How good is the Eurofighter?

[RN7]

Does anyone have any opinion on how good the Eurofighter/Typhoon actually is as a combat aircraft?

On paper it seems an impressive aircraft and has been marketed well, and unlike the French Rafale has sold internationally in addition to the core producing nations. But to me its seems to be a highly expensive aircraft project that has delivered an aircraft in the F/A-18C class weight with very good short ranged agility, and the BVR capability of larger aircraft such as the F-15 and Su-27/30 family.

Many consider the Eurofighter to be the closest competitor at the moment to the F-22 as the world’s preeminent air superiority fighter, with advanced supercruise and stealth features and being about half as effective as an F-22, three times better than an F-15E and six times better than an F-15C. However the technical statistics of the Eurofighters body and engine design make much of that claim optimistic, and its operational radius is inferior to an F-15E and its technological superiority over older US and Russian aircraft are largely based around the current technological advantages of its BVR weapons suite, which could be quickly eroded or even neutralized by engine, sensor and weapons upgrades in opposing fighters.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

What are these "times better" factors based on?

I ask because I'm curious, not being snarky.

This:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

is worth a read. Just do your sanity a favor and don't read the comments.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

What are these "times better" factors based on?

I ask because I'm curious, not being snarky.

This:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

is worth a read. Just do your sanity a favor and don't read the comments.

The times figures are rough estimates from Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, now known as QinetiQ, and dates from the mid-1990's. The figure of 82% as effective as an F-22 has been floated around for some time, and is derived from a simulation in BVR combat against a SU-27/30 series threat. The F-22 was estimated at 91% probability of successful engagement, the Typhoon at 82%, the single seat F-15E at 60%, and the F-15C at 43%. Translated into more commonly used kill ratio puts the figure at about 10.0:1 for the F-22A, 4.6:1 for the Typhoon, 1.5:1 for the single seat F-15E, and 0.75:1 for the F-15C. USAF assessments of the F-22 versus F-15C roughly corresponds with the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency assesment.

However today the alleged level of superiority of the Typhoon over Su-30 variants must be questioned as Russian aerospace technology has moved ahead some way since the 1990's, with better radars and sensors, ramjet AAM's and higher thrust engines and 3D thrust vectoring nozzles.

That article in the register is a bit of an eye opener, and a multi-national European project was always going to cause problems. But the main issue with the Typhoon seems to be the fact that it was designed in a different era than todays combat environment. When the Soviets were introducing the Su-27 & Mig-29 European NATO air forces had nothing that could handle them outside of buying American F-15's and F-16's off the shelf. The Typhoon is very good at what it was designed as, an agile but short ranged fighter that is designed for combat within its 300 NM optimum range. Within that parimeter it has few if any equals, and only an F-22 could realy do a better job at defending British airspace, but the F-22 is in a different combat and technological class in every other area. Also I don't know if the F-35 is realy the best answer for a more multi-role combat aircraft than the Typhoon with good tactical air-to-ground attack capabilities, as the F-35 is drawing a great deal of critism as well even from America. But at least Britain has gone for the F-35C which seems to me to be the best of the current F-35 variants, with increased range and payload and the capability to be used from carriers.

[RN7]

Through further looking at the capabilities of the Typhoon in comparison to other contempory fighters, the Typhoon clearly falls short of not just an F-22 but other so called older fighters in many ways.

In a scenario where unrefuelled operating radius is not a big issue, such as the local defence of British airspace, the Typhoon is clearly highly competitive and would exceed the capabilities of both an F-15 or Flanker variant without a phased array and extended range AAMs. But its alleged stealth and supercruise capabilities are not comparable to an F-22. The Typhoon is powered by dual EJ200 afterburning turbofan, which is comparable to late model F/A-18's and optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Despite Eurofighter's claim that the engine has a supercruise capability, the engine is technologically of the same generation as that in evolved F-15 and F18 engines, and not the uniquely designed supercruising powerplants such as the American F119 and F120. Claims that the Typhoon is also stealthy due to the use of S-bend inlet tunnels and radar absorbent materials is also hard to justify, as it seems to lack any of the planform alignment, panel edge alignments, blending or faceting used on American stealth aircraft such as the F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35. External stores would probably make the Typhoon's radar signature at least 10-100 times greater than seen on US aircraft, and is probably comparable to the Rafale.

The Typhoon compares favourably with the Su-35 in close combat agility and dash speed, but it does hold a significant advantage over current Russian systems and sensors, and does not have the range of the Irbis E radar, or will it be able to match a supercruise engine equipped Flanker. Detection ranges for Russian NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph radars and new AAM missiles suggest that an external stores loaded Typhoon with could be effectively engaged well within its optimum range by the latest Russian Flankers. New build American F-15's with current technology engines, and AESA/ramjet AAM package would also maintain a performance margin over even future variants of the Typhoon as well as operating radius advantage. The Typhoon's effectiveness would largely hinge on tactics, and the relative advantages of fitted radar and the specific AAMs such as the Meteor.

[Sanjuro]

Supercruise is nothing new- the Lightning (English Electric, not P38) had that in the 60s. The Typhoon's loss of stealth when carrying stores is a tradeoff- no stealthy platform can carry nearly as many weapons as an aircraft with external weapon mounts. Furthermore, a stealthy aircraft suffers both stealth and performance losses when it opens its armaments bays.
Where the Typhoon's stealthy credentials are real, however, is in practical application. Admittedly, the F22 is far stealthier- but assuming the Typhoon has, at a conservative estimate, 50% of the radar signature of the F16, that means that to cover a given area an opponent has to deploy 4 times as many radars to counter it. While 50% may not seem much of a leap over the previous generation of fighter, it is a huge step when an entire radar net has to be rebuilt, and new doctrines developed for its use.
The Typhoon's other strength is as a weapons system. From the start, it was designed to be easier to use than previous generations. Individual Russian radars and missiles may be technically superior, but I suspect the Typhoon's level of system integration is some years ahead of any potential opponent.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by RN7

three times better than an F-15E and six times better than an F-15C

I have to question these numbers, as the 'E' model is intended for the ground strike role, while the 'C' model is an air superiority platform. Unlike with other military gear where a higher mark letter designates a newer and better version of the same thing, the 'E' is not a replacement for the 'C' so much as one designed for a different role. It's the 'D' which is the latest upgrade to the 'C'. Also, many C and D models have been retrofitted with the newer avionics in the E.

[Panther Al]

Another thing to factor in is life span:

The F16 has proven to be simple enough to allow a range of upgrades and enhancements that is mind boggling, and the F15 has proven to be the same, with the added enhancement that its actually rather large - shockingly so when you consider its a pretty good (and formally excellent) dogfighter even in today's ACM conditions - with loads of internal room that isn't filled with anything. After all, they didn't have to change any structure or move any equipment to add a second seat to the design, and thats not the only empty space designed into the airframe.

This attribute is something I haven't seen much of in the Eurofighter - not saying its not there, but the stealthy design features hint that it isn't. Which means I think we will see the 15 and 16 running around quite a long while.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Supercruise is nothing new- the Lightning (English Electric, not P38) had that in the 60s. The Typhoon's loss of stealth when carrying stores is a tradeoff- no stealthy platform can carry nearly as many weapons as an aircraft with external weapon mounts. Furthermore, a stealthy aircraft suffers both stealth and performance losses when it opens its armaments bays.
Where the Typhoon's stealthy credentials are real, however, is in practical application. Admittedly, the F22 is far stealthier- but assuming the Typhoon has, at a conservative estimate, 50% of the radar signature of the F16, that means that to cover a given area an opponent has to deploy 4 times as many radars to counter it. While 50% may not seem much of a leap over the previous generation of fighter, it is a huge step when an entire radar net has to be rebuilt, and new doctrines developed for its use.
The Typhoon's other strength is as a weapons system. From the start, it was designed to be easier to use than previous generations. Individual Russian radars and missiles may be technically superior, but I suspect the Typhoon's level of system integration is some years ahead of any potential opponent.

Concorde and the Tu-144 supersonic passenger jets were also capable of supersonic speeds without using afterburners, but the point is that the F-22’s PW F119 is the only engine specifically designed to do so, while the F-35’s PW F135 & GE/RR F136 were derived from the F119 and have higher power outputs than the F119 and should be able to do so even though they weren’t designed to do so. The Typhoon is not the only modern combat aircraft that claims to be able to supercruise, the Rafale and Gripen claim it as well and the Sukhoi PAK FA can certainly supercruise.

The Typhoon’s Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans are rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to later variants of the F/A-18. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, but its duration has not been disclosed. The EJ200 is of the same technological generation as later F-15, F-16 and F-18 variants, and it’s hard to believe that it can achieve the same performance levels of the F-22. In dry combat configuration at 50% internal fuel the Typhoon delivers sea level dry thrust/weight ratio of 0.82:1, and reheated thrust/weight ratio of 1.22:1 with a wing loading of 60.8 lb/ft2, which is in the class as the F-15C and Su-27SK. The Typhoon is optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance, which is what it was originally designed for in the first place; supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds. A dry Typhoon with 50% internal fuel and 6-8 AAMs is firmly in the class of the F100-PW-229 powered F-15E on dry thrust, and about 15% behind the F-15E on reheat. The Typhoon falls behind the F-15E when its operating radius is stretched and additional external fuel is being carried. However flight control software refinements could have led to some improvements since the mid-1990’s.

The Typhoon lacks many of the established techniques used for stealth performance found on US aircraft, and unless radar scattering techniques have been developed that nobody yet knows about the Typhoon is unlikely to have a reduced forward sector RCS significantly better than later F-18’s, F-16’s or the Rafale. However the Typhoon does carry a lot impressive technology.

The cockpit incorporates a lot of state of the art technology, including holographic HUD, 3 colour MFDs, HOTAS controls, and pilot voice input selection modes, while pilot visor projected binocular NVG imagery, FLIR/IRS&T imagery are being developed which is very competitive against all American and Russian aircraft. The Typhoon also uses a quadruply redundant digital flight control system intended to provide carefree handling, an advancement over many other fighters and probably necessary given the inherently unstable aerodynamic configuration.

The Typhoon’s avionic package includes the ECR-90 pulse-Doppler multimode radar, derived from the Blue Vixen on the Harrier FRS.2. Eurofighter claim twice the output power of the F/A-18's APG-65/73 series and twice the detection range of the F-16's APG-68, as well as a detection range advantage over the F-15's APG-63/70 series. The AMSAR upgrade to the ECR-90 is in the same class as the APG-68 ABR and APG-73 RUG III. The ECR-90 is supplemented by two very impressive passive sensors; The Pilkington Optronics PIRATE mid-wave IRS&T/FLIR and a DASS with ESM integration that can be used as a passive targeting tool in engagements, in addition to a MAWS, a forward sector Laser Warning Receiver, DECM and an optical fibre towed decoy.

The Typhoon's primary weapon in BVR combat will be the Meteor, a ramjet powered AAM. The Meteor is credited with an 80 NM engagement range against a closing target, has it is claimed to have three to six times the kinematic performance of current air-air missiles of its type and it is claimed to outrange the Russian Vympel R-77M ramjet Adder in addition to AIM-120B AMRAAM and AIM-132. For strike operations it can carry a wide range of weapons. The primary British weapon will be the Storm Shadow cruise missile. Variants of the Paveway laser guided bomb may be also be carried, as well as a TIALD FLIR/laser pod occupying one forward AAM well. For close-in tank busting, the millimetric wave Brimstone will be used. Overall its a very capable aircraft that does exactly what it was designed to do, but outside of its optimum combat range its probably inferior to the latest variants of the F-15 and Flanker simply because they are both bigger aircraft with more powerful engines and its not in the same class as the F-22.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

I have to question these numbers, as the 'E' model is intended for the ground strike role, while the 'C' model is an air superiority platform. Unlike with other military gear where a higher mark letter designates a newer and better version of the same thing, the 'E' is not a replacement for the 'C' so much as one designed for a different role. It's the 'D' which is the latest upgrade to the 'C'. Also, many C and D models have been retrofitted with the newer avionics in the E.

I'd question them too and I think the Eurofighter marketing department went into overdrive with them, and I bet the Russian Flanker design teams and pilots have a good laugh when they see them!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Another thing to factor in is life span:

The F16 has proven to be simple enough to allow a range of upgrades and enhancements that is mind boggling, and the F15 has proven to be the same, with the added enhancement that its actually rather large - shockingly so when you consider its a pretty good (and formally excellent) dogfighter even in today's ACM conditions - with loads of internal room that isn't filled with anything. After all, they didn't have to change any structure or move any equipment to add a second seat to the design, and thats not the only empty space designed into the airframe.

This attribute is something I haven't seen much of in the Eurofighter - not saying its not there, but the stealthy design features hint that it isn't. Which means I think we will see the 15 and 16 running around quite a long while.

I think upgrades in engines, software, radars and weapons will keep the F-15 and F-16 flying very competitively for a long time, especially when you look at what's replacing them; the prohibitly expenisive and now no longer built F-22 and the possibly uncompetitive F-35.

[Sanjuro]

F-15 and Flanker simply because they are both bigger aircraft with more powerful engines

Being bigger aircraft, they need more powerful engines... both are considerably heavier than the Typhoon, and have larger RCS than the Typhoon just on the basis of size.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by RN7

I think upgrades in engines, software, radars and weapons will keep the F-15 and F-16 flying very competitively for a long time, especially when you look at what's replacing them; the prohibitly expenisive and now no longer built F-22 and the possibly uncompetitive F-35.

Fortunately, though, at least for the time being F22's dies and tooling have been kept. If the price-per-unit can be brought down somehow it can be put back in production and become an actual replacement for the F15 instead of a show-car.

I'd like to smack the people who say YEAH BUT THE COLD WAR IS OVER HAHA WE DON'T _NEEEEEED_ THIS PLANE ANY MORE THE F15 IS FINE (excepting the ones whose shipsets are so old (30+ years) they literally fall apart in mid-air...)

Politics are killing good weapons systems these days. We lost the M8 because of Bosnia, we lost the R/AH-66 because of Iraq. We got an all-show/no-go F22 because of a head-in-the-sand mentality, and more of the same will kill F35, or neuter it like the Raptor was/has been. The next global contingency issue we have to fight down the road will be done with 20+ year old F16s and 30+ year old F15s, meanwhile...

x-(

[pmulcahy11b]

As I've stated elsewhere, the Raptor is a one-trick pony in a world that demands multirole aircraft. The Raptor is an air superiority fighter, and that's all it is. It's great at what it does, but it's role is so narrow that the cost isn't justified. With aircraft like the F-16, F-15, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc, you can bomb, do CAS, put reconnaissance pods on it, put jamming pods on it, put pods on it for ELINT, or slug it out with other fighters and bombers. It's a bang for buck thing.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Being bigger aircraft, they need more powerful engines... both are considerably heavier than the Typhoon, and have larger RCS than the Typhoon just on the basis of size.

Well size is part of the problem with the Typhoon, as its not big enough to realy compete with the F-22, F-15 and Flanker series aircraft as it's in the F-18 class. The Typhoon is excellent at what it was designed for; supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, but it lacks the range to truely compete beyond its optimum combat range with the F-15 and Flanker who's size may better allow for upgrades to engines, sensors and weapons which could erode any advantage that the Typhoon currently has. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, but information from the RAF suggests that its radar signature is about one quarter of the Tornado F.3 its replacing. Author Doug Richardson claims that the RCS value of the Typhoon in clean configuration is less than one square metre, which if true makes the Typhoon at least twice as stealthy as the Rafale and 20 times better than a Su-30MKI. However the RCS of the Russian Air Forces latest Su-35BM is believed to be fairly close to the Typhoon which is an example of how the radar signature an aircraft of the Flanker series can be upgraded, in addition to improvements in aerodynamics, sensors, engine power, payload carriage and general performance.


BTW I'm sourcing a lot of my data from http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html which is an excellent and well informed site on a whole range of air defence subjects and topics.

[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.

[RN7]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interesting to see that the Su-35 was essentially developed in the 1980s - maiden flight was 1988 meaning it could easily have a presence in ver.2 T2k timeline.

[Panther Al]

At the risk of sounding jingo-istic, I can't really buy into drinking the koolaid that people drink when it comes to russian designs.

It is a fact I'll accept that there has been a massive improvement over the cold war designs in Russian Fighter development, but not that much. Reliability is still the killer in Russian Aircraft. Everyone that has bought russian have all said the maintenance expenditures have all climbed to levels of total insanity. Particularly the engines. China might still be buying russian engines, but thats more a case of how bad Chinese High Performance Jet Engine development is going than anything else: they are spending vast sums trying to get a engine that is reliable in production. P&W has made some effort to develop replacement engines for the russian ones, but so far Russia sells them so cheap that no one has bit on the idea. The only real reason for russian aircraft sales has been based on cost more than capability. They are good: In fact Aerodynamically, they are *very* excellent, but they can not compete with top end western designs with less than a 3 to 1 ratio in favour of the russian birds. Quality of electronics counts for far more in the air than anywhere else.


Of course, the opinions here are just mine, and is only worth what those sorts are worth, but...

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

At the risk of sounding jingo-istic, I can't really buy into drinking the koolaid that people drink when it comes to russian designs.

It is a fact I'll accept that there has been a massive improvement over the cold war designs in Russian Fighter development, but not that much. Reliability is still the killer in Russian Aircraft. Everyone that has bought russian have all said the maintenance expenditures have all climbed to levels of total insanity. Particularly the engines. China might still be buying russian engines, but thats more a case of how bad Chinese High Performance Jet Engine development is going than anything else: they are spending vast sums trying to get a engine that is reliable in production. P&W has made some effort to develop replacement engines for the russian ones, but so far Russia sells them so cheap that no one has bit on the idea. The only real reason for russian aircraft sales has been based on cost more than capability. They are good: In fact Aerodynamically, they are *very* excellent, but they can not compete with top end western designs with less than a 3 to 1 ratio in favour of the russian birds. Quality of electronics counts for far more in the air than anywhere else.


Of course, the opinions here are just mine, and is only worth what those sorts are worth, but...

I won't deny that reliability has been an issue with Russian aircraft, although what they export may not be as well built as what they build for themselves as no Russian aerospace designer or engineer wants to end up in a Russian prison. However the factor of a quality lag in current Russian designs may be misplaced and is perhaps a lingering Western notion from when such assumptions were justified about 20 years ago. If you look at some of the engine, sensor and weapon technology that goes into current Russian fighters, the technology gap between the West and Russia is not that great outside of stealth technology.

In engines the supercruise AL-31F-117C of the Su-35 has performance figures which may indicate that Russia has closed much of the gap America opened up with the F119/F135 family of the engines. FADEC systems are also available for a range of recent Russian engines, including the AL-31F-117C, and any lead America and Europe hold over Russian engines is largely down to maturity of software. To date the only Western fighter with thrust vectoring nozzles is the F-22, while Russia has already exported them in a range of Flanker variants.

In avionics Russia introduced quadruply redundant digital flight control systems back in the 1990’s and offers them on all Flankers, including Su-27 rebuilds. Russian fighters have also long used digital data links. Intraflight data link technology to network flights of fighters to share sensor data between multiple fighters is now offered on all Russian fighters, while inertial and satellite navigation equipment is also widely availability in the global market. All Russian fighters also use glass cockpits, and the Su-35 uses two large area panels similar to the projector screen arrangement of the F-35. What advantage the US and Europe hold over Russian technology in avionics is largely based upon the maturity of software and this gap is not expected to last for long, but America does retain a lead in wide areas of GPS technology.

In sensors Russian technology matches or in some cases exceeds current Western technology. The radar of the Mig-35 is of similar technology to the F-22, and the Su-35 has radar comparable to the Rafale’s with the largest antenna of any fighter, and a range similar to the F-22's APG-77. The Russians have also developed up-to-date radar pseudo-noise waveform coding techniques. America retains a lead in active module technology and software, but only the radar of the F-22 is better than Russian radars in range performance. In radar warning receivers, homing and warning systems and ESM the Russian Khibiny M system intended for Su-35 uses the same channelized receiver technology as the F-22, and any lead America or Europe has is based solely on software and gallium arsenide chip packaging. Russia also offers for export advanced radio frequency jammers such as DRFM and towed decoy. Some Russian jamming equipment is better than Western equivalents. The KNIRTI Sorbstiya jam pod carried by numerous Flankers has a wideband phased array RF stage that is more effective against monopulse emitters, and is more sophisticated than the wideband horn or lens emitters in Western fighters.

Since the end of the Cold War the Russians have seriously improved the technology they use in smart bombs. The KAB-500/1500 is available with lock-on-before launch electro-optical guidance comparable to the EGBU-15 series, semi-active laser homing guidance comparable to Paveway series, and satellite and inertial guidance comparable to the JDAM. Russia has also closed much of the former gap in active radar guided missiles, with the R-77 Adder's Agat and R-27 missile using the same American designed digital processors as most Western equivalents.

The Su-35BM/S Flanker outclasses almost every Western fighter at the moment in all round ability except for the F-22. Late model AESA equipped F-15’s would match a Su-35BM/S in some areas, and the Typhoon is superior to it in close combat agility and dash speed, but only an F-22 is significantly better than it. However by looking at the stats for the new Sukhoi PAK-FA the lead enjoyed by the F-22 over Russian fighters may not last to much longer.

[ShadoWarrior]

satellite navigation equipment

Until the Russians finish their own equivalent to the American GPS constellation, any foe that tries to use GPS against the U.S. is subject to having their equipment become useless once the U.S. flips the switch that disables use of GPS by anyone other than the U.S. military.

As for sensor performance, one must consider that the public specs (which everyone seems to be referring to in this thread) for systems do not in fact reflect the real specs for non-export models of military gear, which tend to be highly classified. And the sophistication of the computers that sit behind a fighter's radar has to be considered. The U.S. remains well in advance of Russia with regards to computer chips and related microcircuits, and there's no indication that this will change anytime in the foreseeable future. A radar isn't of much use if the back-end electronics that interpret the returns isn't up to the challenge they'll face. Sure, range and signal power are important, but they aren't necessarily the most important factors in a radar system.

How good Russian jammers are as compared to western jammers isn't the point. It's how good ECM is versus ECCM. If a radar system can still pick out a target despite jamming, then the plane doing the jamming is in deep trouble.

One needs to keep in mind that the main difference between the export models of aircraft, which is where most of the public specs are based upon, and the not-for-export models is in the (highly-classified) avionics. People can have some fun comparing export models to each other all day, but how well this reflects what will really happen if the non-export versions face each other is problematic. How much better is the not-for-export avionics? We know how good American pilots are versus second (or third) rate pilots flying export-level planes. How well would they do versus prime Russian gear flown by Russia's best? One person's wild guess is as good as the next.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Until the Russians finish their own equivalent to the American GPS constellation, any foe that tries to use GPS against the U.S. is subject to having their equipment become useless once the U.S. flips the switch that disables use of GPS by anyone other than the U.S. military.

I did state that America retained a significant lead in satellite navigation equipment, and China seems to recognise this more than anyone and is working on putting up its own BeiDou system to provide an alternative to the US government-run Global Positioning System to make China's military less dependent on US technology.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

As for sensor performance, one must consider that the public specs (which everyone seems to be referring to in this thread) for systems do not in fact reflect the real specs for non-export models of military gear, which tend to be highly classified. And the sophistication of the computers that sit behind a fighter's radar has to be considered. The U.S. remains well in advance of Russia with regards to computer chips and related microcircuits, and there's no indication that this will change anytime in the foreseeable future. A radar isn't of much use if the back-end electronics that interpret the returns isn't up to the challenge they'll face. Sure, range and signal power are important, but they aren't necessarily the most important factors in a radar system.

How good Russian jammers are as compared to western jammers isn't the point. It's how good ECM is versus ECCM. If a radar system can still pick out a target despite jamming, then the plane doing the jamming is in deep trouble.

I also stated that America retains an advantage in microchips and software for many of these systems, although I do think that Russia is catching up quicker than many think.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

One needs to keep in mind that the main difference between the export models of aircraft, which is where most of the public specs are based upon, and the not-for-export models is in the (highly-classified) avionics. People can have some fun comparing export models to each other all day, but how well this reflects what will really happen if the non-export versions face each other is problematic. How much better is the not-for-export avionics? We know how good American pilots are versus second (or third) rate pilots flying export-level planes. How well would they do versus prime Russian gear flown by Russia's best? One person's wild guess is as good as the next.

I would totaly agree with there being a difference in the quality of Russian aircraft and systems produced for export and for its own forces. I think Russia is giving China and India what it wants to give it for its own reasons as well as getting a lot of cash and work for its own aerospace sector, and keeping the best for itself.