I see all these so called experts posting on the Rafale and other jets. Morons.. the Indian Air Force pilots who are the users and know the requirements have evaluated the jets on more than 600 parameters. They know what they need in Indian terrain and conditions and they have actually flown and tested it instead of watching it on Youtube. The bid was not for 5th Generation, we have other options to get those like PAK-FA with Russia. So don't go around comparing different categories.
The French are usually all for Europe but when it comes to building a common fighter jet suddenly they are not home.It's like the aborted baby of the Eurofighter.
Rafale seems to better by far in almost all aspects. Mig-35 even failed to pass the basic MMRCA technical and performance evaluation and was outlisted from the competition.
Rafale is considered to be one of the best if not the best dogfight aircraft in production
@1bearcatf8f Terrible? Smaller, but not terrible. After that, Mig has bigger Thrust/weight, Service ceiling, Max Speed, Climb rate. And it has AESA radar. Also mig can carry more weapons because of its higher capacity. If you want to fly very far and strike - call the bomber or a heavy fighter like Su-30 and F-15.
@1bearcatf8f Are you retard? We talking about rafale vs mig. After that, Russia has Mig-25 and Mig-31 ;) Also, you are wrong F-15C have speed Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,660+ km/h), wich compared with Su-27. Does not lead the discussion in another direction, dude ;)
@Viruner The Rafale is better than the shitty SU-27 and shitty MiG-29.The F-15C goes 1888mph it's been recorded going that fast.And learn proper english grammar lmao.
@1bearcatf8f I've said T.O. 1F-15A-1 already. Section 5-7 figure 5.3 "airspeed limitation and afterburner operating envelope" to be more specific. Usually turns out to be more accurate than wiki.
@Viruner Dogfighting has little to do with TVC. All that matters is Instantenius and sustained turn rates, energy bleed and regain, excess power, time/fuel to climb abilities etc. MiG-29 is good, but not decicively good when comparing to modern EU birds like Typhoon or Rafale. And now MiG-35 gained extra 2 tons of weight compared to MiG-29S, but only 1.4 tons of extra thrust. Klimov made little improvement on RD-33s, when compared to AL-31s evolution into 117S. or PW F100 / F110 families.
@atmodom I dont care if Russians hate me, my race or not. I am an engineer, if something is well built for something, I say it. TuAF operates around 250 F-16 but I am objective enough to say F-16 cannot be compared with Su-27 in such way. And when compared to F-15 you can argue how bad a Su-27 would perform to attack a escorted high value asset, and I would agree. But in 1-1 Su-27 has too many advantages (missile range/choice, aircraft dynamics, radar power in STT, EOS). Again, I am not muslim.
@atmodom If that was your intention you shouldnt have posted offensive comments in the first place. I did nothing to provoke you. I made a comment related to planes, and you started with my race my religion and end up with my mom. Then as a insolent coward you removed your comments. And once again, why did you deviate from my comment about turn rates and energy graphs and end up shouting at Turks and Islam? You almost like you have a personal vendetta.
@atmodom So, you are from Greece? Or from EU... Now I understand why you hate Turks, given your history... Considering Cyprus is part of EU, and we are the invasion force which still hold the northern half of the island, and EU is also a defensive military alliance, lets just say you have more than enough "proper reasons". You would have done that if you had the power. Anyway, you replied me by saying Rafale blah blah, and I said you are wrong blah blah. How did you bring the discussion here??
@atmodom interesting comment yet it is widely known STFI and DACT programs were initiated only because F-4s handed their own asses to MiG-21s in Vietnam. An interesting historical fact considering F-4s true rival was Su-15 in Soviet Union and MiG-21 was only an exportable plane isn't it? And the F-15 you mentioned was intended to counter MiG-25. When westerns first spotted it, they thought it was very agile fighter and followed the same layout. Unfortunately for F-15, MiG wasnt agile at all.
@atmodom 3- I can and will write in english regardless of your permission. And since you lack english even more than I do, its not up to you, and again unrelated to my religion. 4- I am Turk but not muslim by the way. There is a freedom of beliefs here. Interesting fact is I dont even bother looking for what race and religion you are because your manners tell me everything I need to know. 5- If you are going to write B/S againist Islam or Turkish people ... Dont bother as I dont care.
@atmodom You call me muslim ape yet even you are embarassed of your uncivilized comments and removed them not once but twice. 1- Religion does not make a man what he is, and certainly didnt have a good influence upon you. 2- Regardless of religion, I have far greater understanding of aerodynamics then you. If I say you use a term wrong, it is so. How can a fighter be agile but not maneuverable? Whats "maneuverability" in your world? Whats sustaining a speed to you when you dont know what SEP is?
@atmodom First, you are sadly misinformed. Read my comment I recently posted to nem1, then talk about "sustaining airspeed". Secondly, the terms you use show your lack of knowledge. First in ACM there are 3 values: 1- sust. turn rates 2- and inst. turn rates 3-energy graphs. All are equally important but also dependent on other factors. Thirdly, high roll rate does not do a shit in dogfight. Its only use would be evading missiles but rolling too rapidly at high AOA is, well, unvise..
You're figures are so off they are ridiculous, I calculated the Wiki stats for both aircraft with manufacture claims and they dont agree with you at all. The Rafale has a T/W ratio far over 1.0 even when it's fully loaded, and a fully loaded Sukhoi carries so much internal fuel it wouldnt even compare fully loaded (the Wikipedia stats arent calculated with full fuel for this reason). Same with turning radii, you're information is so wrong its not worth the argument.
@nem1 Rafale: 79.44 kN*2 engine thrust, 24500 kg MTOW. Su-27S: 122,6 kN*2 engine thrust, 30450 kg MTOW. Recalculate.Ok, I will skip the enlightening part and give you some numbers. Read my next post.
@nem1 With 50% fuel, two R-27s and two R-73s, a Su-27 can sustain 22,36 deg/s turn rate at best. A blk 50 F-16 with 50% fuel and drag index 0 (means not even empty pylons are attached) can sustain 21,4 deg/s at best. Now with that 50% fuel a Su-27 can reach 2000km. An F-16 needs nearly %100 fuel load for same range. Then put two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s. Got my point? To further improve your imagination: F-16 + %50 fuel + 6 AIM-120s + ALQ-131 pod can sustain 17.2 deg/s = worse than F-15C !!.
You're nitpicking with certain flight speeds and altitudes to make favorable results for yourself. To be absolutely blunt about it the Su-27's enormous RCS, combined with it's inferior radar guided missiles and outdated radar means that it wouldnt stand a chance going head on against an F-16 block 50. No R-27 or R-77 has guided to impact during combat, despite the fact that several have been fired.
@nem1 I am not picking certain flight speeds, I am putting BEST turn rates which Su-27 achieves at 810 km/h F-16 achieves at 852 km/h when empty 979 km/h for 6 amraam + alq-131 pod. In fact R-27 was widely used againist MiG-29s in eritian war, and with Russian mercineries piloting results were effective. R-77 is not in service with Su-27. R-27 has many variants from IR guided T/TE, SARH guided R/RE extreme ranged EM and ARH guided AE. Su-27 rcs is broadly comperable to F-15, not so enormous.
@nem1 A typical Su-27 loadout on CAP would be pairs of R-27EM, R-27AE, R-27TE, R-73M, and sorbstsiya pods. That gives alot more flexibility than an F-15 or an F-16 as R-27EMs have double range of AIM-120, R-27AE = AIM-120 mostly, R-27TEs are IR guided. Su-27 has higher persistance and decide on opening move. In fact F-16 doesnt stand a chance. Actually you are nitpicking THE most favorable mission profile for Su-27: head on combat with another fighter with maximum situational awareness.
The R-27 does not have a single confirmed kill. The RCS of an F-16 easily puts the Su-27 within kill range. The AMRAAM also has both active and passive seekers, allowing it so find a target even if it attempts to jam. In Eritrea all kills were by R-73's, none by R-27's. Quit making up garbage and responding as if you actually have an argument.
@nem1 AMRAAM is ARH with HOJ capability, not passive guidence, theres a difference. You are the one making assumptions. Repeating myself but; Indian Su-30Ms and F-15s faced each other and locked around the same time with Su-30 firing first. Now if you are going to claim F-16 has better radar than F-15 go on. What you dont get is RCS of an armed F-15/16 Su-27 is not that different. I have arguement it is you claiming something and cant back it up then claim another thing. What happened to T/Ws?
HOJ is a form of passive guidance. Indian Su-30's werent even allowed to use their radars against F-15's (or any western opponent for that matter) stop making up garbage. And you lost the TWR argument. The only way an Su-27 would have a better TWR than any American fighter would mean loading the F-16 down with so many drop pods it's ridiculous.The Su-27 is capable of carrying excessive amounts of fuel, so excessive that they rarely do.Su-33's cant even take off fully fueled
@nem1 1-You should go back and re-read my post. You didnt get a thing at all. I said Su-27s NTOW T/W is 1 just like Rafale but at MTOW Su-27s is 0.8, Rafales is 0.6 2-MKIs werent allowed not Ms with their N001V radar. They were allowed and played wargames manytimes. 3- Its not a bad thing to have big internal fuel tank. You can always half fill it. Rafale has to carry external tanks to reach same range of Su-27 which means even more performance drop. That is what I was trying to prove.
1. MTOW is irrelevant, full fuel and A2A loadout means Rafale with 1.10 TWR and Su-27 with .96 (MTOW just shows the Rafales design is capable of holding an immense amount of ordinance when necessary)
2. F-15C radar FAR outperforms the standard Su-30M radar (not even including the AESA v2 version).
3.Drop tanks fall off when fuel is burn or in the event of a dogfight, so no extra weight or drag (red air also showed F-15's dominating Su-30MKI's even with their drop tanks)
@nem1 1 Why do you keep comparing a full fuel Su-27 with with full fuel Rafale? With full fuel Rafale has a range of 2300 km, Su-27 has 3800. If mission is the same Su-27 would only need 60% fuel. If Su-27 needs 100% fuel, Rafale also needs drop tanks.
2- APG-63 has many advantages to N001V radar no argument about that, but when going 1 on 1 in such way. You see the enemy in RWR, point your antena and swich to STT mode. with bigger antenna and bigger power output N001V is advantageus here.
I'm comparing one full fuel fighter to another because that is what the manufacturers designed their aircraft to do. When at full fuel and loaded for A2A the Rafale would have the TWR advantage while the Su-27 is designed for more range. In comparison the Rafale has supercruise so it could theoretically outrun the Flanker, and its RCS and radar means (once again) the Sukhoi is unlikely to get close enough to dogfight.
@nem1 Two epic fails. 1- A Block D B-1B has a difference of 122 tons between empty weight and MTOW. It also has the ability to carry 120.5 tons of fuel. So according to you B-1B is an unarmed aircraft right? The true version of your claim is this: A Su-27, just like B-1 example, is designed to be flexible. If it needs heavy payload but not range it can fly so, if it needs a very long CAP it can also do it. for GAI, it would be taking of with 3 tons of fuel. Thats what mission planning is for.
@nem1 Ability to supercruise depends on exhaust velocity and airflow around the tail need to be slower than critical Mach number. Ability to accelerate max speed depends on what dynamic T/W can generate. As Su-27 has variable intake ramps, and Rafale uses fixed inlets, despite your fanatism, the difference is beyond comparison. For ex. a MiG-25 has a pathetic T/W when static, but when ramps start controlling compression shockwave, nothing can catch it.
I'm not refering to top speed. The Sukhoi would have to engage afterburners if it had any hopes of keeping up with the rafale. The Sukhoi would run out of fuel. With my other argument a Su-27 going head on with a F-16 would mean they close at around 20km per second. If the Sukhoi managed to achieve lock it would be jammed to hell by the F-16's AESA radar. F-16's have gone against Migs with the R-27, I shouldnt have to say what the outcome was.
@nem1 Had to engage afterburners so what? A Su-27 can accelerate from 600 to 1100 in 14 seconds, an F-16 does that in 16. With similar intake design Rafele would be closer to F-16. Su-27 can sustain afterburner close to 30 minutes. Apart from UAE's block 60 F-16s none use AESA radar. Blk 50 uses AN/APG-68 V9 pulse doppler radar, which still has smaller planar array and less power output to N001V: Not good for STT. There are many variants of R-27, is AIM-9X a bad missile because AIM-9B was bad?
@XzenXzaneXzix Numbers are; 9400 kilograms on baseline single seat variants, 11400 kg on modernised Su-27s or 11500 kg on newly built ones, compared to Block 50 F-16's 3175 kg and Rafale's 4322 kg. Thats why we rarely see one with an external fuel tank (which is a 3000 liter tank) and personally I have never seen one carrying 3x3000L.
@AndraxxusNephilem So assuming an Su-27 carries around 10,767kg of fuel (I averaged values), and it can sustain augmentation for close to 30 minutes (I used 27), then it consumes roughly 400kg of fuel per minute on afterburner. That's not too bad. What are the flight characteristics like for an Su-27 with full fuel and armament? Is it rather sluggish because of all the weight?
@XzenXzaneXzix On average yes, but fuel consumption depends on many factors, Su-27 full AB consumption can vary from 799 kg to ~280 kg. Variable intakes help keeping it close to latter. As for flight characteristics it degrades, but its relatively less. For example, if F-16 has any external fuel tanks CAT-1 limits it to 15deg AOA and 6.5G. If 370 tanks are full, CAT-3 limiter also kicks in. Not to mention significant drag. Su-27 can still pull 9Gs and 25+AOA with full fuel and no drag penalty.
@XzenXzaneXzix At full load, a Su-27 is limited to 5.5G, has too much drag and wing loading. But after putting 48 dumb bombs on an aircraft what would you expect? Its a payload very few can lift with. Still, don't think fully loaded Su-27 as a fat pig. Its max weight is 30.4 to 34.5 tons (depends on variants). Compare it with F-16: 19.2 tons, 48% thrust, 44% wing area of Su-27. or Rafale: 24.5 tons, 52% thrust 73% wing area. or F-18E: 29.9 tons, 2/3 engine power, 75% wing area. You do the math..
@XzenXzaneXzix CAT-1 and -3 are electronic limiters found in F-16s Flight control system. They limit the flight performance when there is extra weight under pylons. They can be switched off, but exceeding those limits cause irrepairable damage to airframe. Primarily it limits AOA roll rate and yaw rate, secondary effect is G limit. As for the math, in theory, higher wing loading (Wing area / weight) and lower Thrust weight ratio means more degraded performance.
@XzenXzaneXzix I also appreciate any civilized talk, which is unfortunately quite rare on youtube. Good luck to your friend in aeronautical engineering, esspecially if he's going to take computational fluid dynamics or turbo machinary courses =)
@AndraxxusNephilem Also, is it possible for you to give me the numbers and sources for the weight, thrust and wing area of the aircraft that you previously listed? I have a friend who is studying aeronautical engineering at UMich who might be interested in this.
@XzenXzaneXzix You are always welcome. My sources are always flight manuals. Very reliable and without advertisment or bias. However as they are classified document, they are very hard to get. some like "T.O. 1F-16C1-1" (blk 30 F-16) are on the net. T.O GR1F-16CJ-1 is for blk50 F-16 and A1-F18EA-NFM-000 for F-18E. For turn rates, climb rates or anything reveals true capabilities you have to obtain supplemental manuals. For limiters you have to obtain mission planning documents etc etc.
@nem1 Close at 20km per second argument is also wrong, as it means 72000 km/h. I would be like 2800 km/h which is 0.77 km per second. PS: Jamming AESA focuses a powerful narrow beam to its victim and loses its scanning and tracking abilities. Not the best thing to do if your enemy has EOS/R-27TE combination.
If your enemy is jammed it cant fire a missile. If you believe that the aircraft with a far larger RCS, combined with an inferior radar and an inferior missile would still have the advantage then you are beyond help. (and based on your recent argument you are) The R-27's design is from the era preceding that of the AMRAAM, semi-active missiles were inferior in every way and had extremely low records of actually guiding to the target (never in the case of the R-27)
@nem1 Sorry but, are you an idiot or you pretend not understanding my comments? 1- R-27 is inferior to AIM-120 in *overall* capabilites (which include HOJ, NOZ, seeker head, datalink bandwidth). In return R-27 has greater range, terminal energy, and seeker head variety. Su-27 carries R-27 in far greater numbers, which are only decisive factors in 1-1 engagement. Su-27 fires first, F-16 evades and loses energy, Su-27 follows, fires again and again until F-16 has no energy left to evade it.
@nem1 2- N001 is inferior to F-15s APG-63 overall. It doesnt even have raid assesment mode, inferior Track while scan mode, low processing power, slower vertical scan, slower volume scan etc etc. BUT, (read this part carefully) it has better scanning and tracking range, and better ECCM single target tracking mode. Now in 1-1 Su-27 only needs to focus its huge antenna, burn through any ECM with superior power output, and get target vector as far as possible. In this task, N001 excels APG-63.
@nem1 And you are assuming two foolishly wrong ideas. 1- Su-27 can carry two Sorbstiya ECM pods which are phased array jammers, against F-16s single ALQ-131 pod which is not. It is just wrong to assume F-16 can jam Su-27 before it does, when Su-27 has the advanage in both Radar and ECM power. 2- RCS: When both are clean, sure. neither is LO design and F-16 has smaller surface area. But when both are loaded with missiles, pylons etc, difference is really negligable, perhaps only by 3 to 5%.
@nem1 3- Drop tanks can be dropped yes, but in BVR when you also need to drop them when you need to evade a missile, as they are neither high speed nor high G capable, and give a high combat persistance advantage to Su-27 (or an F-15) red air only showed indians need more flight hours on MKIs.
MKI's arent original Su-27's so bringing them up is pointless (unless you want to compare it to an F-22). You keep bringing up the R-27's range but fail to address the missiles low chances, and zero combat record, of actually guiding to the target. It is an inferior missile to the AMRAAM and has more in common with the AIM-54. Su-33's CANT take off with full fuel and ordinance, they often send some Su-33s up to fuel others for missions. I'll kill your TWR in a second.
@nem1 I *never* compared MKI with F-15C. I SAID Su-30Ms with N001V radar = same as Su-27's. Are you reading my posts throughly or just responding automatically? R-27 is a inferior missile overall, even the AE variant is, no argument about that. But its still a threat need to be evaded, by jettisoning fuel tanks, and sacrificing 1- altitude 2-speed 3- firing position. As is to be fired first because of superior range and an F-16 cant just ignore it and close the range to launch an AMRAAM.
@nem1 4- HOJ works if enemy is jamming. Its nowhere usefull as a IR guided missile which gives no warning at all. 5- Another wikipedia bullshit. Su-33 can take off fully fueled and fully armed, but has to use longer launch position at the flight deck. 5- I didnt load F-16 to make it look worse than Su-27. I loaded both equally to show it is has worse performance when loaded, because it has more % growth. You pull a truck with a peugeot 107 or with another truck. Which would accelerate faster?
4. IR missiles cant compete with the range of an AMRAAM.
5. You're just wrong here
6. Putting large amounts of ordinance on a fully loaded Su-27 would quickly exceed it's max take off weight. The F-16's versatility allows it to carry large amounts of ordinance (including drop tanks). The Su-27 was essentially designed as a long range interceptor.
@nem1 4-R-27TE can. I was talking about flexibility, Su-27 carries missiles to outrange, match or sneak an F-15/16.
5- Are Russians so idiot to make an naval fighter that cant take off from Carrier??
6- GOD! What kind of bias is that? Now you made F-16 carry larger payload? F-16 9.5 tons empty 19.2 full, 5 tons of ordnance (pylon limit). Su-27 16.3 tons empty 30.5 tons full 8 tons ordnance (pylon limit). Please, dont pull assumptions out of your ass, go look at some numbers first
Tonkatsu, I don't know if you can write in English, but since you seem to be attending every air show on Earth, which ones have been the most interesting (aircraft diversity, average demo quality, mood, etc.) according to you? I guess MAKS would rank fairly high...
@nem1 facts? about your favorite videos "Combing The Hair" or about Lady Gaga? :) Did you have a chance to see and compare in one air display F-15, Su-35, Rafael, MiG-29, Pak-FA, Su-27? Have you ever been in Paris Air Show or UK Farnboro? Please, go look up some facts there. P.S. I don't care about your opinion either.
The Rafale has a sustained turn rate similar to the F-16, which is fine. But instantaneous turn rate its below the Su-30, Mig-29, F-22, and Typhoon. It also looses it's thrust advantage when it's carrying any significant payload (or fuel tanks to boost it's relatively small internal stores). And I'm very familiar with those aircraft's performances, and the Rafale only out performs the F-15 in airshows.
@nem1 turn rate = f (speed, altitude, temperature, angle of attack, air humidity, payload, etc ....). Maybe Rafale is not good at high altitude, with payload, with fuel tanks and etc., but what I've seen at 200-900 m in Moscow - empty Rafale was much more impressive than empty MiG-29, Su-27 and F-15.
I'm not arguing about the F-15; it was good for it's day but that was over 35 years ago now (same with the initial Fulcrum and Flanker). But when you compare the Rafale's performance to it's modern equivalents it isnt necessarily exceptional. It's very well designed and would definitely win a beauty contest (its gorgeous), but watch this: /watch?v=ZRV-c4s5vMo
and the Rafales advantage is a bit harder to see.
@nem1 thrust vectoring mode is efficient at around 0-250 km/h, common dog fight starts at 450-600 km/h watch?v=g9-gPXmDXCM . Pilot has a choice: to decrease speed in order to start using vector or to keep current speed in turn. We are talking about pure aerodynamic (w/o thrust engines circus).
You dont have to decrease speed to vector thrust, when a jet enters a high alpha maneuver its speed drops greatly. Also when speed decreases so does an aircraft's turning radius. Essentially the Sukhoi's turning circle would be within that of the Rafale. In a dogfight the loss in speed would be negligible for the Sukhoi for 3 reasons: The Sukhois T/W ratio allows it to accelerate, great near/post-stall maneuverability, the AA-11 archer missile. Indian Su-30's already proved this.
@rd1801992 Wrong on both occasions. Thrust Vectoring is always an advantage, from 0km/h to 9G limit = better AOA and instantenious turn rates. at Mach1+ It allows for better supersonic trimming and relieves dynamic pressure from elevators, allowing CAT3 limiters to kick in late. Dog fights take between 550 to 850 km/h where most fighters achive best turn rate around 550-650 and sustained turn rate around 750-850. Su-35 has variable intake ramps Rafale doesn't so static T/W ratio is irrelevant.
@nem1 The "initial" Flanker mentioned can still outturn and outaccelerate rafale anytime throughout the flight regime when they are equally loaded and fueled for equal range. Same goes for F-15 when both are heavily loaded. Thats the advantage of being a big aircraft with big engines=)
Yeah but bigger planes have more drag during turns, and the Rafale is an agile little bird. The Su-27 would have a tougher time keeping up speed in a turn (F-15's just dont turn well at all). I've heard F-15 pilots say they try to lure other aircraft into vertical fights.
Go to 6:40 there and the guy talks about Su-30MKI's (and Raptors) and shows how relying solely on thrust vectoring actually puts the aircraft at a disadvantage. Thrust vectoring greatly reduces speed when used. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation and engaged aircraft/pilots
@nem1 well duh. If you want to make an abrupt 180 degree turn - you'll lose a heck of a lot of speed, because guess what - momentum would still be going the other way. I don't need an aircraft officer to tell me that.
It has less to do with momentum and more with aerodynamics. Thrust vectoring pushes an aircraft past its aerodynamic limits. Instead of air hitting the control surfaces to change the aircraft's direction the jet just uses thrust to push itself around.The plane moves were the jets want it to, instead of where the air wants it to... the air fights back, causing drag. A 90 degree turn is a cobra, which turns the plane to a big airbrake, but even at 15 degrees there will be drag.
@nem1 that's a very basic way to put it, especially nowadays, ommiting several other factors such as ever increasing thrust-to-weight ratios.
Lastly, I've already told that t-10 planer is a proven aerodynamic marvel. Just compare the f-15 and su-27 from the front and bottom. Small wonder f-15 struggles in turns compared to su-27.
@NosferatuAaacaado Well no suprise there, aerodynamically speaking F-15 is a flying brick with wings. And those wings do not have LERX or LE flaps or any mechanism to prevent flow seperation from wings. For that qualitative description it turns quite well. It actually outturns MiG-29 under some circumtances.
@nem1 Plus, the guy is talking theory based on air shows, nothing more. Thrust vectoring isn't only about circus maneuvers and doesn't necessarily obey wishful thinking I often hear from some of the U.S. generals. One can use it incrementally to simply help the planer turning in where air doesn' allow.
Su-27 planer is one of the ideal planers aerodynamically - I wouldn't be talking about drag too much and too brazenly. Yeah, sure, rafale is lighter, but weight doesn't affect drag, only inertia.
Weight doesnt effect drag, but the size of the aircraft does. It takes more force to hold a big umbrella in the wind than it does to hold a small one. And the pilot is talking about combat scenarios performed during red flag 08, not airshows. Also I hope you dont think I'm calling Russian aircraft inferior in any way during this discussion. Im just saying that an aircraft using vectored thrust will bleed more speed during a turn than one that isnt using it.
@nem1 and if we talking about theoretical advantages of smaller planes, I just don't see where a small guy can utilise his high-speed turn advantage during engagements, BVR or dogfight, with a really noticeable outcome.
@NosferatuAaacaado Smaller planes do not have any turn advantages. In fact size has nothing to do with turning ability. Only advantage of a small fighter in dogfight is that it is harder to notice and follow in the sky.
@nem1 And forgot to tell, it's not like the difference between a smaller fighter jet and the likes of su-27 is that drastic if we take a wider perspective in consideration.
Nowadays, the tech made such size differences negligible.
I wasnt arguing that small aircraft have an absolute advantage over larger ones, just that there are some trade-offs for large aircraft with high pitch rates. The fact is that all modern aircraft have performances so close that the pilot is the main factor. F-15's beat Mig-29's in close range dogfights why?? Better pilots. Apart from China ( I may be a bit biased here lol) most aircraft manufactures tend to produce pretty exceptional aircraft.
@nem1 1-The drag is not only related to size. Take two umbrellas. One with twice the area wont have twice the drag. This is because smaller umbrella forces air to change direction more rapidly and will cause higher pressure differantial. The drag coefficient of a bigger umbrella would be less. Same goes for maneuvering big vs small aicraft. 2-TVC does not mean aircraft had to use it all the time. It increases the inst turn rate and thats it. It depends on pilot to efficiently use this ability.
@nem1 P.S. Generals and pilots, especially in US, have a notion to be directly interested in discrediting whatever the opposing side has to offer and puts their stakes on. I remember an acclaimed Lockheed test pilot trying to pull arguments against high maneuverability outside his ass.
So criticism of full thrust vectoring is only natural for this guy.
@nem1 Have more drag and more thrust. The correct term would be specific excess power. Both Rafale and Su-27 have similar T/W when empty or lightly loaded, but when fully loaded Su-27 has T/W of 0.8 Rafale has 0.6. Wing loading would also affect Rafale more b/c smaller wings had to carry same extra weight. So percentage increase of both drag and weight would be greater, both decrasing the SEP needed for sustained turns. Su-27 has better turn rates than F-16 by the way. F-15s is a little worse.
that plan is going to kick some Paki fighter jets really bad.
their china made toys are going to fall from sky like flies,
Vande Mataram.
patriotNP 3 weeks ago in playlist Indian Air Force Combat Aircrafts, AWACS, Wargames
Su35
Sunsetrock 3 weeks ago
I see all these so called experts posting on the Rafale and other jets. Morons.. the Indian Air Force pilots who are the users and know the requirements have evaluated the jets on more than 600 parameters. They know what they need in Indian terrain and conditions and they have actually flown and tested it instead of watching it on Youtube. The bid was not for 5th Generation, we have other options to get those like PAK-FA with Russia. So don't go around comparing different categories.
donjuan4you 3 weeks ago in playlist Indian Air Force Combat Aircrafts, AWACS, Wargames 5
good performance, i'd love to see Indian pilots perform this way in a couple of years :)
hotrockv 3 weeks ago in playlist Indian Air Force Combat Aircrafts, AWACS, Wargames
The French are usually all for Europe but when it comes to building a common fighter jet suddenly they are not home.It's like the aborted baby of the Eurofighter.
Durendal33 1 month ago
Delta wing doing a knife edge, now i see it all. amazing flight.
basimpsn 2 months ago
yeah RAFAIL !!
mrhopeful73 2 months ago
superb ...simply superb.I hope indian air force buy Rafale and kick some porki,chinki and american asses in indian ocean.
brahaspati19 3 months ago
gotta admit France really made a game changer with this plane.All of france's past plane's dont come close.
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
Amazing!
EminidisMike 4 months ago
this plane beats the shit out from its Russian competitor MiG-35 in both manoeuvrability and overall fighting capabilities
Mandrak789 4 months ago
@Mandrak789 MiG-35 is dog dirt,It's a slight improvment over the proven shitty MiG-29.All it has is AESA radar and TVC and maybe some other stuff
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@Mandrak789 lolwut? Mig-35 with thrust vectoring lose in short range doghfight? lol, dream on.
Viruner 3 months ago 6
Comment removed
agitatovitsch 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Viruner
Rafale seems to better by far in almost all aspects. Mig-35 even failed to pass the basic MMRCA technical and performance evaluation and was outlisted from the competition.
Rafale is considered to be one of the best if not the best dogfight aircraft in production
agitatovitsch 2 months ago
@Viruner the shitty mig's have terrible range though.
1bearcatf8f 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Terrible? Smaller, but not terrible. After that, Mig has bigger Thrust/weight, Service ceiling, Max Speed, Climb rate. And it has AESA radar. Also mig can carry more weapons because of its higher capacity. If you want to fly very far and strike - call the bomber or a heavy fighter like Su-30 and F-15.
Viruner 2 months ago
@Viruner Wrong.The F-15C can reach mach 2.88 wich is over 1800mph it's far faster than any air superiority fighter
1bearcatf8f 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Are you retard? We talking about rafale vs mig. After that, Russia has Mig-25 and Mig-31 ;) Also, you are wrong F-15C have speed Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,660+ km/h), wich compared with Su-27. Does not lead the discussion in another direction, dude ;)
Viruner 2 months ago
@Viruner The Rafale is better than the shitty SU-27 and shitty MiG-29.The F-15C goes 1888mph it's been recorded going that fast.And learn proper english grammar lmao.
1bearcatf8f 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Lol, stupid fanboy... Dream on. I will not respond any more.
Viruner 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Rafale accepted into service 16 years later than Su-27. Still a modernised Su-27SM can easily outperform Rafale in air superiority.
AndraxxusNephilem 1 week ago
@AndraxxusNephilem I never said the rafale was superior idk even know you
1bearcatf8f 1 week ago
@Viruner MiG-35 would not lose in close air combat, but that is in no part to TVC. In CAC, what matters is instantenius and sustained turn rates.
AndraxxusNephilem 1 week ago
@AndraxxusNephilem fact's what you get those from wikipedia? haha
1bearcatf8f 1 week ago
@1bearcatf8f I've said T.O. 1F-15A-1 already. Section 5-7 figure 5.3 "airspeed limitation and afterburner operating envelope" to be more specific. Usually turns out to be more accurate than wiki.
AndraxxusNephilem 1 week ago
@Viruner Dogfighting has little to do with TVC. All that matters is Instantenius and sustained turn rates, energy bleed and regain, excess power, time/fuel to climb abilities etc. MiG-29 is good, but not decicively good when comparing to modern EU birds like Typhoon or Rafale. And now MiG-35 gained extra 2 tons of weight compared to MiG-29S, but only 1.4 tons of extra thrust. Klimov made little improvement on RD-33s, when compared to AL-31s evolution into 117S. or PW F100 / F110 families.
AndraxxusNephilem 1 week ago
3:27 - Amazing slow flight characteristics! Not even a sign of wing drop!
ChrizRockster 4 months ago
@atmodom I dont care if Russians hate me, my race or not. I am an engineer, if something is well built for something, I say it. TuAF operates around 250 F-16 but I am objective enough to say F-16 cannot be compared with Su-27 in such way. And when compared to F-15 you can argue how bad a Su-27 would perform to attack a escorted high value asset, and I would agree. But in 1-1 Su-27 has too many advantages (missile range/choice, aircraft dynamics, radar power in STT, EOS). Again, I am not muslim.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom If that was your intention you shouldnt have posted offensive comments in the first place. I did nothing to provoke you. I made a comment related to planes, and you started with my race my religion and end up with my mom. Then as a insolent coward you removed your comments. And once again, why did you deviate from my comment about turn rates and energy graphs and end up shouting at Turks and Islam? You almost like you have a personal vendetta.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom So, you are from Greece? Or from EU... Now I understand why you hate Turks, given your history... Considering Cyprus is part of EU, and we are the invasion force which still hold the northern half of the island, and EU is also a defensive military alliance, lets just say you have more than enough "proper reasons". You would have done that if you had the power. Anyway, you replied me by saying Rafale blah blah, and I said you are wrong blah blah. How did you bring the discussion here??
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom interesting comment yet it is widely known STFI and DACT programs were initiated only because F-4s handed their own asses to MiG-21s in Vietnam. An interesting historical fact considering F-4s true rival was Su-15 in Soviet Union and MiG-21 was only an exportable plane isn't it? And the F-15 you mentioned was intended to counter MiG-25. When westerns first spotted it, they thought it was very agile fighter and followed the same layout. Unfortunately for F-15, MiG wasnt agile at all.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom
Sure, sure, dr-Know-it-all the keyboard warrior.
Now do progressive humanity a favor as specified below:
1. Grasp your head
2. Pull it out of your ass
3. ....
4. profit!
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@atmodom 3- I can and will write in english regardless of your permission. And since you lack english even more than I do, its not up to you, and again unrelated to my religion. 4- I am Turk but not muslim by the way. There is a freedom of beliefs here. Interesting fact is I dont even bother looking for what race and religion you are because your manners tell me everything I need to know. 5- If you are going to write B/S againist Islam or Turkish people ... Dont bother as I dont care.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom You call me muslim ape yet even you are embarassed of your uncivilized comments and removed them not once but twice. 1- Religion does not make a man what he is, and certainly didnt have a good influence upon you. 2- Regardless of religion, I have far greater understanding of aerodynamics then you. If I say you use a term wrong, it is so. How can a fighter be agile but not maneuverable? Whats "maneuverability" in your world? Whats sustaining a speed to you when you dont know what SEP is?
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom Bitch please.
desperation? stop pulling shit out of your ass.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@atmodom No in fact you can go on, and embrass yourself.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@atmodom First, you are sadly misinformed. Read my comment I recently posted to nem1, then talk about "sustaining airspeed". Secondly, the terms you use show your lack of knowledge. First in ACM there are 3 values: 1- sust. turn rates 2- and inst. turn rates 3-energy graphs. All are equally important but also dependent on other factors. Thirdly, high roll rate does not do a shit in dogfight. Its only use would be evading missiles but rolling too rapidly at high AOA is, well, unvise..
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
Nice display by the Rafael!
ARoyalFocker 6 months ago 9
@AndraxxusNephilem
You're figures are so off they are ridiculous, I calculated the Wiki stats for both aircraft with manufacture claims and they dont agree with you at all. The Rafale has a T/W ratio far over 1.0 even when it's fully loaded, and a fully loaded Sukhoi carries so much internal fuel it wouldnt even compare fully loaded (the Wikipedia stats arent calculated with full fuel for this reason). Same with turning radii, you're information is so wrong its not worth the argument.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 Rafale: 79.44 kN*2 engine thrust, 24500 kg MTOW. Su-27S: 122,6 kN*2 engine thrust, 30450 kg MTOW. Recalculate.Ok, I will skip the enlightening part and give you some numbers. Read my next post.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem I accidantaly pasted dry SFC value. 75,62 kN*2 is the Rafales engine power. Sorry for misinformation.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 With 50% fuel, two R-27s and two R-73s, a Su-27 can sustain 22,36 deg/s turn rate at best. A blk 50 F-16 with 50% fuel and drag index 0 (means not even empty pylons are attached) can sustain 21,4 deg/s at best. Now with that 50% fuel a Su-27 can reach 2000km. An F-16 needs nearly %100 fuel load for same range. Then put two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s. Got my point? To further improve your imagination: F-16 + %50 fuel + 6 AIM-120s + ALQ-131 pod can sustain 17.2 deg/s = worse than F-15C !!.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
You're nitpicking with certain flight speeds and altitudes to make favorable results for yourself. To be absolutely blunt about it the Su-27's enormous RCS, combined with it's inferior radar guided missiles and outdated radar means that it wouldnt stand a chance going head on against an F-16 block 50. No R-27 or R-77 has guided to impact during combat, despite the fact that several have been fired.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 I am not picking certain flight speeds, I am putting BEST turn rates which Su-27 achieves at 810 km/h F-16 achieves at 852 km/h when empty 979 km/h for 6 amraam + alq-131 pod. In fact R-27 was widely used againist MiG-29s in eritian war, and with Russian mercineries piloting results were effective. R-77 is not in service with Su-27. R-27 has many variants from IR guided T/TE, SARH guided R/RE extreme ranged EM and ARH guided AE. Su-27 rcs is broadly comperable to F-15, not so enormous.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 A typical Su-27 loadout on CAP would be pairs of R-27EM, R-27AE, R-27TE, R-73M, and sorbstsiya pods. That gives alot more flexibility than an F-15 or an F-16 as R-27EMs have double range of AIM-120, R-27AE = AIM-120 mostly, R-27TEs are IR guided. Su-27 has higher persistance and decide on opening move. In fact F-16 doesnt stand a chance. Actually you are nitpicking THE most favorable mission profile for Su-27: head on combat with another fighter with maximum situational awareness.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
The R-27 does not have a single confirmed kill. The RCS of an F-16 easily puts the Su-27 within kill range. The AMRAAM also has both active and passive seekers, allowing it so find a target even if it attempts to jam. In Eritrea all kills were by R-73's, none by R-27's. Quit making up garbage and responding as if you actually have an argument.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 AMRAAM is ARH with HOJ capability, not passive guidence, theres a difference. You are the one making assumptions. Repeating myself but; Indian Su-30Ms and F-15s faced each other and locked around the same time with Su-30 firing first. Now if you are going to claim F-16 has better radar than F-15 go on. What you dont get is RCS of an armed F-15/16 Su-27 is not that different. I have arguement it is you claiming something and cant back it up then claim another thing. What happened to T/Ws?
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
HOJ is a form of passive guidance. Indian Su-30's werent even allowed to use their radars against F-15's (or any western opponent for that matter) stop making up garbage. And you lost the TWR argument. The only way an Su-27 would have a better TWR than any American fighter would mean loading the F-16 down with so many drop pods it's ridiculous.The Su-27 is capable of carrying excessive amounts of fuel, so excessive that they rarely do.Su-33's cant even take off fully fueled
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 1-You should go back and re-read my post. You didnt get a thing at all. I said Su-27s NTOW T/W is 1 just like Rafale but at MTOW Su-27s is 0.8, Rafales is 0.6 2-MKIs werent allowed not Ms with their N001V radar. They were allowed and played wargames manytimes. 3- Its not a bad thing to have big internal fuel tank. You can always half fill it. Rafale has to carry external tanks to reach same range of Su-27 which means even more performance drop. That is what I was trying to prove.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
1. MTOW is irrelevant, full fuel and A2A loadout means Rafale with 1.10 TWR and Su-27 with .96 (MTOW just shows the Rafales design is capable of holding an immense amount of ordinance when necessary)
2. F-15C radar FAR outperforms the standard Su-30M radar (not even including the AESA v2 version).
3.Drop tanks fall off when fuel is burn or in the event of a dogfight, so no extra weight or drag (red air also showed F-15's dominating Su-30MKI's even with their drop tanks)
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 1 Why do you keep comparing a full fuel Su-27 with with full fuel Rafale? With full fuel Rafale has a range of 2300 km, Su-27 has 3800. If mission is the same Su-27 would only need 60% fuel. If Su-27 needs 100% fuel, Rafale also needs drop tanks.
2- APG-63 has many advantages to N001V radar no argument about that, but when going 1 on 1 in such way. You see the enemy in RWR, point your antena and swich to STT mode. with bigger antenna and bigger power output N001V is advantageus here.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
I'm comparing one full fuel fighter to another because that is what the manufacturers designed their aircraft to do. When at full fuel and loaded for A2A the Rafale would have the TWR advantage while the Su-27 is designed for more range. In comparison the Rafale has supercruise so it could theoretically outrun the Flanker, and its RCS and radar means (once again) the Sukhoi is unlikely to get close enough to dogfight.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 Two epic fails. 1- A Block D B-1B has a difference of 122 tons between empty weight and MTOW. It also has the ability to carry 120.5 tons of fuel. So according to you B-1B is an unarmed aircraft right? The true version of your claim is this: A Su-27, just like B-1 example, is designed to be flexible. If it needs heavy payload but not range it can fly so, if it needs a very long CAP it can also do it. for GAI, it would be taking of with 3 tons of fuel. Thats what mission planning is for.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 Ability to supercruise depends on exhaust velocity and airflow around the tail need to be slower than critical Mach number. Ability to accelerate max speed depends on what dynamic T/W can generate. As Su-27 has variable intake ramps, and Rafale uses fixed inlets, despite your fanatism, the difference is beyond comparison. For ex. a MiG-25 has a pathetic T/W when static, but when ramps start controlling compression shockwave, nothing can catch it.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
I'm not refering to top speed. The Sukhoi would have to engage afterburners if it had any hopes of keeping up with the rafale. The Sukhoi would run out of fuel. With my other argument a Su-27 going head on with a F-16 would mean they close at around 20km per second. If the Sukhoi managed to achieve lock it would be jammed to hell by the F-16's AESA radar. F-16's have gone against Migs with the R-27, I shouldnt have to say what the outcome was.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 Had to engage afterburners so what? A Su-27 can accelerate from 600 to 1100 in 14 seconds, an F-16 does that in 16. With similar intake design Rafele would be closer to F-16. Su-27 can sustain afterburner close to 30 minutes. Apart from UAE's block 60 F-16s none use AESA radar. Blk 50 uses AN/APG-68 V9 pulse doppler radar, which still has smaller planar array and less power output to N001V: Not good for STT. There are many variants of R-27, is AIM-9X a bad missile because AIM-9B was bad?
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem Close to 30 minutes on afterburner with two engines? That aircraft must carry a lot of fuel.
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix Numbers are; 9400 kilograms on baseline single seat variants, 11400 kg on modernised Su-27s or 11500 kg on newly built ones, compared to Block 50 F-16's 3175 kg and Rafale's 4322 kg. Thats why we rarely see one with an external fuel tank (which is a 3000 liter tank) and personally I have never seen one carrying 3x3000L.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem So assuming an Su-27 carries around 10,767kg of fuel (I averaged values), and it can sustain augmentation for close to 30 minutes (I used 27), then it consumes roughly 400kg of fuel per minute on afterburner. That's not too bad. What are the flight characteristics like for an Su-27 with full fuel and armament? Is it rather sluggish because of all the weight?
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix On average yes, but fuel consumption depends on many factors, Su-27 full AB consumption can vary from 799 kg to ~280 kg. Variable intakes help keeping it close to latter. As for flight characteristics it degrades, but its relatively less. For example, if F-16 has any external fuel tanks CAT-1 limits it to 15deg AOA and 6.5G. If 370 tanks are full, CAT-3 limiter also kicks in. Not to mention significant drag. Su-27 can still pull 9Gs and 25+AOA with full fuel and no drag penalty.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix At full load, a Su-27 is limited to 5.5G, has too much drag and wing loading. But after putting 48 dumb bombs on an aircraft what would you expect? Its a payload very few can lift with. Still, don't think fully loaded Su-27 as a fat pig. Its max weight is 30.4 to 34.5 tons (depends on variants). Compare it with F-16: 19.2 tons, 48% thrust, 44% wing area of Su-27. or Rafale: 24.5 tons, 52% thrust 73% wing area. or F-18E: 29.9 tons, 2/3 engine power, 75% wing area. You do the math..
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem What is CAT-1 and CAT-3? And what kind of math should I be doing that relates weight (or mass?) with thrust and wing area?
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix CAT-1 and -3 are electronic limiters found in F-16s Flight control system. They limit the flight performance when there is extra weight under pylons. They can be switched off, but exceeding those limits cause irrepairable damage to airframe. Primarily it limits AOA roll rate and yaw rate, secondary effect is G limit. As for the math, in theory, higher wing loading (Wing area / weight) and lower Thrust weight ratio means more degraded performance.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem Thanks. This stuff is pretty interesting. Also, you seem to know a lot. I can appreciate that.
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix I also appreciate any civilized talk, which is unfortunately quite rare on youtube. Good luck to your friend in aeronautical engineering, esspecially if he's going to take computational fluid dynamics or turbo machinary courses =)
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem danke, will do.
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem Also, is it possible for you to give me the numbers and sources for the weight, thrust and wing area of the aircraft that you previously listed? I have a friend who is studying aeronautical engineering at UMich who might be interested in this.
XzenXzaneXzix 5 months ago
@XzenXzaneXzix You are always welcome. My sources are always flight manuals. Very reliable and without advertisment or bias. However as they are classified document, they are very hard to get. some like "T.O. 1F-16C1-1" (blk 30 F-16) are on the net. T.O GR1F-16CJ-1 is for blk50 F-16 and A1-F18EA-NFM-000 for F-18E. For turn rates, climb rates or anything reveals true capabilities you have to obtain supplemental manuals. For limiters you have to obtain mission planning documents etc etc.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@nem1 Close at 20km per second argument is also wrong, as it means 72000 km/h. I would be like 2800 km/h which is 0.77 km per second. PS: Jamming AESA focuses a powerful narrow beam to its victim and loses its scanning and tracking abilities. Not the best thing to do if your enemy has EOS/R-27TE combination.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
If your enemy is jammed it cant fire a missile. If you believe that the aircraft with a far larger RCS, combined with an inferior radar and an inferior missile would still have the advantage then you are beyond help. (and based on your recent argument you are) The R-27's design is from the era preceding that of the AMRAAM, semi-active missiles were inferior in every way and had extremely low records of actually guiding to the target (never in the case of the R-27)
nem1 5 months ago
@nem1 Sorry but, are you an idiot or you pretend not understanding my comments? 1- R-27 is inferior to AIM-120 in *overall* capabilites (which include HOJ, NOZ, seeker head, datalink bandwidth). In return R-27 has greater range, terminal energy, and seeker head variety. Su-27 carries R-27 in far greater numbers, which are only decisive factors in 1-1 engagement. Su-27 fires first, F-16 evades and loses energy, Su-27 follows, fires again and again until F-16 has no energy left to evade it.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@nem1 2- N001 is inferior to F-15s APG-63 overall. It doesnt even have raid assesment mode, inferior Track while scan mode, low processing power, slower vertical scan, slower volume scan etc etc. BUT, (read this part carefully) it has better scanning and tracking range, and better ECCM single target tracking mode. Now in 1-1 Su-27 only needs to focus its huge antenna, burn through any ECM with superior power output, and get target vector as far as possible. In this task, N001 excels APG-63.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@nem1 And you are assuming two foolishly wrong ideas. 1- Su-27 can carry two Sorbstiya ECM pods which are phased array jammers, against F-16s single ALQ-131 pod which is not. It is just wrong to assume F-16 can jam Su-27 before it does, when Su-27 has the advanage in both Radar and ECM power. 2- RCS: When both are clean, sure. neither is LO design and F-16 has smaller surface area. But when both are loaded with missiles, pylons etc, difference is really negligable, perhaps only by 3 to 5%.
AndraxxusNephilem 5 months ago
@nem1 3- Drop tanks can be dropped yes, but in BVR when you also need to drop them when you need to evade a missile, as they are neither high speed nor high G capable, and give a high combat persistance advantage to Su-27 (or an F-15) red air only showed indians need more flight hours on MKIs.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
MKI's arent original Su-27's so bringing them up is pointless (unless you want to compare it to an F-22). You keep bringing up the R-27's range but fail to address the missiles low chances, and zero combat record, of actually guiding to the target. It is an inferior missile to the AMRAAM and has more in common with the AIM-54. Su-33's CANT take off with full fuel and ordinance, they often send some Su-33s up to fuel others for missions. I'll kill your TWR in a second.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 I *never* compared MKI with F-15C. I SAID Su-30Ms with N001V radar = same as Su-27's. Are you reading my posts throughly or just responding automatically? R-27 is a inferior missile overall, even the AE variant is, no argument about that. But its still a threat need to be evaded, by jettisoning fuel tanks, and sacrificing 1- altitude 2-speed 3- firing position. As is to be fired first because of superior range and an F-16 cant just ignore it and close the range to launch an AMRAAM.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 4- HOJ works if enemy is jamming. Its nowhere usefull as a IR guided missile which gives no warning at all. 5- Another wikipedia bullshit. Su-33 can take off fully fueled and fully armed, but has to use longer launch position at the flight deck. 5- I didnt load F-16 to make it look worse than Su-27. I loaded both equally to show it is has worse performance when loaded, because it has more % growth. You pull a truck with a peugeot 107 or with another truck. Which would accelerate faster?
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
4. IR missiles cant compete with the range of an AMRAAM.
5. You're just wrong here
6. Putting large amounts of ordinance on a fully loaded Su-27 would quickly exceed it's max take off weight. The F-16's versatility allows it to carry large amounts of ordinance (including drop tanks). The Su-27 was essentially designed as a long range interceptor.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 4-R-27TE can. I was talking about flexibility, Su-27 carries missiles to outrange, match or sneak an F-15/16.
5- Are Russians so idiot to make an naval fighter that cant take off from Carrier??
6- GOD! What kind of bias is that? Now you made F-16 carry larger payload? F-16 9.5 tons empty 19.2 full, 5 tons of ordnance (pylon limit). Su-27 16.3 tons empty 30.5 tons full 8 tons ordnance (pylon limit). Please, dont pull assumptions out of your ass, go look at some numbers first
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
Tonkatsu, I don't know if you can write in English, but since you seem to be attending every air show on Earth, which ones have been the most interesting (aircraft diversity, average demo quality, mood, etc.) according to you? I guess MAKS would rank fairly high...
ZbLuffer 6 months ago
In my opinion Rafale is #1 in turn rate (MiG-29, Su-27, F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22, Eurofighter) are not even closer to what this plan can do.
rd1801992 6 months ago
@rd1801992
Nobody cares about your opinion, go look up some facts.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 facts? about your favorite videos "Combing The Hair" or about Lady Gaga? :) Did you have a chance to see and compare in one air display F-15, Su-35, Rafael, MiG-29, Pak-FA, Su-27? Have you ever been in Paris Air Show or UK Farnboro? Please, go look up some facts there. P.S. I don't care about your opinion either.
rd1801992 6 months ago
@rd1801992
The Rafale has a sustained turn rate similar to the F-16, which is fine. But instantaneous turn rate its below the Su-30, Mig-29, F-22, and Typhoon. It also looses it's thrust advantage when it's carrying any significant payload (or fuel tanks to boost it's relatively small internal stores). And I'm very familiar with those aircraft's performances, and the Rafale only out performs the F-15 in airshows.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 turn rate = f (speed, altitude, temperature, angle of attack, air humidity, payload, etc ....). Maybe Rafale is not good at high altitude, with payload, with fuel tanks and etc., but what I've seen at 200-900 m in Moscow - empty Rafale was much more impressive than empty MiG-29, Su-27 and F-15.
rd1801992 6 months ago
@rd1801992
I'm not arguing about the F-15; it was good for it's day but that was over 35 years ago now (same with the initial Fulcrum and Flanker). But when you compare the Rafale's performance to it's modern equivalents it isnt necessarily exceptional. It's very well designed and would definitely win a beauty contest (its gorgeous), but watch this: /watch?v=ZRV-c4s5vMo
and the Rafales advantage is a bit harder to see.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 thrust vectoring mode is efficient at around 0-250 km/h, common dog fight starts at 450-600 km/h watch?v=g9-gPXmDXCM . Pilot has a choice: to decrease speed in order to start using vector or to keep current speed in turn. We are talking about pure aerodynamic (w/o thrust engines circus).
rd1801992 6 months ago
@rd1801992
You dont have to decrease speed to vector thrust, when a jet enters a high alpha maneuver its speed drops greatly. Also when speed decreases so does an aircraft's turning radius. Essentially the Sukhoi's turning circle would be within that of the Rafale. In a dogfight the loss in speed would be negligible for the Sukhoi for 3 reasons: The Sukhois T/W ratio allows it to accelerate, great near/post-stall maneuverability, the AA-11 archer missile. Indian Su-30's already proved this.
nem1 6 months ago
@rd1801992 Wrong on both occasions. Thrust Vectoring is always an advantage, from 0km/h to 9G limit = better AOA and instantenious turn rates. at Mach1+ It allows for better supersonic trimming and relieves dynamic pressure from elevators, allowing CAT3 limiters to kick in late. Dog fights take between 550 to 850 km/h where most fighters achive best turn rate around 550-650 and sustained turn rate around 750-850. Su-35 has variable intake ramps Rafale doesn't so static T/W ratio is irrelevant.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 The "initial" Flanker mentioned can still outturn and outaccelerate rafale anytime throughout the flight regime when they are equally loaded and fueled for equal range. Same goes for F-15 when both are heavily loaded. Thats the advantage of being a big aircraft with big engines=)
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem
Yeah but bigger planes have more drag during turns, and the Rafale is an agile little bird. The Su-27 would have a tougher time keeping up speed in a turn (F-15's just dont turn well at all). I've heard F-15 pilots say they try to lure other aircraft into vertical fights.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 thrust vectoring is beyond aerodynamics, and two su-27 engines will have enough thrust to accelerate
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado
watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
Go to 6:40 there and the guy talks about Su-30MKI's (and Raptors) and shows how relying solely on thrust vectoring actually puts the aircraft at a disadvantage. Thrust vectoring greatly reduces speed when used. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation and engaged aircraft/pilots
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 well duh. If you want to make an abrupt 180 degree turn - you'll lose a heck of a lot of speed, because guess what - momentum would still be going the other way. I don't need an aircraft officer to tell me that.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado
It has less to do with momentum and more with aerodynamics. Thrust vectoring pushes an aircraft past its aerodynamic limits. Instead of air hitting the control surfaces to change the aircraft's direction the jet just uses thrust to push itself around.The plane moves were the jets want it to, instead of where the air wants it to... the air fights back, causing drag. A 90 degree turn is a cobra, which turns the plane to a big airbrake, but even at 15 degrees there will be drag.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 that's a very basic way to put it, especially nowadays, ommiting several other factors such as ever increasing thrust-to-weight ratios.
Lastly, I've already told that t-10 planer is a proven aerodynamic marvel. Just compare the f-15 and su-27 from the front and bottom. Small wonder f-15 struggles in turns compared to su-27.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Well no suprise there, aerodynamically speaking F-15 is a flying brick with wings. And those wings do not have LERX or LE flaps or any mechanism to prevent flow seperation from wings. For that qualitative description it turns quite well. It actually outturns MiG-29 under some circumtances.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@AndraxxusNephilem yes, it's the aerodynamic shaping of the planer that wins the day.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@nem1 Plus, the guy is talking theory based on air shows, nothing more. Thrust vectoring isn't only about circus maneuvers and doesn't necessarily obey wishful thinking I often hear from some of the U.S. generals. One can use it incrementally to simply help the planer turning in where air doesn' allow.
Su-27 planer is one of the ideal planers aerodynamically - I wouldn't be talking about drag too much and too brazenly. Yeah, sure, rafale is lighter, but weight doesn't affect drag, only inertia.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado
Weight doesnt effect drag, but the size of the aircraft does. It takes more force to hold a big umbrella in the wind than it does to hold a small one. And the pilot is talking about combat scenarios performed during red flag 08, not airshows. Also I hope you dont think I'm calling Russian aircraft inferior in any way during this discussion. Im just saying that an aircraft using vectored thrust will bleed more speed during a turn than one that isnt using it.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 and if we talking about theoretical advantages of smaller planes, I just don't see where a small guy can utilise his high-speed turn advantage during engagements, BVR or dogfight, with a really noticeable outcome.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Smaller planes do not have any turn advantages. In fact size has nothing to do with turning ability. Only advantage of a small fighter in dogfight is that it is harder to notice and follow in the sky.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 And forgot to tell, it's not like the difference between a smaller fighter jet and the likes of su-27 is that drastic if we take a wider perspective in consideration.
Nowadays, the tech made such size differences negligible.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado
I wasnt arguing that small aircraft have an absolute advantage over larger ones, just that there are some trade-offs for large aircraft with high pitch rates. The fact is that all modern aircraft have performances so close that the pilot is the main factor. F-15's beat Mig-29's in close range dogfights why?? Better pilots. Apart from China ( I may be a bit biased here lol) most aircraft manufactures tend to produce pretty exceptional aircraft.
nem1 6 months ago
@nem1 I have to add - better pilots and better equipment/avionics. Those Mig-29 you talk about were export models.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@nem1 1-The drag is not only related to size. Take two umbrellas. One with twice the area wont have twice the drag. This is because smaller umbrella forces air to change direction more rapidly and will cause higher pressure differantial. The drag coefficient of a bigger umbrella would be less. Same goes for maneuvering big vs small aicraft. 2-TVC does not mean aircraft had to use it all the time. It increases the inst turn rate and thats it. It depends on pilot to efficiently use this ability.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
@nem1 P.S. Generals and pilots, especially in US, have a notion to be directly interested in discrediting whatever the opposing side has to offer and puts their stakes on. I remember an acclaimed Lockheed test pilot trying to pull arguments against high maneuverability outside his ass.
So criticism of full thrust vectoring is only natural for this guy.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@nem1 Have more drag and more thrust. The correct term would be specific excess power. Both Rafale and Su-27 have similar T/W when empty or lightly loaded, but when fully loaded Su-27 has T/W of 0.8 Rafale has 0.6. Wing loading would also affect Rafale more b/c smaller wings had to carry same extra weight. So percentage increase of both drag and weight would be greater, both decrasing the SEP needed for sustained turns. Su-27 has better turn rates than F-16 by the way. F-15s is a little worse.
AndraxxusNephilem 6 months ago
Хорош!
1979Safar 6 months ago
Good plane!
iOxYGeN90 6 months ago
Makes the eurofighter look like crap
Wawaweewaj 6 months ago 24
@Wawaweewaj EF IS A CRAP
TheSubzerogr 5 months ago
@TheSubzerogr yups
Wawaweewaj 5 months ago
Французы молодцы!!!! Отличное выступление и действительно профессиональный, динамичный и связанный пилотаж!
maxispeed0 6 months ago
Самолёт красавец. Пилотаж просто отличный!..
WeReLex 6 months ago
pas mal le Rafale
sukhoi466137614 6 months ago
Rafale I liked.
virnoNA5 6 months ago
So agile :D
MrBloodyVelvet 6 months ago
my favorite plane it's Su-35 and T-50...
STALKERBooka 6 months ago
Wow. awesome the landing approach. 5:50
DubVideoRoom 6 months ago 14
my favorite plane
mohsin213jc 6 months ago
Realy good
Alexthe34 6 months ago