Doesn’t the T-50 already have such a system or is intended to be operational ? It seems that this idea is not reserved to the rafale F4. It might also be located behind the slats. And again this chart might not be the final plan, the only thing known is that MFAs are in development for 2025 with the full rafale F4.2 standard. 2025 is the official target (which is contracted). The rest are opinion or speculation with not a lot of worth.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”custom”,”height”:”273″,”title”:”radarButowski.jpg”,”width”:”433″,”data-attachmentid”:3850164}[/ATTACH]

The Su-57 was designed and developed for that from a clean sheet design. It’s also a much larger aircraft with more space to do such stuff. It will be structurally tested with that in place, the loads and balance and FCS were worked out with that in place. Sometimes contracts get misrepresented in the press.

Well that’s an opinion but not the true story. The full F4 standard with MFAs is due to be qualified in 2025. Contract has been offically signed by French Gov for 2,1 billion $ a few days ago. The information about MFAs with the standard F4 is widely shared by Dassault, Thales and French air Force (standard F4.2 in 2025). Unless they are completely deluded which is of course not the case this is the plan.

I will place a bet on 2030+ and possibly never, since by that time, funds will start being fed into SCAF instead.

No timescale mentioned there, just says that it’s very ambitious. For GaN transmitter, demonstrator was 2014 (assuming it was on time), and in-service date is 2023. Full MFA demonstrator is currently non-existent, so based on that I’d say sometime after 2030, which is also the opinion shared a French journalist who wrote an article in Combat Aircraft, July 2015, Page 23. The conformal, multiband, multirole antennae development will begin in 2025 for qualification around 2030+. They will get GaN on the existing system first and then begin work on the rest. From a testing perspective it doesn’t even make sense to have the latter interfering with the integration of the former.

http://www.microwave-rf.com/documents/14h00%20DMS_%20V%20DUPUY%20%20Y%20%20MANCUSO.pdf

There is an older one(cant remember if 2007 or 2013) with a similar diagram for anteeas placement.

Yeah sorry, I saw that back on page 8.
https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/modern-military-aviation/149037-switzerland-fighter-replacement-plan-restarted?p=3849192#post3849192

That’s basically the source of my concerns, that’s a very complicated upgrade with many potential emergent properties and subsequently issues.

To date the rafale program has an exellent record delivering on schedule and on budget the comparison with Nimrod is irrelevant. 10-15 years project yes and it has started long ago, de-risking is done hence the multi-billion dollar contract to develop the full F4 standard with MFA. It is officially launched so I don’t understand your point.

The 10-15 years was quoted in 2017. The similarities with Nimrod in terms of interfering with major airframe components and balance during the upgrade is actually quite relevant. To date nothing even nearly as complicated has been delivered by the Rafale program, so the track record is null.

Cable routing might be a difficulty but if it is the main one this is very reassuring. Still Dassault and Thales are officialy committed to deliver those GaN MFA by 2025 and the French air force is counting on it. Rafale program has a long story of being on time and respecting the budget envelop. Unless something is completely messed up it will be a reality.
I would say that Dassault/Thales/DGA/Mindef who are ordering the F4 standard know what they art doing. I think that some remain skeptikal because this is disruptive technology, not the usual incremental improvement. Sometimes some one sets a new standard in a given industry (iPhone,spaceX etc etc)

It may not be the main one, just one of many problems. You have to find a way to integrate those 12 panels, install a cooling plan, route power to them and do all this around existing structures like fuel tanks. Then you have the impact on weight and aero performance, with 6 of the panels appearing to be installed in the moving LE of the wing. This will affect the FCS and probably even the structural testing given that you’re now moving about a heavier surface in flight.

The French air force is not in a live or die situation if they are not delivered by 2025, which is just as well.

Not really, I think the new SPECTRA system would essentially be doing what AN/ASQ-239 does now except with GaN modules and on a less stealthy air frame. My objections are based around sound facts about the complexity of the process. It is the sort of ‘upgrade’ (redesign) you could get half way through and then realise that it is either impossible or not VFM. If you look at the QE Class carriers and the proposal to make them CATOBAR, one would think that simple by comparison. And that’s a matter of a system being put on a very large vehicle where weight, space and performance aren’t as big an issue. But turns out it costs several billion pounds and was therefore cancelled.

There is absolutely zero cost transparency in any of the contracts for Meteor, Period. The French deal for 200 missiles omitted contract value. There is no detailed breakdown for the German contract for Meteors (for all we know that was the cost of the missiles themselves and nothing else). The most recent government figure I could find on the unit cost of the Meteor was from 2007 in UK MoD major projects report.
The estimated unit production cost for Meteor was 1.1 million pounds (2.18 million USD FY 2007), which, by the way is double the SAR report TY 2008 Aim-120D cost.
Do you need an MBDA official telling you the Meteor is more expensive to aquire? I can provide that as well:

– http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi…d=167809&cat=3

An FMS customer pays what DoD does. There are fees for contract oversight, and a % of non-recurring costs based on their share of overall procurement.. As an aside, GAO issued a report to congress in 2018 showing that FMS customers were undercharged or granted excessive waivers for non-recurring acquisition costs (in layman’s terms- FMS customers haven’t been charged the correct % of R&D costs)

The exchange rate has changed since 2007 and not in the US favour. £1.1m now is $1.43m. The link states that the Pentagon paid $423m for 180 AIM-120Ds. Any evidence that that wasn’t just missiles?

The exchange rate has shifted since 2015 too but that article also states that you can patrol the area with less aircraft using Meteor, hence cutting down operational costs.

Bottom line, the exact prices are hazy but the evidence suggests that the cost difference isn’t large.

While the AMRAAM held an advantage in every way to the Sparrow, Meteor only holds a range advantage over the AMRAAM.

The Meteor started development in the early 2000’s and I have not seen any news about updates since then. In that same time-frame, the AMRAAM has gone through 2-3 major updates (C5, C7, and D) along with numerous software updates.

While most AMRAAM updates are shrouded in secrecy (eg ECCM, seeker performance, etc), others are clear like GPS and a two-way datalink.

Here is an early MBDA pic showing the AMRAAM initial acceleration performance vs the Meteor. Keep in mind that this is either the AIM-120B or C1 as that is what the U+K had at the time they started Meteor Dev. Also keep in mind that the AMRAAM C5 came win all new seeker, guidance, and a longer rocket motor which would make the initial performance of the AMRAAM in the below pic even better.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”wzo3FwS.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3849701}[/ATTACH]

Well we don’t really know what advantages each holds over the other. Sparrow was superior to AMRAAM on warhead size too. That said, there is an AESA Meteor variant being produced by Japan and MBDA.

The range performance was specified relative to a solid rocket period. The range increases AMRAAM has enjoyed are mainly due to smaller electronics allowing for a larger motor section and more efficient control algorithms.. The same increases are equally applicable to Meteor relative to the 1990s, so the same range advantage applies.