If someone does, they won’t say anything, and shouldn’t since it’s all classified
To public knowledge, still a rocket
And so we thought when they leaked challenger, Leclerc, DTC-10-125, VT-4, and now Captor-M.
Yeah, ramjet needs extra intake, also since it is amraam shaped no chance. Probably TVC used.
Considering the number of people who have that knowledge (very few), the amount that may possibly be on this forum (extremely few if any), and the level of classification (prison for decades if not life), it is effectively impossible for this to happen
Idk about TVC, reduces range a lot when used
The PL-17 has no mid-body wings, AIM-260 has some small stubby little guys there.
Challenger, Leclerc, DTC-10-125, VT-4 are all legitimate leaks. The Captor-M document is the first result on google if you look up; though still restricted… the others to my knowledge were not available on google and the only one that you can readily find still is the VT-4 or DTC-10-125 stuff.
“correct keyword” filetype:pdf
2 Likes
Yes, but how many would be involved in AIM-260? I mean specifically for AIM-260, it is extremely unlikely to have a leak
1 Like
The F-15 EX is fully comparable in performance to the Su 35
1 Like
In what regard?
The Su-35 is a bit heavier overall but makes up for it easily with higher thrust engines, better aerodynamics, and better overall fuel efficiency. The AL-41 engines are variable bypass, produce considerably more thrust.
I think you may be thinking of an improved Su-27 in your head but the Su-35S is quite the upgrade in the engine department and is on a better platform.
Probably the best comparison can be found here:
[Strike Fighters 2025_4.pdf
1 Like
Comparing the engine, the F110-GE-129 has a T/W around 7.5:1 maybe up to 8:1 depending on the setting. The AL-41 used in the Su-35 has around 10.5-11.5:1
The F-15EX has a slightly higher empty T/W rating - ~1.7 as compared to the Su-35’s ~1.67
The 50% fuel T/W for the Su-35 is ~1.18 as opposed to the F-15EX’s ~1.43 w/
Su-35 at 50% fuel (mass of 5,750 kg of fuel) is ~1.18
F-15EX at 50% fuel (mass of ~3,051 kg of fuel) is ~1.42
Note the efficiency of the Su-35S’ engines will be much greater simply because the engine is newer and has a variable bypass. The afterburning efficiency and ability to supercruise will allow the fighter to take considerably less fuel and last longer - the T/W’s are in favor of the Su-35 over the F-15 if it wants to maintain the same amount of time in the sky and even more so if the F-15 equips the CFT’s… which it will need to do if it wants the same time on station as the fully loaded Su-35.
With T/W in the Su-35’s favor it is also on a more favorable airframe in regards to sustained turn rate, climb rate, and high angle of attack flight. The F-15 is good, but it is not Sukhoi good. It also lacks the TVC needed to take advantage of the one circle should the Su-35 start hitting the two circle a little too hard.
Where the F-15EX will perform better is in straight lines, high altitude intercepts. It is more optimally designed for BVR engagements and is obviously better equipped to do so against the Su-35S… which is to be expected as it is considerably newer.
4 Likes
Doesnt EX uses F-110-GE-129?
Correct, the numbers are still accurate I just put the wrong engine name off memory.
4 Likes
Proof of K-27EA existence? or maybe K-77M on something other than Su-57 and 1 mockup at Su-75 that wasn’t even an actual K-77M model
Actually just went and checked, the AL-31-FM1 on the su-27sm/34 were used on some su-30 variants but I can’t find the exact ones, the SU-30SM Was the MKI build but for Russia so it actually has a little less thrust as most of them use the AL-31-FP engines but could be replaced with the FM1 with tvc as an alternative
2 Likes
Regardless of the r27ea existence, there are better options that would be better performance-wise while avoiding the controversy
1 Like
Most definitely (Not a single picture of it being fired)
Yea. But first deliver are 2011 vs 2021.
You better find out man. Be ready, to make THAT report.