OK lets get some things straight here…

The comment made about Janes was that NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WOULD BE DISCLOSED & that all technical information given could be found in Janes.

The speaker IS saying that the Su-30MKI is better than the F-15 & F-16 currently in service with the USAF & that when flown by an experienced pilot will beat them on a regular basis. BUT it is no F-22…

There is abslutely nothing concerning the “cobra” maneuver in this presentation. What WAS talked about was “post stall maneuvers using vectored thrust”. BUT this is a BAD thing. Both the F-22 & Su-30MKI can out turn a F-15 or F-16, but if an inexperienced pilot gets over anxious & instead of taking his or her time to exploit this advantage & uses vectored thrust to get an even better turn/point that the aircraft becomes a flying speed break & goes into “post stall maneuvering”, losing TOO MUCH energy & for a time becomes a sitting duck.

It was the INDIANS which were concerned about FOD so there has to be SOMETHING to it. Although it COULD to a certain extent be that they did not bring many spare engines.

One last point, just because you can out turn an apponent DOES NOT guarantee that you will win the fight. Just ask the Japanese Zero pilots…

No. There is nothing like series of tiny spots. A typical radar site might detect an approaching Raptor at fairly close distance due to Raptor’s optimized head-on RCS. But the same site will see a Raptor at less than optimal angle from far greater distance.

No, the F-22 has ALL AROUND (as in 360 degree) stealth. Its RCS is very small from nearly ALL angles, having just a few ‘spike’ points which the F-22 knows EXACTLY where they are so can “point” said ‘spikes’ away from any threat (or have said ‘spite’ visible by any threat only for a brief moment).

If you got an F-22 in the middle of densely radar covered area, there always will be several sites seeing the bird at fairly reasonable distance. If the sites are datalinked then your aircraft can expect incoming missiles from all sides, even from those which according to Raptor pilot’s bubbles of safety diagramme should not be seein anything..

Keep on dreaming. The F-22 will “see” any radar coverage a FAR greater distance than any radar will “see” it. Your “densely radar covered area” would have to be powerful TARGETTING radars placed 20km apart & over a rather LARGE area, otherwise the F-22 will simply avoid it all together OR pass through it at >Mach 1.5 @ 50,000+’…

When I think of it, I believe that in a scenario sole F-22 against sole S-300PMU site, the F-22 has very good chances to win. But over an area with dozens of S-300/S-400s, Pantsirs, Anteis or Buk-Ms connected in an integrated defense network it might not last that long.

Again, the F-22 will “see” the radar coverage of the threat BEFORE the threat can “see” it & the F-22 can use that to avoid the threat (or ensure that the threat only “sees” it for a brief moment).

Also keep in mind that with its PRIMARY ground attack weapon (the GBU-39/40 SDB) the F-22/F-35 does not have to get within 60nm of its intended targat to attack it.

And last but not least, stealth is not the only way the F-22/F-35 has of defeating enemy threats…

With this type of argumentation he surely will never convince anybody. As atypical stealth fanboy, he painted only the best-case situation.. He didn’t even mention that multiple radars from multiple directions will always find Raptor or F-35 exposed from less favorable angles, disregarding the fact whether pilot knows about its RCS over the entire sphere or not.

It is NOT a best-case situation, it is HOW the F-22 & F-35 operate. Again, their ESM will detect any ESM threat BEFORE that threat can detect the F-22 or F-35 & the pilot will have a very nice “picture” of where the threats are (based on networked data from MULTIPLE assets), & at what range said threats MAY detect his/her aircraft (INCLUDING where the F-22/F-35 RCS/ESM “stikes” are) with which to avoid detection. So you might get a momentary blimp detection but you are not going to have enough time &/or data to track much less target the aircraft.

To sum it up, explanations like that make it look just too easy and you know the golden rule – if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

It isn’t too good to be true it is PROVEN technology. Again, stealth does not mean “invisibility” but it does GREATLY decrease the detection range of threat systems – & remember that stealth DOES NOT mean just RCS but other means of detection such a IR as well…

You know as well as I do how long ago the Eurofighter JOUST studies were. The best contemporary sources are paper, not online. I was there, I remember what was said, and by whom. But if the limit of your research resources are Google and Jeeves, I doubt that you could even confirm that the BAE chap who used the JOUST material for marketing was named Ned Frith. Perhaps I’m fibbing about that, too.

You say: “But now, not even British officials came with the story about uberflankers simulated at JOUST. There was no official press release, nothing, just an internet poster, claiming to have seen some presentations and spoken to some people. That is even less than what star49 usually provides.”

There were releases at the time. I was there, and I’m reporting what the threat aircraft was accurately. Go and ask any of the journos who were active at the time. Go and look at contemporary magazines. But don’t accuse me of lying, or of ‘providing less than Star49’, which is exactly what you are doing.

RELEASES AT THE TIME SAID Su-27M!

PFCEM seems to have little grasp of ‘time’ (witness the way in which he stresses documents about QinetiQ in this new millennium when we’re talking about DERA in the late 80s and early 90s. I’d have expected better from you.

You are confusing me with someone else, I have made no such statements.

As per ‘time’ we are talking about the mid 90’s (1994 IIRC). :p

Ask yourself this question. Why wouldn’t they use an exaggerated flanker design in JOUST? What is the point of comparing a future design to a, at that time, basically flying su-27?

Becasue “that” Flanker represented THE likely threat! Again, NO PUBLIC SOURCE (only Typhoon supporters on internet forums) claim that JOUST simulated anythong OTHER THAN the Su-27M/Su-35.

The Ignorance to assume Eurofighter and all the companies involved, let alone the nations it is was designed to protect in war, chose a less capable flanker variant in JOUST to make the typhoon seem better to validate its performance against; is a joke. TBH I think its a bit of an insult really to exclaim such a point.

They DIDN’T chose a less capable Flanker variant, they chose THE MOST CAPABLE Flanker variant known to even be in development.

And calling the plane a bit better than the 4th generation fighters truly shows you are a joke when it comes to the knowledge of the plane.

No, it shows intellectual honesty. The Typhoon has A BIT smaller RCS, A BIT better acceleration, A BIT better supersonic maneuverability, et cetera…There is nothing dramatically superior about the Typhoon vs other 4th generation fighters.

If there is a criticism of JOUST it is that the threat aircraft (a developed ‘Flanker’ assuming parity in pilot training, radar and missile pK) was over-estimated. The ‘worst case’ Su-27 simulated in JOUST had the agility of an Su-27 at airshow weight, and the persistence and range of a fully laden PVO interceptor, with radar and weapons performance that exceeds anything we’ll see on any Su-30 or Su-35 for decades to come. JOUST simulated a Ferrari ‘Flanker’ and not the Lada that it is in reality. But that was the point. How would Typhoon, Rafale, F-16, F/A-18 et al shape up against the ‘worst case’ threat that anyone could imagine.

BS.

JOUST DID NOT simulate a developed/Ferrari ‘Flanker’ assuming parity in pilot training, radar and missile pK, it similated (based on the best knowledge at the time) the Su-27M which is INFERIOR to a number of Flanker variants ALREADY flying today much less the more advanced Flankers which are on the way.

The problem many have with JOUST is ignorant Typhoon supporters such as yourself mischaracterizing it as something it was not. The “threat” (aka developed/advanced Flankers) has evolved BEYOND the Su-27M JOUST simulated.

It was based on an unknown letter with an unknown source… sent to one of the UK based mags. It was completely unstubstantiated – with no proof other than word of mouth. If that’s what we go by then there are similar claims from people around the Nellis range that say the F-22 is pretty much hammering the EF BVR in these “supposed” DACTs and that the EF is only competitive in WVR – where it can “see” the F-22. Even then in WVR – it’s claimed to be a similar to a match up of F-16/5 vs an EF – while we know the EF hammers them.

Now I personally don’t believe in any of these claims – especially since they are contradictory. While they generally have little to no truth and hardly any relavent context. The point is – don’t be to quick to quote unstubstaintiated rumours – that have no real source… other than word of mouth.

Which was a complete farce, as BOTH F-22 & Typhoon pilots indicated, at the time the “unknown letter with an unknown source” was sent the F-22 & Typhoon had yet to fly against each other…

As to the Typhoon being a flop, that depends on what one’s expectations of it are/were. 🙂

What is ironic however, it that France pulled out of the Eurofighter in order to develope a smaller, cheaper fighter that would have greater export success yet the Rafale has had none.