I’ll accept anything you want, the moment you provide some -any- explanation of why what I am stating is wrong!
Call your friends, email them, whatever….they don’t have to give up any company secrets, they don’t even have to tell you why their “systems” work, they just need to tell you why I am wrong!

Falcon, here you go:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1270963815002254
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5655941

I´ve read severall diferent articles from reputable publications describing severall diferent teams in severall diferent countries testing what we would call “active cancellation”.

Ex: Armada International

MBDA-France has been developing active stealth systems that attempt to cancel the radar return from an airframe by transmitting a second signal of equal frequency and amplitude to the genuine return. Unlike Ram, this technique retains is effectiveness at low and medium frequencies, where the efficiency of passive stealth technology tends to decline.

In 1999, the company conducted ground tests using a C-22 target drone fitted with an experimental active-stealth system, and flight tests conducted using ‘testbeds’ (probably C-22s) were carried out at the Centre d’Essais des Landes range at Biscarosse in southwest France.

Possible applications for active stealth measures include the nose, seeker, wing-leading edges and engine air inlets of future missiles. France hopes to use such technology on the mid-life update of the Scalp EG air-to-surface cruise missile, and in next-generation supersonic missiles. Studies have been underway since the mid-1990s, when designers investigated a possible stealthy variant of the Apache with a redesigned fuselage of flattened triangular cross-section.

Germans should have just saved a lot of money and got the F-16A/B and C/D back in the 80s and they would have saved cost and still be operating a modernized version of it

And in the process they would assure that a) the German military aerospace industry got killed and b) the Luftwaffe would be facing the might of the entire Soviet Frontal Air Force with a AIM-9L/MK82/Maverick/”day only” fast jet force.

Has there ever been a SAM with a 200+ mile engagement zone? By all means let them buy fighters that radiate like a barn.
They are just kidding when they say anti-access. BTW my case stands the weapon system is a generational transformational leap over a SA-2. As soon as you take off your in the missile NEZ.

On top of what Mercurius mentioned, the horizon for a seven meter high radar at 200 miles from a target is a full 7.25 km’s.

Not when two out of the four EF states are already F-35 operators with a third slated to do so by 2025.

Neither Spain, nor Germany are “slated” to be a JSF operator by 2025, has of now, they are not slated to be a JSF operator, period. They are on the very first steps of evaluating their needs in order to replace their legacy fleet’s of Hornets, Harriers and Tornado ECR’s if that translates into JSF orders only the future will tell.

And let me guess… The Swiss themselves proved it on a weekday during normal 9 to 5 working hours eh? LoL!!!

I don’t believe that for a country which its furthest border to border distance is merely 300kms, that a fighter such as the gripen could not intercept an airliner with only its internal fuel load. Do also note like during the ethiopian airlines flight 702 hijacking, the rouge aircraft would already overflown neighbouring countries such as France and Italy (and already been intercepted and identifed by fighters of those countries). That in itself an early warning luxury that most other countries don’t have. If the Swiss airforce itself is not serious in having a 24/7 QRA capability so why are they trying to get an very high spec fighter that in itself is outside of their budget? It just doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that there´s only 300 km´s to cover is a disadvantage to the interceptor, not an advantage. The problem is that there´s almost no time, or space, to climb and then try to intercept an airliner that its flying at 900 km/h at 10000 meters, on top of that a great big chunk of flight lines are blocked by three to four thousand meters mountains. If there´s no external alert, a civilian aircraft coming from Germany will overshoot Zurich way before any fighter coming from Meiringen, Sion or Payern has any chances of getting near it, the chances of that Airbus or Boeing to overshoot the entire country and finding himself over Italy before the Swiss Air Force has a chance of getting near are high.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafael-targets-sensor-opportunity-on-f-35i-adir-422242/

Sounds like competition is coming to the F-35’s EOTS world. If this actually comes to pass it will almost certainly help to drive down prices and increase innovation.

X2
Good news

Might have been the number actually sanctioned. Or perhaps vice versa. In any event, take a look at the figure from FY 2015 for reference, which computes to a URFC of $74.5 million. Only marginally different.

If i was a betting man, i would bet that the number that you´ve pointed “$76.14 million” is the correct.

I’m guessing that applies to older aircraft (probably 2B units) that are sent for retrofits in 2021. There’s no way it can cost $9 mil in 2021 (the SDD would have long expired at that point). In addition, the figure being quoted for the retrofit cost for the entire fleet is a mere $1.7 billion for 340 aircraft putting the average cost of concurrency at less than $5 mil.

And most of that would be front-loaded. The later LRIPs should have much lower costs and it will cease to be an issue for the FRP aircraft.

I dont have the non recurring costs divided by equipment, tools, concurrency, etc, so i dont know if the cuncurrency went up or its the equipment or whatever, but post 2021, the last 1342 airframes have a budgeted total of 5,817.682 million US$ for the non recurring costs and 6,298.984 million US$ for the ancillary equipment.