Problem with the sweep angle of the superhornet wings optimized for carrier operation rather than manoeuvres. The superhornet also does not provide the sensor suite the if has got used to on the Su 30 and MIG 29. The superhornet will not get to the kind of function that until the block Ii++. I posted a big essay on the family 18 deficiency by a think tank some months ago.

I always had this feeling modern day fighters are over engineered to be jack of all trades and master of non. One plane to fight, bomb, interdict and strike.
The MIG 25 was definitely not over engineered single aircraft for a very singular purpose. Going fast.

RAH-66

Does not really reveal anything new and or give any new information. Seems more like a lament rather than anything else.

Just because they have not done the CAD work to make the shape of the aircraft it does not mean that there is not the 50-50 R&D in the aircraft. Just doing CATIA/FE models doesnt mean you can make a aircraft and nor does it teach you how to make one.

The real learning is in actually making the structure and India will learn from this if it is clever enough.

There is a risk mitigation action in how the project has been done.

HAL and ADA can cut their teeth on the AMCA.

I didnt contiously mean it in that sense.

However it needs to concentrate on existential threats from peer competitors and not be side tracked.

Buy more F-22’s and cut down on F-35 VTOL, MV-22 etc…

Does the US have something similar to Tanguska?

Cut the F-35B.

And abolish the US Army.

What would you use to fight your peer competitors? Arguably since Vietnam the US has not faught an army that is its peers, it has saught smaller conflicts and sometimes still struggled.

What does overengineered mean?

Does it mean that bits and pieces are being added to an older airframe until it becomes a complete mess?

Or does it mean that a plane is being designed on basis of very high and unrealistic requirements so that it needs unproven and experimental technologies leading to disaster?

I would go for the second definition and then would point he finger at most recent developments from A400M to F-35.

I wont comment on the A400M however I thought the F-35 was being realistic in some ways because although they put in the extra requirement for good avionics and stealth they always said that the F-35 will only be as agile or monouverable (? spelling) as the F-16.

The vertical take off version is a different story, maybe for that kind of capability they should have just got the harrier on steriods.