An obvious choice? How is operating a plane having two engines cheaper than the plane operating only one of those?

Cheapest to buy (don’t forget to include cumulative interest on debt into operational costs) and when an engine fails it doesn’t crash into the Alps.

There is no “proven wrong” here, you are unable to find a single quote of mine.. try harder..

Except the original post already linked where you directly argued with that point. You were wrong, deal with it.

Why would I bother? I am pretty satisfied with their findings..

Exactly, so you’re happy to misrepresent them without any context.

I have originally called it Captor-E Mk2, officially it seems to be called Radar 2 Captor-E. Anyway, so far it looks that only UK have secured finances for such version, with other EF nations staying with “Captor-E Mk1+” which is the Captor-E with the original back-end from Captor-M enhanced with features like SAR mapping.

Wonder how long it takes for the Mk2 to reach service, though..

Please, if you bothered to read it you’d note they suggested a new architecture. There’s a lot more to the ‘back-end’ than sensor fusion with other systems.

Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs from the early 2020s.8 Other partner
states are not yet signed up to such a comprehensive sensor-suite upgrade,
although Italy has showed interest, particularly in the radar 2 version
of CAPTOR-E. Spain and Germany are currently committed to the radar
1+ version of CAPTOR-E, which offers standard air-to-air AESA capability
as well as limited air-to-ground search functions including high-definition
SAR mapping. However, it does not imply the same level of commitment to
develop the sensor-fusion, electronic warfare and communications potential
of the CAPTOR-E architecture.

Does the Captor-M have comms and EW potential? No, therefore architecture is new, i.e. new back-end.

And the majority of Swiss people don’t love anything named “fighter”. Who care ??

Who will win ?? The veto will.

Super Hornet out of those 3. Cheapest, best supported, previous experience with F-18s will reduce training, fit-for-purpose.

This has already been debunked..

?

http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/24128094/body_pressback_captor_e_es.pdf

Cheers

That hasn’t been updated since 2010. The UK is committed to Captor-E radar 2.

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf

Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs. 8 Other partner
states are not yet signed up to such a comprehensive sensor-suite upgrade,
although Italy has showed interest, particularly in the radar 2 version
of CAPTOR-E. Spain and Germany are currently committed to the radar
1+ version of CAPTOR-E, which offers standard air-to-air AESA capability
as well as limited air-to-ground search functions including high-definition
SAR mapping. However, it does not imply the same level of commitment to
develop the sensor-fusion, electronic warfare and communications potential
of the CAPTOR-E architecture.

The UK’s version of CAPTOR-E (Radar 2 Extended
Assessment Phase) is being developed to take advantage of some of this work
and build on it to incorporate inputs from PIRATE and the DASS much more
than the current sensor suite centred on CAPTOR-M.10 BVR armament is the
AIM-120C AMRAAM radar-guided missile and this will soon be boosted by the
much longer-ranged Meteor with full two-way datalink allowing midcourse
guidance updates. The two-way datalink (not available for the Rafale due
to platform limitations) is crucial for realising the full performance of the
missile, in particular for expanding the no-escape zone given the long flight
time and potential for significant target course changes at long range.

So the UK is committed to radar 2, which has electronic warfare and a more advanced architecture, the Germans are not. But either way the architecture has been changed. The UK has basically got tired of waiting for Germany to express an interest in anything besides pedantic budget management.

Typhoon:

4 nations making it ordered less each thanFrance, Austria – Bribes investigations continue AFAIK

Saudi sale, Tony Blair, then PM of hhe UK, asked publically UK’s investigators to look somewhere else as they started investigating into the ways the Saudis “bought it”…

So, considering the conditions, it’s a rather lame record

The SFO through boredom actually started investigating the Tornado sale that took place in 1985… in 2006, just as the Typhoon sale was going through. The government told them that 2006 wasn’t the time to start investigating something that happened in 1985. And frankly there was whole suite of financial sector frauds the SFO could have been investigating at that time that were all far more important than some deal that happened in 1985.

They ordered less than France because:

a) They’re getting the F-35, whereas France will have no 5th generation fighter come 2020, or even 2025;
b) Economic reasons – Spanish and Italian debt/deficit issues; and
c) German reasons – doesn’t like to spend on defence for no apparent reason.

When you’ve built 500 Rafales talk.

One of my favourite aircraft.

Ah no.

RCS reduction and IR reduction, collectively known as “stealth” is undoubtedly useful. I’ve not at any point stated anything different so I’d rather appreciate it if you could refrain from trying to paint my position in that fashion as it is a lie.

“Stealth” is primarily important for strike aircraft, which is what the F-35 is primarily designed to be.

There is a financial cost and performance cost in making “stealth” the primary element of your design.

The F-35 illustrates those costs very well.

Other designs have acknowledged the utility of “stealth” but not made it the primary design driver. They have tended to so far have been a) less costly in financial terms than the F-35 b) operational useful today c) capable of an upgrade path to make use of new avionics and technologies.

(PS you may want to check your facts re Rafale sales btw…)

Everyone who’s ever engineered anything knows that that extra bit of capability costs a lot but it’s that extra bit of capability that could potentially leave pilots a lot less dead in a major conflict.

no, but all the major power didn’t just invested heavily on stealth fighter for no reason, if the Spectra is really the answer for counter stealth aircraft then Rafale would have great sale but it really doesn’t , it have much worse number of sale and customer compared to Typhoon, F-35
you just hate the F-35 too much to accept that stealth is important and a RWR can’t replace a radar, especially in BVR air to air engagement

Oh you haven’t heard, all the people putting their money where their mouth is are idiots, Pierre Sprey and Bill Sweetman said so. Spectra will detect the clock pulse of their aircrafts’ CPUs and immediately terminate them.:D

but i disagree with your opinion that data link is not important, data link is actually very important, especially for RF guide missiles again target carry ECM system

True they’re very important for MR and LR RF missiles but not for relatively short range IIR missiles with seekers that can acquire targets >25km away across a +/-90deg FoV.