only considered compressible only at above M0,85 hence the name transonic. You are saying talking about compression due to ram at 100mph?? Why not mention “Ram air” of 1971 Mustangs? Idiot…

Curiosly, people accused you being the same bullsh**ing guy as Lukos, frankly I didn’t bother to think of it but curiously, I’ve posted this exact climb acceleration to lukos after he posted this:

And my response to Lukos (you) 2 years ago:

Your response:

Well idiot is an idiot despite 2 years of elapsed time between two discussions. Lukos just go **** yourself. When you take a new alias, humiliate yourself less for your own sake..

Heh, I said you could black-out your name. Clearly you can’t show proof, because you don’t have a degree.

F-22 claims well over M2.0 and has lower TWR than a Typhoon.

Nope, limits are limits. Operational limits are there for durability. 9g limit? An F-15 pulled 12g during Desert Storm.

Your arbitrary M2.0 limit for fixed intakes is proven false by the fact an F-16 with pitot intake manages M2.05. Fairly sure the Su-11 and Su-15 intakes were fixed too.

Except it was a M2.5+ fighter.

In a war time scenario, operational limits are meaningless and the true limit of M2.35 applies.

Fact is the Su-27 can’t do Mach 2.5, so F-15 is faster. Fact is Typhoon has higher SL speed, HL speed and supercruise.

In an actual war, higher limit applies.

Difference is MiG-25 is heavier and unlike you, I can prove I have a degree.

Sure you can. The variation in efficiency close to than optimal point is small and probably alleviated by having a simpler, less restrictive intake, just as pitot outperforms variable ramps subsonic. For fixed ramp that optimal is supersonic, not subsonic, so fixed ramp != pitot, i.e. you were wrong.

It is impossible, you can’t be climbing at 345m/s while at M0.9. That is a SEP chart, showing SEP in m/s. Or simply V[(Fn-D)/mg]. Not actual rate of climb.

30,000lbs gives an equal fuel/payload fraction for both aircraft. There is no twisting of data. The figure of M1.6 at 36,000ft in >2.5k minutes is direct from BAE.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon2

Brakes off to take off in less than 8 seconds and supersonic under 30 seconds.

Brakes off to 36,000 feet Mach 1.6 in under 2½ minutes.

The Eurofighter.com figure includes QRA fit (DTs and missiles). Even says so in your link.

Nice try. The Eurofighter goes from 0kts (‘brakes off’) to M1.0 in <30s. It takes 8s for T-O plus another few seconds to reach 200kts. So you can add 12s to those F-16 figures.

Can’t see how you reach this conclusion, you have made the very obvious error of eliminating the time from brakes off to M0.3.

Typhoon is stated to have >25% better climb rate than F-16.

Erm, nobody is talking about compressibility of air, we are talking about an increase in static pressure, which will occur as air is slowed down from any speed. The Bernoulli principle applies to incompressible flow. Haha, degree my backside!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

You should have paid more attention to lukos, he was clearly a lot smarter than you.

This was the original Ukraine thread, which amply demonstrates there was evidence of aircraft being shot down at high altitude prior to MH17.

If you cant ID then you dont XXXX fire!. Where the XXXX does Kh58 fit in to this when, if memory serves, that system needed to be preset for a certain target radar type before takeoff and no-one admits to knowledge of a Buk threat in the first place. A DEAD mission against a non-existent radar SAM threat with a weapon preset against what threat system?!. XXXXXXXXXXXX

Admitted its an accident???. I said I thought it was an accident days ago when this started getting absurd!. What I cant abide is the recklessness of the TELAR being provided in the first place. That is culpable behaviour any way around.

Zero threat conditions….as in when you think you are shooting at an unarmed transport 33k feet up!.

Yes they did. Posted at least half a dozen times now, see 0:18.

What about reckless TOW missile provision for Al-Nusra?

If they couldn’t ID it, they didn’t know it was a transport and no airliner was supposed to be there at that time. Process of elimination leads them to believe it’s military.

I insist that HMD needs to be fed data from other sensors (be it from your aircraft or another one through datalink) to cue a weapon to a target. otherwise, you just shoot the weapon into empty blue sky (from the weapons perspective), give it an approximate direction and hope it manages to find something by itself

Which it can do because the seeker has built in IRST functionality, so it’s essentially the same as using a smaller version of PIRATE or OSF.

Andraxxus no one and nothing forced them to fire that missile at the MH17 track. There wasn’t an Su25 bearing down on them that moment that forced their hands and there was no extant threat from a contact on a civ profile at 33k ft. If you believe the COMINT they even thought they were shooting an unarmed aircraft (albeit a legitimate military one)….so yes zero-threat most definitely applies!.

We’ve been over the overflight thing before. Airliners fly over hotspots sometimes even in complete ignorance all the time. No-one has a right to shoot them down. If airspace is blocked out officially for certain kinds of traffic then that is a different story. That wasnt the case here though was it….as no-one knew about the Buk at the time. After all who’d be mad enough to give the cavemen a Buk TELAR and risk them shooting at god knows what……oh wait!.

Actually other evidence says there were military aircraft over the Donbass at that time. They simply couldn’t tell. MH17 was supposed to be over the Black Sea at the time in question too.