Look beyond the press release to the details. As I said: “As far as I am aware, all European fighters have in progress radars, with the Thales AESA for the Rafale still in work up. ” – this is evident from the UAE deal discussion where a senior French General mentions additional modes to be added, increased range etc. What we have here is a first tranche of AESAs, pushed out to assist export prospects, and of course, significantly ahead of programs like the ES-05, but its still a work in progress. In the case of the MKI, the BARS radar was launched in production in 2001 or thereabouts, but it took several more years to mature it to the current MK3 level which is being used. Russia itself now has several AESA arrays in advanced development (pre-production arrays in testing) coupled with a substantial history of ESA (Zaslon, Bars, Irbis-E) and hence I wouldn’t call the gap (if any) substantial, given the fact Russia can now use the best of commercial computer hardware/software/processes as it requires, and can also upgrade its hardware manufacturing (for Tx/Rx modules) as there are equipment suppliers willing to work with it. Phazatron, which has had severe financial trouble, has even so managed to field a prototype AESA with local Tx/Rx chips and is working on improving the system with a production partner. The NIIP effort is clearly more well funded, and advanced and relatively low key (there were no pics and even news released till MAKS-09) since it was for the PAK-FA, but given the funding, company reports and R&D capability, AESA on Russian fighters is just a matter of time.

By that standard every radar out there is “a work in progress”. Including the likes of the AN/APG-79, 80, etc.
The fact is that the first operational RBE2 AESA was delivered in August.

The P 1216

http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/nouv1/hawkerP.1216_02.jpg

[QUOTE=Scooter;1668762]

Well, considering most Air Combat happens at BVR. The Flanker would be at a distinct disadvantage……

Distinct advantage you mean?
Vastly bigger radar, vastly bigger warload, vastly bigger fuel fraction, superior dynamics.
Sweet Jesus, the F-16 Block 60 may well be called the Fat Viper, a ten ton aircraft on seven tons wings, equiped with a 14 ton engine but with only 3 tons (actually a bit more) of internal fuel… Couple that with a first generation AESA radar and thats a combo that would freak out the PLAAF… Right :rolleyes:
In the ATA arena i cant see one single advantage in the desert Falcon versus the latest Indian and Chinese Flanker variants, nevermind the Russian SU-35.

In less than a decade we are going to see the PLAAF field fighters with AESA radars and the diference in size and electric output between the Viper and the Flanker familiy is so bloody massive that, unless the chinese engineers screw, it will be almost impossible to offer something less performant than the AN/APG-80.

Well even if that is the case if we divide 31 aircraft by $113m, that works out to an additional $3.645m per engine. That means that instead of $105m, you’re looking at $108.6m per aircraft. This still falls within the $105-109m range, quoted. Now if that figure includes spares, then the price per engine goes down even more.

Each F135 crosses the 13,6 million $ mark…

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf
page 48

Stephen Trimble was kind enough to go after the severall contracts established between the DOD and LM for LRIP4 (there are three diferent contracts), they are valued at 4,6 billion US$. Thats 148 million US$ for aircraft.
This is without the government funded items (eg, the engine).

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/22/350023/latest-deal-for-31-f-35s-shows-slight-price-decline.html

But to have an acurate picture of the actual costs for LRIP-4 the best bet is to wait for February next year when the Pentagon 2012 budget is released.

blimey, maus beat me to it.

Cheers

One would certainly think so.

But P&W is getting the contract for the engines from the DoD/NavAir, not LM – they say so in their press release. If P&W was suppling the engines to LM (as a subcontractor like NG or Alcoa,) you would think that P&W’s press release would indicate that their contract was with LM, and not the DoD.

The F135 is a government funded item, LM doesnt see one penny of it.

It was claimed the ASRAAM was “only” having one export order which is incorrect.

If you’re arguing that ASRAAM is a poor missile that can’t get export orders, you are wrong. Given the existing success of ASRAAM, its entirely plausable CAAM will be a successful export too, and will export many more units than our import of MICA-VL would achieve for us.

Looks like CAAM is the best choice all round 😀

UAE and India?!
PPP, neither the UAE or India have bought ASRAAM.
Did i misunderstood you?

U.S companies offer things they want to sell with USGs blessings. If they clinch the deal then only we come to the DSCA notice and all that. AEGIS is on offer to India if the IN wants it you will see the DSCA notice.

No.
If you go to the FMS site, there tons and tons of DSCA letters of notice to the Congress of possible sales of military equipment that didnt happen, and a lot of those were made in the midle of fierce international competitions that in the end the american company lost.
I can remember DSCA notice letters for Vipers to Austria (two of them, actually), to Brasil, to Romania, etc, etc, etc.

that is a simplistic way to see it.
A Erieyeantenna have only 200 trm…and it got alot more power than captor E

A super exact sinussignal is generated by a exiter and is distributed eatch TRM. Depending on the TRM gain the power out can be +10db or +200db from every TRM. Multiply The no of trm to that output. And that is not the end of it. You have to ad the time of the signal is sent.

So Exiter output*TRM gain*no TRMS*time of exposure= energy output

At the reciever-side depening on how clean signal was generated in the exiter
and its own sensitvity it can have anything between 20db-200db dynamic range.
So you can have a weak output and clean signal, a great receiver and you have still good range.

So range is depending on much more things than TRM count.

Simplistic vision it might be, but in this case is also correct.
What i dont understand is why you have brought into this discussion the 192 TRM´s (yes, not 200) E/F frequency of the Erieye.
Completely diferent frequency and power output.
On the other hand the Raven and the AESA Captor will be using the exact same TRM´s , and the backends will be of the same technological generation.
Not only that, but the electrical output available in the Typhoon is vastly superior, and dont mention the space in the nose for the backend.
So we have an antenna with 50% more TRM´s, more electrical power and more space (electrical power and more space will translate in better cooling).

Like i´ve said, “Unless Selex screws up the entire CAPTOR AESA design this radar will have more range by comparison with the Raven”.