R-60 fits too. R-27 too. Based on that i conclude T-50 will use R-60 and R-27.

But they are old missiles that aren’t too capable, unlike the R-37.

Has any information about 101-KS system been publicly released ?

What’s that?

For sure Italians are now asking more but the problems date back to the very few years after the signing of the MOU. Some problems should maybe have been ironed out then. And the references by DefenseNews to US decisions in recent years to cancel its buy of the AW101 helicopter and to halt its purchase of the C-27Js were not completelly out of this context IMHO. (So maybe Italy started to have less before ordering less).

Real issues are of course related to the economic situation here. As we know in 2011 Italy was close to the economic default and to being “commissioned” by the UE. Since then things improved a bit, but lot of people are facing harsh economic conditions and are against any public expenses, even if spanned over a 20 years period. The F-35 program has been under constant fire by the local media for a number of years now.

Latest news were that the 50% hatch to the Italian partnership to program would apply to the original order of 131 a/c thus giving an actual figure of 65 F-35, according to some government sources.

Anyway everythig is in the mud now and if Grillo’s populist party is going to have a big result at the UE elections, as it seems, there could be huge impact on government decisions on defense expenses (or on the government itself) and maybe the JPO would say “Ciao” to Italy in a few months.

The latest news is that they’re slashing F-35 procurement and going for Tranche 3B Typhoons:

No, the T-50 carries the Kh-58UShE, which is 13.75 feet (419 cm) long.

Must also be big enough for an R-37 then. 4.2m.

I am not sure that Wikipedia constitutes a ‘reputable source’! It is at best a secondary source, and more often a tertiary source. Nor do I think that Flight had any missile specialists on their staff when that late 1980s news report you cited was written.

Well guess what? You aren’t a primary, secondary or tertiary source and I don’t care what you think.

Jane’s is also, at best, a secondary source despite the credence people place in it. It gets its information from similar sources to every other military magazine, or simply reprints press releases from elsewhere, so no, there’s nothing special about it and I don’t see a link. The undergraduates point is also an absolute fact. I see incorrect stuff on BAE’s site all the time as a result of it.

Ranges? You’re kidding me right? Everyone knows range is a hairy-fairy figure, heavily dependent on launch altitude, speed and trajectory. An SDB has no motor at all and still manages a range of over 100km, even a 1,000lb JDAM brick can manage 45km with a supersonic launch. Last I heard the latest MLRS developments were aimed at lobbing 90kg warheads 120km with 4m-long, 227mm-diameter rockets with far less aerodynamic surface area. I don’t even know what your 45km figure refers to? Confusing Skyflash with ALARM perhaps? Oh well, there goes your attempt at an analysis. Good day.

So you have the choice of believing Flight (which by the late 1980s was a shadow of what it had been in the days when Gunston and Hewish did their missile reporting), or of believing the company that manufactures the rocket motor in question.

I’ll put my money on what Bayern Chemie statement – a single-pulse boost/sustain motor.

Also, I had a long briefing on Alarm soon after its combat debut, and the manufacturer made no claim of a second delayable burn.

What has probably confused some people is that the motor has two concentric nozzles – one optimised for the boost phase and the other for the sustainer phase. The reason for this arrangement is that the motor was required to deliver a level of sustain thrust that was very much lower than the boost thrust. This turn-down ratio was probably pushing the state of the art at the time the motor was designed.

Or maybe you are just plain wrong about everything and its motor can be stopped and started exactly as my Flightglobal link states along with the original link I posted to the article in Wikipedia.

Company websites are often done by undergraduates and even work experience students, so don’t place too much trust in them having all their facts straight, especially when you have 2 reputable sources to the contrary. All discussions I’ve had with people inside MBDA suggest burn-stop-burn operation.

Also – don’t confuse the absence of a claim with a claim to the contrary. Commonsense should also tell you that in such a time-critical situation free-fall would be less effective.

Additionally (in relation to range) because the ALARM attacks from above it has continuous detection of both side lobes for guidance. The top attack method also eliminates the question of range-to-target, since it knows where the ground is. The guidance is therefore more precise than conventional methods (which come in flat against a rotating radar), so it can use a smaller warhead and achieve a similar range with a smaller missile.

I have seen this claim published on several websites, but do not believe it to be correct. The rocket motor is by Bayern Chemie, and has two sections – a boost section, then a sustainer section that provides a much lower thrust. The sustainer burn is that gives the weapon its 45 km range when released at altitude.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/alarm.cfm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM_(missile)

ALARM is a fire-and-forget system, with an added loiter capability. In loiter mode, ALARM will, when launched, climb to an altitude of 13 km. If the target radar shuts down, the missile will deploy a parachute and descend slowly until the radar lights up. The missile will then fire a secondary motor to attack the target.

However, on reflection there are in fact 2 loiter modes, presumably one occurs as the result of a failed direct attack and one is an intentional loiter. It’s quite possible that the post-loiter phase depends on whether the secondary motor was used during the direct phase.

And who will pay for the Russian kit?

Egypt’s American kit is paid through $1 billion annual aid from American taxpayers.

Aid was cut AFAIK.