ppp,
there is a difference between people who are just uninformed and people who obviously try to disrupt ongoing discussions to suit their own agenda. Those people like to provoke and charge up the more attention they get from regular members. Ignoring them is the best way to deal with them.;) If no one spent attention those people will sooner or later leave, but they won’t if you feed them over and over again. I’ve learned it myself from previous events. Let the pony be the pony and just ignore it (him) and everyone else with a rightful mind should do the same.

The full report has been linked to in the Typhoon thread and I strongly recommend to read it to get a better view and understanding if the issue. Those summarized articles are largely incomplete and tend to throw a wrong light on the issue itself.

I personally don’t think that the RAF will really retire its Typhoons in 2030, albeit this date has been repeatedly mentioned, earlier statements (reaching as far back as the 90s) indicated a service duty until 2035-2040. This is in line with the Luftwaffe’s planning for example and reflects the aircraft’s life time more accurately. No one can afford to scrap airframes that early and we all know that the development of a replacement is going to take ages and facing one delay after another. On time replacement by 2030 is subsequently extremely unlikely.

Wrt capability enhancements much could be done faster if someone would pay for it. It’s a pain in the a$$ that they complain about the lack of capability, but aren’t willed to make decisions on time and fund them. That’s an issue which has plagued the programme throughout its entire history and I unfortunately can’t see this changing right now.

@mrmalaya,
I’m not sure how reliable that article is as a couple of claims in there are inaccurate. I wouldn’t rely on it in the first place.

?

10kW “average” (or “mean” ? I don’t know what’s the word in english) power output. You’re comparing it to “peak” values.
The source is A&C, in several issues.

It’s called average yes. I just pulled that figure out of my head so it could be wrong. Though 10 kW average sounds quite high, considering that the Irbis radar has a peak power of 20 kW and an average power output of just 5 kW or the Zhuk-AE which has a stated peak power 6 kW and an average power output of some 1.5 kW. If we apply the same ratio for the RBE2AA assuming 1000 TRMs that would mean a stunning 40 kW for the RBE2AA as peak power which would translate in a TRM output of 40 W each. Considering that the UMS modules used on the CAESAR demonstrator offered a max power output of 10 W just 5 years ago that would indicate a huge jump and I somewhat wonder from where this power comes and how the RBE2AA is supposed to be possibly shorter ranged than the APG-80 with so much power.
Just my thoughts, but something doesn’t add up here for me.