There are a number of things to consider here.

A- the websites aren’t always updated as information is approved for release
B- the target audience for the open source websites is different than that in briefings
C- there’ll be differences between info on a unrestricted release, FOUO, secret, top secret slide show.
D- if the briefer’s numbers are so far off, where do you suppose they pulled those numbers from, and do you suppose they have little consideration for attempts at accuracy?
E- even if they updated the numbers on the websites, I’m guessing you’d find another reason to doubt them

I have seen weight figures for the F-35 ranging from ~10t to ~13t. Fact is you guys base the figures you give on a single brief from 2007. There are multiple briefs, programme documents, websites etc. which has been released since and neither is giving the weight figures as low as that single brief. Who knows from where he get his numbers, let the engines away as for the pricing? :diablo:
If I go by that measure I can still find you official data which are more optimistic than those known to be factual.

Not that I’m aware of. The TopSight-E from Thales lost out against the Gerfaut from Sagem in the end, but Sagem had ultimately some problems and the helmet was rejected and due financial constrains and priority was given to an AESA radar and other stuff. The TopSight was further developed and is now deployed on Indian MiG-29K and malaysian Su-30MKM.

High-priority emitters — such as fighter aircraft at close range — can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM. Of course, there are some targets that do not emit signals. “We prefer it that way, because he’s dumb,” remarked one Boeing engineer. In this case, the F-22 can use its LPI features to track the target — which is not a threat unless another radar is tracking the F-22 and datalinking information to the “quiet” aircraft — and can, if necessary, identify it.

Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target — emitting or not — beyond visual range (BVR). “We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what’s out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact,” USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997. The ALR-94 drives the F-22’s defensive displays. The system determines the bearing, range and type of the threat, and then computes the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22. The pilot is the decision-maker and is provided with timely, graphic information to guide defensive maneuvers.

Nice copy paste job Jessmo, but nothing new in here, let alone that these passages don’t cut it and are not really related to the questions I asked.

The Rafale is a good multirole fighter but it is Not a air superiority fighter. It doesn’t have the size, RADAR size, or kinematics to match the Raptor.

Kid by that measure your beloved F-35 is a POS in AA.

Jamming in hopes of a merge wont work because the passive sensors and the AESA are sensor fused.
All this talk about jamming and passive sensors is really irrelevant.

And you bring us the technical explanation now…!

Jackjack,
the AN/APG-77 is per se an older radar than the AN/APG-80 using an inferior module technology and is subsequently regarded as older “generation”. It’s not the original AN/APG-77 which posed the EA capabilities anyway, but just the newer variants (V1…) which use newer and more advanced modules than the original version. At the time the AN/APG-80 was in production for the F-16 blk 60 EA was not developed at all.

The answer to the questions are both included in my last post! Read more carefully before hitting the reply button!

Jackjack,
EA capabilities were linked to the APG-77/79/81 and not to any other radar so far and it’s not even certain that these capabilities are available right now. So far everyone failed to prove that the other radars are even slated for this capability. You just don’t provide links, as you have none.

yet the other forces are choosing jamming with their aesa radar uk, griffin, uae blk 60, the f-15 aesa singapore, sh australia
the usa can even transmit viruses into recieving oposition arrays so i read

wait and see, you will find dassault will go with jamming aesa radar too
i dont know why you are resisting it, you should be excited

Wrong all of the fighters you listed feature a dedicated jammer. And you show us that the AN/APG-63(V3) & -80 have dedicated jamming modes and that the Australian SHs feature EA functions for their APG-79.