These costs were for tranche 2 examples which Austria ordered on 1 July 2003. 😉

Austria has a weird spec mix if I’m not mistaken. They didn’t license the RWR libraries and they didn’t buy PIRATE if I recall correctly.

Different levels of support, ToT and platform configuration make comparisons pretty difficult.

50% increase over a M.9 launch at 40k feet. If the F-15 is flying at the same speed and altitude, then there’d be no difference. The DIFFERENCE is what sort of fuel state will the F-15 be in to accelerate and climb, to match the F-22, and what sort of increase in IR signature will the use of A/B cause.

Could you put some more numbers to your example to explain the proposed 50% difference? What are your speed and height numbers for the baseline aircraft and what are your speed and height for the F-22?

Yes they were unused, but some time has passed since they were not delivered and nature does things to aircraft that make its interiors degrade.

Not just interiors. Pretty much any material degrades over time, and expecting an already 20-year-old airframe to get through its full service life of repeated stressing is rather optimistic.

will the Captor E look anything like this.

There are no details given. Just that the procurement is planned to start in 2012. The German MoD has to map out their financing plan five years in advance, and the Bundeswehrplan 2009 references that particular procurement plan.

and the fact that it seems none of the 4 Typhoon main users have a strong desire to either integrate AESA, or fund further development of a real multi role standard since most of them still have good attack planes.

That’s not a fact, and as claim it’s wrong. 🙂

Germany has a “future obsolescence” fund and road map for the Eurofighter, where AESA is planned to be integrated on German Eurofighters.

Couldn’t you accelerate the missile greatly initially, which as far as I know is the main point of ASRAAM. Changing it into a guided bullit in some respect.

Would it be worth it though? Aero drag = diminishing returns to increased initial power. Linear power development seems preferable beyond a specific speed, especially for long range AAMs.

I’m writing from memory as it would take some time to find the relevant note book.

Something that comes up quite often. How about digitizing them?

Would keep them for posterity and would allow full text search. 🙂

You may be within the kinematic NEZ, but that’s academic if no firing solution is available.

I don’t remember it exactly, but I think the standard NEZ was fairly well defined, with something like “a target at 350kts doing a 6g turn and not being able to outrun the weapon” or similar.

You also have to look at the range that the launch platform can detect you, and the range at which the weapon can be employed effectively against you. There is a range at which weapons can be used against stealthy targets, where they have a low probability of escape, but you have to include the fire control/seeker limitations into the equation too.

Which is why being within the NEZ would be less risky for an LO/VLO type, but it’d still be within the kinematic NEZ.

Perhaps there is another term for a concept including the NEZ and the availability and range of target data or probability of target detection within NEZ?