What DIRCM system DAMAGES incoming IR missile seeker heads? AFAIK, they work simply by `jamming` them.
And similar systems ARE being developed for fast jets. They are probably harder because the base platform itself is moving and maneuvering at high speeds, i.e. twice the vectors to worry about. Slower platforms probably did get DIRCM first because besides being simpler, they are more vulnerable in the first place.

As mentioned, Hydras are not going to be up to the task, besides being over-kill in all the wrong departments – CERTAINLY not on fast jets, as opposed to slow, essentially non-maneuvering platforms like civil airliners or helicopters. I really think simpe DIRCM `jamming` is going to be the most effective for quite some time… Only thing it wouldn`t work against are NON-IR missiles, and missiles with multiple seekers/sensors. So it will be interesting to see how both short-range and long-range missiles evolve, seeker-wise. Short-range radar-seekers could become worth it if DIRCMs proliferate.

Assuming you want something like this, you would want to reduce the size of them as much as possible to allow for internal launching (you would want at least as many as a normal A2A load-out, and probably signifigantly more). You don`t need the vast majority of propellant that even Hydra`s carry, because you don`t need more than 1-200m of range. Hypothetically against missiles closing from the rear, some sort of parachute could be deployed to cancel forward momentum before a rocket kicks in to intercept the incoming missile. You DO need maneuverability on par with incoming missiles (30-50G) if you expect broad protection (if they have an IR seeker, they can certainly be updated software-wise to avoid `defensive counter fire`), but the most realistic approach here (considering demands on space/etc of the airframe) is a less capable `sub-munition` that is mostly effective against missiles at the EDGE of their NEZ, i.e. when any additional maneuvering would likely lead to a miss. Such a paradigm would seem to call for fusing the `defensive darts` trajectories with the aircraft`s OWN defensive maneuvers, so that the darts can intercept the missile if it adjusts to close with the aircraft, while if it avoids the darts it is maneuvering away from the aircraft.

Again, I don`t see the need for anything besides DIRCM for at least the immediate generation of weapons, though how weapons evolve in response to DIRCM could well trigger the impetus for something like this. Destructive defensive lasers are problematic, any shielding and/or spinning flight profile will drastically increase the time-on-target threshold needed for destruction… If they work, they would work best against incoming missiles able to be targetted from longer distances away. All these developments do beg the question if `dog fighting` will in fact return in some form… 😎

I was surprised when it was first revealed we had EMCAT under development, because apart from the CVFs it’s a little hard to see where they could be used, even a small unit for launching UAVs/UCAVs on land would need a large artic trailer to deploy it (or two depending on the size, 50ft per trailer) plus support equipment.

Doesn`t Patria or somebody else make EM rails to launch UAVs currently?

MBDA Deutschland has delivered proposals for its PARS 3 LR multi-target, long range weapon system for HAL’s Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH DHRUV) and for two attack helicopters, the KAMOV KA-52 and the MIL MI-28.

Interesting that both Kamov and Mil are being associated here, but that could be a matter of MBDA starting integration before it was clear which would be offered, etc… But apparently Boeing insn`t allowing MBDA to integrate it onto Apache?

Anybody with more info on this?

Hmmm…. I actually found the Eurofighter AESA announcement very vague,
no info on what modes will be available in 2015 (e.g. GMTI?)
not to mention that it seems bizarre to claim a 2015 ENTRY INTO SERVICE when no contract exists for AESA production and installation into any partner/customer nation`s Typhoons at this point AFAIK. EF Partners may very well include AESA in the next tranche, but who knows if those will be in service by 2015?

I`m still waiting any info on specifics wrt to off-sets assessment and influence,
for everybody hooting about contenders needing to offer `massive ToT` and/or off-sets,
I haven`t seen any evidence that either of those will be competitive, rather than simply meeting or not meeting minimum requirements (which may be big, but that doesn`t imply any comparison of offers, or `extra points` for extra largesse)

Well perhaps if you were in charge of the UK MoD, you might now be inquiring as to whether full access to source codes is just fine, since the US Senate is now saying it`s OK for India 😎

No new orders for CS130?
CS100 seems to be progressing fine, but it`s larger twin still seems very much `up in the air` in terms of market reception…

I also immediately thought of Reaction Engines when I saw that EADS announcement.
I have the feeling that the proposed design with 3 propulsion sources is a `conservative` design, but that they would consider Reaction`s engine if it works and is mature. Carrying redundant propulsion like that has got to carry a performance hit (at first I thought they could eject the turbo-fans to autonomously land via UAV shell, but then realized powered flight is de facto necessary for landing sequence if they want a `civil product` and not a Space Shuttle), and rockets kicking in to get to Mach speed (`ONLY 1.5G accelartion` or something) doesn`t seem quite the standard airliner experince (I believe Reaction can provide more continual acceleration). Reaction seem to be progressing quite nicely, and I suspect will find their way into anything EADS does like this. I actually found the 2050 number to be quite late… At the rate Reaction is progressing, something more like 2040 (almost 30 years from now, after all!) seems quite do-able, and the featured propulsion in ZEHST is less challenging technically than Reaction`s approach.

Also interesting to see British companies (Hypermach + SonicBlue) trying the SSBJ thing, in the Mach 3 range. In all honesty, it seems like a partnership with somebody like Dassault (or another OEM) would be most auspicious, if just for marketing and world-wide support. Interesting to see the engine side of things being tackled, which is what`s really needed for such a project.

very nais.. btw can you post pictures as image not as a url? most people here have a decent internet connection.

I think links are preferable… Not EVERY has a decent internet connection, especially not all the time, and your very post illustrates one of the biggest irritations of in-line images: people quoting them, reproducing them un-necessarily.