Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
The Typhoon is a smaller and supposedly stealthier plane than the Flanker series, with an RCS on par with the SuperBug, around 0.1m^2, against the Flanker's big-target 4-5m^2.
|
Good grief man, where the devil did you get those figures for the Ef2000? Their design goal was 1/4th of the tornado (2msq), now it is supposed to be 1/10 of the F15 (1 msq). And thats clean config. Even if we are to go with your racy figures, what does it do to RCS (not to mention TWR and drag coef) after you lug a couple of drop tanks and external stores?
Quote:
|
Even if the Sukhoi's radar is a bit better, it still won't see the Typhoon before it gets seen. If Meteor and AA-12 are both present, than the Typhoon has an advantage with the longer-range Meteor. Otherwise, it's still good enough with AIM-120C-5 vs AA-10.
|
As of now the Meteor is probly 5 years away, by that time you can expect R77 ver. 180 (200km range). BTW, the last I checked even the C5 has not been cleared on the EF2000; its still Amraam B.
[quote]And if the Sentrys participate, the Flanker's radar advantage goes out the window, since the Typhoons will have full-blown AWACS support./QUOTE]
IF you are going to have Sentry's on one side can we have Phalcons on the other?
Quote:
|
That way, the Typhoons can react first and kill the Flankers first by sending the Flankers into evasion and pressing on with a BVR flank in a merging fight. With supercruise, the Typhoons have the choice to drop their tanks and get away from a WVR situation, while the MKIs must afterburn to keep up(who cares about endurance when your 'burning).
|
So long as you have enough fuel, you can burn all you want. The MKI with its 10000lite++ internal fuel stores can engage/egress any time it wants. The Typhoon, I'm afraid has to lug 3 2000ltr tanks to come close to that kind of fuel capacity.
Quote:
|
TVC gives the Sukhoi a clear WVR advantage, but as I said, the Typhoon can negate any advantage the Sukhoi has.
|
TVC also helps reduce supersonic drag and provide exceptional manouvering at slow speeds, which makes maintaining lock a pain.
Quote:
|
Are you comparing the AMRAAM's effective pK range to the R77's maximum kinetic energy range? Where did you get that 18 miles?
|
No i'm not comparing the Amraam's pk. range to the R77's kinematic range, which btw is 100km. The 18 miles figure came from the horses mouth (USAF website).
Quote:
Here's a link that says:
Now what does 'excess of 30 miles' and '60km++' mean? That's just the AMRAAM A version, mind you.
|
Even if you go by the globalsecurity link (which has a lot of flaws in its data), it still means 30 miles = around 50km and NOT 60km++ which is good enough to fire an R77 not to mention R27s.
Quote:
|
And here, the AMRAAM C-5 range is said to be '>105km'.
|
The C5's range figures are highly debatable, I haven't seen anything from any official sources. The R27ER from as per wikipedia has a range of 130km. So if you want to go by rough figures, the Amraam still lags behind.
Regards,
USS.