Now, I know Wiki claims the SH is fitted with the AN/AAR-47 MAWS but I’m aware what that thing looks like and I have not been able to identify the corresponding apertures on any F/A-18E/F I’ve ever seen, in person or on photos! Same goes for an LWR.

AN/AAR-57 just for the record 😉

Only Gripen-NG has 5.5 tons of payload because it can’t carry nukes and cruise missiles.

KEPD-350 Taurus is no “cruise missile”?

2. 10 tons empty weight :

a. F-16
b. Rafale

Since both weigh the same, both need the same thrust, which is 145 kN. While F-16 manages with 1×143 kN Pratt-Whitney turbofan, the Rafale is forced to attach 2×73 kN Snecma M-88, that generate a total of 146 kN.

12 tons empty weight :

a. F-18
b. Eurofighter
c. MiG-35

The F/A-18 weights about 14.5 t empty, the Typhoon ~11t and the MiG-35s empty weight hasn’t been disclosed, but is likely to be in the range of 11-12t. So you basically put 3 aircraft of different sizes and with different empty weights in the same class.

–*——*——*——*—–

We may, for brevity, safely assume that all 3 categories have the same combat-radii while loaded in the “normal” or “fighter” config, because the fuel capacity and engine power increase roughly proportionately with increase in weight.

Interestingly the range is very different due differences in aerodynamics, fuel fraction (including ETs)…

the IAF’s requirements do not stress for the capability to deliver nukes or Brahmos-like cruise missiles.

What a surprise:rolleyes:

Now, as we have again seen, the Tejas Mk.2 falls in category 1 i.e. of Gripen-NG. It may get 1×98 kN GE-F414 or 1×90 kN Eurojet. It’s payload and combat radius are also likely to be the same.

What’s the loaded weight and fuel load of the Tejas?

I think (and correct me, if ‘m mistaken) you do hold the view that Tejas Mk.2 (whenever it comes) and Gripen-NG will have the same capabilities as far as range-payload specs are concerned.

The difference is what it could do in theory and what is a factual reality.

If, by 2014 the Tejas Mk.2 (with an FoC) meets MRCA specs, the IAF would be “hard-pressed” to explain it’s selection of a foreign fighter.

And what if not?

07:51 GMT, September 25, 2009 defpro.com | Yesterday, the Austrian Air Force closed a chapter in its procurement history which caused quite a stir, over the past few years, throughout the entire Austrian political landscape. Austria became the first export country for the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft with the decision in 2000 to purchase 24 aircraft, valued at €1.8 billion, to replace the long-ageing Saab Draken fighters. However, the number of aircraft ordered was soon reduced to 18 units and after the new administration took over, Defence Minister Norbert Darabos was asked to negotiate a cancelation of the contract or a cost reduction with the prime contractor, Eurofighter GmbH, resulting in a further reduction to 15 aircraft. This new deal saved Austria some €250 million in aircraft acquisition, related logistic support, tranining and technical services.

After this odyssey, which heated the debate among the national press, politicians and the involved industry, the last of the 15 Eurofighters finally rolled out from the EADS Defence & Security Manching assembly line on 24 September 2009. It is certainly due to the political turmoil of the past that the delivery of the last aircraft, which landed at the Hinterstoisser military airfield near Zeltweg at 15:30 CET, was not celebrated with a copious hand-over ceremony. According a company spokesman, an official ceremony has been held in Manching last Tuesday, however without attendance of press members.

So far, no reasons have been given for why, not even the Defence Minister, managed to personally welcome the last of the most important and expensive assets in his troop’s inventory. According to Austrian press reports, the last Eurofighter was to arrive on Friday, however, no reason for the change in the schedule has yet been given. According to an Austrian daily, Darabos’ party, before becoming part of the current Administration, did not miss any opportunity to emphasise their election pledge to cancel the entire procurement programme.

“The best solution for Austrian air surveillance”

From a technological point of view, the Eurofighter provided Austria with the possibility to catch up with major air forces in Europe, especially considering that the Eurofighters predecessor, the Draken, (despite being a very effective aircraft) had its maiden flight in 1955. Furthermore, to fill the gap in air patrolling and defence capabilities until the Eurofighter was successfully introduced into service, Austria had to lease Swiss F-5 Tigers for four years – also not the most recent aircraft model. Since 1 July 2008 the Eurofighters took over the task of national air-patrolling.

Austria can now concentrate on fully integrating its complete Eurofighter fleet into the Air Force and to train the required pilots and mechanics. The contracts in this significant procurement programme also covered simulation equipments, personnel training and logistic support. As the Eurofighter GmbH claims that “this logistic support system helped the Austrian Air Force to commence operational air policing missions – the prime task the aircraft were ordered for – just 11 months after delivery of the first Eurofighter on 12 July 2007.”

As company spokesman told defpro.com, eleven of the Austrian Eurofighters had previously been allocated to the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) of which some have been used to speed up deliveries and some were directly delivered to Austria. Furthermore, the official source stated, that two aircraft have been diverted from a batch allocated to the UK, as well as one from Italy and one from Spain, which equally have been newly produced aircraft directly delivered to Austria.

On the occasion of the roll-out, Eurofighter CEO Enzo Casolini emphasised the aircrafts’ importance for Austrian defence capabilities: “The delivery of the last Eurofighter Typhoon to Austria provides to the Austrian Armed Forces the best aerial defence capabilities available in the World, both in operational, cost and fleet effectiveness terms.” Bernhard Gerwert, Chairman of the Eurofighter Supervisory Board and CEO of Military Air Systems within EADS Defence & Security, joined this evaluation by saying; “With the Eurofighter, Austria has fielded a fighter aircraft that will represent the best solution for Austrian air surveillance for many years to come thanks to its outstanding flight performance, sensor capabilities, and its ability to be integrated into data networks.”

First challenges have already been accomplished

So far, it seems that the Eurofighters already in service are successfully stemming its principal task which, for a relatively small landlocked country at the heart of Europe with its busy skies, may be one of the most challenging tasks. All aircraft will be stationed at the Air Surveillance Wing’s home base in Zeltweg in the central Austrian state of Steiermark, enabling them to quickly scramble to any place in the country.

This ability could be well-demonstrated when the aircrafts logged their 1,000th flying hour during an intercept training mission. In a slightly more serious situation, Austrian Eurofighters were required to scramble and fly at supersonic speeds to intercept a Russian passenger jet which Austrian air traffic control lost radio contact with. The same happened as recently as Wednesday when an Airbus A320, without radio contact, also had to be escorted. The supersonic flight produced a loud sonic boom in the otherwise idyllic calm of the Alpine country.

For the Eurofighter GmbH – even though somewhat closing the Austrian chapter – the story goes on as the company is looking at important export opportunities, including India’s MMRCA tender as well as possible sales to Greece, Japan, Romania, Switzerland, and Turkey.

Saudi Arabia, being the second export nation for the Eurofighter, signed a procurement contract for 72 aircraft in September 2007 for an estimated 6.5 billion. Furthermore, the aircraft have made news by taking over international air-policing missions over Albania (Italian Air Force) and the Baltic states (German Air Force).

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/410/

Those article is full of errors. The selection occured on 2nd july 2002 and the contract signed on 1st july 2003 was valued at 1.959 bln €. The final aircraft ferried over to Austria was not rolled of the assembly line as such as this aircraft was a used block 2 aircraft, which ran through the R2 programme.

There should be another beacon/radio in the pilots life support equipment. But if they didn’t have found him yet, I think his chances are close to 0. Is it known if he has ejected at all?

Sad news.

Similar weapon systems are often called -ski. The R-77 (AMRAAMski) or Kh-35 (Haropoonski) are good examples for that. Not necessarily copies, but similar working weapon systems.

From doing a lot more calculations then you could possibly have the time &/or money to do.

They certainly have to base their calculations on what LM provides them with. Everything else would be grapped out of the air.

And again, do to their own financial situations.

There were several partners which raised their concerns about rising costs within the programme. It’s not simply related to their financial situation only.

I have done no such thing.

And what is that?

Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (in FY 2002 dollars – the most recent comprehensive estimate)
• F-35A upper-$40 million
• F-35B mid-$60 million
• F-35C mid-$60 million

Eat that all you “it will cost more than a Raptor” crowd…. sorry, I could not resist.

And then that

$58.7 million (2008 dollars) F-35A flyaway is the US DOD talking, not LM.

Yes 2002 and 2008 $, but what is it worth in 2010 or 2015? It doesn’t matter if the the 2002 estimate was upper 40 mln $, let alone that a 2002 figure in a 2009 briefing is ridiculous.

Yeah right. Wait & see while you & others talk out your ass about the F-35 costing so much when you have no clue what so ever except that you want people to think it will be so much higher than those building, selling, buying and paying for it say.

Have you started this with the crappy comment or me or anyone else here? So spare your BS of wrong turning the facts here.