This has been covered before.

AN/AAQ-37 integrates six staring mid-wave infrared sensors taken from Sniper XR. These are cooled HgCdTe (MCT) SFPA 3-5µm MWIR detectors with 640×480 array size. That is 307,200 pixels per one sensor *6 = 1.85 Megapixel for the whole spherical coverage.

So you effectively require another aircraft to assist you to make that kill…

Two things that two way data links should be able to do:
A/C sensors should be able to assist missile when are exposed to countermeasures
Redirect missiles to other targets.
better control over missiles status

I liked the short Display. But sadly the Video shooting sucked..:(

I’ll rather wait for this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/user/KonstantinKhmelik

About the Trollers here, ranting on about poor High Alpha..
Does the words: “still engaged in flight testing parameters” mean anything for you?

A russian show beats any western due to more balls, and more throaty enginesound. I would love to see PAK-FA perform in 3 years or so..
Sukhoi have no problems making high-alpha fighters, i think thats proven already, and noone need to prove that on this thread.

i cant understand why people are so upset. A restricted F-22 and EF with its helmet, no TVC can match this. Its faster and alot more accurate than to steer a big fighter in a new direction.
Dont talk about the energy loss with a stealth optimised hull and wings with TVC.

This is not what F-22 was made for, period. (especially a restricted one)
It was made to take the fight from this situation.
This is one of the main requirements for EF.

Meteor have two different radiounits integrated (read hardware) one that compatible with Rafale one that that is compatible rest of the world.
The radiounit that fits Rafale is a alot improved MICA unit. Havent got a clue if any other jet can cope with the mica variant.

:rolleyes: you need to think beyond the 1950’s. this is the next century, people do not design fighters to be ‘rockets with wings’ anymore, where they minimise drag at the cost of everything else.

tejas has high drag because it has the *lowest* wing loading of all modern fighters (large wing area), which equals excellent maneuverability. the wing design is also not a plain jane delta but rather a complex one. get hold of BHarry’s (one time mod at keypubs) excellent article to know more.

the other problem is a less than suitable L/D ratio, which would be fixed with the plug.

as you say, in the early days delta wing and small crosssection was the cure for high drag…what happened since that day?

Wingloading is kind of blunt measurement of lift or drag for that matter.. add for example close coupled canard or bodylift and you got alot higher lift than the wingloading suggest, reduce wing angle and retention the wing area and you got much lower drag and about the same wingloading.
About Tejas drag.. except having relatively big crosssection for its length, its a textbook example for low drag.
– tailless
– high wing swep
– Delta adds lift without sacrificing too much drag

whats the rootcause for the drag? Crosssection?

I suspect the new financial climate in which markets pressure countries to correct the excesses of the past will be here for many years. Under those circumstances, would it not be better to “cut your cloth according to your means” and switch to cheaper hardware? The air forces of the world may not be enthusiastic but to return to my analogy, you are a bit dumb if you say I want to be given the best clothes to wear and nothing else will do. If the choice is cheaper clothes or none at all, would any sensible person choose to walk around naked?

I see a market for Gripen / FA-50 / Tejas -style lighter fighters for countries that cannot afford fighters costing $100 million each with very high $ per hour costs. To oversimplify, flying a $50 million fighter for 5000 hours @ $5000 per flying hour costs $75 million; flying a $100 million dollar fighter for 5000 hours @ $12,500 per hour costs $162.5 million. Choosing the more exotic aircraft more than doubles costs per aircraft.

i really dont see a FA-50 or Tejas make it to the european markets as multirole (sole AF fighter) in this timeframe. But i can be wrong..
i think, to cut down cost, only one platform will be doable, and therefor multirole.

As i see it right now, the european market alternatives are:

– Refurbished F-16
– Used Gripen C/D lease or buy
– Used and upgraded Gripen C/D+ lease or buy
– Gripen E/F
– Used early versions of EF
– New F-16V
– possible new SH
– Pooled F-35A (EU)
– self relient F-35A

in somewhat cost order (don´t kill me if wrong 😉 )
maybe i can mention MIG-35 o SU-30 but i dont think the Life cycle cost or the “political will” would go in there favor.

due to the different wing design one can say F18 style vs. Mirage style, i think F-50 could be a better flier subsonic and Tejas better in supersonic?
But i dont know this holds any water due to Tejas problems with drag and power.

new countermeasures will counter that.
why not lasers that burns up the missile?
http://defensetech.org/2011/07/08/new-laser-countermeasures-could-defeat-rpgs/