Gripen , Typhoon , Rafale vs F-15C , F-16C ,F-15E , Su-27 , Mig-29

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 4,731

Those are not MIG-35. The data is wrong. MIG-29M has higher takeoff weight than MIG-29K but same range and lower altitude.

Member for

6 years 1 month

Posts: 2,014

MiG-29 vs Su-27
dog fight - 1.18, ranged combat - 0.92

Rafale vs Su-27
dog fight - 1.24, ranged combat - 1.3

Thus Rafale (first flight 1986) = 1.2 MiG-29 (first flight 1977)

http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls line 194 - 221

Is that excel tab just a bunch of random number merged together?

Member for

6 years 1 month

Posts: 2,014

I find it rather interesting because in this kind of thread sometimes we get to read very interesting and informative post from knowledgeable people like Andraxxus

But we will also get nonsense post from member like JSR

Member for

4 years 3 months

Posts: 905

we need Andraxxus.

and share his excel.

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

The maximum speed of the MiG-35 2100 - 2200 km / h ;)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]247788[/ATTACH]

Here we can all see the old LERX and the newer sharp LERX on Mig-35.
But is the airfoil different between the two versions?

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

It remind me the old F-16 vs MiG-29 flying test.
With F-16 block 50+ against vanilla WP MiG-29A usually...
And obviously in a sustained turn dogfight like they would have just late seventies IR missiles with neither all aspect seeker nor high boresight capabilities...

A more fitting comparison woud be: F-14 & Mig-31 vs F-15, F-16 and Mirage 2000 vs Mig-29A and F/A-18 vs Mig-29C to M, basic Su-27 & Su-30, F-35, J-31 vs all eurocanards, canard and early thrust vectoring Sukhois, j -20 vs Mig-35, Su-35, PAK-FA. F-22 is an one of a kind bird on this regard so it wouldn't fit easily in this kind of a incremental scale.

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Do anyone have information about the (sustained and instantaneous ) turn rate and acceleration of 4.5 gen fighters compared to the legacy 4 gen ?
I can find some chart for F-16 and Mig-29 , but unable to locate chart for the rest
( if someone can estimate their turn rate with equalize combat radius then that is even better )

People will argue until blue in face about combat radii and also the finer points of aerodynamics. The best you can really do is standardise them based on an arbitrary 20% fuel fraction (or other but make sure it's below that of least fuelled aircraft) and then calculate TWR and wing loading. It won't tell you everything but neither will the 12 trillion page thread that usually follows questions like these.

A point perhaps being overlooked by the question is the use of HMCS, and advanced LOAL/HOBS missiles in dogfighting. That changes the game considerably, unfairly really.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Unfairly? What is this, some sort of F.*nk sport competition? A tournament like in the middle age?
Ooooh, you Mig-29A are disqualified because of the use of R-73 and HMCS! Unfair, two years of ban from game!
(Take it as the pun it is ,Starfish, I'm joking: your was a great post).

Factually, it was exactly the existence of such a weapon type (and even before of all aspect IR seeker like on AIM-9L) that lead all the evolution of russian blended wing/engine pod planes and subsequently of the so called eurocanards.
And in due turn the introduction of Aim-120 and R-77 acted as a great equalizer of the whole game: with them WVC is not more the principal form of air combat as in the eighties.
And we all proceeded instead toward the 5 gen in order to reshuffle the deck again.

P.S. Let's just note that in this thread the expression 4,5 is used in the significance given on this side of Atlantic and not in the one used in the american weapon producers leaflets i.e. An F-15 with AESA radar and RCS reduction features is NOT a 4,5 gen fighter at all: just a vanilla teen fighter with fifth generation avionics.

Member for

6 years 1 month

Posts: 2,014

It remind me the old F-16 vs MiG-29 flying test.
With F-16 block 50+ against vanilla WP MiG-29A usually...
And obviously in a sustained turn dogfight like they would have just late seventies IR missiles with neither all aspect seeker nor high boresight capabilities...

A more fitting comparison woud be: F-14 & Mig-31 vs F-15, F-16 and Mirage 2000 vs Mig-29A and F/A-18 vs Mig-29C to M, basic Su-27 & Su-30, F-35, J-31 vs all eurocanards, canard and early thrust vectoring Sukhois, j -20 vs Mig-35, Su-35, PAK-FA. F-22 is an one of a kind bird on this regard so it wouldn't fit easily in this kind of a incremental scale.

F-22 and F-15 have the same sustained turn rate value ( just saying) , 4.5 gen probably not as maneuverable as we like to believe

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 3,106

F-22 and F-15 have the same sustained turn rate value ( just saying) , 4.5 gen probably not as maneuverable as we like to believe

At Mach .8 30,000 feet. One data point a comparison does not make- needless to say.

It's one of the problems with trying to make definitive comparisons with very limited hard values. Trying to compare flight envelopes with two data points akin to the old "blindfolded man trying to describe an elephant by feeling his trunk".

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 1,344

Here we can all see the old LERX and the newer sharp LERX on Mig-35.
But is the airfoil different between the two versions?

Probably. Round toe was needed for the upper air intakes.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cuKkJC4vp-m_0xi6Gm6ln0l5SqKLZxuXO0Gb4vnDVqvKvpjAFh_iM1dB0a6JD5l3yrN_0rquEfPQNS6gRaLCfGv-iW1XmPppXf3f3RMzxSA3JDXhqELk7w7I6d-p0Sks4IdgfLJabiPXFBMPQT4-hXOBdwPDD8qFXcD4UyYugjZEfMWwOU36Y4d2xK8qzdSytuA7lQiZNPHRmVVxW4PJpiL-su4lUoNOEHM1Ur8Y2j4qd8c4IuKFTsMnooiJdxwSRp4UjTdgpT7qiBYfMSBY6mep0fh-b3l0g0acbmLZaIWRTlF0cUADm2-d95mI69c2auQlSB14qTY3lHlxP4993Yy7Ott6MkdnHwu-gMa-ca9vxUDYsZlKhW78Oh7p9LkbtEf_la42o_LyqfLEduL4TtMhXpSAcp9GHtLjkqm7wFruWN6sJPGXtlKCClyW3-pGdPOyLMSQEKo7AGMVka2d0a-1SXPNhAAbqUc6xjmJbmEzA5E2iIosoew1xYjeNyAKSWeQ01_qczromi_MsTh5M61ktbJu0QE8jWrLzU4PzmE9dhrvGStewP0LGm3BRwWGSdggdGWWRh0Q0zNmfqOcGDf4aUTAyG9Lh-4h2KcQxSdu3Pxmrw=w800-h533-no

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Unfairly? What is this, some sort of F.*nk sport competition? A tournament like in the middle age?
Ooooh, you Mig-29A are disqualified because of the use of R-73 and HMCS! Unfair, two years of ban from game!
(Take it as the pun it is ,Starfish, I'm joking: your was a great post).

Factually, it was exactly the existence of such a weapon type (and even before of all aspect IR seeker like on AIM-9L) that lead all the evolution of russian blended wing/engine pod planes and subsequently of the so called eurocanards.
And in due turn the introduction of Aim-120 and R-77 acted as a great equalizer of the whole game: with them WVC is not more the principal form of air combat as in the eighties.
And we all proceeded instead toward the 5 gen in order to reshuffle the deck again.

P.S. Let's just note that in this thread the expression 4,5 is used in the significance given on this side of Atlantic and not in the one used in the american weapon producers leaflets i.e. An F-15 with AESA radar and RCS reduction features is NOT a 4,5 gen fighter at all: just a vanilla teen fighter with fifth generation avionics.


All true but the 'who would win BVR' is an even more complicated nightmare to try sort out for the aircraft mentioned in the title and I'm not touching that one, too many variables which are varying too much.;)

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 4,731

F-22 and F-15 have the same sustained turn rate value ( just saying) , 4.5 gen probably not as maneuverable as we like to believe

F-15/F-16/F-18/Rafale/EF are 3.5 Generation airframes. limited fuel capacities relative to there size, already max out for advance materials and will become more overweight if TVC is installed.
larger airframe has very minimal impact on range.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160322/1036698492/russian-mig-35.html
Travelling at Mach 2.23 – or 2.23 times the speed of sound – the new plane can travel 1.5 times farther than the MiG-29.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

At Mach .8 30,000 feet. One data point a comparison does not make- needless to say.

It's one of the problems with trying to make definitive comparisons with very limited hard values. Trying to compare flight envelopes with two data points akin to the old "blindfolded man trying to describe an elephant by feeling his trunk".

Oh, thanks FBW, with such a reply we have dissipated the risk of another "America vs Rest of the World" thread.

The mention of sustained turn highlight in itself the difference between the flight pattern of the teen series i.e. the "legacy fighter" of the title and the 4,5 gen or 4+, 4++ gen.
First ones had it as the main feature as they were thought for a elongated dogfight in which you have to gain an advantage position at the rear of your adversary using conventional, not all aspect IR missiles.
The others are instead the so called "noise pointer", optimized instead for use of all aspect, high boresight missiles.
Instantaneous turning and high AoA were more important as the idea was to point directly against the adversary without entering into a sustained turning furball but instead keeping it engaged with the HCS and launching the missile at a very steep angle while keeping the more, the less the initial attack course: if the target even survived to the missile attack and completed its own evasive maneuver would not have the speed and the energy to engage you running away at full afterburner.
Concept was tried in dissimilar combat against former DDR Fulcrums and it definitively worked so it was adopted also in the various eurocanard .
Only legacy teen fighter that could use this tactic was the F/A-18 but with some consistent limitations : AoA is excellent, but maxG number and T/W ratio for disengaging not.
This for the eighties: arrival of AIM-120 and R-77 however shifted parameters toward BVR combat so that also planes like F-14 and Mig-31 can have still many aces in their own sleeves.

So in the end the result would vary by the tactical situation:
-if any of the above planes is sucked in a furball with a F-16, poor him.
-if instead the same allow a Fulcrum or an Eurocanard to "point" them, poor him.
-if they allow an F-14, a Mig-31 an Eagle or a Flanker to get a radar hold on them while they are trying to close distance for WVR, R.I.P.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

I think you meant 'nose pointer', not 'noise pointer'.

Profile picture for user Freehand

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 980

I think it still depends on the person in the cockpit, and whomever sees the other first. F-15 is old, but one hell of an air defense fighter. That would be my mount of choice.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 3,280

I think it still depends on the person in the cockpit, and whomever sees the other first. F-15 is old, but one hell of an air defense fighter. That would be my mount of choice.

Rafale would be my first choice among the fighters listed -- The Swiss leaks showed that it had a clear lead on the Typhoon already at that time. Since then they have all evolved, so most likely it has retained it's lead on the Typhoon (which by many would be considered the premier a2a fighter second only to the F-22, however due to poorer SA and poorer EWS they are wrong).

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

I think everyone there has its own favorite fighter so better stay on topic .
Question was , in which differ the 4,5 gen eurocanards to legacy teen fighter?
Response was the more , the less given: as soon as aeronautical technology progressed new features was added, also to reflect the parallel advancement of weaponry , sensor and engines.
The introduction of all aspect and successively high boresight IR was the one spurred the change in the parameters, while the introduction of ARH missiles (and Jdams) allowed also the legacy ones to stay competitive and led instead toward the 5th gen.

Process was and still is cumulative: innovations like high power ratio turbofans, enhanced manoeuvrability, FBW typical of the teen fighters were the basis on which the nose pointer started from and in turn canard and vectored thrust further enhance the latter's typical high AoA performances but would had little operative significance on the teen fighters.

Member for

5 years

Posts: 269

Rafale would be my first choice among the fighters listed -- The Swiss leaks showed that it had a clear lead on the Typhoon already at that time. Since then they have all evolved, so most likely it has retained it's lead on the Typhoon (which by many would be considered the premier a2a fighter second only to the F-22, however due to poorer SA and poorer EWS they are wrong).

rafale and typhoon are behind j-20, f-22, maybe equal to pak-fa for sure.