The figure for APG 80 is too low.
AvLeak estimates ~140 km for a 1 sqm target.

“Poland now has the most technologically advanced F-16s in NATO, strengthening not only the Poland Air Force, but improving our interoperability with other F-16 operators in the NATO alliance.”

He said the most advanced F 16 in NATO, not the most advanced fighter in NATO. If the Polish F 16 are similar with Greek ones, he might be right.

The CNI for the F 22 is made by NG. The CNI of F 35 is indeed made by BAE, but not sure where. On their site there is no indication: http://www.baesystems.com/programmes/airsystems/jointstrikefighter2.htm. It is possible that UK facilities will manufacture only the tail of the aircraft and BAE NA the CNI.

Could you come up with some of the components that are shared in the avionics department ??

Of course, he can’t 😀 .
There are 3 major avionic subsystems in the f 22: the APG 77 radar, the CNI (communications, navigation and identification) that includes the IF datalink and the ALR 94. The first two are made by NorthropGrumman and only the last one by BAE. Its equivalent (:p) in the EF would be the DASS, but to compare it with the ALR 94 would be a joke. I laugh all the time when I see uninformed guys saying that because both systems are made by BAE, they must be equivalent. They are not. The ALR 94 and the avioncs of the F 35 are made by BAE NA at Nashua, New Hampshire, USA. This is the site: http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/ep/products.htm. Check for yourself if there is a thing made by BAE for EF in the US. As I already said BAE is not allowed by US Govt. to use the technology of BAE NA outside US.

What people don’t realise is aircraft like the Typhoon, Rafale, F35 and even F22 share a number of systems. This is especially the case when it comes to the Typhoon and F35 considering the large input from Bae Systems. If I remember correctly on a similar vein the F22 shares at least some of it’s cockpit displays with Typhoon.

Negative. F 22/f 35 do not share anything with EF. It is true that BAE is making a lot of hardware for F 22 (the ALR 94, considered by many as the most sophisticated piece of equipment in the jet, even more sophisticated than the APG 77!) or for F 35, but we are talking about BAE Systems North America, the former Sanders. BAE acquired Sanders from Lockheed a few years ago. However, there is no sharing of technologies between BAE UK and BAE NA. In order to approve the acquisition, US Govt. imposed severe fire walls. If BAE violate them, it may result the seizure of BAE assets! The result is that BAE can’t use these technologies for any plane, but F 22/F 35. So, no, there is no piece of equipment/technology that EF and F 22 have in common.

Except only we ( U.S. DOD ( USAF program management ) have control over the secure topology and secure anti-spoofing methods used in our military GPS. GPS being used on the battlefield, without holding the control of the secure layer topology, and matched encryption, is high risk. We can negate common GPS over the battlefield as we see fit and still be able to use our secure GPS as needed

Exactly. If the signal is altered (as before the Clinton decision) the accuracy is somewhere 50-100 m, instead 3-5 m. Only when Galileo will be fully operational, the W. Europeans will have a really satellite guided weapon. Until then, their attempt, such AASM, Taurus, Storm Shadow are a risky bet.

Replacing mechanical gyros with GPS and intertial guidance unit is vital for almost all missiles currently in development. IMI Delilah, Kh-31PA, RBS15. Hsiung Feng 2E, YJ-91, SY-2A. Not all of them will have AR versions integrated.

1) No one is using mechanical gyros, those days. Laser gyros, or better, optic fiber gyros are the norm, at least from early ’90 (laser) and from 2000 (fiber)
2) Which of the missiles you listed are incorporating GPS ?????

Are you seriously quoting Wikipedia as your source? Do you expect anyone to believe anything you say about non-US missiles after that?

It’s wrong. Martel was usable against radars on ships, as any ARM is (& the TV-guided version could have been used against ships, but never was), & equipped naval as well as land-based aircraft, but was always intended for use against any radars. All its operational uses were against land-based radars.

No, Martel (a missile fielded 40 years ago, & retired long since) does not have the features of a missile not yet in service. Obviously. But it was an anti-radiation missile which entered service soon after the first functioning US ARM (there were some abortive projects in the 1950s, canned in development), was developed completely independently, & was superior to the contemporary US missile. That’s the point.

And it was so highly regarded by the Brits, that it was droped in favor of the antique but more reliable Shrike, in Falklands conflict in 1982!

The dispute was if supercuise is important or not. I said that the simple fact that aircraft/engines manufacturers from Russian and W. Europe are pouring billions for replicating it, gives a clear answer: yes, supercuise is important. I also added that it was the same with many things that US itroduced for the first time, among other i mentioned the ARMs. The fact that present version of HARM is no longer #1, it doesn’t matter. Shrike was the first ARM. It may have not performed brilliantly (after all it was the first, no?) but it had its share if NV radar site turned into smoking holes. Than, came the Standard ARM (AGM 78), which also when introduced (’68) was the best. Then, in the early ’80 the HARM. In 2008 it will be the AARGM. Can other countries catch up with US? Of course, but it will be only for a short time…

BTW, when did the US first field a TV-guided missile? And what was it?

HOBOS and Walleye both flew around 1967 and Maverick in ’68. Don’t know if those were the first.

Was it the Maverick? In the late 60’s?

Walleye if you count guided bombs…..

None of those. 🙂 I did not say TV guided missile, but TV guided bomb. And it was the GB 4 and the TDR 1 introduced in 1944 ! (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws10.htm)

Why? Because no nation can field anything before United States do?

When the **** did I say this? I was speaking precisley about TV guided weapons.

As for locating the radar before firing even the HTS of the F 16 blk. 40 can do it very precisely . Not to mention the EA 6.