simply looking at the functions on the apg-79 shows its nothing like the rbe2

You are mixing hardware and software considerations.

When talking of maturity, it’s the hardware.

About all those functions you’re talking about very suddenly it’s a question related to software and abuot that, in an old article from Thales, it was clear that the main problem of the RBE2 AESA is funding because each function is quite expensive to devellop.

you’re not really going to say that the rbe2 is multi beam, are you ?
do you really know that little about your favorite plane ?

What is a single beam EASA ?

this has all been done before, its easier just to quote a french site
http://www.airtalk.org/image-vp113192.html
However, Dassault and Thales are not proposing to make the AESA the
all-encompassing RF Cuisinart that Boeing (for example) envisages for the
Super Hornet, with features such as passive detection, multi-beam operation
and jamming.

Boy, as I said, you’re so late …

30 odd pages of slapping french fanboys
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-31834.aspx

Oh yeah, that thread is quite famous on air-defense, with many “experts” that obviously don’t know much about Rafale.

you’re a giggle, so a direct quote from dassault is my invention

You know, few months ago, a direct quote from Dassault about a 7-1 versus Typhoon was a joke, so I suppose that another quote from Dassault is another joke.

“the upgrade to the active antenna simply involves replacing the tube
transmitter and passive electronic scanning antenna with active modules”

Jackjack, you know what ? I’m jealous of your ability to spin articles found on internet, really.
You quote something that praise the flexibility of the hardware, but you, you found a “problem” with software inside the same sentence.
At no moment they talked about software but you, you manage to write several paragraph about it.

the modes of the rbe isnt any where near the apg-79

On the other hand, do you find amazing that a radar that is few days old has less functions than another one made years ago ?

This is getting ridiculous. Everyone and their mother want an assembly line.

I think it’s quite consistent for them to ask assembly of falcon :p

Dear Pepe, care to explain more in depth why just SAAB/Akaer cooperation “is not serious”

Pepe noever wrote that the cooperation wasn’t serious.

all bets are off, there will be a new president who will decide FX 3
PAK fa sound nice

The “risk” is still quite high with that model.

I might give it a go if i get a close in high resolution pic, but until then i’ll stick to math.

Math without hard data ? Congrats :rolleyes:

I don’t understand the obsession with Jon Lake. He is a journalist and gets paid to do his work

Well, the problem is that his job consist of wwriting bad news about the Rafale from anonymous sources while ignoring good news from official sources.

Rafale diameter 55 cm ->A=23,74 dm2

Does that look like a 55cm array ?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOykSrKDuXI/AAAAAAAAAQE/LRcegNrB6jE/s400/RBE-2+AESA-2.jpg

Ze French are interested in getting better engine cheaper and thought that the EAU contract was going to help.
I think the 9t will be produce in the end but it seems to me that ze real problem is to know who will pay for it.
Dassault seems to be reluctant to touch anything to the plane and is already unhappy with the small change that the M-88X would bring so I wonder what they will say if they have to put in the F414. And all this ignoring the fact that the DGA and L’Elysée will never accept a foreign engine in the Rafale.

To summerize the issue with UAE, they want a Rafale F4 with many upgraded systems such like EW, perhaps even newer radar (it’s not clear) and a more powerful engine.
Right now, the M88-2 has a program for a more economical M88, the -4E which is under test right now but with the same thrust.
It seems that SNECMA, as a good seller, said to UAE that from that M88-4E, they could easily extrapolate a more powerful 9t M88. But that was without any agreement from Dassault, and after the SNECMA statement, the Rafale team is in a very akward situation to explain why the integration shouldn’t be easy specially since UAE want to share the financial burden with France since we would enjoy the better avionics.
but again, there is a problem with the engines which isn’t required by the french AF.

The Gripen NG risk factors have been de-risked quite a lot since 2008; The development program has proceeded according to plan, with no delays, unlike most other aviation development programs.

The only de-risk that we believe in is the proper testing of the beast in fully situation.