It’s the other way around. You don’t say “give me the best plane for $XXXX” Instead you say “What will it cost me for YYYY capability”.

In other words you lay down a spec (aka what its capabilities are) and then determine what the cost is. If the cost is too high, then you have the choice to remove capabilities to save money. In either case, it’s a balance of capability and cost with capabilities being the driving factor.

Think of it this way; the soldier/pilot in the field does not care what a weapon costs, only that it get’s the job done.

That time is over. Today it is “we got $XXXX to buy YY numbers of that type of equipment, what is the best I can get for that money?”

The Avros are old today. It will be hard to find a fleet of 10 planes that are available, have spotless papers, have the same standard and still have enough flight hours and cycles left before a D-check is due.

If and when J-11 goes on-line, there could easily be hundreds or even over thousand Flanker version still be built. China has a huge need to modernize its armed forces and it is dubious that heir own 5th generation designs will be ready in large enough numbers before 2025.

Secrecy is no option, when you can find videos of Iranian IL-76 landing in Syria by the dozens – even in full-hd quality. US and Israeli pressure is also not having that much of an impact, the real question for Iran is, if they go all out in helping the regime survive, while risking to face a very hostile Syria if the regime should fall nevertheless. Should Syria turn hostile to Iran, Iran will also have huge problems keeping Hezbollah in the game, as getting supplies through to them would be next to impossible. No supplies would alter the balance of power in Lebanon, probably allowing Lebanon to resume functioning as regular state, most likely not hostile towards Israel and even if hostile to Israel probably controlled by Saudi Arabian and / or Turkish influence.

Yes cheap but these 146 are to provide in theatre transport in Afghanistan. The airframes are being put through the minimum changes to make them fit for service in theatre.

What they are not doing is installing ASW kit!

A Bae 146 based solution would be awful!

They are doing this job until the mission in Afghanistan ends, which happen probably sooner than a RFP for a MPA would take-off.

For me it should be off the shelf, affordable and new built. (ask the Germans how much joy the Dutch P-3C brought)

So for me AT-72 or C295 based should be perfect. Something that has a realistic chance to be on time and on budget.

Goodbye Tejas.

So prove me that you’re right. Please give me a reliable sources. Sorry but I don’t buy your opinion. Even if the FOV is small the sensor can scan a large volume of the sky quickly, just see above video about Gripen NG IRS&T. Also SAAB said that it work just like a radar ( see above link ).
But radar is still primary sensor as it isn’t so vulnerable to atmospheric condition, and it has got much better range against non VLO target than IRS&T (today radar can detect 1 sq m fighter target 200km away, while IRS&T only 50km head on ).
But with sensor fusion IRS&T can give you some advantageous in EW environment, and still can detect VLO target much further than just radar.

Sure the Saab presentation is actually quite correct. The IRST sweeps the sky, as most IRST sensors are gimbal mounted and can be turned, so that they do not rely on their FOV alone to search the sky. The scan interval (time that passes between two “scans” of the same part of the sky) becomes longer, the smaller the FOV becomes. Add to the fact that the scan range are way more influenced by atmospheric conditions, the IRST is not providing the same situational awareness as a radar against non VLO targets. Against VLO targets it is more difficult to say, as this would depend on atmospheric conditions, the IR signature of the VLO target (reduction of iR signature is part of VLO design), the radar signature of the VLO target and the output power of your radar as well as the processing power of the radar.

Against planes the two sensor complement each other, giving the plane an improved SA. Against ground targets, the required processing power to auto detect and classify targets with an IRST increases in the same way as the needed processing power for the radar increases in such cases. I dare say that there are few planes flying that could auto detect a warship using the IRST alone, especially if there is lots of other ship traffic. So even in this case it is easier to combine both sensors, with the radar finding the contacts and the IRST identifying them.