@mrmalaya,
as said Eurofighter intends to replace the larger block upgrades with incremental upgrades. These are small upgrades comparable to CP193 (RAF’s austere AG package) will can be realised more quickly and cheaper to adress urgent needs. It might well be that Brimstone will be integrated sooner or latter depending on the operational needs of the RAF. The same is true with a recce pod. During the Swiss evaluation IPA3 was actually evaluated with the Recce Lite pod. It’s more or less dependent on the customer requirements. We may see integration of some weapons happening earlier and other happening latter depending on the operational needs. It’s an error anyway to link capabilities to tranches, because it’s the block standards which mark the configuration of the aircraft.

The RAF will at least get 160 aircraft, because that’s the number they have currently ordered. 24 are already diverted to SA and Eurofighter is more open these days to accept selling aircraft to third parties and count them into the commitment of their respective countries. We’ll see whether there will be a T3B or not, there is still some time before the decision has to be made and the last word isn’t spoken. The RAF may find it necessary to increase the number of aircraft if they intend to withdraw Tornados or Harriers prior earlier schedules. Most EPCs are currently arguing that they have used up the funds approved for the project with the purchase of T3A.

Well in the case of the Su-27 its 8 years (ff 20th may 1977, ISD 22nd june 1985). MiG-29 ~6 years (ff 6th october 1977, ISD april 1983). And as said this last generation of jet fighters materialised much faster. Compare the US counterparts. F-15 ff 27th July 1972, ISD 8th November 1974. F-16 ff 2nd February 1974, ISD August 1978. And now take a look at their 5th generation fighters YF-22 ff 29th September 1990, ISD 2003. X/F-35 ff 24th October 2000, ISD ~2012. The time has doubled or even trippled between the first flight of a prototype/demonstrator and the ISD. Do you seriously believe that the PAK FA can do everything much faster? We’ll see when the first PAK FA pre-production examples really fly and when full series aircraft really start entering service. It is true that much off the technology developed for the MFI has been further developed for the PAK FA and that some of the technology of the Su-35S was actually derived from PAK FA development and will now be reused in the PAK FA. This may ease things a bit, but don’t underestimate the complexity of such a project. There are a lot of unknowns which may have a more or less significant impact on the proposed schedule.

And what have 1980 programms to do with the current state? No entirely new built 1980’s design ever entered service at all (LFI & MFI). The roots of the MiG-29 go back to 1970, that of the Su-27 to 1969. And a better comparison are more contempoary fighters as the previous generation materialised much faster than the current.

FGR.4 = block 5 & 8 single seater
T.3 = block 5 & 8 twin seater
F.2 = block 2/2B
T.1 = block 1 twin seater
T.1A = block 2/2B twin seater

And no the current aircraft are limited to KFF, PW II and EPW II only.
Block 2/2B aircraft lack the required avionics and flight control software to support AG ordanance. But they will be upgraded to block 5 anyway.

Hmm I don’t understand the Japanese, on one sid they order additional F-2s to keep their industry buisy on the other site they might directly opt for an off the shelf purchase, which won’t keep their aerospace industry alive. Maybe they select two options?

Whether you would save any money by operating 200 Gripen NG vs 120 Rafale or Eurofighter is questionable at best.

Put 6 Paveways and a Litening laser designator under a Typhoon.

Guess how many drop tanks you can still use (hint, it’s a number between 0 and 0). Meanwhile SH & Rafale can still carry three (large) drop tanks.

Show us how a Rafale or SH will carry SIX 1000 lb weapons+3 drop tanks!

The SH has modular avionics, sensor fusion & ECM at least on par if not better than any Eurocanard.

The SH has a distributed avionics architecure with more individual processors like the Typhoon. There are virtually no data/information available wrt sensor fusion. There is a correlation between RWR, radar and MIDS data and the fused picture is presented ion the screen as it is the case for the Rafale or Typhoon. Superior sensor fusion? No proof for that. Better radar, currently it is the only one to feature an AESA yes, other avionics and sensors? Nothing spectaculare from what is available, certainly not bad and not necessarily worse in comparison to the ECDs, but not better either.