Iraq’s integrated air defense network was decent, but not that great. It was built by the french in mid 80s, with all the work being done by 1986. While capable, it had two major defficiencies. Although integrated, it was integrated in such a way that low level radar systems and command posts coulnd’t talk to each other. It was very centralized and everything had to go through highest command first, and its speculated that was due to Saddams fear of giving his forces too much freedom. Basically, there was the main command post and four more regional command posts. Once those were destroyed, the rest of the network was headless and far from integrated. Second defficiency, in light of massive coalition attack, is that it never was designed to counter such huge force. It was built to counter neighboring forces, mainly Isreal’s and Iran’s. It was speculated that it could track and coordinate attacks on no more than 100 enemy aircraft at one time.

As for downed coalition planes, there were some 40 of them, though most of them were downed by AAA and short ranged IR sams while they were doing low level flights. http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html

Intrepid also seems to have turned their previously announced LoI for 20 330-200F into a firm order.

You yourself have been tricked with comparing apples and oranges. Jolly rogers link mentions radar power being rated at some 10 kW. Something being rated at certain value means it has been certified up to that value, for its maximum output. Be it radar, engine, etc. So that value is peak power. And you compared it with average power for the zaslon radar.
Furthermode, just what kind of average power are we speaking of? Yes, one could just give out an approximate average power of a radar. But usually such data is given for various modes: average power in pulse mode, average power in pulse doppler mode, in CW illumination, etc. Here too its important to know just which kind of apples are we comparing to which kind of apples.

Then there’s the wavelength. Though probably similar, there still might be differences enough to make them important enough for us to consider the wavelength factor into our problem. Finally, what about signal processing? That category is hardest to determine, though one could assume that promo numbers were given upon the results of test done in perfect conditions – with as little background and ambient noise as possible. Still, even if similar in test conditions, singal processing abilities are sure to be different in real world scenarios, perhaps vastly so, enough that we should consider them when thinking of this problem.

Is this apron made from metallic panels? If so, why?

Hmm, i guess for some reason they can’t use just bare ground (weird, knowing its mig23, which is pretty good at operating from improvized airfields) so, since they have to have some hard surface, they would rather use metallic panels, which are easy to replace in case of attack and damage to the apron, than asphalt, which might take a while to repair…

Guys, (pls correct me if I am wrong) the Cluster Bomb fitted to the J-10 is 250kg?? If so, at least weight-wise there shouldn’t be a problem carrying the PL-12??

Weight wise, no, there shouldn’t be a problem. But length wise would be, i’m afraid impossible. That cluster bomb does probably not exceed 2 m in length, while pl-12 is almost double that. With the landing gear behind it and important uninterrupted air flow space for the engine in front of it, i don’t know how a pl-12 could be fitted there.

If its possible to combine semiactive with IR/IIR, likw in sm-2 IIIb, then it’s certainly possible to use ARH instead of SARH and combine those two modes of guidance. One could, theoretically, put a IIR seeker on the very tip of the missile, with a ring of T/R modules around it, which would form an ARH seeker. Only issue i see here is reliability of IIR at such huge speeds, where air friction and temperatures are immense.

That’s a sketch made by whom? Something eevn remotely official or a fan’s drawing? 78 meters seems a bit too long… unless they’re planning to put a helo hangar on that thing, which the sketch doesn’t show. Though, there’s really little need for a helo hangar on such boats, for croatian sea and missions croatian navy/coast guard might do.

No one took into account the matter of cost and availability. Even if tomcat airframe was brand new (and it can’t be, as restarting the production line would be way too costly) it’d still be costlier to maintain, and it’d offer perhaps half the sortie rate of a superhornet. That is, effectively, over a long term period, 2 superhornets in the air for every tomcat. Granted, for a short time surge of a limited size force, tomcat does offer a better platform (with same avionics) thanks mainly from its size, but at quite a cost.

In light of political situation in the world, retiring tomcat was absolutely justified. Also, swing wings are thing of a past. Today’s aerofoils and lift augumentation devices at low speeds make them unnecesarry. I doubt we will ever see them used again.