Even their only remotely valid arguments of risks of delays & cost increases are disengenious as they are the norm of military programs & nothing new or unique to the F-35.

True, but even that is disputed by some fanboys around here.

LPI is nothing else than different techniques to lower probability of interception (not no interception) of RF systems (not limited to radars only). There are indeed even MSA and PESA systems such as the Captor or RBE2 which provide LPI characteristics as well, though not to the same extend as it is the case with the AN/APG-77. AESA simply provides the greatest potential here due its inherent advantage of beam agility and flexibility. Spudman’s point about the APG-79 is indeed a valid one. Many seem to believe that AESA = LPI, but that’s not the case, albeit every AESA provides the potential for comprehensive LPI characteristics, not every AESA system exploits them or at least not to the same extend as the APG-77 for example.
While LPI might work against several RWRs currently fitted it has to be taken into account that modern ESM systems become more and more capable and sensitive and that latest computer technology isn’t just used by radars but also EW suits. Believing that LPI will perfectly work against latest ESM systems is quite optimistic and relying on the hope it does is somewhat naive. It might or might not this can differ from system to system.

Does the phase 5 FCS improve manoeuvrability to the extent it could be be noticed at an air display? The aircraft in the video is clearly a FGR4.

Yes it does, phase 3/4 were more restricted in terms of g-load (8.1 g max), AoA and probabley g-onset.

Cost of F-22 Fighter for Japan As Much As $250 Million (excerpt)

(Source: Reuters; published June 5, 2009)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force estimates it would cost Japan as much as $250 million per plane to buy dozens of radar-evading F-22 fighter jets, a U.S. senator told Japan’s ambassador in a letter, saying he hopes to reverse a current U.S. ban on such exports.

Senator Daniel Inouye, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said this price included the cost of creating an export version of the most advanced U.S. fighter, built by Lockheed Martin Corp. This assumes production would begin in four to five years, with deliveries in seven to nine years, according to two sources familiar with the letter.

Rob Blumenthal, a spokesman for Inouye, confirmed the senator had sent letters on the F-22 issue to the ambassador, Ichiro Fujisaki, and to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He declined to release the letters or discuss their content.

The sources, who asked not to be named since the issue is still far from decided, said the U.S. Air Force had reversed its opposition to F-22 exports after studying the issue of F-22 exports again over the past four to six months.

The estimated cost is far higher than the roughly $150 million paid by the Air Force for its last batch of fighters, but the price tag would come down considerably if Congress decides to add funding for more U.S. F-22s to the fiscal 2010 budget, the sources said. (end of excerpt)

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0530055420090605?rpc=44&sp=true

Small correction the Su-37 was powered by AL-31FU, not FP.

Yes i look at it this way, SPECTRA + AESA is not in service today. So i call it development.

Where did you read PESA ?

And can you tell me wich TRD use pencil beam jamming ?

How do you get the exact position of the decoy relative to the plane ? in real time ?

These are excerps from an article from 2002.

The Ariel is a high-power, fiber-optic linked decoy, integrated with the DASS, rather than being a simple repeater. A threat is detected, located, and identified by the ESM system, and a jamming signal is generated aboard the aircraft. 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 RF signal is converted into modulated laser pulses and transmitted down the 100-meter fiber-optic cable to the decoy, which contains a transmitter.

and

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.

As said the article is from 2002 and I could imagine that the TRD onboard current Typhoons is in fact the Mk3 or an even newer version. But let’s get back to topic.

Agree with you, i was just talking about SPECTRA’s bug for development software, not production software.

For the towed decoy, you can’t put an AESA on it. The SPECTRA is said to use pencil jaming while a towed decoy emit everywhere.

Not necessarily, TRD can direct their beams as well, otherwise I see no reason to use PESA on a decoy as it seems to be the case with the newer Ariel versions.

Respectfully, I am not interested in your take on what the Wing Commander said………..

I posted the original “QUOTE” for the members of the forum to decide for themselves……..

So be it, but don’t wonder if others can just shake their heads, as everyone who knows a bit about the topic should be able to interpret it correctly, though the statement itself might be a bit misleading or unclear.