Most of the following are collected statistics, of comparison to the Russian Sukhoi fighters and the Eurofighter:duel
AND
Sukhoi IRBIS provides clues allowing to attack a surface stealth target with precision guided weapons while scanning the horizon searching for stealth airborne threats that can be engaged using active radar homing can detect and track up to 30 stealth airborne targets with a S Radar Cross Section of three square meters at ranges of 400 kilometers. The IRBIS technology also works against ground targets, ships and conventional aircraft.
Just a few things I wished to point out. In the first section, what does a list of statistics on Flankers and the Typhoon have to do with the aircraft/UAV which will replace the Typhoon?
The second thing I wished to point out was that the info on the Sukhoi IRBIS seemed to have been drawn from this
site, but modified to label the targets as being 'stealth' instead of just being listed as 'air targets'. As a follow-on related to that, something with a RCS of 3 m squared is not typically considered LO. The F-22 Raptor which is considered to be a LO/VLO aircraft, has been described as having a golf ball-sized RCS, which is ~0.02 m squared.
Now, back to the follow-on to the Typhoon. It is difficult to predict what the next aircraft would be, as the situation is somewhat akin to someone after WWI trying to predict what would be used in service 30 years later... In that case, we would have just been entering the age of jet fighters. In this instance, we are at the end of a potentially great change in air warfare due to advances made in computers, sensors and comm systems allow greater use and capability in UAVs. The Typhoon might well be one of the last manned fighters to see service.
At present, unmanned sensors coupled with pattern/target recognition software are allowing greater accuracy in autonomic decision-making which previously had been something requiring a pilot or manned operator. The Brimstone ATGM is an example of this, as it can be fired into the vicinity of a target, and using its onboard MMW radar, scan vehicles on the ground and reject soft-skinned/civilian vehicles to targeted armoured tanks or APCs. It is able to do so because the onboard computer is able to determine, based upon radar returns, which vehicles are the most appropriate targets. It is distinctly possible that a future UAV could perform similarly, but on a larger scale as there is additional room/power available for more capable computers and more accurate (and varied) sensors, and there would still remain the possibility of a remote operating controlling a UAV on an as-needed basis or if the sensors queue the operator to a problem requiring an active decision by the operator.
What remains uncertain is whether or not the future air combatants could really be UAVs and be reliable, that is a question which remains unanswered. On one hand, significant strides have been made in the areas of programming and communications to allow more and better data to be returned to operators other than the pilot of an aircraft, at the same time, ways are being developed to scramble, alter or otherwise interfere with the link between a UAV and its operator. On a separate but related note with the advances in sensors, is the increased viability of offensive as well as defensive electronic warfare, it is quite possible that an unmanned aircraft would react to an electronic attack distinctly different than a pilot would.
As for who could provide a design, IMO the three most likely arrangements would be a multinational project with the US (like the JSF development programme), orders from a US company, or a European joint venture. I say this because while there might be a number of European designs, both manned and unmanned, which are of interest at present, it is not certain that the corporate knowledge could be advanced sufficiently far by the time replacement is required. Consider for instance the frontline European fighters currently in production or expected to be in production soon. The ones in production are the Dassault Rafale from France, the Eurofighter Typhoon (pan-European joint venture), or the not yet in production Saab Gripen NG (Swedish spiral development).
If one looks, one will realise that advanced combat aircraft are both time and resource consuming, as well as having little in common with commercial aircraft development. Due to the costs associated with development, it is difficult for a nation without large economic, technological and aeronautical bases to keep developing appropriate aircraft. Given the comparatively small sizes of various European countries, various nations have over the years partnered with different 'neighbours' repeatedly in different joint ventures. Aircraft like the Alpha Jet, Tornado and Jaguar as well as the current Typhoon would seem to indicate this.
Looking across the pond to the US, there too fighter aircraft consolidation has taken place, with just two providers existing. These are Boeing which makes the F-15 and F/A-18, and Lockheed Martin which makes the F-16, F-22 and will be making the F-35. When thinking of the F-35 programme, which is itself a multi-national project, it would seem that the cost of developing advanced aircraft has even gotten to be a bit too pricey for the US, even with the economies of scale which are possible with the US military.
While I do believe that much if not all future combat aircraft in the 2040+ timeframe will be unmanned, there could certainly be times when a manned aircraft would be preferable. And that being an unmanned aircraft is no real assurance that future designs will not have comparable per-unit costs to current manned fighters.
-Cheers
