Depends on whether the program wins support from the customers or not. I don’t think AMK would come before P4E from the current PoV, if it comes at all. There are definitely more important priorities, though the weapons integration aspect is compelling and the AMK isn’t overly expensive either. However it would still amount to a double or even tripple digit millions when everything from FSD, productionizing and production, retrofit and support is concerned so it might still be too much. Time will tell. What the program has proven however is that with comparably marginal changes some significant improvements can be achieved. It’s noteworthy that the 5 years development time is not the net time. It actually amounted to a few months of actual dedicated work only, but it had to be done in between higher prioritized and customer driven development activities.

If this small change is so significant why was it not part of the original design?

Any guesses on the nature of said “lumps”?

This may offer a clue.

http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=80726&sid=9abbd91f2082622a3cbdaa7be417eb19

I think you’ve misunderstood. 107 is not an ‘order figure’: it’s the number of active aircraft in a five squadron force. See Scorpion’s breakdown. 5 squadrons of 15 each, an OCU of 24, 4 for the Falklands & the last 4 evaluation, IIRC.

Reserve airframes are on top of that, & the RAF invariably has several spares per squadron.

Scorpion was demonstrating how many aircraft the RAF would actually need to have to field 5 squadrons.

I was referring to Scorpion’s opening statement “The UK has 107 T2/3A aircraft on order”. He then, rather alarmingly, demonstrated that this number exactly matches the number required by 5sqns!
I remember reading somewhere that the T3a figures would be reduced by the 24 Saudi airframes. Hopefully I’ve got that wrong.

Presumably the RAF will have to get the T3B order now, otherwise they will only have 80 odd airframes which surely is not enough for 5 frontline sqns.

Oman order

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8601011.stm

Is it known how much the helmet weights with all that equipment? The Eurofighter’s HEA was to weight 1.9 kg and 2.3 kg with NVE equipment. The later one was recently rejected on weight grounds.

Does the Eurofighter HEA have a similar spec to the F35s. I assume the F35s is alot more advanced.

Thanks for the explaination.

So the canard will provide lift when the CG is forward of the CP and the opposite when the CG is behind the CP.

Does the poistion of the CP relative to the CG vary on the F16? I assume the F16 flight control system is a lot less advanced than the modern canards. What advantages does the canard type FCS in aircraft like Eurofighter have over the F16?

You are correct. For canards, the CG is forward of the wing’s center of lift and the canards do provide lift for balance.

I assume the canard configuration is more unstable and therefore offers more manoeuvrablity compared to the traditional unstable configuration like that used in the F16.

If this is correct, why is it more unstable, and if not, what’s the point of canard?