Lol, yes:o Corrected it.

The EJ200 isn’t better concerning the reliability issue with even shared rumors comming from the users (Austria, Germany…)

Do you have a source for this claim? What I have gathered indicates the opposite, the EJ200 is regarded as very reliable and the blisk technology was developed by MTU. Afaik the EJ200 is the only engine featuring all blisk compressors and turbines.

– the US has switched to the F35 and the SH is a gap filler. It won’t be developped much further… unless the customer pay for it one way or another.

The USN alone will operate the SH for at least another 2 decades, possibly even longer. Claiming it won’t be much further developed is a strong assertion, which doesn’t look reasonable!

Calm down guys, either of you is exaggerating here! Neither the Rafale nor the Typhoon is much more advanced/capable in general. Both have their finer points and may be able to do things the other isn’t able to do, at least not at a given time.

Spectra is without doubt a fine EWS as is DASS. The really relevant data aren’t publically known so any comparison between their performance is speculative at best and depending on whom you ask the answer will differ. French will claim the Spectra is better, British will claim the DASS is better, the truth is no one really knows. The same is true for many other subsystems and the results of some exercises aren’t a dead proof. Neither of the two aircraft is invulnerable and if both have been beaten by definitely inferior aircraft they can certainly beat each other, even in a degraded environment.
And for the matter detecting SAMs is one thing, targeting yet a different thing. The ability to generate target coordinates using the stock RWR has been rare up to date. Some systems like DASS are certainly capable to do so in theory, whether such a capability is yet integrated is another question however and you can basically expect that ANY up to date RWR/ESM is capable to do so. The Rafale is just one of the first aircraft which have done this in praxis and this capability is still rare, but no magic either and certainly nothing which couldn’t be achieved. In the past there were dedicated ELS, lattest RWR/ESM are capable to do the same without separate devices being required either internal or external.

Towed decoys are good but somehow counter-productive for few reasons :
– they take up space and pylons
– you use them once and there are gone after ejection
– they cost much to end up dropped
– they are omnidirectional noise jammers (non-stealthy)

Cheers .

1.) They take up space yes, but they don’t necessarily occupy pylons. There are solutions for integrating them into pylons, I think the Swedes studied or even developed such an option. Eurofighter or the Super Hornet carry them elsewhere and not on pylons!

2/3.) They can be used multiple times, you have to drop them if no recovery wind is fitted, but you can tow them as long as you want and cut them prior landing over a drop zone so that they can be recovered!

4.) That’s true for older designs, but not for newer designs such as the Ariel, ALE-55 or Sky Buzzer. All of these FO-TRDs use the onboard DRFM and techniques generator to generate cued transmissions directed towards the threat.

Doesn’t Boost-Sustain imply at least 2 pulses, otherwise it’d just be Boost, right?

:rolleyes:

@Spudman,
we had that discussion elsewhere! Multipulse indicates more than 2 pulses (dual-pulse)! A 50% range increase just by the measures you describe is highly unrealistic, let alone that the C7 already offers an optimised trajectory! So what is left is improved guidance. You aren’t going to tell us that a 50% range increase is achieved by just improving the guidance only!

Scorpion , a bit of math is telling us that if the Mica ‘s length was 3.60m , its weight would be 129kg , 27kg less than the Amraam and 46kg less than the R-77 😉

Cheers .

BW the weight difference depends on how the space is used. Btw I think the R-77’s warhead is only 22 kg IIRC. 30 kg was that of the R-27 if I’m not mistaken.

Why is the Su-27SM’s cockpit “better” than that of the Su-30MKI? Judging the MMI from a stand still photograph is layman’s science and that’s it. And I meant the HUD radar display as such which is not as flexible and may in fact subtract from the pilots attention and may simply clutter the display. Just take a look at the videos posted. Some jamming and the entire HUD area is green, great for situational awareness.

And we certainly know enough about the N-001 per se to realise that this radar is dated in uncompetitive today. The N-011M is factually a newer and more advanced design. Believing that the N-001 is even remotely comparable is naive at best… We don’t know enough is a lame excuse in this case! Common sense and reasoning is almost enough here!