Uh, the RAF is planning on full Meteor clearance in 2016. Captor-E has been flight tested in March of this year. And how many Su-35S and Su-27SM will be operational by then?

Key word is planning for 2016. If some thing is cleared for 2016. It means Meteor equipped squardons will be forming for years. Captor-E is pure nonsense. there is no sign contracts for upgrading existing fleet or getting new planes.
even MIG-31BM numbers will reach over 100 by 2016 as operational squadrons, new BVR missile, new training simulators with active upgrades going on.
Su-27SM/Su-35 will another 100.

Dude what are you talking about? The F-15A engine bays can’t take the -229, and needed modifications for the -220, but the F-15C can accommodate it. Where are your sources that suggest otherwise? Both the F-16A/B/C/D and F-15C are good to 9 g maneuvering. And don’t bother bringing up the 2007 F-15 accident, as that was due to a manufacturing defect on that particular airframe.

combined mission readiness is 69%. which is skewed by 76% of F-15E. highly doubt it will be getting more thrust engines. more thrust engines are necessary as they have more non afterburning thrust. so less fuel is used for given performance.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20121029/NEWS/210290302/F-15-upgrades-aim-double-service-life

This statement makes no sense. Once the RAF get 160 Typhoons how will they not all be operational? Granted, they won’t all have AESA, but the entire MiG-31 fleet won’t be upgraded to the BM standard either.

At this point there is not even single operational typhoon has AESA. and your assuming all of sudden large fleet will be have AESA in reasonable time. there is more likely hood of 80 Typhoons getting retired than 80 Typhoons getting AESA upgrade. this composite made aircraft has short life and cant handle long term stress like low g MIG-31. MIG-31BM upgrades are going reasonable.

Pure BS, if you are in WVR you are in trouble. Tell that to pilot that used a MICA to shoot more than 10 kts rearwards using passive sensors only for ex.

rear shooting MICA has no practical significance against peer competitor that has all the situational awareness, jamming, and fighters with greater energy, altitude and fuel capacity to dictate fight. not mention money to train pilots to much higher standards.

Everything RadDisconnect just said plus EJ230 possibility.

At that altitude a Typhoon will exceed the Su-27 in pretty much every parameter of manoeuvrability and energy fighting sans tanks. To take the load out of the equation. The Su-27 empty TWR is 1.53, Su-35’s is 1.57 and the Typhoon’s is 1.75. On full internal fuel Typhoon is 1.2 and 1.11 with 6 AMRAAMs, 2 ASRAAMs and cannon rounds. Su-27 and Su-35 TWR is 0.97 with full internal fuel and no AAMs. Wing loading is 61.8lb/ft^2 (full internal fuel Typhoon) vs 77lb/ft^2 (Su-27 half fuel)) and 85lb/ft^2 (Su-35 half fuel).

There isn’t really any performance parameter the Su-27 beats the Typhoon on except maybe a ~5% advantage in ferry range. And for the most part the AL-31F are just fuel dumpers in terms of max thrust, with only 61% of it coming as genuine dry thrust and the rest just afterburning. The Typhoon produces 67% of max. thrust as dry thrust.

Furthermore the Su-27/35’s WVR missile engagement envelope is +/-60deg with R-73/74 vs full 360deg coverage with ASRAAM. If anything breaks out, the Typhoon doesn’t need to move into a firing position, it’s already in one. Chances are that the Su-27s’ INS positions were already programmed into 4 ASRAAMs waiting on the rails.

EJ230 has zero possibility. there is more possibility of AL-31FM3 for Flanker upgrades as the engines are continuously ordered in vast numbers by Chinese so upgrades funding is not even a problem. infact Salut have make so much money out of it they are entering helicopter engines business in big way.

You don’t have slightest idea of Ruaf Su-27SM weights (read the 4000km range on placard from 2005 now it will be even more) due to lighter avionics and upgraded engines, new FBW. Bottom line is Flankers are continuously upgraded while EF will remain static for performance.
Su-35 specification are from 2008. There is vast difference between export and Ruaf specification. This is not even a close comparision.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2013/07/04/su-35_capable_of_previously_unheard-of_manoeuvrability-_test_pilot__26745.html
Did you manage to fully demonstrate the fighter’s potential at Le Bourget?

The Su-35’s primary characteristics are impossible to demonstrate at an air show for obvious reasons. A fighter’s primary advantage lies in its combat performance. Here are some figures for you: the Su-35 exceeds any other fourth-generation fighter in operational effectiveness by 40 percent. [B]For a number of parameters it is 10 percent better than the [existing] fifth-generation fighters.

[/B]
this 360 degree envelope for WVR missiles is useless as any such turns will severly degrade missile range. if you need such turns for missile that you are already is trouble.

Nonsense. At comparable fuel percentages the Typhoon smokes the Su-27S in T/W, acceleration, and most other performance parameters. Not to mention superior avionics and better weapons. The Su-27SM closes the gap, but the Typhoon is perfectly capable of accommodating uprated EJ-200 engines, it’s just a matter of operators not deeming that essential. Similar to how the F-15C can accommodate the F100-PW-229 engines, but USAF doesn’t feel that is necessary. There’s also the AESA Captor-E and the MBDA Meteor. Claiming that the Typhoon can’t be upgraded is laughably ignorant.

In all honesty, given the amount of sheer stupidity you spew out, how did you manage to post 1,767 times and not get banned? Does moderation not exist on this forum?

There is no certified AESA/Uprated engines or MBDA Meteor for EF. SU-27SM started more than a decade ago. now it is going to Su-27SM3.
You don’t want to put heavier and thirstier engines into old airframe like F-15C. F-15C is never designed to take heavier loads.
bottom line is there is not a single engine uprated EF in service. I will even think that small size airforce are going to put too many hours on EF making it wear down sooner.

Of course not. In full knowledge of the Flanker, the Europeans deliberately designed an air superiority fighter that couldn’t intercept it.:stupid:

rather they are not capable of designing fighter that can beat flanker.

At least it’s using missiles that are known to work.

known to work against fighter with no EW protection and no proper training to defeat BVR. that African conflict was among equally untrained and un maintained systems. don’t predict too much from it. like in Sochi Olympics Russian predicted that American team is composed of less black atheletes so it will get less medals.

They quote the XG-40-1 approximately too, yet we know the -1 was the EJ200 development prototype that was flown. We also know that the DA2 development aircraft exceeded Mach 2 whilst still running with RB199s.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Anhang

What’s also interesting to note on German wiki is that the 16 ton normal TO weight (11 ton empty) appears to be for the 2-seater. The single-seater is 15.5 ton normal TO, giving a TWR of 1.19 and meaning that the 11 ton ’empty weight’ is definitely with missiles or possibly an averaged value between single and 2-seater.

40500 / ([15500/454] * 1000) = 1.19

that will be some underdeveloped protoypes weights. As I said EF is already overweight. it cannot be developed into a carrier fighter and its external load capacity development is very slow process. Flanker could life 8 tons in 1993 that despite Soviet Avionics and construction. Now TVC is introduced and airfame designed from ground up for high performance. EF is only paper projects.

and a final important aspect is that of pilot fatigue, UAV pilots are being pushed to the limits, while receiving only begrudging recognition and support for their efforts. the USAF could easily solve these problems, by converting more pilots into dedicated UAV pilots, or using NCO as the US Army did succesfully, but they choose not to, probably heavily based on a culturual bias. as such this systematic and unsupported pilot fatigue will also cause a considerable number of crashes which could easily have been avoided with but a cultural mentality change

you have to understand UAVs are very slow. so it takes hrs to reach battlefield. it can create a lot of fatique. and UAV not cheap. Its huge long term investment in industrial production and training. they have very limited payload. airframes are very fragile. cant imagine they can survive a lot of tonnage load over 40 year period.

LOL. Don’t believe reality.

The proposal for the carrier variant was STOBAR – that should tell you something about required take-off distance and thrust.

Yeah I was giving you a history lesson. Here it is again in case you missed it:

AIM-120 >> R-27

That AIM-120 was built on better manufacturing process and used by well funded airforce. It has nothing to do with missile comparison itself. Typhoon cannot become carrier fighter as it is already overweight. Su-27S can be upgraded to Su-27SM with more powerfull engines and 4000km range with 4AAM. EF cannot be upgraded with enhanced engine at this point of time.

…and less than 8 tons dry thrust.

Meanwhile the Typhoon is an 11 ton fighter with 5 tons of fuel supported by 18.5 ton of engine thrust with 12.3 tons of dry thrust. Like I said, no contest, especially supersonic where the ramped intakes and lower mach drag canard design will also be a factor.

EF is not 11 tons. It is closer to F-18E weight. and combine engine thrust is 18tons. EF will have worse TWR than MIG-35. There is zero percent chance carrier version can be developed from it. for Carrier version aircraft has to be ver light weight from start.

Not really a valid excuse for 26 misses and a forced landing out of 27 shots.

mroe than 10 year old missiles on soviet factories with pilots not properly trained for years, missiles not maintained. between 1991 to 2000. except for missile exported to China/India/Malaysia etc. there wasn’t any new built.