This isnt that difficult, the AEGIS variants,

SPY-1K, intended for corvettes and other small craft. Will possibly be used by the south koreans otherwise no customers as yet. The least capable version.

SPY-1F, intended for frigate size ships used by the norwegian nansen class ships. This is the variant of AEGIS that the F124’s radar is said to be better than, it is less capable than the SPY-1D.

SPY-1D, this is the destroyer variant, used by the USN, the japanese congos, spanish F100, KDX-3 and the Australian AWD. It is more capable than the F124’s radar that is why the spanish chose it. It is claimed in some quarters that the Sampson radar is superior to the SPY-1D but as I said this is impossible to prove or disprove at the moment. So yes the Sampson radar is far superior to the F124’s. do you get it now or does it still confuse you? :p :rolleyes:

I will agree with you that the F124 is better at close in defence, the problem is that it is meant to be an area air defence destroyer. :p :rolleyes: . And its close in capability is not as superior as you maintain, the Phalanx is a perfectly capable system and ASTER perfectly capable (especially the 15 variant) of providing close in defence. :p

The Sylver cells are just as flexible as the Germsn Mk41s as the germans only have the ESSM and the SM2. It is highly unlikely that the German government will opt for Tomahawk and unless the F124 has the dtrike length cells it cant use Tomahawk anyway. so your VLS argument is pointless :p . I have already explained about the Harpoon issue, so I wont do it again, but I would just like to ask if you have ever heard of the ‘fitted for but not with principle’? :p :rolleyes:

The F124’s radar is said to be superior to the SPY-1F which is not the much more capable D version used by destroyers, it has been claimed the Sampson is superior to the D version (although this is difficult to prove as specs for both are scarce) so yes the Sampson is far superior to the F124’s radar. Ultimately the T45 could carry 72 aster-30s but the F124 could carry just 32 SM-2’s, these ships are intended for area air defence. a role for which the ESSM is less than suited.
Do you have a source stating that the Monarch or the GMLRS will be installed on the F124 rather than concept poroving operations on incomplete ships?
The T-45 will be able to operate UAV,s in the same way as the F124.

As I have said time and again, the BARS-29 has only one advantage and that is its commonality with the BARS-M on the MKI, otherwise the Phazotron Zhuk-MFE has far superior performance and Phazotron are claiming that they will be able to fly a Mig-29 AESA sometime on 2007.

Type-45 can andd will likely in the future be fitted with Harpoon, and is likely to recieve eith a 155mm gun or the American 5 inch gun. Can we have a source for the Pzh2000 turret on the F124?
Type-45 has space for LACMs and could in the future be fitted with Mk-41s for essm if the requirement ever came up.

So of your five remarks, 1 and 3 are irrelevant, and 5 is unproved and probably irrelevant even if it is proved.

Type-45 is bigger, can carry more VLS cells and has a better radar and a bigger gun, question answered.

I would be amazed if the US offered anything near the level of tech transfer that Russia will likely do, so that basically rules out the US option. NORA is likely a very long way of, and Rafale prohibitively expensive. Personally I would go for the Mig-35.

and more expensive 😉

StIll Il keep praying the F5.