[Flaser]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

Recently I've stumbled upon a great site that details the future of the Australian Airforce.
For once, I've found a site that bashes the current JSF program - or more like marketing - for the right reasons:

The JSF was never intended as a single engine "F-22 clone". It's capabilities leave a lot to be desired in that regard.

Actually you could think of it as a stealthy F-16 with very beefed up CAS (Close-in Air Support) capabilities. A really nifty aircraft if you need that.

The key word here is: CLOSE.

The JSF is a knife-fighter, playing it close to the troops, close to the ground and close to the base. In that area (CAS, tactical bombing, light fighter) it is really good - the best on the maret.

However it is NOT:
an interceptor*
an air superiority fighter
a deep-strike bomber*

The reason why pushing the aircraft into said roles really hurts, is that it can't fufill the roles of the F-14 (leaving the Navy with the F-18 that would need a new missile package/avionics/radar package to handle the job); or the B1/F-111 leaving the Army with the F-15E.

Said aircrafts are more than adequate in their respective roles. They're good.
However they're aging, and supplying that many types of aircrafts puts quite a pressure on the supply chain.
Furthermore these are aging platforms and the teen series aside (F-15, F-16) it's unclear how long they are economical to service.

The real problem for modern airforces outside the US comes from the following craft:

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
Su-30MKI/Su-30MKK

This is the new Flanker family, an upgrade to the Su-27 family that the F-22/JSF were built to defeat. The F-22 still has a massive advantage over them, but this would somewhat diminish (but never dissappear!).
However the JSF can beat the Russian family only in its own league - the Mig-29, that the Russians are drawing out of service.

The JSF has really ambigous chances going up against an Su-30 on its own.

Thing to keep in mind during the whole discussion:

It's not a question of which aircraft is better.
It's not a question which is more survivable.

The question is the following:
Given their current economic power, if current Asian airforces field Su-30 in sufficient number (namely not the puny insignificant pocket airforces of 3rd world banana republics),
Will an airforce equiped with the JSF as their main fighter,

a) Mount a sucessfull offensive?
b) Maintain a good defense?

The answer to both of these questions is not a resounding yes, only a quiet maybe; depends....

Read the above articles for further details.

In my opinoin, what NATO forces would need would be:
F-22-s, and a naval and bomber variant.

[Bobboau]

I've always consitered the JSF as a good 'companion blade' to the F-22, it's a nice little fighter that can do a few things well and a whole bunch of things passably.

[Unknown Target]

The JSF, as I've understood it, has always been for countries that can't afford to have both the F-22 and the JSF, so they get the less expensive and more versatile JSF instead. That way, they can do everything well, as opposed to doing one thing perfectly.

By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).

[Nuke]

f22s are so prohibitively expensive that the the usa can barely afford them. and i doubt that the us is gonna hand over the right to buy them to even its most trusted allies. the jsf was made to fill in the numbers role. aircraft are only really usefull in numbers, no matter how good they are. the loan wolf approach will never work in air combat. sence were limited on the number of f22s we can buy and operate (and i dont need my taxes any higher to pay for them), we need a less expensive aircraft to fill in the void, hence the jsf.

but with the us's usuall choise of banana republics as foes, rather than world powers, it would be better off to but another hundred a-10s and call it a day. the leaders of world powers would sooner play golf with eachother than go to war. china is wracking up the cashflow by filling all our industrial needs, and russia can barely deal with their organized crime problem. as much as i would like to have one, i dont see a ww3 short of a bunch of terrorists with nukes.

[Dysko]

By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).

AFAIK, many recent fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30 (not sure about this), but also some older ones like the F-16) are considered "low observability" fighters because, due to their shape (blended wings etc.) they are "stealthier" than other planes.
I've read also that the F-35 is not stealth, it's a low observability fighter itself (minimal stealth, as you said). This means that they should have the same odds of detecting themselves in an air combat (given that their radars work at their best).

BTW, I always thought that the F-35 is an airplane that is designed to do too many things, and won't be able to do any. For example, it is designed to be a CAS aircraft, but it can't carry the same amount of ordinance as the A-10 due to internal bays, and I think it's not good for that role for things like single engine etc.
Probably it will only be useful to replace the Harrier on English, Italian and Spanish carriers.

I don't like it because it's also ugly as hell. Better than the X-32 though.

[Colonol Dekker]

The JSF has always seemed to be a mish mash of a Harrier (AV-8 to you merry-cans) an FA-18 for the bomb capabilities and an F22 in its limited super-cruise.

As for controversy, thats been a long running thing there was a mega drive game based on it, thats how old the project is

[Flaser]

f22s are so prohibitively expensive that the the usa can barely afford them. and i doubt that the us is gonna hand over the right to buy them to even its most trusted allies. the jsf was made to fill in the numbers role. aircraft are only really usefull in numbers, no matter how good they are. the loan wolf approach will never work in air combat. sence were limited on the number of f22s we can buy and operate (and i dont need my taxes any higher to pay for them), we need a less expensive aircraft to fill in the void, hence the jsf.

but with the us's usuall choise of banana republics as foes, rather than world powers, it would be better off to but another hundred a-10s and call it a day. the leaders of world powers would sooner play golf with eachother than go to war. china is wracking up the cashflow by filling all our industrial needs, and russia can barely deal with their organized crime problem. as much as i would like to have one, i dont see a ww3 short of a bunch of terrorists with nukes.

I don't know where the hell you've been for the last 10 years, but instead the Cold War's all out war; what I've seen was conflict through proxy nations over "buffer" territories and intensifying confrontation between Russia and the USA over fossil resources (oil, gas ect.) (...and please, I'm not speaking of Iraq. Check up on what has been going on in Eastern Europe as well as Russian "proxy-states" - nation's unlucky enough to be neighbour to a once again awakening superpower in an ever more hostile international political environment.)

An all out war is not likely - a bloody "remote" conflict like Vietnam, except with a somewhat "official"/"humanitarian" relief from another high-tech party doesn't seem so out of the question.

Furthermore if you look into the problem, it's not only about the US of the A but it's overseas partners: people in need of a plane with capabilities similar to the F-22 if they want to maintain the current status quo.

The reson why the JSF won't cut in in this arena, is that numbers only matter as long as they actually get to play - the current Su-27/30 derivates can outshoot, outmanuever and outlast the plane in the air; and the plane lacks the growth potential for a better radar or longer range missiles wihtout sacrificing its current performance.

Simply put the JSF is unsuited to the interceptor/air-supriority fighter role it is marketed to fufill.
For that role you need a bigger, two engine figher with better air-combat performance, range and true supercruising ability (something the Su-30 could gain within 5 years with their own cooled engines).

I'm not bashing the JSF - it is marvelous plane from several POV that can fufill a lot of roles for several branches of the millitary. However air dominance/superiority or deep strike are not among them.

On final note:
The F-22 was until recently renamed F/A-22 (but the name change revoked under asinin reasons) as it has prooven to be more than multirole capable. So much so, that the F-117 will be replaced by F-22s.
The plane also has a marvelous growth potential, which is rarely spoken of, and usually only the bare-bone baseline performance figures are used, which is based on restrictions to stay within Congress approoved budget.

Furthermore R&D costs are also figured into the plane's rollout costs, but not into the JSF's cost which is pretty nasty given that the same research has resulted in the JSF's existance and are a lot more bloated than the actual cost of building additional crafts (which cost will only go down).

One last thing:
The F-22 will also benefit from the JSF program, as a lot of economic procedures developed in the JSF to reduce manufacturing costs will make their way into the F-22, so the F-22 will be also cheaper.

PS.: Check the damn articles I linked. They have references, they don't do overt  numbers dicking or citing experts without laying out plain and prooven facts

<------------------------------------------------->

@The role of stealth in BVR combat:

1) The Su-30 series has very good optical aquisition systems.
2) They will be outfitted with AESA radars within 5 years (currenlty only fielded on the F-22 and JSF)
3) The JSF hasn't got all aspect stealth as the F-22 does, and the stealth optimisation on its engine is limited to a number of radar bands over the F-22's wide spectrum optimisation
4) The Su-30 radar signature will likely reduced by adding RAM materials. (It will be in the same league as the F-18/Eurofighter ect., obviously with worse results as it is a larger plane.)

To fire the JSF will have to light up its radar, thereby giving away its location. Once it has done so, it's victory is not a forgone conclusion as it would be the case with the F-22 (which isn't even than, just very likely).
The now enjoyed information upper hand also wouldn't be that availible in the above scenarios as current Flanker doctrines all start with cruise missile attacks against radar platforms.

A final not is how "relativly cheap" the Su-30 variants are.
As for the next generation Russian aircraft, you should check up project PAKFA.

[Flaser]

By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).

AFAIK, many recent fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30 (not sure about this), but also some older ones like the F-16) are considered "low observability" fighters because, due to their shape (blended wings etc.) they are "stealthier" than other planes.
I've read also that the F-35 is not stealth, it's a low observability fighter itself (minimal stealth, as you said). This means that they should have the same odds of detecting themselves in an air combat (given that their radars work at their best).

BTW, I always thought that the F-35 is an airplane that is designed to do too many things, and won't be able to do any. For example, it is designed to be a CAS aircraft, but it can't carry the same amount of ordinance as the A-10 due to internal bays, and I think it's not good for that role for things like single engine etc.
Probably it will only be useful to replace the Harrier on English, Italian and Spanish carriers.

I don't like it because it's also ugly as hell. Better than the X-32 though.

Actually the F-35 is a very good CAS plane, as it has best IR warnign system to date; and an over-the-shoulder laser/optical guided missile launch sytem that has to be seen to be belived.
Furthermore, once airsuperiority is achieved, the plane can take off with external munitions too; as stealth won't be critical anymore.
It can also deliver precision munitions without sacrificing payload for the apropiate designator equipment.

All in all it's a pretty nifty aircraft that could manage to fufill a very wide range of roles in several branches of the millitary, but as I said airsuperiority or interception isn't among them.

In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, you want to compare it to the F-16. Well, that's gonna cost you, because when you get right down to it the F-16 is as physically capable an interceptor and air superiority fighter as the F-22 is at the moment.  Both are AMRAAM-capable (with superb heatseeker all-aspect backup in the F-16's case; the F-22 generally does not have those) and both are BVR-engagement-capable, both can generally rely on (superior) AWACs support. (Which obviates the need to turn on their radar actually, the AMRAAM is a fire-and-forget weapon that can do its own homing.) The F-16 can actually carry a bigger weapons load (external stores) and has marginally superior performance in the dogfight (partly lower speed, partly because it wasn't built for speed).

The protestation here misses a great, perhaps vital point in complaining about the Sukhoi being better aircraft: they are. They are superior to anything in Western service, because Western aircraft have evolved to another level of performance, but not to the point where they didn't have to sacrifice for it. The great step forward in aircraft design the F-22 was meant to represent has not, from the standpoint of the commander, materialized. Might not have ever existed at that. The F-22 and to a lesser extent JSF have suffered from one very critical defect: they advanced their aerodynamics at the cost of their capablities as a warplane. They are undoubtedly marvelous aircraft to fly, but less so when it comes down to missiles in the air and bombs on the target.

The F-22 and JSF are therefore, in a very real sense, concepts before their time; not because the world was not ready for them, but because they were not ready for the world.

[Nuke]

im personally glad were not retiring the a-10 for at least another 10-11 years. that bird with its new avionics package and its good old huge honking mother of a gatling gun can stay forever as far as im concerned. people seem to miss the point that for the cas role you want a slow aircraft, going too fast in that roll will only lead to frequent overshoots. and at a mere 8 million a pop, the a-10 is a bird we can definately afford.

i am liking the stovl varient of the jsf, at the very least it will help advanced the vertical takeoff technology, a feature which id like to see become an aspect of general aviation. it will be nice when you can park your plane in the lot, take off vertically and fly to work. so long as theres a military intrest in vtol/stovl the technology will continue to evolve.

[Flaser]

im personally glad were not retiring the a-10 for at least another 10-11 years. that bird with its new avionics package and its good old huge honking mother of a gatling gun can stay forever as far as im concerned. people seem to miss the point that for the cas role you want a slow aircraft, going too fast in that roll will only lead to frequent overshoots. and at a mere 8 million a pop, the a-10 is a bird we can definately afford.

i am liking the stovl varient of the jsf, at the very least it will help advanced the vertical takeoff technology, a feature which id like to see become an aspect of general aviation. it will be nice when you can park your plane in the lot, take off vertically and fly to work. so long as theres a military intrest in vtol/stovl the technology will continue to evolve.

I also think that retiring the A-10 (or God forbid pimp the AH-64 in the desert as the best thing) would be a mistake. But the A-10 had the many casulties from radar guided missiles which they were ill-built to avoid.

The JSF is an entierly different beast, so while it can't replace the A-10 it can do a wide variety of things the A-10 can't - namely engage ground targets with its very sophisticated AESA radar from far away.

As I see it, it would be up to the F-22 to do the initial deep-strike missions, and later on the JSF to do the radar-mop-up; then the A-10 can thunder in, and pulverise the ground pounders (plenty of them left, they're just not the "prime" dangers of the initial network).

@ngtm1r:
Please, quote a single study that makes the F-16 as good as an F-15 or the JSF.
I grant, you may be right, I'm just pretty hard pressed to believe so.

On heat-seeking missiles: YGBSM.
The F-22 has side mounted bays for mounting the very missiles you speak of.

Final note:
As an interceptor the F-16 could only be viable in the Eurpoean Cold War Scenario.
It lacks the endurance or the all quoted supercruise (it is only superdash capable) that make the F-22 such a fearsome fighter.
A smaller deployment radius as well as the inability to intercept a cruise missile in time is hardly what I would call "physically as capable".

You're definitly right in one thing though: The JSF is not a light fighter that eventually evolved into a multirole craft, and the F-16 does outperform it in that role.
The JSF was a multirole strikecraft from the get go, with a fighter role tucked on, under the isistance of the F-16 community..
However in a BVR engagement in the long run, I still think it would perform better thanks to its lot more sophisticated radar system.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

[Dysko]

In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.

Actually, the F-16 was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft. It was designed as a "lesser brother" to the F-15: while the F-15 is the heir to the F-4, big, fast and with a lot of missiles, the F-16 was meant to be a pure dogfighter, which sacrified speed for maneuverability.
I have also to correct ngtm1r: first versions of the F-16 (like the ones the Italian Air Force has on lease now , the F-16A Block 15 ADF) were not AMRAAM-compatible, so they didn't have BVR dogfights capabilities.
I think in the dogfighting role the F-16 is not better than the F-15, but in the multi-role capabilities it far exceeds the F-15: while there are 2 different F-15 versions for dogfighting and ground attack (F-15C for aerial combat, F-15E for ground attack, but the F-15E is also a fairly good dogfighter if it has already unloaded its ground-attack weapons), you can arm an F-16 with ground-attack weapons and another aircraft of the same version with air-to-air missiles, or even loading a single aircraft with a mixed payload (but this will make the F-16 slightly disadvantaged in both dogfight and ground attack).

F-16 better than the F-35... well... surely the F-35 will be better than our F-16A Block 15 ADF, but I'm not so sure that an F-35 would be better than an F-16C Block 60 or an F-16I.

[Flaser]

In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.

Actually, the F-16 was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft. It was designed as a "lesser brother" to the F-15: while the F-15 is the heir to the F-4, big, fast and with a lot of missiles, the F-16 was meant to be a pure dogfighter, which sacrified speed for maneuverability.
I have also to correct ngtm1r: first versions of the F-16 (like the ones the Italian Air Force has on lease now , the F-16A Block 15 ADF) were not AMRAAM-compatible, so they didn't have BVR dogfights capabilities.
I think in the dogfighting role the F-16 is not better than the F-15, but in the multi-role capabilities it far exceeds the F-15: while there are 2 different F-15 versions for dogfighting and ground attack (F-15C for aerial combat, F-15E for ground attack, but the F-15E is also a fairly good dogfighter if it has already unloaded its ground-attack weapons), you can arm an F-16 with ground-attack weapons and another aircraft of the same version with air-to-air missiles, or even loading a single aircraft with a mixed payload (but this will make the F-16 slightly disadvantaged in both dogfight and ground attack).

F-16 better than the F-35... well... surely the F-35 will be better than our F-16A Block 15 ADF, but I'm not so sure that an F-35 would be better than an F-16C Block 60 or an F-16I.

As I wrote it was a "light fighter" that gained impressive multirole capabilities.
Anyway what you wrote about the F-16C or I is probably right.

(However if I recall ngtm1r compared the F-22 to the F-16 whereas the later was pants down beat in the interceptor (which is not the same as the fighter) game by the F-15.)

[diceman111]

How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)

[IceFire]

JSF is an odd sort of thing.  I've been reading the debate for a while now and there's some really solid material out on the web.  The F-35 really is an amazing aircraft in that it has some fantastic capabilities...its about equal with the F-16 in air to air capability and it tacks on LO/stealth (depending on definitions) capabilities, the latest techno gadgetry, datalinks and the like and then it even has the F-35B with Harrier like abilities.  Thats pretty impressive as a package.  But its not perfect...doesn't have a second engine (although it has an extremely powerful single engine)...the radar stealth capabilities aren't quite as good as the F-22 (but apparently better than the F-117...not sure how that goes) and the ability to carry weapons internally is a pretty good advantage in itself.  I'm not sure if it has supercruise or not...I keep hearing different arguments back and forth.

I think it'd probably be a pretty ideal aircraft for many nations and its absolutely ideal as a companion aircraft to the F-22 but for Australia...that might be a bit of a problem.  They need something in between...cheaper but more capable in the air to air.

Also...RE: weapons carrying capaibilities...the F-35 can carry allot of ordinance externally trading stealth for payload.  If its used as its predecessors have then by the time they start carrying around lots of bombs the enemy air defense will be a shambles anyways.  If not...then they are limited to a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of 2000lb laser or GPS guided bombs.  Not bad either.

[Flaser]

JSF is an odd sort of thing.  I've been reading the debate for a while now and there's some really solid material out on the web.  The F-35 really is an amazing aircraft in that it has some fantastic capabilities...its about equal with the F-16 in air to air capability and it tacks on LO/stealth (depending on definitions) capabilities, the latest techno gadgetry, datalinks and the like and then it even has the F-35B with Harrier like abilities.  Thats pretty impressive as a package.  But its not perfect...doesn't have a second engine (although it has an extremely powerful single engine)...the radar stealth capabilities aren't quite as good as the F-22 (but apparently better than the F-117...not sure how that goes) and the ability to carry weapons internally is a pretty good advantage in itself.  I'm not sure if it has supercruise or not...I keep hearing different arguments back and forth.

I think it'd probably be a pretty ideal aircraft for many nations and its absolutely ideal as a companion aircraft to the F-22 but for Australia...that might be a bit of a problem.  They need something in between...cheaper but more capable in the air to air.

Also...RE: weapons carrying capaibilities...the F-35 can carry allot of ordinance externally trading stealth for payload.  If its used as its predecessors have then by the time they start carrying around lots of bombs the enemy air defense will be a shambles anyways.  If not...then they are limited to a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of 2000lb laser or GPS guided bombs.  Not bad either.

It's not A2A capability that's lacking per se, but range and speed.
Those two are critical for an interceptor, or a deep penetration strike craft.

The JAS-39 and the Eurofighter are good planes, but they're still a generation behind; they are more on par with a beefed up Mig-29 (which would still outperform them), then the next gen fighters.

Actually my country (Hungary) too has purchased JAS-39s, but that just shows how small a budget we have. I think of the JAS-39 as the Eurofighter mini, or economic model.
It is more than sufficient for monitoring the airspace of a small nation, but if I were a Defense Minister of a nation with real millitary capital; I wouldn't invest in the model.

The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.

(If anyone comes up with how 'trash' Russian missiles are, I recommend checking out the stats on the Vympel R-27. Although mostly SAR (semi active radar) and heat seeking variants are in use, it has a longer range than the AMRAAM, - especially the exnteded range, booster fitted versions -  but there are anti-radiation and active radar variants as well. This is already the mainstay missile of the Su-30 family and will gain said capabilities (antirad, active radar) very soon. The new Vympel misssile, the R-77 is downright scary as it is ramjet powered has range that only the Phoenix could even compare to, and can do manuevers at 12g. In other words if you're far enough into the enemy's launch profile, and therefore the missile has enough energy left, it will outturn you! So far only heat-seeking close-range missiles could do that.)

PS.: antiradiation missiles home-in on, the enemy's radar or jamming. (IIRC The AIM-120 AMRAAM already has a home in on jam capability).

[Roanoke]

I've been saying it for ages. The UK should have just bought Mig29s back when Russia was super-skint and we could have got them cheap. Now we've invested millions in Euro Fighter, have jobs depending on it etc and are stuck with no way back and, no doubt, more delays to endure.

[Dysko]

How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)

Actually, the Typhoon has been in service with the Royal Air Force, the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, the Luftwaffe and the Ejercito del Aire for at least a couple of years.

The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.

The Typhoon can be considered everything but for a light fighter... It belongs to the same generation as the F-22 and the Rafale (which is a French "spin-off" of the Typhoon). Also, it is more similar to the F-15 than the F-16, because it was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. The only aspect in which it is disadvantaged in comparison to the F-22 is that the Typhoon lacks pure stealth capabilities.
It should have had also a naval version with thrust vectoring, but it could take-off and land only from American-like carriers (like the French Charles de Gaulle). England, Italy and Spain have much smaller carriers, and Germany doesn't have any carrier at all, so it was considered a waste of money to develop a naval version. That's why France abandoned the Eurofighter team and developed the Rafale by themselves.

[Flaser]

How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)

Actually, the Typhoon has been in service with the Royal Air Force, the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, the Luftwaffe and the Ejercito del Aire for at least a couple of years.

The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.

The Typhoon can be considered everything but for a light fighter... It belongs to the same generation as the F-22 and the Rafale (which is a French "spin-off" of the Typhoon). Also, it is more similar to the F-15 than the F-16, because it was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. The only aspect in which it is disadvantaged in comparison to the F-22 is that the Typhoon lacks pure stealth capabilities.
It should have had also a naval version with thrust vectoring, but it could take-off and land only from American-like carriers (like the French Charles de Gaulle). England, Italy and Spain have much smaller carriers, and Germany doesn't have any carrier at all, so it was considered a waste of money to develop a naval version. That's why France abandoned the Eurofighter team and developed the Rafale by themselves.

Pardon my language, under light fighter I was refering to size; as well as tonnage. AFAIK the EF Typhoon is nowhere near as big as the F-15 or the Su-27. It fills the same role as the Mig-29 does.
In my book the later is also a short range light fighter.

Vicious and deadly A2A fighters, but not in the heavy weight league that the F-22 and the Su-30 occupy.
As I was already stating, this disctintion isn't about lethality or dogfight capacity (well designed light fighters actually tend to do better in those roles, as they can be more nimble), but range - the ability to do a sufficient number of sorties per day, to loiter for sufficient times to secure the airspace.

The laws of physics and fuel consumption dictate, that larger planes do better in those roles. If you're on the defensive, you might not need those precise missions, but if you're force projecting overseas; chances are - unless you have an airfield close to the target - that a bigger plane will be better.

PS.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fighter
It seems, you had the definition better down than I did.
Than the distintion would be better between heavy weight, and medium weight classes.

@Mig-29 purchase: although there is a naval variant, IMHO the fighter is only viable as part of a defense grid; and is wholly unsuited to force projection due its short range.

[Dysko]

Uh... you're right... considering range the Typhoon is nowhere close to the F-22 or the Su-30

Hmm... the Typhoon does not have a really long range... same thing for the F-35... in 20 years the Italian Air Force will have only Typhoons and F-35s...
 
We'll be without long range fighters in 20 years!

(Actually, we survived 30 years with the F-104, which is everything but a long range fighter... )