Even if this was not the definitive array layout (although it probably is, as obligatory points out) the spacing of the T/R elements is dictated at least in part by the RF frequency band they operate in. Since this will be in the same general ballpark as other fighter AESAs there would be no margin for a major increase in module numbers within the constraints of the existing radome/antenna size.

That’s interesting, I thought the actual size of the T/R element was one of the main factors determining how many T/R elements can fit into a small fighter jet’s nose? And that with more modern and smaller T/R elements one could fit more (unless heating caused too much of a problem).

Many sources say that.It has 24 bricks of T/R modules and the number of bricks are customizable according to the nose diameter.

Tejas radome size 650 mm..
Gripen ..?

AFAIK 600 mm.

650 mm is actually a lot for Tiny Tejas!

Perhaps Rafale can use the Tejas as mini-Awacs? 😀

You should read this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dajccsCegkoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=australia+AN-ALR-45&source=bl&ots=e0XcSUUN7J&sig=UkXNpXRaJiZQtK7SMy8K2g1Qd1s&hl=en&ei=7uVGTaylIYyt8AbVhtm1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ

This is not directly what you asked for but it is illustrative of what you have to deal with some US equipment.

Funny, Aussie Digger was very vocal in this thread for a while but after the above posting from Erkokite AD suddenly went quiet… I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Of course the Super Hornet is going to feel sluggish compared to the others. It’s a carrier capable aircraft carrying over 3000lbs of external stores (2x Mk 83’s, 2x BVR missiles 2x winders), whereas the others have a pair of winders at best…

Well I don’t think the IAF is looking for a carrier aircraft, so it does not really help on the contrary from the IAFs point of view it’s just a disadvantage that it is so heavy… however the SH is a great bomb truck no doubt. The question is what is IAF looking for? A bomb truck? Or do they put more weight (pun not intended) on the a2a role?

The NG will fly rings around the SH if both have a2a configs, as will the other two Eurocanards.

Also, I do believe that if you load up the Typhoon or Rafale with a heavy a2g load they will be much more agile than the SH… I would not brag about the sluggish performance of the SH… oh and Rafale is also in a carrier version (however the Rafale version the IAF is looking at is lighter than the carrier version…).

Personally I think at least 4 (and probably also F-16) meet all technical requirements. One reason why I believe also the NG does is that the companies have said that they have received plenty of feedback from the IAF on how they have scored on the tests — couple that with the fact that Saab is on Aereo India in force and has also announced opening of a Saab R&D centre in India, it seems clear that Saab has been told that the NG did score very well on the tests — otherwise they would not waste so much time and money on this competition.

The remaining hurdles then are: ToT, offsets, and “political considerations”.

No doubt the US will work very hard to get this deal and the SH may well win this — but I would not take it for granted.

Great news for France!

Can we count the number of TR modules? Or is the honeycomb pattern on that image completely unrelated to that?

How do you define “100% ToT”?

Do you think that Brazil will be able to build their own fighters after buying Rafale? Including the engine?

“100% ToT” is probably more like 20 — or 10?

Anyway those are just numbers — I agree with your main point that Boeing will have a problem to match the French on ToT.

I am not so sure that Saab will face the same problem; Saab had another problem which is of logistics, they needed to make agreements with all partners e.g. Selex, that ToT can be transferred. However if you have followed this story for a while then you would know that Saab has done just that — for instance the UK has fully supported ToT for all UK components including the IRST and AESA (which is Selex/Saab).

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091111_1_n.shtml

Interesting bits of info here:

http://gb.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416155751&o=ext

It seems the competitors themselves don’t know how long the process will take but they do expect it to take some more time it seems… (page 4-6). I am surprised to read that they have not yet submitted their new offsets, and not even received a deadline?

Also interesting story on the SH on page 22, I noticed this:

“In air-to-air configuration, CFTs are expected to extend combat radius by 10% to “the high 700s” (nautical miles)”.

Does not sound too impressive?

But the other parts of the “global super hornet” do sound impressive.