Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjuro
Although the SU35 (a derivative of the SU27) has a much lower RCS than the SU27, that does not mean the SU27 can be retrofitted to have that lower RCS.
In most ways, the smaller size of the Typhoon is an advantage in air combat- at close range smaller means harder to see. The size of the F15 (dictated by having a large enough nose for its radar) has been recognised as a problem since the 1970s- USAF exercises gave the F5 a surprising number of victories against the F15.
|
The point I was trying to make is that with aircraft like the F-15 and Flanker you don't have to spend countless billions on designing new aircraft to achieve effective results. I don't know how much the Eurofighter cost but I believe it has been one of the most expensive defence projects ever. Russia basicaly redesigned and reinforced the basic airframe of newbuild Flankers with better alloys, reduced the front radar signature, added fly-by-wire, improved its avionics, radar and sensor suite, improved the engine and gave it limited supercruise ability and added fully rotating vectoring thrust nozzles for a small fraction of the cost of the Typhoon, and the result is a very powerful and advanced fighter with good stealth capabilities which is longer ranged and more versatile than the Typhoon.
The F-5 like the Typhoon was designed to be an agile short ranged air defence fighter, the F-15 was not. The Typhoon is very good at short ranged air defence, but if it has to operate beyond its optimum range it rapidly starts to loose any advantage it has over some of its more powerful rivals at short ranges. Therefore unless opposition air defences are technologically inferior or a high attrition/casualty rate is exceptable, the Typhoon is not very deployable and can't be used for air dominance over long ranges, which for the Typhon would be in access of 300 nautical miles.