Which, considering BVR tactics, can explain why M-Scan is currently still the better solution for the Typhoon (or any other sub-5th-gen fighter with an A-A emphasis), while AESA can already be put to good use on the Raptor (and legacy types with an A-G emphasis).

Yeah, sure…I can bet than when EF will have an AESA, the EF consortium will proclaim that AESA is the only decent radar for a fighter and the MSA is primitive…

Nope. That’s the AN/ALQ-188(V)4 Electronic Attack Training Pod. It is carried by USAF F 15 and F16 Agressor units.

The pod provides generic capability to simulate enemy threat electronic countermeasures (ECM) for aircrew training and weapons evaluation.

Do you care to provide sources and compareable data rather than making generalised claims?

Weighs Less Than Legacy Mechanically Scanned Array

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/f16installation/index.html

1. AESA radar can significantly increase the detective / tracking range only when your fighter is big and heavy enough to carry a large antenna with enough number of T/R modules, and electrical and cooling systems with enough power.

Actually replacing a MSA radar with AESA in the same fighter doubles the detection range.

2. AESA radar’s logistical cost and repair time should be much lower comparing with a traditional radar. However, its procuring cost is much higher than a traditional one.

Raytheon asked USN 3.5 mil for each brand new APG 79

3. AESA radar with a fixed anthenna has a much more fast scan rate comparing with a traditional radar. But the cost is that its horizontal scan angle is reduced.

Not by much: 120 deg. vs. 140 deg.

4. AESA radar is usually significantly heavier than a traditional radar it replaced, which may be a problem for some fighters that are not big enough.

Both Raytheon and NorthropGrumman offer replacement for APG 63 and APG 68. In all cases the AESA array is lighter than the MSA hardware that replaces while the cooling and electric installations remain the same.

As a matter of fact the price on Gripen is fix, not only for purchase, as one would expect from any decent dealer, but for it’s entire 30 years service.
http://translate.google.se/translate?prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.refdag.nl%2Fartikel%2F1391803%2FSaab%2Bbiedt%2Blagere%2Bprijs%2Bdan%2BJSF.html&sl=nl&tl=en&history_state0=

The offer for the Dutch AF may have a fixed price, but it regards the 85 planes they need. Or, they will keep buying grippen for ever? :confused:. And, if the offer is confidential, who will guarantee me that the “confidential offer” that SABB made me won’t be higher than the “confidential offer” made to other buyer? Or it regards only the services/spares for 30 years? Could you elaborate?

Perhaps you just don’t like the facts he presents . 😀

Nope. He may very well hate the F 35 and being in love with grippen, it’s his own business.

Even an online translation could be interesting, would be appreciated.

I’ll try.

I would wait to see the development ready and a price including initial spares, training, simulators, tools etc. before I call anything cheap. Big aircraft normally cost big money.

Agreed, there are many prices of a fighter, from flyaway to the lifecycle costs, and similar prices should be considered for a fair comparison.

It would help if you linked to the blog you refer to. I think I have found it at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScrip&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac37bf741-e055-48ca-8c82-e7234d227276&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

I havent seen you refuting anything of that.

Yes, this is the blog entry. And, again, I’m not comparing these planes. It’s just the way he present facts.

You should consider details too, and sources. BTW, I consider the Flanker over hyped.

Finally we agree on something! In Kopp’s case, the Flanker danger shoud be inflated, in order to prove that only the Raptor will be able to defend Australia against the hordes of Chinese Flankers.

That interview would be very interesting to read, can you provide it?. And making such a statement before a decision is made would be quite inappropriate, wether the arguments are sound or not.

I have to find (it was weeks ago) and it’s in Romanian. And yes, before the official announcement it was wrong (though the fact that F 16 will be selected is on open secret). Nevertheless…

It was you who claimed that F-35 will be cheap, without a fixed price being offered.

The 52 mil. could give you an idea. BTW gen. Davis mentioned that the F 35 will probably cost somewhere 70-90 mil. (depending of the version; I suppose the A will be the least expensive) in 2015 dollars. If so, it is cheaper than today EFs…

Yet, some people have no problemo in using Kopp’s ideas, but only on F 35 subject. Only in this case, his reasoning is impecable :p