Pk is a theoretical number. In reality you can not afford not to assess what’s going on. The data I could gather for AMRAAM tells me a Pk of 50% for AMRAAM in the last conflicts against weak, badly trained, mostly non manoeuvring opponents. And now imagine a Pk against a challenging opponent. What’s an acceptable Pk for you for not assessing the results? AESA is not a wonder machine, it has some advantages compared to conventional radar but it’s not the wonder machine some people think. The extra range you can get with powerful conventional radars too. They are more or less prone for ECM like every radar and nobody knows how good an opponent will be in ECM. Thus, such comparisons are fruitless. Every one can build his own theoretical world where his forces are winning. I would not trust in pure numbers.

May be it’s a requirement of the Brit forces to use mobile systems only?

IMHO training and spirit are wining wars and not comparison of crude technical data. Please do not compare Arab wars with others, because the Arabs were the worst warriors on modern battle field.

Fort is able to engage six targets in an 60° sector with 12 missiles per director.

“The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire.”

-towards the end of trying to sink bismarck

Well, that’s made in Germany… :eagerness:

But one K-22 or KSR-5 is enough for a WW2 battle ship. Or some BLU-109 based Paveways.

IMHO yes they have. But modern missiles (developments of the last 20 years) have laser based gyros.

Lack of experience? That’s a joke. There are many who are keen to get the Japanese technology.
No, Japan does not export the C-2. They opened their military market recently. Japan has no markets for military stuff, so they must build up this market and that needs a lot of time.
The A400M is just there and so you can not buy another aircraft when you have spend a lot of money in your own development.