Eurofihgter weakness

[Zen]

5 G is hardly very maneuverable now is it in an age of 9 G fighters:)
Supercruise I belive it can and deliver bombs as well, I understand the Mig 25 could be equiped with a tachometric bombing computer for reasonably accurate deliver, so I woudl assume that can be fitted to the Mig31 as well.

Rolls loops etc... at can be done by most if not all jet fighters today and has been possible since the begining of jet flight.

12*500kg is possible on such a plane as Typhoon as is 24*250kg bombs with mulitple per main pylons and some on the centreline.
I'm not saying it can supercruise with that load mind!

[Akm72]

I dunno Zen, that might be stretching it a bit, 8 or maybe 10 x 500kg bombs should be possible. I've not seen any indication that the mid-outer underwing pylons can carry 500kg-class stores, though that might be within reason. I can't recall ever seeing A-G munitions on the centerline, only ever a 1000-ltr supersonic drop tank.

[Zen]

Well those pylons are stressed to carry various weights, if they can carry 2,000ltr drop tanks those mid pylons should certainly be able to handle at least up to 2,000kg of weight and by rough calculation reach well over that. Of course one needs the proper wiring and connections for interface with the weapons but that has been mooted for Tranche2 anyway along with plumbing of all main pylons (not the ASRAAM pylons though).
The centerline is rated for a 1,000ltr supersonic drop tank but if thats so then with the wiring in place it too should handle 1,000kg easily.

That makes 2,000kg*2 +1,000kg + the currently weapon rated pylons, should reach at least 8,000kg total.

Long ago when it was the ACA prject they did consider centerlie stores and have doen so recently for later Tranches. It makes a lot of sense to fully develop existing stations for both the widest number of weapons and other stores.

[Phil Foster]

This is a futile argument. I thought it had already been said "this is a Eurofighter Typhoon forum, not a general aviation forum". Sergey you are talking out of your bum. If you want to argue the toss between the relative merits of these two aircraft follow these steps:

1) Go an start your own bloody website for the purpose.

2) Back you claims up with irrefutable facts. Like books to read, websites to visit, news articles. You know the stuff. Rather than picking vague thoughts out of your own head and passing them off as fact.

Looking back through this thread I remember something else. Somebody, it might have been you Sergey, mentioned the Falklands War and how the Sea Harrier was able to stop dead in midair. Correct me if I am wrong but you touted this as a distinct tactical advantage and pointed to the Flankers ability to do something similar. I don't want to burst your bubble but this capability (known as VIFF(ing) or Vectoring In Forward Flight) was never employed during the Falklands War, or any other war for that matter. VTOL/VSTOL/STOVL or whatever you want to call it is purely used for strategic and tactical basing purposes. It is not used in air combat either against ground forces or air to air combat. The only aircraft type that can make good use of the ability to stop in mid air is a gunship helicopter and even then it is a risky thing to do.

We will only know who is right if these aircraft ever face each other in combat. I for one am planning on that never happening.

The other arena is in the export market which I suppose is what your arguments are about. If potential customers believe Sukhoi they will buy the Flanker, if they don't they will go to somebody else or develop their own aircraft. I really don't think you or I are ever going to affect that debate. In any case, the Flanker might be cheaper to buy but it will cost a fortune to keep serviceable. It is also an old design compared to the competition unless you are talking about the Hornets, Vipers and Eagles of this world. I have no doubt about the capability of Russian combat aircraft but don't be so sure it is better than the competition because you might be sorely dissapointed.

Phil

[Phil Foster]

wrong(c) Sea harriers from RAF use braking in air to sit on tail of the Mirages of FAA. And claims many victories that way.

Wrong they did not. If you do not believe me ask the folks at the Royal Navy or indeed the Royal Air Force museum. If you don't believe them then we know you are making it up as you go along. VIFF(ing) is not, has not and will not be used in a tactical situation. As our American friends say. PERIOD.

In any case why use a tactic that slows you down to stay on the tail of an aircraft that is twice as fast as the one you are flying? Its nonsense and you know it. The closest anybody ever got was to move the nozels very slightly on an excercise once which bled off about 100knots airspeed and made the aircraft rise by about 100ft. The aircraft behind did indeed overshoot but the Harrier had lost enough airspeed as to make his position untenable and he lost the fight. Purely through a lack of speed. Now you can argue the toss all you want but after what you said in the above quote I know your are talking total *beep*.

I want to see objective picture, not to say that Su-27 is ideal aircraft, and to see not a ideal aircraft - EF-2000 but real advantages and disadvantages:-) of EF.
I m not a maniacally patriot of russian weapon, (I live in Ukraine, Ukraine is not Russia)
But want to point to real EF-2000 weakneses and compare EF-2000 properties with other aircrafts ones.

Sorry mate but the ball is in your court. You can trawl the internet for all the information and photgraphs you want but pictures do not tell you everything. Show me a picture of a Flanker flying farther than an EF Typhoon? Show me a picture of an EF Typhoon in supercruise? How is a picture going to tell you what you want to know? We can never proove to you anything with pictures and even official information won't make you believe us because you don't want to believe us. The whole argument is academic and we will never be able to agree on anything with your immoveable bullish attitude to anything that goes against your way of thinking. You simply cannot and will not accept the truth even if you can go and find it out for yourself. I'm sorry but I don't have the time to go and trawl 20+ years of information just to placate you. If you are really that interested go and find out for yourself. If you are not shut the *bleep* up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW. I never said you were Russian.

Phil

[toan]

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofi ... yphoon.htm

EF-2000 Tranch 1

Empty weight：11,000kg (Single Seat)～11,700kg（Double Seat）
Internal Fuel：5,600L／4,500kg
External Load：6,500kg（Normal）～7,500kg（Upper Limit）
Maximum Weight：21,000kg（Normal）～23.500kg（Upper Limit）


Air combat capability for EF-2000 Tranch1
（ In the condition of Standard Air combat configuration: AIM-120*4, ASRAAM*2）

Maximum Speed：2.0 Mach (F/A-18C/D: 1.76 Mach)

Sea-level Maximum Speed：1.15 Mach (F/A-18C/D: 1.05 Mach)

Normal Upper Limit of Climbing Height：65,000 fts (F/A-18C/D: 57,000 fts)

Climbing rate：
a. Sea-level Climbing reat：292.78 m／sec (F/A-18C/D: 289.56 m/sec)
b. Time for take-off：Less than 8 secs (F/A-18C/D: 10 secs)
c. From ground to 9,146 m：86 secs
d. From ground to 10,670 m, 1.5 Mach：Less than 2mins 30secs


Accleration (EF-2000):
a. 200 knots --> Mach 1：30 secs
b. 0.9 Mach --> 1.2 Mach：40 secs
c. 0.8 Mach --> 1.4 Mach：62 secs

Accleration (F/A-18C/D):
a. 0 --> Mach 1：55~65 secs
b. 0.5 Mach --> 0.9 Mach：18 secs
c. 0.8 Mach --> 1.6 Mach：120 secs



Flight Envelop：
Sea-level：0.15~1.15 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.15~1.10 Mach）
10,000 fts：0.19~1.40 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.17~1.23 Mach）
20,000 fts：0.22~1.65 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.20~1.40 Mach）
25,000 fts：0.28~1.85 Mach
30,000 fts：0.30~2.00 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.30~1.62 Mach）
35,000 fts：0.31~2.00 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.38~1.76 Mach）
40,000 fts：0.35~2.00 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.45~1.70 Mach）
45,000 fts：0.40~2.00 Mach
50,000 fts：0.45~2.00 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.60~1.60 Mach）
55,000 fts：0.50~2.00 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.75~1.45 Mach）
57,000 fts：0.60~1.95 Mach（F/A-18C/D：0.80~1.40 Mach）
60,000 fts：0.75~1.85 Mach
65,000 fts：0.88~1.70 Mach


PS: Data for F/A-18C/D
http://www.saunalahti.fi/jourait/Hn/f404.html
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~jourait/index.html