So I’d say that the IRST-system does give passive BVR-capabilities even against “stealth” targets as per advertised.

If it is good enough or not is likely depending on missile performance and weather.

Adding jamming to the equation it is even likely that the IRST systems will become the primary sensors.

You got it in the 2nd sentence. IRST is highly weather dependent.

But, contrary to that, I’d wager that IRST is already the primary sensor now. “LPI” radar is a myth.

Interestingly Flight has not (yet) corrected the 3t number — previously I have seen they have been very quick at correcting errors.

Which makes me wonder; if this number is real (and it seems to be) what is included in that 3t number ? The F414 weighs around 1t AFAIK.

Probably empty airframe.

By empty I mean EMPTY. No systems, no actuators, no engine, nothing. Just structure and aerodynamic surfaces.

According to me last Physic Evaluation… Yes.

Oh… last time the nice guy in the white coat gave me a certificate to say I wasn’t….

Indeed the French were, and still are, completely right with Rafale. Just as are the UK are with Typhoon.

Nah, Typhoon is… not a mistake… but not quite what it should have been.

Way back when, early ’80s, the UK didn’t require a Carrier Capable fast jet and lets be fair here, as much as the MoD are pretty clueless anyways, it’s fair to say that even during the time of discussing capabilities and requirements during the Blue Prints stage it’s a little difficult for them to think about QE2 and the F-35 would be thought up then, simply because they weren’t even heard of then.

The carrier capability always existed in one form or another. In the early 80s, the MoD should have been more aware than pretty much any other nation on earth of the value of carrier operations.

For them to then exclude potential carrier operations from the baseline design requirements was idiotic.

Does the Rafale cost much (any?) more than Eurofighter? If not, then what exactly did the MoD save by not specifying carrier requirements?

There is a smart way to draw up requirements, anything that comes with a good flexibility:performance:cost ratio, a good benefit:performance:cost ratio goes in.

The MoD completely screwed that up. Run by accountants who could only see it might cost X + Y% to have the potential for carrier ops in the airframe, as opposed to the engineer who would see it might cost X + YY% to try and incorporate it later and also opposed to the guys in the field who would see it might cost X + YYYYY% to not have the capability.

Which aircraft are you thinking about there, exactly?

How did Eurofighter fare in Afghanistan? It muddled along with limited ad-hoc capability added.

Your point being?

The oft-touted reasons for ECA separation were not irreconcilable.

That little sentence there doesn’t resolve anything now, does it.

Nope. Doesn’t sort anything now. Pity the “bright sparks” in charge then weren’t bright enough to realise the second half of that…

Just out of curiosity since you mention the Mirage, ever heard of a Fairey Delta 2?…

The supersonic experimental? Apples and oranges.

That OVT has only been tested on one or two prototypes and was deemed ineffective for such a complex design feature of the engine/nozzles.

This is a no brainer really.. The insignificant weight gain of the current 3D nozzles comes With a Whole range of added advantages

That. 🙂

No. It is “2.5D” not 3D.

Here is a few questions to ponder:

– Is 2.5D lighter?
– Is 2.5D substantially cheaper?
– Does 2.5D improve nozzle propulsive efficiency at a nominal vector?
– Does 2.5D vector further in its discrete directions than 3D in any direction?
– Has typical use patterns indicated that 2.5D will give you the desired pitch/yaw effect in, say, 95% of cases as compared to 3D?

Having a 2.5D system compared to full 3D is not necessarily a disadvantage.

After the N-M breach, Lockheed Martin’s profit on the F-35 development and LRIP was cut from 7-8% down to about 2%.

hahahahahaha.

You aren’t that naive. There are countless ways to bury profits from any particular program.

Well… I’m pretty lost for words on this development…

I’m sure the Ukrainians will sleep well knowing they are safe with “monitoring” going on.

Meanwhile in Moscow Putin wets himself laughing.

If you outsource the entire planning and production cycles.

You’ll end up with nothing but half built* FE models and CFD mesh….

*and what is done has most likely been done wrong.

[Never mind actually building a product. Outsourcing has its place, but definitely not as extensively as it has been used in the last decade or so.]