Modern multirole fighter assessment

[GreenFalcon]

I need some correction. MiG-35 is detection for 1018 modules radar, however currently Zhuk-AE radar has only 680 modules. So it downgrades detection range to about 70 km.

Final Rank:

1. F-22 --------------------- 99
2. F-35A ------------------- 87
3. Su-35 ------------------- 81
4. Typhoon (AESA) ----- 78
5. F-15SG ----------------- 77
6. Su-30MKI (AESA) -- 76
7. Rafale (AESA) -------- 71
8. Typhoon ---------------- 70
9. MiG-35 (1018 mod) - 69
10. F-18E ------------------- 68
11. Su-30MKI -------------- 68
12. J-10B (AESA) -------- 68
13. Rafale ------------------- 67
14. F-2A --------------------- 66
15. F-16E ------------------- 66
16. Gripen NG ------------- 64
17. MiG-35 (680 mod) -- 62
18. J-10A -------------------- 61
19. JF-17 (AESA) -------- 59
20. Gripen ------------------- 56
21. JF-17 --------------------- 55

And the winner is:

 

[jammersat]

Sounds like the war in syria is over lol

 

[monitor]

@500

The most advance/lethal F-15 is that of KSA airforce and not F-15SG (Singapore)...or are they same? Am I missing something? Why didn't you use KSA's most latest F-15 as a comparison?



JF-17 block II has a better radar (increased modes, and increased range), more range (more fuel/air-to-air refueling), more powerful engine (improved RD-93)...and improved electronics/avionics.

So JF-17 block II is like 61/62 compared with Su-30MKI 68 (majority of Su-30s and JF-17s aren't AESA as of now)...

So @500 research actually proves that JF-17 is a very potent fighter compared to its price-tag...and moreover, su-30 is a powerful plane but no raptor.

Difference between Su-30MKI and JF-17 isn't that much...Even our JF-17s can give a bloody nose to Su-30MKIs, with effective and smart tactics...forget about our latest F-16s which are equipped with the best BVR missles in South Asia and are more than a match to Su-30s

So delusions of indians who think that IAF holds some "decisive" edge/superiority over PAF is only more laughable now after this thread.

In any war, the air force that deploys its tactics smartly will over-come the adversary. There is no "decisive" superiority of IAF w.r.t to PAF...

Note: ALL PAF JF-17s are either block II level or being converted to block II level.

JF-17 Thunder block II is the first 'real' JF-17 that would be deployed en masse by PAF.

comparing JF-17 with SU-30mki is i will say irrelevant as both are separate class of fighter but what is interesting to me that there are not much point difference between J-10B and JF-17(AESA) only 15% more. so why the one of top PAF official are suggesting to concentrate more to fifth generation fighter then FC-20?=/J-10B is easily understandable when Pakistan have chance to get more familiar F-16 instead of a almost same new platform .

 

[500]

@500

The most advance/lethal F-15 is that of KSA airforce and not F-15SG (Singapore)...or are they same? Am I missing something? Why didn't you use KSA's most latest F-15 as a comparison?

Yes F-15SG and F-15SA are same.

 

[jammersat]

I like the f-35 , cause it tells a story , of how america was once able to show off her f-22 , now it has to limit herself to a budget f-35 and share it with singapore and turkey

 

[vostok]

@500 What do you think, how many points will receive PAK-FA and J-20?

 

[sancho]

@500
You obviously put a lot of effort in the comparison and that must be appreciated, but it has a lot of flaws, which starts even with the titel of the thread, that doesn't fit to the comparision as such, since you hardly include any multi role capability into the comparison. What you compared is basically flight performance and tech capability, which would be the same if you include single role fighters like Su 27s or Jaguars and where the results of the calculations showed, the the stealth category actually doesn't fit at all wrt multi role capability.

Then there are these imo artificial credits to certain fighters in certain fields, for example:

- extra points for TVC, but not for canards, or for internal weapon carriage of F35, while that doesn't make it any better in speed or ceilling than most of the 4th gen fighters with external loads, since the flight performance remain inferior (no extra points for Supercruise at least in the initial calculation if I got it right) and why wasn't the G-limits included?

-for additional points for F35s radar, which are far away from being credible and the calculation does not include key radar features like FoV, targets that can be tracked and engaged at the same time...,

- Range is the field where calculation is the most flawed, since you took a load of 2000Kg, but counted the full fuel internal capacity only , but a Rafale for example with 2000Kg load, would not only have the internal 4700Kg fuel, but also 2 x 1600Kg in external fuel tanks. That means 7900Kg fuel and not 4700Kg only and when we take that figure to account, the Rafale would score a 0.4 according to your formular much closer to the F35 than you showed it. The F18SH would carry even around 9000Kg and would come at a score of 0.444, so at the number 1 spot! Your calculation basically benifited only those fighters that carries fuel fully internally and that resulted in the wide gap of points and a preference of the stealth fighters of course.

- Stealth as mentioned above is questionable, but also is highly debatable, since you mainly made broad estimations nothing more. You have the F35 and the F22 the same 100 points, although the latter is considered to be more stealthy, especially when we include the likely fact that IR missiles might be carried in strike roles only externally. And when you then see the estimates you made on RCS, where a JF 17 that doesn not even any RCS reduction measures as of now is placed on the same level of the Eurocanards, which are designed and developed with a very low RCS, makes this category pointless.

- radar as mentioned must include more sub categories, to evaluate the real performance, but here again, there are many estimates, even from radars that are not even available. Also since modern fighter do not only radar for detection, you should increase this category by adding passiv detection capabilities like IRST, RWR, MAWS... as well. The sum of these detection capabilities tells us much more about the fighters capability today, than basic radar range comparisons.
Looking at these points, it makes clear why the F35 fared so well in your comparison, because the categories and the credits benefitted it. But when the aim is to compare the capability of a modern multi role fighter, other things count too, like the mentioned passive detection capabilities, how many roles the fighter actually can do, if it can carry a full set of 2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles in any role to have a credible self defence capability, the FoV of active and passive detection, not only the range...

 

[500]

@500
What you compared is basically flight performance and tech capability, which would be the same if you include single role fighters like Su 27s or Jaguars

Su-27 can be converted to multirole, Jaguar will show very poor scores in my rank.

the the stealth category actually doesn't fit at all wrt multi role capability.

Stealth is super important both in air to air and air to ground.

- extra points for TVC, but not for canards

Canards are not necessary good. For example they are added to Su-30 more to support the additional weight and lack on Su-35.

or for internal weapon carriage of F35, while that doesn't make it any better in speed or ceilling than most of the 4th gen fighters with external loads, since the flight performance remain inferior

Speed and ceiling of 4th gen fighters is calculated in clean mode. When u add weapons and pods it will decrease. I can tell u that with bombs and pods F-35 will be actually faster than any 4th gen.

(no extra points for Supercruise at least in the initial calculation if I got it right)

I added supercruise later.

and why wasn't the G-limits included?

Almost all of them have 9G.

- Range is the field where calculation is the most flawed, since you took a load of 2000Kg, but counted the full fuel internal capacity only , but a Rafale for example with 2000Kg load, would not only have the internal 4700Kg fuel, but also 2 x 1600Kg in external fuel tanks. That means 7900Kg fuel and not 4700Kg only and when we take that figure to account, the Rafale would score a 0.4 according to your formular much closer to the F35 than you showed it. The F18SH would carry even around 9000Kg and would come at a score of 0.444, so at the number 1 spot! Your calculation basically benifited only those fighters that carries fuel fully internally and that resulted in the wide gap of points and a preference of the stealth fighters of course.

Stealth can also carry external tanks.

- Stealth as mentioned above is questionable, but also is highly debatable, since you mainly made broad estimations nothing more. You have the F35 and the F22 the same 100 points, although the latter is considered to be more stealthy, especially when we include the likely fact that IR missiles might be carried in strike roles only externally.

According to one source F-35 has better frontal stealth while F-22 all around. I trust it more, anyway, both are ahead of all others by a huge margin.

And when you then see the estimates you made on RCS, where a JF 17 that doesn not even any RCS reduction measures as of now is placed on the same level of the Eurocanards, which are designed and developed with a very low RCS, makes this category pointless.

Actually new JF-17 got DSI intakes, it has S-duct and its a small plane. Plus external weapon carriage reduces differences.

-for additional points for F35s radar, which are far away from being credible and the calculation does not include key radar features like FoV, targets that can be tracked and engaged at the same time...,

- radar as mentioned must include more sub categories, to evaluate the real performance, but here again, there are many estimates, even from radars that are not even available. Also since modern fighter do not only radar for detection, you should increase this category by adding passiv detection capabilities like IRST, RWR, MAWS... as well. The sum of these detection capabilities tells us much more about the fighters capability today, than basic radar range comparisons.
Looking at these points, it makes clear why the F35 fared so well in your comparison, because the categories and the credits benefitted it. But when the aim is to compare the capability of a modern multi role fighter, other things count too, like the mentioned passive detection capabilities, how many roles the fighter actually can do, if it can carry a full set of 2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles in any role to have a credible self defence capability, the FoV of active and passive detection, not only the range...

Modern AESA radars all have similar capabilities. As for F-35 it has super advanced passive detection avionics with built in DAS and EOTS.

 

[Ra'ad]

Yes F-15SG and F-15SA are same.

Also, only F-16E is mentioned in the list. Does it represent the C/D models too, or is there significant difference between them?

 

[500]

Also, only F-16E is mentioned in the list. Does it represent the C/D models too, or is their significant difference between them?

F-16E has much more powerful engine and radar.

@500 What do you think, how many points will receive PAK-FA and J-20?

There is no data on these planes to make assessment. Obviously PAK FA must be higher than Su-35 which is already ranked high.

 

[Akasa]

There's a few errors I wish to address:

1. How do you know the J-10A's radar aperture?

2. Is radar aperture really indicative of its radar capabilities? There is one huge factor and that is radar module packing and its density. For example, the J-10B, which has approximately the same aperture as the J-10A, is able to hold an AESA radar with 1152 T/R modules, which exceeds that found on the Rafale. In a similar nature, the J-16, J-11B, and J-15 sport AESA radars that have 1760 T/R modules in each, far exceeding those found in any European aircraft. Radar range is also altered by the power of the radar.

3. You cannot judge RCS solely based on aircraft size or design. There are numerous ways to reduce radar signature without touching on the physical aspects of an airframe, such as the use of carbon fiber composites or RAM. The Rafale, Eurofighter, J-10B, J-11B/15/16, and to some extent the F-15 upgrades all feature them. However, do you know the extent to which each fighter is equipped with those enhancements? These "invisible" changes can account for a huge difference in performance. The J-11B was able to decrease its RCS by a factor of five just by using composites and RAM.

 

[sancho]

Su-27 can be converted to multirole, Jaguar will show very poor scores in my rank.

Of course, but it shows that your comparison categories have nothing to do with multi role capabilities.

Stealth is super important both in air to air and air to ground.

Only in early days of war and in specific roles, on basic CAS for example is not important, but the point is, the figures you took for the comparison are just estimates and hardly reliable, which is why the F35 got 100 points.

Canards are not necessary good. For example they are added to Su-30 more to support the additional weight and lack on Su-35.

You got to be kidding me right? If canards are not good for agility and maneuverability, why do the Eurocanards trash the US teen series and even performed equal or even superior to the F22 with TVC? The Su 35 removed it as a RCS reduction measure, while the T50 has movable LERX again. I am looking forward for the first exercises of EFs or Rafales and F35s, which will show again how inferior the F35 is in close combats.

Speed and ceiling of 4th gen fighters is calculated in clean mode. When u add weapons and pods it will decrease. I can tell u that with bombs and pods F-35 will be actually faster than any 4th gen.

Just like speed and ceilling of the F35 are calculated in clean mode, meaning no additional weights, in the internal weapon or even fuel tanks, which means, fully loaded it's performance will reduce as well. Also, we know that the Rafale and EF can supercruise with external A2A loads. At the same ammount of weapons and fuel to the F35 and tell me who will perform better?

Almost all of them have 9G.

Except of the F35 and the F18SH! So one could give minus points here as well.

Stealth can also carry external tanks.

Of course they can, but that is not the issue, your calculation has used the wrong ammount of fuel for the non stealth fighters, that's why the results are wrong. You either have to take te total fuel capacity of normal fighters, except stealth fighters and Flankers), or have to reduce the internal fuel of these to an equal ammount as the normal fighters.

Actually new JF-17 got DSI intakes, it has S-duct and its a small plane. Plus external weapon carriage reduces differences.

DSI is no RCS reduction feature, it has Y-ducts but neither RAM or special coatings, which even upgraded F16s or Mig 29s have. So the in clean conig by far can't be at the claimed level.

Modern AESA radars all have similar capabilities. As for F-35 it has super advanced passive detection avionics with built in DAS and EOTS.

That's wrong! The radar of the F35 is fixed and has a limited FoV only, while the AESA's of the EF or Gripen E, as well as the PESAs of the MKI and Su 35 are based on repositioner systems, which increases the FoV and therfore the volume of searched area by far. The RBE 2 AESA for example can detect and track up to 40 targets, Eltas EL 2052 is said to even detect 64 targets, which obviously makes a huge advantage. So there are differences to evaluate the capability of radars and not only their size and the detection range.

 

[500]

Of course, but it shows that your comparison categories have nothing to do with multi role capabilities.

Agility, radar, stealth, speed and ceiling, range - all are crucial multirole capabilities.

Only in early days of war and in specific roles, on basic CAS for example is not important,

Stealth is super important in CAS.

but the point is, the figures you took for the comparison are just estimates and hardly reliable, which is why the F35 got 100 points.

Compare to legacy fighters? - Of course.

You got to be kidding me right?

Su-35 without canards is more maneuverable than Su-30 with.

If canards are not good for agility and maneuverability, why do the Eurocanards trash the US teen series and even performed equal or even superior to the F22 with TVC?

If u check my rank u will see that EFT got 100 for agility while F-22 104. Thats very similar so in some cases it can outmaneuver.

Just like speed and ceilling of the F35 are calculated in clean mode, meaning no additional weights, in the internal weapon or even fuel tanks, which means, fully loaded it's performance will reduce as well. Also, we know that the Rafale and EF can supercruise with external A2A loads. At the same ammount of weapons and fuel to the F35 and tell me who will perform better?

F-35 can reach 1.6 Mach with 2 2000 lb bombs and targeting pod. Legacy fighters will barely reach 1.2 Mach with such loading.

There's a few errors I wish to address:

1. How do you know the J-10A's radar aperture?

2. Is radar aperture really indicative of its radar capabilities? There is one huge factor and that is radar module packing and its density. For example, the J-10B, which has approximately the same aperture as the J-10A, is able to hold an AESA radar with 1152 T/R modules, which exceeds that found on the Rafale. In a similar nature, the J-16, J-11B, and J-15 sport AESA radars that have 1760 T/R modules in each, far exceeding those found in any European aircraft. Radar range is also altered by the power of the radar.

3. You cannot judge RCS solely based on aircraft size or design. There are numerous ways to reduce radar signature without touching on the physical aspects of an airframe, such as the use of carbon fiber composites or RAM. The Rafale, Eurofighter, J-10B, J-11B/15/16, and to some extent the F-15 upgrades all feature them. However, do you know the extent to which each fighter is equipped with those enhancements? These "invisible" changes can account for a huge difference in performance. The J-11B was able to decrease its RCS by a factor of five just by using composites and RAM.

Even if I put RCS to 1 m2 (minimal for fighters with external weapons) there will be very minor increase its rank (63 instead of 61).

 

[xenon54 out]

I like the f-35 , cause it tells a story , of how america was once able to show off her f-22 , now it has to limit herself to a budget f-35 and share it with singapore and turkey

And i like it because Turkish Airforce will kick asses with their 100 F-35, not to mention the know how our aviation industry will gain throught this project.

 

[sancho]

Compare to legacy fighters? - Of course.

No, to the F18SH or the Rafale, that calculated with your formular but with a realistic ammount of fuel would be ahead or even equal to the F35.