hello

You have no logic, just troll bias.

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. 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. And if the Sentrys participate, the Flanker's radar advantage goes out the window, since the Typhoons will have full-blown AWACS support.

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).

TVC gives the Sukhoi a clear WVR advantage, but as I said, the Typhoon can negate any advantage the Sukhoi has.

Are you comparing the AMRAAM's effective pK range to the R77's maximum kinetic energy range? Where did you get that 18 miles?

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.

And here, the AMRAAM C-5 range is said to be '>105km'.

So, we can only rely on rough figures here.

kams

Sigh...here we go again.

Archer

All the above is totally incorrect as analysis and you have loaded the dice in a totally facile manner, because neither the Typhoon or the MKI are going to be ever facing equivalent opponents without AWACs support. And in front of a Phalcon/ Sentry type system, let alone the upgraded Sentries the US fields, it really doesnt matter whether your RCS is 5 or 3 or 1 or even 10. You'll be detected soon enough for the opponents to vector in, and as far as the fighters radars are concerned, what matters is whether they can guide missile armament to the missiles maximum effective ranges. And both the Typhoon & MKI can do that. Not to mention that some of the data is pure brochure bashing, for instance that claim of 0.1 Sq Mtr, which to anyone who is familiar with the difficulty US designers have faced (and surmounted) with achieving stealth, coupled with a decent look at the Typhoon airframe- is fairly ridiculous. Not to mention, the fact that onboard munitions allow would spike the RCS plot.

So what counts? Tactics, pure and simple and airframe performance. The Typhoon has an advantage in the latter in terms of its supercruise and energy state retention, but the Flankers fuel load and brute power also allow it to have enough staying power for a BVR battle. The Flanker can also use its TVC in BVR to get the heck out of dodge. It will transition from a high energy state to a low one, but thats what the burners are for, and with IFR and a 3000 km unrefueled range, it has substantial ability to conduct a decent BVR game for a period of time. A good pilot - whether it be a Typhoon jock or a Flanker one, will use his aircrafts respective strengths. Both aircraft are far more evenly matched, even though the Typhoon has clearly more investment into its overall integrated sensor suite - which it must, being a single seater. This is not to deny that there are some areas where the Typhoon has an advantage - the towed decoy is one, and so is its integrated ECM suite, the DASS, which will have some advantages over a more federated commercial system adapted to a fighter aircraft.

Dave/ Varsity,

The Typhoon is a top notch bird and frankly, the RAF is lucky to be getting it AND the JSF. Thats a darn sight better than most AF's worldwide. In fact, after the USAF, the RAF will have the best A2A and A2G combo in terms of sophistication and capability. Perhaps the IAF, once it gets its MRCA & following that, the FGFA/ PAK-FA- can claim some equal- equal. ;-)
The key advantage of the MKI, as I see it, is its amazing cost effectiveness and an excellent airframe, which has huge growth potential. The current MKI, as is the Typhoon, represents a mix of 80's, 90's and some 2000+ tech, but the airframe allows for a lot of sequential update and iterative modernisation, some of which is already happening.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Archer

Well it compares quite well actually- its pretty much the same, bar most of the Indo/Israeli stuff has been ditched for French & Russian on account of politics and $$ (why use Indian kit when russian kit is available, for exports and the customer can live with it). The radar retains the DRDO radar computers, they are tightly coupled to the Bars & cant be replaced without a lot of bother.
The MKM has a larger HUD (though it may make the cockpit more visible- an oft quoted complaint against bright holographic HUDs), a Navflir from Thales (the MKI doesnt on account of not being intended for low level strike).

On a plus side, since the MKI is being made in India, expect a lot of Indian content - especially electronics to keep appearing on it, and getting upgraded. The RWR is in stage II already, and a high accuracy direction finder has already appeared. The future probably holds even better avionics LRUs, better displays from SAMTEL India, etc etc.

chankya

Is it just me or does the Il-76 look a lot meaner than either of the two fighters?

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

Tronic

Thats actually the Il-78MKI tanker I believe, and not the Il-76.

Thanks for the info bro. Though, whats the replacement for the Litening pods for the MKM?

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Archer

Tronic,

The Thales Damocle

DAMOCLES, Navigation and targeting, Thales C4ISR Products and Solutions catalogue

uss

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?
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?

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.

TVC also helps reduce supersonic drag and provide exceptional manouvering at slow speeds, which makes maintaining lock a pain.

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).

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.

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.

chankya

Ah yes. Just noticed the refueling pods. Still looks mean. Although nothing beats the Hind for a fright.

Aby The Liberal

Sorta have to agree here but not totally. Although the Su 30MKI is built in India and is close to Su 35 in comparison, the core technology is Russian. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Su-30 MKI or MKM showed a better maueverability than Eurofighter as it did quite well against F/A 18s in the Cope India exercise with USA.

Tronic

Depends really on what you would call core technology. The airframe, engine and the radar are Russian. The avionics, RWR, EW suite, mission computers, targeting pods, jammers, health and usage monitoring systems, etc, are all either Indian, Israeli, French or South African (the HUMS). None more important than the other in my opinion. What makes the MKI unique is that mixture of Russian, Indian and Western technology.

Jimmy

I just want to point out there are very few sources on missile ranges that are based on anything but sales brochures. Including wikipedia, FAS, and Global Security.

The C5's ranges are classified, and the R27 ranges are probably not 130km, based on the type of fuel and the size of the booster.

Not everything on the INTERNET is true, even when it comes from "reliable" sources.

Tin Man

Apparently thrust and drag don`t seem to be as great an issue as we would think when we consider Typhoon demonstrated M1.3 `cruise with weapons and tanks in Singapore....Of course you are right external stores play havoc with RCS, that`s why F-22/35 have internal bays..

This from the RAF website.."In 2004 MoD placed an £80 million contract with Raytheon Missile Systems for the latest AIM-120 C5 variant. The new missile, which will enter service in 2007, incorporates the latest technology and includes a greater immunity to countermeasures, a better range and a more effective warhead. It will supersede the earlier B model which is approaching the end of it`s in service life."

The AMRAAM B`s were second hand rounds from Sea Harriers and passed on to Tornado F3. So we will be seeing the C-5 variant on a Tiffie` near you soon according to the RAF!

No argument there, the big SU has the un-refueled range advantage.

On the exercise, in WVR , people are suggesting that the SU` has a fantastic instantaneous turn, but loses energy and can`t regain it quickly, versus the Typhoon which has better sustained turn capability and has the excess thrust to regain energy quickly and get it out of trouble. Just speculation probably, but does this sound right to you pilots out there?

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

MrFirst

But Su-35 isn't in service in Russian air force. As far as I know there is the only demo-version plane while RuAF gets the old modernized Su-27s and Su-30s which seem more close to simple versions of Malaysian and Venezuelan Sukhois. Advanced systems are too expensive for our ministry of defence.

uss

TM,
It might be able to cruise with that kind of load, but what ACM where the a/c will really be put to the test. I mean think in terms of manouvering to break lock.

Roger that, i was wondering if they have managed to get in service as of today? Sooner or later though, its a given. That'd make 'em much more competitive to say the least.

I'm no pilot but it sounds right - considering its delta design and incredible TWR. In fact, i'd give the EF2000 a slight advantage WVR at least in terms of first look considering how BIG the MKI is. Of course, the MKI has 4 eyes, which could nullify that advantage. However, in the BVR dept, I'd give first look/fire advantage to the MKI (thats IMHO) along with its ability to leave the fight and reengage as per convenience.

Regards,
USS.