They are supposed to upgrade Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 and possibly Tranche 2 aircraft with the Captor-E AESA radar.
But the program is seriously delayed in part because of persistent lack of funding. Which is why the first Eurofighters with AESA radar ended up in the Middle East. If you think the UK's situation is bad, Germany's aircraft situation is much worse.
Something to ponder next time you hear someone joke about the Russian Air Force. It is pretty powerful in the European context given its large amount of modernized Flanker variants. Russia is still also the only European nation to have developed their own 5th generation fighter.
But the program is seriously delayed in part because of persistent lack of funding. Which is why the first Eurofighters with AESA radar ended up in the Middle East. If you think the UK's situation is bad, Germany's aircraft situation is much worse.
Something to ponder next time you hear someone joke about the Russian Air Force. It is pretty powerful in the European context given its large amount of modernized Flanker variants. Russia is still also the only European nation to have developed their own 5th generation fighter.
Real though, European militaries are quite bad individually. There are apparent capability gaps that no European country addresses and despite so much integration everyone is trying to do everything. Surface-to-surface capabilities are non-existent. Tank fleets and arty are in shambles. Air defense is bad. UAV and anti-UAV are token at best. SEAD and anti-shipping are weak. Space-related capabilities are 100% dependent on Americans. We do have relatively good navies (at costs navies don't deserve), light infantry and collective Euro tactical aviation is very potent. We also have ultra-expensive over spec APCs like the Boxer. But that's about it. Things like PLASSF and PLARF are alien stuff to European militaries.
Last edited:
European space capabilities are better than what you are saying. They have the Galileo navigation satellite network. Plus Europe has lots of optical reconnaissance satellites. The French have the CSO optical reconnaissance satellites, CERES SIGINT satellites, for example. While Germany has radar satellites like SAR-LUPE and TerraSAR-X.
Last edited:
Debatable. Our space capabilities are anemic compared to our spending which is higher than China. I shouldn't have said 100%. You are right on that. By the way, what percentage of current European PGMs can use Galileo for guidance? I can't see it on even MBDA brochures. Dependence on GPS is real.
The programme was not delayed because of a lack of funding but rather by both troubles about workshare and the lack of interest in just an upgraded array. The UK was not interested in just a new array without a new radar backend and therefore is not going to fit Captor-E radar as opposed to what Wiki is saying.
European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk 0, commonly referred to as the Captor-E was developed by the 4 original Eurofighter members and will be fitted to Qatari and Kuwaiti Eurofighters.
ECRS Mk 1, manufactured by Hensoldt and Airbus is an upgraded Mk0 and will be fitted to German and Spanish Typhoons.
ECRS Mk 2, manufactured by Leonardo primarily in Edinburgh is an entirely new radar and will be fitted to Tranche 3 UK Typhoons.
The Crownest AWACS system is in service, albeit with some limitations, the recently retired E-3D will be replaced by three E-7 aircraft currently being assembled in Birmingham. Although Typhoons may still use mechanical scanning radars, they are regarded as some of the best mechanical radars in the world.
The Su-57 is barely a 5th gen and way behind the likes of the J-20/F-35.
The AWACS capability gap is temporary - the UK has Wedgetails on order and willingly chose to retire the Sentries in 2021 before receipt of them. Other than that, yes, it's not a secret that the British armed forces are underfunded vis-à-vis the power it tries to project globally
The current fiscal structure of the country (namely high cost public services like the NHS, social welfare/pensions etc. with an active voting base that thinks the commitments can be covered by low taxes) hamstrings any possible ambition at the state level. You only need to see the kind of numbers being chucked about in terms of support for ML, semiconductors, EV batteries etc. to grasp how the UK has not had any funding for big ticket items for the past decade
So in other words it is about funding. Countries won't fund the program unless they get more workshare.
The F-35 cannot either supercruise nor can it reach Mach 2.0. It also has no TVC in the engine.
The Su-57 has AESA radar, low observable shape, and supercruise capability with TVC.
The main weakness of the current Su-57 is that the engine is 4.5th gen instead of being 5th gen. That is supposed to be fixed with Izd. 30 which is one reason why Su-57 isn't in mass manufacture yet. Sukhoi compensated for engine performance with much more efficient airframe. But like I said F-35 does not fit US's own criteria for what is a 5th generation aircraft which they stated when the F-22 was introduced. It cannot supercruise. And F-35's engine has its own problems. It cannot meet design specifications for engine lifetime.
Russia today clearly has the capabilities to make a 5th generation jet engine which they did not have when Su-57 program started a decade ago. You can see this in their PD-14 engine which has a turbine inlet temperature higher than that of the engine in the F-22. The PD-35 engine is supposed to have a turbine inlet temperature similar to that of the engine in the F-35. And the Russians already got the PD-35 hot section working on bench tests.
Last edited:
Yes.
The Su-57 is a glorified prototype. Don't cherry-pick capabilities that make the Su-57 look good when the F-35 is way ahead of the Su-57 in sensor fusion, situational awareness and stealth.
So you think a fighter with 1 frontal AESA radar, 2 side AESA radars, and all the electro-optical sensors it has, does not have sensor fusion?
The Su-57 does have sensor fusion. It integrates data from the several sensors it has into a single sight picture.
The extra stealth in the F-35 comes at significant cost in terms of aerodynamic performance of the airframe. Which is why despite having all that thrust-to-weight in the engine it is such a slow aircraft. It is a flying brick.
As for the stealth it depends on what you are talking about. The Su-57 is slimmer than the F-22 and has smaller tail control surfaces. So it likely has better sideways stealth than the F-22. The Su-57 likely has worse frontal and backwards stealth. But the stealth in those places will likely improve with the new engines which will be specifically designed with materials and coatings to make the engines less radar and IR visible.
The Su-57 does have sensor fusion. It integrates data from the several sensors it has into a single sight picture.
The extra stealth in the F-35 comes at significant cost in terms of aerodynamic performance of the airframe. Which is why despite having all that thrust-to-weight in the engine it is such a slow aircraft. It is a flying brick.
As for the stealth it depends on what you are talking about. The Su-57 is slimmer than the F-22 and has smaller tail control surfaces. So it likely has better sideways stealth than the F-22. The Su-57 likely has worse frontal and backwards stealth. But the stealth in those places will likely improve with the new engines which will be specifically designed with materials and coatings to make the engines less radar and IR visible.
Last edited: