The Dutch evaluation wasn’t really representative as were other paper evaluations. Most the aircraft and proposed evolutions weren’t built the way envisaged back then. Most of the aircarft were paper aircraft or protoptypes and none was even remotely at the “evaluated” standard.

[USER=”15685″]Sintra[/USER]
The GAF evaluated upgrading its T1 fleet to a T3 equivalent standard against the option of buying new aircraft and is favouring the later option. There have been multiple successive studies since 2015.

industry political considerations may have further tilted the decision into this direction. It’s also a stop gap for a possible follow on order of up to 90 A/C for the GAF’s Tornado replacement programme.

Mrmalaya, I believe there must be a single source describing maintenance tasks written by the manufacturer. Just like there woud be one documentation for an airliner, let’s say the 777…Recommendations & minimum requirements are the same for AF, Emirates etc…The same applies for your car.

I believe that for any competition it is the data validated by the manufacturer that are taken into account rather than particular practice in a given Air Force.

The answer to this is yes and no. There is a four-national maintenance task data base, which includes calculated times for performing these tasks. This data base is nonetheless somewhat theoretical and different operators have opted for different maintenance concepts, i.e. some operators perform tasks at level 2, that are level 3 or 4. The support arrangements and contracts between national airforces and their supporting EPC are very different as well. In export campaigns the EPC having the lead typically defines the maintenance concept, which might be based on that of its domestic or existing export customers. The way how different airforces maintain their aircraft is very different as well. There are a lot more things to consider than that and several variables may affect this or that aspect. Keep in mind that all offers in that field are cost estimates! No one can accurately predict LCC, because you can’t predict the future and every LCC calculation has underlying assumptions, change these and the results will be different! You simply can’t cover all possible scenarios, you cover maybe 2 or 3 at best, but there are literarily thousands.
I know it’s not what people want to hear as most want a definitive answer on questions raised, in this case it’s near impossible as the figures available in the public domain often lack context and the underlying assumptions are to a large extant unknown.

The 9.12B was the export version for non Warsaw Pact operators. It, IIRC had a less capable radar process, N-019EB radar, different IFF IIRC, no datalink and no nuclear strike capability. The 9.12A was the WP version which had the N-019EA radar and IIRC lack the nuclear capability as well.

NEZ is a dynamic value, not a constant one. NEZ means what it says. It’s essentially the distance at which a target can’t do a U-turn and run away, which certainly depends on the targets turning and acceleration capability, which itself is dependent on its speed, altitude, weight and loadout, engagement geometry, flight conditions of the launch platform and ofcourse missile performance which is linked to the above conditions.

Nic

LPI isn’t automatically directional and questioning raw statements is something everyone of us does and if he is just curious where a statement originates from.

Just my 2ct on this one.

In general I think the AdA/MN and Dassault are setting the right priorities. The evolution path looks well thought through and they are focusing on those aspects that appear particularly relevant for me.

As far as rapid singleship geo-localization is concerned, I can immediately think of two viable techniques here:
1) Cue the radar or LDP and let them do the ranging
2) As a completely passive method use ownship PP, HDG, ATT target LoS and terrain elevation data, that’s all it needs.

I suppose option 2 is a particularly likely approach.

TViP

The Meteor is only marginally larger and heavier than the AMRAAM. Rocket motors offer a better acceleration and typically higher peak velocities. What they don’t offer is the high average velocity over extended ranges, thus the endgame performance or the ability to adapt the thrust output to the situation.