you mean, those industries they’re burying deep and for good in exchange of screwing some bolts and entirely depending on good will from somebody on another continent to keep their… er… thing fly?

Nope, I said as well as having their own fighters, they also have their own fighter projects.

Right now the UK has everything France has. It’s own domestically developed fighter and the Taranis/FOAS project. But it also has the F-35 share. So come mid-2020, the UK will have an AESA-equipped domestic fighter and a stealth fighter, whereas France will have the Rafale and some tatty old Mirages.

It’s not “mistakes”…

after being corrected he would’ve stopped posting his bs.. keeping doing it on purpose is called trolling, not mistakes

Insisting BVR and WVR are not subjective is also trolling.

Now that we’ve established 200mm of the CAMM’s additional length is for the gas divert after launch, that means the missile segment itself is only 100mm longer. So it’s your position that with an extra 10cm on a 290cm missile, it went from 1/3rd the range of a MICA to >25% greater than a MICA? What exactly is in that 10cm? Some kind of nuclear fusion propellant?

No, but it might be wise to purchase your fighter fleet on actual capabilities rather than promises.

And the F-35 may be the best choice for nations who don’t mind outsourcing their air force to the USAF as long as they get low tech industrial leftovers ? :p

Not really, and any risk is minimised simply by the weight of orders behind the F-35, and frankly I’d say the F-35’s current capabilities still massively outweigh those of the Rafale.

There is no outsourcing of the air force, it’s just protection of intellectual property, it doesn’t affect usage. What India are basically looking for is a how-to guide, so they don’t need poor gullible imbeciles to sell them aircraft in the future. Hence why they only bought 36. Surprised they didn’t just buy 1 but I guess that would have made it too obvious.:p

And BTW, nearly all the countries buying the F-35 have their own domestic fighters and domestic fighter projects.

That must be an old version of the AA-11. I wouldn’t think an IRIS-T could out-range the latest one (40+km).

Has a few other inaccuracies as regards HOBS FoV too. ASRAAM is +/-90deg.

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html

Futhermore, both MICA and IRIS-T use a 2×128 element array.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/short-range-square-off-67103/

Blabla…blabla…
Fed up to discuss with this uneducated guy.
The only fact is the one made by MBDA:
MICA: BVR
ASRAAM: WVR
I guess that alone should be sufficient for Lukos.

ASRAAM 5+km OTS shot at sea level. MICA IR not.

BVR, WVR, long, medium, short, all subjective, non-quantitative terms.

You have once again my point of twisting data and being an dishonorable LIAR!!.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248760[/ATTACH]

1- Eurofighter.com says “with a full Air-to-Air Missile fit.” It says f**ng missiles. No 1000l fuel tanks. It actually doesn’t even say full internal fuel, I assume as such for the sake of argument and comparison; If an F-16 beats or matches Typhoon performance with 100% fuel, that it will certainly beat it in lesser fuels. Since F-16 does just that, I don’t bother an argument of how much fuel Typhoon may be carrying, it doesn’t matter if its 100%.

2- Eurofighter.com says 200kts to M1,0, NOT from “brakes off”. And NO “<30” seconds it says “in 30 seconds”, not “less than” or “under”. I don’t need to add a milisecond because F-16 manual gives EXACTLY that; with full fuel and A-A payload, from 200kts to M1,0 in 29,3 seconds.

3- BAE systems website does NOT even say “with full Air to Air payload” like Eurofighter official website do, let alone your 3x drop tanks BS. You are take a claim from Eurofighter website, inflate it with your BS (this time by adding 3x1000l tanks), then you try to pass it as something taken from BAE’s website…. Most (actually the ONLY) logical explaination for this contradicting data between two official sources is BAE system give data for Typhoon with much lighter payloads.

1-brakes off to 35k feet M1,5 under 2,5 minutes with full A-A missile fit.
2-brakes off to 36k feet M1,6 under 2,5 minutes with unknown payload… Maybe for a clean aircraft with 50% or even less fuel.

1-200kts to M1,0 in 30 seconds with full A-A fit.
2-brakes off to M1,0 under 30 seconds with unknown payload.

For the 1st claims, F-16 beats Typhoon in acceleration and *MAYBE* just a few seconds slower in climb. I am not so certain its slower as I didn’t do an optimal climb profile.

I don’t have a comparison basis for the 2nd claims, and I simply ignore them, and I have no idea why you keep bringing these up (like you did two years ago with your “Lukos” alias). Payload and fuel is VERY important to make a valid comparison.

No fuel and payload criteria? Then it doesn’t tell anything about the performance of the aircraft.. Even an F-4 can climb from 0 to 35000 feet in 42 seconds given its light enough. I won’t do the whole math, but this sufficently light F-4 could probably take-off and make necessary accelerations in the remaining 208 seconds, maybe miss it by a 5-10 seconds at best.

A simple “take off, accelerate to M0,9 climb to 35k feet, accelerate to M1,5” profile takes 150 seconds on F-16 excluding the 8-12 second take off part. For the 300th time, F-16 can achieve better climb time above 20k feet if its supersonic (instead of keep climbing at M0,9). It also accelerates to M0,9 to M1,5 full 13 seconds faster at this altitude (53 seconds @20k feet vs 66 seconds@30k feet), so it can shave quite a few seconds from that overly simplistic 150 second time.

I can make time calculations for this relatively more optimal climb profile for F-16, and Climb and Acceleration time is perfectly calculable from climb-rate graph of MiG-29, but I don’t think anyone else is interested, and I won’t waste my 50 minutes for you. My point is crystal clear; Typhoon is only an even match for a Block 50 F-16 at best, and MiG-29A has 22% to 62% better 1G excess power compared to same F-16.

I don’t have any stomach left to discuss with you. You win OK? I was wrong and this Lukos/Starfish guy was right all along..

Starfish/Lukos says:

-Su-27S has the highest (subsonic) sustained turn rates of all 4th gen fighters at mid-high altitude, but Typhoon has it better.
-Su-27S has the highest (subsonic) sustained turns of all 4th gen aircraft when fuel weight is equalised for same range, but Typhoon is better.
-F-16 blk30 has the highest (subsonic) sustained turn rate among all a 4th gen fighter with 50% fuel, but Typhoon is better.
-MiG-29 has the greatest (subsonic) climb rate value among all 4th gen fighters, and greatest off-the-deck climb performance, but Typhoon is better.
-MiG-25 and MiG-31 are the fastest combat aircraft ever entered service, but Typhoon is faster than those when carrying EFTs (M2,0 vs M1,7 and M1,5 for MiG-25 and MiG-31 respectively)
-F-15E with PW-229 is the fastest fighter aircraft with heavy payloads, yet Typhoon with 8 missiles and 3 EFTs is faster than F-15E with 8 missiles and no EFTs but only CFTs (M2,0 vs M1,9).

All that subsonic performance, despite the fact Typhoon is designed for high-altitude supersonic regime.
All that impressive high mach top speeds with EFTs, despite puny 90kN engines and a fixed inlet.

These should say how Typhoon is the bestest product mankind has ever made. Happy now?

Speaking of climbs, a nice video of MiG-29’s off the deck climb with centerline fuel tank (this is the first time I’ve mentioned this fuel tank, since we are idiot enough to think every hanging EFT is fully loaded with fuel during airshows)
https://youtu.be/VCWjByenDsM?t=40s

Not that I would claim for a second Typhoon is any worse than that of course. Even without no evidence, Typhoon is better because it is the bestest aircraft.

1. Full AAM fit is basically the standard QRA load, which is 4xAMRAAM + 4xASRAAM + 3x1000L DTs. It’s evidently a lot slower than the clean figures BAE provides, so DI is certainly not zero.

2. Irrelevant, the BAE figures are for the clean aircraft, the GmbH figures are for a loaded aircraft. You can argue about the load all day but clearly it is loaded and the DI is not zero.

3. That’s because the BAE figures are clean, just as the original F-16 figures were. That’s what DI=0 means remember.

The ‘unknown payload’ is clean. DI=0. The GmbH load is DI !=0 and likely implies the standard QRA fit given the performance delta with the clean figures.

Yeah, because for the first claim you are comparing DI=0 with DI != 0. When you compare DI=0 with DI=0, the Typhoon wins by over 30s. How seriously disingenuous of you.

Sure you do, you have the DI=0 figures. And even at 20,000lbs GW (i.e. less than empty, empty weight was actually over 20,168lb, so they must have removed stuff https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf), the F-16 can’t get from brakes off to M1.0 in <30s. 19s from M0.3-1.0 + ~12s for M0.0-0.3 gives 31s. Get the picture yet?

At 24,000lb GW, which is about half fuel only, it’s at 34s M0.0-0.98 and still can’t beat the Typhoon to M1.6 and 36,000ft. So like I said, “no way, no how!” You just can’t accept that you’re wrong.

The load is now irrelevant because I just proved that even at sub-empty weight the F-16 can’t beat the Typhoon to M1.0. And as far as that goes, the Eurofighter tech guide doesn’t specify fuel load either, it’s just assumed that it starts with full internal fuel on your part, whereas it’s likely the standard QRA fit, since that would be the most applicable to customers.

Even if we play, the no DTs dice, it’s still 8 AAMs, so we’ll use the 30,000lb ground weight with DI=50 for the F-16 (which is still a lower fuel fraction and even 2 AIM-9Ls on pylons and adaptors has a DI of 22 and there will be 6 missiles on such, with 2 on the wing tips). I’m also letting you off on weight a little too. And you get 12 + 30 + 75 + 71 = 188s for rest to M1.5 at 35,000ft. Either way you lose by >30s. Give in yet?

Yeah, excluding the take off part, which is included in both sets of figures (BAE “Brakes off to M1.6 at 36,000ft” and Eurofighter tech guide “Brakes off to M1.5 at 35,000ft”) and using a DI=0 and comparing it to a Typhoon with 8 missiles (and DTs too in reality – you can even verify this by examining the affect of different load-outs on the F-16’s performance relative to clean!). So in reality, even when you cheat like mad you still lose.

I win not because you’re tired it’s because all your arguments were full of complete crap, and you used SEP as a substitute for true climb rate.

Where did I say EF was faster than MiG-25/31? Strawmanning. I said it was faster than M2.0. Never made such comments about the F-15E either.

Took way longer than Typhoon to take-off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC89uDi8mEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkP2dfjjgCg

Not just for that test. The normal practice during development firings of small tactical missiles is to replace the warhead with a package that contains a telemetry system and its associated transmitter.

Well that’s odd, because the same firing from the external view results in an explosion. I think that combined with my MBDA source, who didn’t change his story, is proof enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKN_2ViE4eM

It is not literally a modified ASRAAM. Much of its ‘innards’ have been redesigned to use newer technology and to avoid component-obsolescence problems. These re-engineered subsystems are now being fed back into ASRAAM in order to create the new production variant.

When Roxel displayed in CAMM motor at Eurosatory 2012, they stated that it was based on the ASRAAM motor.

Also remember that up to about 200 mm of that 300 mm of extra missile length was needed to house the turnover subsystem.

Yes the updated ASRAAM will be using all those components but there is no fundamental difference in propulsion or air frame design aside from the 10% length extension.

Yeah, specifically it’s the ASRAAM propulsion section with an extension.

Turnover subsystem?

I cant read Russian but isn’t it the AIM-120b according to what written in there?

Not sure, I can’t read it either, but going by the range of 105km at ~53,000-66,000ft, I assumed it was a C-5. It could be a B though, indeed it would make more sense if the ASRAAM was kinematically similar to a B in a low altitude tail chase. I doubt it’s up to the C kinematically. matching an AIm-120B would still put it at 75-80km in terms of maximum range at altitude (43,000ft in graph).