While it isn’t a big country, you still need enough speed to run down modern airliners. Hawk is barely able to reach those speeds let alone run one down from behind.

In two posts you completely change ideas how target illumination works, once insisting that it’s tuned to a frequency then in the next talk about channels. And you add in a tail antenna for determination of Doppler shift. Someone is confusing command guidance with semi-active radar homing…

Coded signals simplify control, harden them from jamming, and give tighter granularity for picking out targets. The SARH missiles have been superseded by ARH because they are less likely to tip off the target before terminal homing. This SARH technology that you claim is unlikely to be implemented is rocket science from the 70’s and 80’s. It only got better with each variant. In your estimation time must have stood still.

If that’s the level one is looking for, why bother to replace the F5 at all?

Just restrict the envelope and add new avionics.

Don’t forget to give it a fadec-equipped F125 or afterburning Adour 821 that would also use fadec. Or pull off a J85-21 PMP reset like the USAF did for the J85-5A –> J85-5R. Fewer parts, better life, more modern engineering, less cost to operate. Adour has a bigger install base as Mk821 is mostly a refit Mk871 already in wide use, but it’s heavier and less performance than the Honeywell option. It is a great engine, a core with a solid track record. I think the single, slim F125 would be riskier to pull off, but give a substantial dry thrust increase and be less risky once in use. Sort of an F-5G lite program.

Buying Gripens would have simplified everything. But now they have to use what they got and live with it. Making over the F-5 into a modern fighter wouldn’t be anything as good as a Gripen NG, but it’s something. Ironically Brazil could help them out with an avionics upgrade.

So the R-73 never existed? Ok.

Russia has not bought modern AAMs for the obvious reason- it did not buy much of ANYTHING for 15+ years. No new planes that warranted new AAMs.

Who said R-73 never existed. The true quantity of modern missiles in the time periods post-1970’s was far lower than what was assumed.

EA-6B was retained and EF-111A was retired because of perceived mission overlap. The USAF and USMC should be acquiring the EA-18G, not just the USN.

It does use basic networking parlay for handoffs, so it’s not entirely true. The missiles require a coded radar signal to guide the missile and it talks about basic master-slave functions and exchanges.

Neither IR homing versions of R-27 or R-40 has a fixed seeker that requires a fixed lock. The seeker eyeballs scan in one plane as the missile body and seeker gimbal roll separately. The target is picked out of clutter and the filters in its computerized logic decide what is a valid target. Older missiles like these have fairly myopic eyeballs and no imaging logic to discern shapes, but are largely insensitive to losing visibility of the target and cannot be locked to a specific target out of clutter.

Jets replaced props due to speed issues. The turbofan still costs more to operate as you scale the size up, and consumes nearly twice the fuel. Now it is true that you can buy commercial turbofan engines in the near future that demonstrate static thrust between 90K and 100K pounds versus the largest commercialized turboprop limited to just under 13000 shp. But if long haulers felt the need for economy they’d put it on a ship. Otherwise people fly cargo because it’s faster, not because it’s efficient. Run time between overhauls, fuel efficiency, simplicity, and durability have always favored the turboprop over the turbofan. Turbofans are quieter and faster and fly higher, but pure economy hasn’t been their strong suit unless you’re comparing them to the turbojets used on early commercial jets.