Yes air the threats is changing mostly that caused by hundreds and in few years over thousand JSF taking to the sky.

Why would Europe need 1000 fighter planes in addition to one they will have on hand. The reason they keep bring up European army is cut spending even more. 500 is more realistic number and drop to F22 numbers of 150-200 is very possible. 2040 is along way away and trying to predict stable defense numbers is basing projections upon fairy tales. Doing that is sure way to see the cost death spiral to rear its head.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/french-military-helicopter-readiness-depends-on-the-fleet

My god that those are some atrocious availability numbers. This is response to BlackArchers post.

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

AAM range was not great enough to warant adding them. AAM with enough range like phoenix were to large to trade offensive payload for the benefit of carrying them.

The question for the future is are the above reasons for not carrting AAM on bombers still valid? My view is no those reasons are no longer valid.

at this stage, its just dumb to buy GaAs AESA when the option is right there for GaN,
or you will have to pay twice when you upgrade it 2030.
as for cost, SAAB has a record of giving a fixed price tag, unlike others.

Disagree it will likely be cheaper to buy GaA today then replace it with GaN in 2030 then to buy first generation GaN today. GaN will be much cheaper in 2030 then it is today.

One of the threads here had a cost break down between current GaA and GaN that showed exactly why there are no current GaN fighters radars.

I agree that a European equivalent would have been highly desirable, but I don’t blame Airbus for the failure to produce one. That’s the difference between us.

Airbus had a proposal (A319/A320 with FITS, sensors to customer specification), & offered it to European governments. But nobody would back it. Without a home country order, it’s unlikely that other potential customers would even consider it. They wouldn’t want to be left with an orphan aircraft.

Euro version of P8 competed against the P8 for the Indian contract and it died when it lost that contract to the P8.

The French official plans are publicly available (ask Hallowene for the PDF, if you are interested) and last time i´ve checked there are two European UCAV prototype´s flying. Why do you believe that somehow Western Europe is going to build a “JSF” instead of a UCAV, an optionaly manned system or something manned more advanced that the F-22/F-35 circa 2040´s is anyone´s guess. The first Raptor flew in 1996.
And what´s a “gen 6 aircraft”? A manned aircraft, a development of the F-35, a UCAV, new weapons and sensors on the F-22 and F-35 fleet? Because the Pentagon is still checking what it wants.

You dont think based on what? Can you point consistent declarations of European military staff stating such?
Because its incredibly easy to find the exact oposite, from pilots, to air staff, etc, stating that they are over the moon with their Rafale´s, Gripen´s and Phoon´s.

Potential first generation UCAV are not a replacement for manned fighter. So Europe will ether build its own manned 5-6 gen fighters are buy from US or do a joint development with US.

Military staff are not the ones unhappy here it is the governments that were sold eurofighter, rafale programs based upon them securing large export sales that were only partially realized. I do not see those who would have to approve the immense amount of funds for a new European manned fighter being willing to do so if the expected outcome is the same as the prior generation.

So things will have to be done differently.