fortunately, given the small air spaces of Europe.. if they do decide on a new manned design.. it does not have to be as large as the J-20 or Pak-fa.

probable exceptions are the French with their overseas interests.. and formerly the UK.. but they are trying to get rid of their military and the inevitable return of Malvinas to Argentines.

And don’t forget, they have to protect themselves from Bulgaria! ;):D

*

That’s an F-22 or YF-22.

Well, we will see won’t we! I am very confident of my predictions are you of yours????

Well, I am very confident that the Brazilian tender will be won either by the Gripen, Rafale, or Super Hornet. Likewise, I am fairly certain that the Indian competition will be won by either the Rafale, Eurofighter, Super Hornet, F-16, Gripen, or Mig-35. I am very confident in my predictions.

@Hodog The F-22 would not need external tanks Both the F-22 and the F-35 can launch Jdam, and SBD supersonically, and the F-35 will be able to launch JSOW. The F-35 matches the Typhoons fuel load with 3 tanks internally.
Flying mach while launching weapons Increases range. Im almost certain the T-50 will also be able to do this. If it doesn’t it will defeat the purpose of super cruise.

@EF lightening The Typhoons radar is a development of the harriers Blue vixxen Doppler Radar, Its trash when Typhoons gets AESA then things will be differnt. OHh wait the Typhoons will get a AESA with a legacy back end.

@erokite The F-22, Su-35, and T-50 all have a energy advantage over the Typhoon. To follow MSpheres argument with regard to the F-35, Euro-fighter intentionally made a inferior fighter. its either because

1. They couldn’t make a plane better than the Typhoons that matches or exceeds the Raptor.

2. It was expensive.

3. Didn’t account for future tech advancements.

Either way the Euro-fighter is a failure in the same way that people feel the F-35 is a failure. It isn’t the best plane out there compared to F-22,T-50 and in the strike role the F-35, its a DOG.

An energy advantage? Ha! I believe you have to be a little more specific than that.:diablo:

You want future radar… here you go.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:62fe66c0-4849-4400-8e99-07a3847f3549

I bet you could cook microwave dinners from high altitude with that monster. 😀

Stealth and A2G are not factors here. You cant have it both ways, you cant say RCS is a factor versus the Su-35 and then say F-35 stealth is irrelevant.
Or F-35s/ F-22 are not relevant, then tout the Typhoons A2G capabilities.

The fact of the Matter is that the TYphoon is a DOG when compared to the Su-35, T-50, F-22. It cant run cant fight cant climb.

On the contrary. It’s climbing performance is actually quite impressive. Its T/W is actually quite superior to that of the Su-35 at least at SL (it’s almost the same as that of the F-22). At altitude, the advantage is even greater (compare engine BPR of the EJ-200 to the AL-31/41 engines). It has better supersonic performance than the Su-35 thanks to a lower bypass ratio engine and use of delta canard configuration. Outside of the Su-35 I don’t think the evolved Flankers can actually supercruise at all, and even with the Su-35 it is marginal. The engine BPR is greater, the wings are simply the wrong shape, and it lacks the conformal stores of the Eurofighter.

When it comes down to it, the EF excels in supersonic performance because it was meant to. The Su-35 was optimized for a different flight regime. So it is entirely wrong to say it can’t climb or run. The Eurofighter is quite a potent aircraft, and was meant for BVR “shoot and scoot” combat where you approach at high speed, fire off a BVR missile, when you get in range and turn quickly away and accelerate away supersonically. Its supersonic performance and RCS reduction are greater than that of the Su-35 and Su-30. Also, compare the wing loading of the EF to the Flanker series. It is significantly lower, which would likely give it turning advantage under many conditions as well.

However, in the lower speed regime, I would certainly give the advantage to the Su-35 and Su-30, thanks to excellent subsonic aerodynamics and TVC, which would give it a great advantage over the EF.

As for radars and RCS reduction, it is hard to say. The Su-35 has a superior radar at least in terms of raw performance, but I think the EF has greater RCS reduction. Could go either way. Also, in terms of sensor fusion, as well as passive detection, I would likely give the advantage to the EF as well thanks to Link 16.

You also keep talking about AoA. High AoA is typically avoided because it causes you to bleed energy badly. Unless you are in a guns only dogfight, high AoA is basically irrelevant with HOBS missiles and HMS. If you pull a high AoA maneuver in most conditions, you may as well hold out out a sign saying “I slowed down so you can shoot me, please do so.”

Dear sir,

Touche, I stand corrected. can it also make coffee while doing all of this?

Only the Su-34 has a coffee maker. Unfortunately it lacks thrust vectoring.

Au contraire, mon frere!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/business/Raw_Video__Larry_Ellison_Flies_Fight_Jet_Bay_Area.html