Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
You have no logic, just troll bias.
The Typhoon is a smaller and supposedly stealthier plane than the Flanker series, with an RCS on par with the SuperBug, around 0.1m^2, against the Flanker's big-target 4-5m^2. Even if the Sukhoi's radar is a bit better, it still won't see the Typhoon before it gets seen. If Meteor and AA-12 are both present, than the Typhoon has an advantage with the longer-range Meteor. Otherwise, it's still good enough with AIM-120C-5 vs AA-10. And if the Sentrys participate, the Flanker's radar advantage goes out the window, since the Typhoons will have full-blown AWACS support.
That way, the Typhoons can react first and kill the Flankers first by sending the Flankers into evasion and pressing on with a BVR flank in a merging fight. With supercruise, the Typhoons have the choice to drop their tanks and get away from a WVR situation, while the MKIs must afterburn to keep up(who cares about endurance when your 'burning).
|
All the above is totally incorrect as analysis and you have loaded the dice in a totally facile manner, because neither the Typhoon or the MKI are going to be ever facing equivalent opponents without AWACs support. And in front of a Phalcon/ Sentry type system, let alone the upgraded Sentries the US fields, it really doesnt matter whether your RCS is 5 or 3 or 1 or even 10. You'll be detected soon enough for the opponents to vector in, and as far as the fighters radars are concerned, what matters is whether they can guide missile armament to the missiles maximum effective ranges. And both the Typhoon & MKI can do that. Not to mention that some of the data is pure brochure bashing, for instance that claim of 0.1 Sq Mtr, which to anyone who is familiar with the difficulty US designers have faced (and surmounted) with achieving stealth, coupled with a decent look at the Typhoon airframe- is fairly ridiculous. Not to mention, the fact that onboard munitions allow would spike the RCS plot.
So what counts? Tactics, pure and simple and airframe performance. The Typhoon has an advantage in the latter in terms of its supercruise and energy state retention, but the Flankers fuel load and brute power also allow it to have enough staying power for a BVR battle. The Flanker can also use its TVC in BVR to get the heck out of dodge. It will transition from a high energy state to a low one, but thats what the burners are for, and with IFR and a 3000 km unrefueled range, it has substantial ability to conduct a decent BVR game for a period of time. A good pilot - whether it be a Typhoon jock or a Flanker one, will use his aircrafts respective strengths. Both aircraft are far more evenly matched, even though the Typhoon has clearly more investment into its overall integrated sensor suite - which it must, being a single seater. This is not to deny that there are some areas where the Typhoon has an advantage - the towed decoy is one, and so is its integrated ECM suite, the DASS, which will have some advantages over a more federated commercial system adapted to a fighter aircraft.
Dave/ Varsity,
The Typhoon is a top notch bird and frankly, the RAF is lucky to be getting it AND the JSF. Thats a darn sight better than most AF's worldwide. In fact, after the USAF, the RAF will have the best A2A and A2G combo in terms of sophistication and capability. Perhaps the IAF, once it gets its MRCA & following that, the FGFA/ PAK-FA- can claim some equal- equal. ;-)
The key advantage of the MKI, as I see it, is its amazing cost effectiveness and an excellent airframe, which has huge growth potential. The current MKI, as is the Typhoon, represents a mix of 80's, 90's and some 2000+ tech, but the airframe allows for a lot of sequential update and iterative modernisation, some of which is already happening.