Umm. No it’s not. That is an option, but it’s not yet a plan. (Indeed because of the proportion of two seaters in Tranche 1, it’s becoming less likely by the day).The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018.
No it’s a fact that EF GmbH were going to pay for the upgrade of Austrian Tranche 1 jets to Tranche 2 standards at their own expense, and this has been confirmed by Ays Rauen and Brian Philipson at EF GmbH Press Breakfasts at major trade shows at the time of the Austrian deal, and has been confirmed by others (eg Laurie Hilditch) subsequently. This isn’t “based only on my secret knowledge”, though you may not be able to find it on Wikipedia.Until you kindly provide us with any "official" info backing up your claim, that's your opinion.
It’s also a fact that various IPAs and ISPAs have been converted from Tranche 1 to Tranche 2 standards.
As is typical from you, you’re talking bollyhocks. The Saudi jets diverted to Saudi Arabia were Tranche 2, and so are the Austrian aircraft.The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria.
Then read the original requirement documents, or indeed any of the authoritative sources on P1E.Yeah, I'm still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said.
Again: It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.
Which part of that do you dispute, exactly?
Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA in that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.
4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.