Just a couple of things :

Scorpion82 :

Until you give me a proof , I don ‘t believe it . As I see it , it is an almost impossible task .
Since it is a towed object , it moves a bit . To “direct” jamming signals towards the target , it would need to be Pesa or Aesa to be able to direct the beam(s) , but it is not such a system .
There are some jamming techniques DASS can do but not the Ariel .

Check out post #13 here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=51352

Edit:
The most important parts of the article

The Ariel is a high-power, fiber-optic linked decoy, integrated with the DASS, rather than being a simple repeater.

The system uses a techniques generator based on digital-RF-memory (DRFM) components and can produce a full range of noise and deception signals between 4.5 and 18 GHz.

The signal from the decoy is power-managed to match the signal from the radar and the radar cross-section (RCS) of the target, which changes with aspect angle.

The Ariel Mk3, in the prototype stage, is an even more powerful decoy with a phased-array beam-steering device, providing full spherical coverage with 1.2 kW of power.

Might be worth noting that this article is from 2002, given the fact that the TRD was introduced on the Typhoon not earlier than 2005 or possibly even later, it could be the Mk3 or an even more advanced system!

Some additional details about the first flight of BF4 yesterday:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c3d9060-6735-46e6-814b-bbf0386f6c13&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Defence Science Journal of DRDO had a LCA special issue , it mentioned the RCS of LCA was 1/3 of Mirage 2000.

So if we know the RCS of M2K we will have a good idea on RCS of Tejas.

Some french sources claim that the Rafale’s RCS is 1/10th of that of the Mirage 2000 if this is of any help…

This means
JAS-39 have a cruising radius of approx. 800km without extra fuel.

Doesn’t sound like combat radius.

Regarding the Super Hornet from the Wallace ppt:
CAP: 380 nm with 2 h loitering (3 x tanks, 4 x AMRAAM, 2 x AIM-9)
Ship attack: 805 nm/1135 nm (3 x ET, ATFLIR, 1 x AMRAAM, 2 x AIM-9, 2 x AGM-84)
Maritime Patrol: 300 nm with 2.3 h/3.2 h loitering (same config)

No idea why there are two values for the ship attack/maritime missions, maybe dependent on wheather 330 G or 480 G tanks are used.

As there were some talks about using the MiG-29K as a land based fighter, of course it’s possible, but why should anyone buy it, if the MiG-29M/35 is available as a pure land based fighter, without the equipment required for carrier operations?

Regarding the radar. The Zhuk-AE (with 1088 TRMs) is claimed to offer a detection range up to 200 km against a 3m² target (head on).
I think the AN/APG-79 may enjoy some advantages as the US is more advanced than the Russians in that area. I wouldn’t overestimate the Americans on one side and the Russians on the other side however.
There are rough indications but no real numbers which would prove a really superior performance of the -79. And with regards to the modes, already earlier Russian PESA designs like the BARS are capable to engage AA and AG targets simultaneously, why shouldn’t a new AESA radar be able to do so?
And what proofs do we have with regards to LPI modes in the case of the APG-79 and EA capabilities being operational right now…?

Well the Rafale definitely rolls more preciously and if that’s seen as the “can’t be flown like that” then it is true, though not overly important or particularly impressive. The climb after the slow speed pass is definitely nothing special and first and foremost dependent on the TWR and drag.