Los costos de adquisición y mantenimiento son excesivos para un avión destinado a combatir casi exclusivamente para un misión acotada: lograr la SUPERIORIDAD AÉREA DURANTE LAS PRIMERAS HORAS DE COMBATE.
Por
- Radio de acción
- Capacidad de carga (toneladas y puntos fijos)
- Armamento: variedad, alcance, calidad
- costos
yo elegiría una flota mixta de SU-35 BM y SU-34 Fullback. Inclusive una flota de RAFALEs podría ser más eficaz en relación a costo / eficacia.
Ver:
Se hablaba (julio 208) de un costo de 65M de U$S por unidad de SU-35 BM. Supongamos un valor más real de 80 M, estaríamos hablando de 1 Raptor por 3,5 SU-35 aprox.
(ver
http://www.russiatoday.ru/Business/2008-07-08/Sukhoi_shows_off_its_new_super_agile_fighter.html)
Si el combate durase tan sólo unas pocas horas... (con alta efectividad de un ataque masivo contra instalaciones de radar, puestos de mando, etc. el F-22 posiblemente serïa "el avión". Si el combate se extiende a varios días... las pérdidas que se producirían (los F-22 también pueden caer, vio?) emparejaría un poco las cosas.
A partir de un combate que dure varios días... o semanas... Preferiría tener una flota de SU-35BM + SU-34 con mucha logística compartida, con excelentes armas, con excelente electrónica y optrónica, con gran permanencia en el combate (dado por la suma de autonomía + carga bélica, no es sólo cuestión de volar mucho... sino de tener misiles, ammo, etc.)
http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/su-35bmt-10bm-the-last-flanker
Top OPEVAL SOUTH KOREAN
Raiting
Combat BVR
F-22, 91%
Typoon, 82%
Rafale, 50%
F-15C, 43%
F-18E, 25%
F-18C, 21%
F-16C, 21%
This system was used to comprehensively evaluate the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) performance of the Eurofighter and other aircraft against an upgraded Su-27 Flanker (comparable to an Su-35 Super Flanker and its equivalents). The studies investigated all aspect best performances from the major systems on each aircraft; avionics, structure (including RCS data), engine performance (including fuel usage), defences and man-machine interfaces.
In these tests the French Rafale utilised the Matra-BAe MICA air to air missile (which is the primary AA weapon of the French airforce) while the other aircraft used the Raytheon-Hughes AMRAAM.
These simulations concluded that Eurofighter has a win rating of 82% (100% equals always win, 0% equals always lose, 50% equals parity) against the target aircraft. A more typical way to present this data is as a combat exchange ratio, for the Typhoon this equals 4.5:1. In other words statistically one Eurofighter would be lost for every 4.5 Su-35 fighters shot down. This compares extremely favourably to the other aircraft (see also the BVR Combat Rating table); F-16C Falcon (0.3, F-15C Eagle (0.8, F-18C Hornet (0.3, F-18+ (0.4:1, NB this is not the current F-18E/F which is apparently a downgraded version of the F-18+ used in the studies) and Dassault Rafale (1. Only the LM/Boeing F-22 Raptor bettered the Eurofighter's performance with a combat exchange ratio of 10.1:1.
In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.
An important point to keep in mind when examining this data is that full details on the simulations have not been released. Without this information it is not possible to determine whether Eurofighter optimal profiles were examined at the expense of more varied combat missions. However these studies do give some indication as to the potential of the Typhoon.
The recent South Korean process is a good example of how other factors can override any decision based purely on technical and compatibility grounds
SOUTH KOREAN EVALUATION (SU-35 versión anterior)
Raiting Stealth ( siendo 0 minima puntuación y 100 máxima puntuación)
Typoon, 85%
F-22, 100%
JSF, 82%
Rafale, 83%
SU-35, 71%
F-15C, 60%
Gripen, 70%
F-16C, 64%
F-18E, 65%
Raiting Range
Typoon, 75%
F-22, 95%
JSF, 76%
Rafale, 80%
SU-35, 100%
F-15C,75%
Gripen, 65%
F-16C, 65%
F-18E, 70%
Raiting Electronic Warfare
Typoon, 100%
F-22,89%
JSF, 89%
Rafale, 100%
SU-35, 67%
F-15C, 72%
Gripen,78%
F-16C, 56%
F-18E, 72%
Raiting Cost Adquisition
Typoon, 47%
F-22, 0%
JSF, 61%
Rafale, 49%
SU-35, 67%
F-15C, 47%
Gripen, 87%
F-16C, 100%
F-18E, 73%
Raiting Weapon Selection
Typoon, 88%
F-22, 59%
JSF, 82%
Rafale, 88%
SU-35, 82%
F-15C, 94%
Gripen, 94%
F-16C, 100%
F-18E, 100%
Raiting Thrust to Weight
Typoon, 90%
F-22, 100%
JSF, 65%
Rafale, 85%
SU-35, 80%
F-15C, 75%
Gripen, 70%
F-16C, 65%
F-18E, 70%
Raiting Air to Ground Combat
Typoon, 99%
F-22, 76%
JSF, 96%
Rafale, 100%
SU-35, 96%
F-15C, 94%
Gripen, 88%
F-16C, 94%
F-18E, 82%
Raiting Air to Air Combat
Typoon, 82%
F-22, 100%
JSF, 70%
Rafale, 75%
SU-35, 70%
F-15C, 70%
Gripen, 65%
F-16C, 50%
F-18E, 65%
Raiting Agility
Typoon, 95%
F-22, 100%
JSF, 73%
Rafale, 90%
SU-35, 92%
F-15C, 75%
Gripen, 80%
F-16C, 75%
F-18E, 70%
Raiting STOL Capability
Typoon, 94%
F-22, 67%
JSF, 98%
Rafale, 96%
SU-35, 89%
F-15C, 56%
Gripen, 100%
F-16C, 56%
F-18E, 83%
Raiting Maintanence
Typoon, 95%
F-22, 74%
JSF, 95%
Rafale, 89%
SU-35, 69%
F-15C, 79%
Gripen, 100%
F-16C, 79%
F-18E, 84%
Raiting Super Cruise
Typoon, 85%
F-22, 100%
JSF, 40%
Rafale, 80%
SU-35, 50%
F-15C, 50%
Gripen, 40%
F-16C, 10%
F-18E, 30%
Final classification;
( Combinación de las anteriores clasificaciones)
1. Typhoon
2. Rafale
3. F22
4. JSF
5. Gripen
6. SU35
7. F18E
8. F15C
9. F16C
:yonofui:
