What is this ? Next-gen Fighter for PLAAF ??

crazyinsane105 said:

The Su-37's can carry about 14 AAM with 8000kg of ground ordanance. This means that the Terminator can carry MUCH MORE than the Raptor and if 3-D TVC engines are installed, it can give the Raptor one hell of a fight (in a dogfight, in BVR the Terminator will go down).

Click to expand...

I said a Flanker-B, not a Flanker-E...

I used those as an example, since I think that is what the PLAAF is operating with...unless they bought the Flanker-Es yesterday, that is.

Gauntlet said:

which would most probarly be enough for its missions...

AFAIK, the Flanker-Bs/J-11 only has 11...its not that a big difference...

Click to expand...

nah, flanker b has ten hardpoints. superflanker has an appaling 14 points, as does the su-35.
crazyinsane, the su-37 already has 3-d engines.

I thought the Su-35 could carry up to 18 air-to-air missiles. Well at any rate, these later model Sukhoi jets are very capable fighter aircraft. I don't care what kind of engines they have, they are insanely maneuvarable.

What about Rafale it can carry payloads over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes: Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. For a strategic mission the Rafale can deliver the MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP standoff nuclear missile. In December 2004, the MBDA Storm Shadow / Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile was qualified on the Rafale. Is that more capable than EF-2000?

You can mount 8 AMRAAMs underneath the Raptor's wings with 4 external harpoints, so that gives the Raptor 14 missiles.

That kills the Raptors main advantage its stealth, so it will never be done. 8 missiles is more then enough for air-to-air.

what the heck? why would you even need 14 hard points? 11 hard points for 8 AAMs is plenty. a good setup would be:
3 bombs
2 SRAAM
6 MRAAM

As for F-22's tvc, it doesn't need 3-D tvc, it's already insanely manuverable.

F-22 would kill any flanker, including su-35bm. There is no way the flanker can match the stealth + radar of F-22. And R-77 is not near the capability of AIM-120C

Sea Dog said:

I thought the Su-35 could carry up to 18 air-to-air missiles.

Click to expand...

Thats because of they can maybe carry smaller Aphid and Archer's two on each of the heaviest hardpoints? Or?

crazyinsane105 said:

The Su-37's can carry about 14 AAM with 8000kg of ground ordanance. This means that the Terminator can carry MUCH MORE than the Raptor and if 3-D TVC engines are installed, it can give the Raptor one hell of a fight (in a dogfight, in BVR the Terminator will go down).

Click to expand...

Can you post a complete specs about a comparison chart betweeen the Su-27s and the Su-37s.

chakos said:

actually, it would be in more trouble than a J7 or a mig-19 because an F-22 CANNOT manouver on par with either a lightweight fighter nor a supermanuevarable russian/chinese sukhoi. It is the same style of fighter as a Mig-31, an F-15 and a Tornado ADV, It is a large heavy advanced fighter designed to kill at long range, not to mix it in with the lighweights, a lesson learned in Vietnam by the American Phantom pilots.

Click to expand...

Mig-31, F-15 and Tornado adv are not the same style. One of them is way more manoueverable than the other two.

The F-22 is no slouch when it comes down to manouverabilty. High- thrust, big wing and thrust vectoring. Combing this with stealth, probably the most advanced radar, and probably the most advanced ECM and EW suite on any current and near term fighter aircraft. It is a winner if the gizmos works anywhere nearly as good as its claimed