Again, it was part of the "offer" for MMRCA, but since IRST is not in production anymore, it can be provided only by diverting the production to India and that causes additional costs, that's why the Samtel specboards only show FSO-IT but gives the IR channel as optional. Same goes for HMS, which is part of the "offer" but is not integrated, so causes additional costs if we want it.
Btw, that would had been 2 logical areas where the French should had included us in the F3R upgrade development, since we then could have jointly developed an upgraded IRST system or a joint HMS for both forces. For us the Topsight version that Samtel already produces might be the logical choice now, while the French forces prefered one of Sagem and won't buy the Topsight even if we fund the integration and production.
Those 2 things costs should be included within that deal itself .If extra costs is applied that would be minimal .
why are you portraying such things to be so out of world things that is going to be integrated in rafale that gonna cost us so much that price of rafale would have been half if those things would have not been integrated at all.
BTW Halloweene had stated before HMD have been integrated recently most probably for export market in air fan magazine issue
& also if India & france team up to build next gen IRST (QWIP based) according to PIC oil of IDF then that good for
india as it would be installed in all future planes which includes FFGA/LCA mark 2 so long run it gonna be profitable for us.
Who is comparing them? I'm just stating that the one is an upgrade of an already existing capability, while the other adds a new capability and that's clearly preferable to make the fighter more capable.
SPECTRA NG & EA/ESM version of RBE 2 aesa radar= upgrade of an already existing capabilty
& meanwhile
IRST & HMD =New capability & more capable
Pffft!!!
why??
ans
1)french in FSO IT deliberatly removed IRST due to obsolensce & also ideal range of IRST was 80-90km at best as i dont beleive those claims of 130km which looks absurd
meanwhile they upgraded FSO tV range to 60-65km & omitted IRST channel
so what new capabilty i just cant understand
2)Topsight helmet lacks voice command unlike Typhoon HMSS which would have added an enhanced capabilty but not in case of topsight
meanwhile
SPECTRA NG with GaN modules would give enhanced jamming & improved passive detection compare to prevoius
SPectra which would very crucial against AESA radar based aerial threats in future combat
&
EA / ESM version of RBE 2 aesaa radar is not a mere upgrade to existing capabilty at all.
rather it would be crucial for future SEAD mission agaisnt a high threat future enemys
If that would had been the case, they would had funded the AESA for MMRCA years ago and not now when there is only very limited export potential left, so that's not the case. They funded the AESA development as planned in time for the EF T2 and T3 upgrade from 2018 onwards.
& that was their mistake & mis management from their side as RBE 2 aesa radar / air to ground capabilty give the
rafale clear edge of typhoon in MMRCA as who would have waited for 2018 to have those capabilty
which even JOn lake also admitted .
& saudis have clearly stated that next block of typhoon should have aesa radar , so do OMAN!!
& once they have operational aesa radar /A-G capabi;ty their export potential would enhance further
Well I logically looked at the marked part of that picture but as I already said, the GaAs in their early radar versions was clear and stated by officials too, since costs were meant to be kept low to attract exports. For the EA capability and the partner AESAs however that's another story and now with the AESA funded in general, the rest is only an upgrade, adding additional capabilities, replacing GaAs modules with GaN, just like the SPECTRA jammers will be upgraded too.
well how can someone expect GaAS tech to be mentioned in future potential of an aesa radar as even basic aesa radar nowadays have GaAs tech!!
Brite Cloud will replace the towed decoy system, because it's more effective since you have several decoys and more secure, since the decoy act separately of the fighter itself. So it's just the next logical upgrade of that system. But as said, it's not developed specifically for the EF, contrary to Rafales upgrades.
no !!
it wont replace but might be used in addition to it .
i have asked many members about it
PIMAWS is not radar based but IR similar to DDM NG,
as if i had said it is radar based in my previous post
passive MAWS by default someone should intepret IR based maws
the older links that I saved doesn't work anymore, but you can read the infos here too:
www.portierramaryaire.com • Ver Tema - EF-2000 Eurofighter Typhoon
And it stated DIRCM capability as well.
yeah the pdf link in that post is not working
But anyways thanks for the effort though
but still not sure this thing or something else might be integrated , though tranche 3 is suppose to installed with rear based passive maws.
That needs to be seen, but that still doesn't change the fact that the EF then will offer the same range of operations like the Rafale, which today is one of the key disadvantages (just a single 1000l fuel tank in CM strikes). Moreover, it will be able to replace all 3 external fuel tanks with CFTs only, no matter in which role, while the capacity of Rafales CFTs allows only the replacement of the supersonic fuel tanks in A2A roles, but it A2G it always needs to add a fuel tank again. The EF with CFTs will simply be fully multi role capable, since that's the only way to counter it's design flaws, but when that's done, it's increases the capabilities by far.
i didnt get this point at all plz clarify that part
CHEERS