So basically, you’re expecting a new T-50 variant? With, for example, different what exactly? What are your guesses?

I would imagine it’ll be a conventional 2-seater to begin with.

What are the possibilities really?

(1) Two-seater.
(2) Carrier capable.
(3) Enlarged strike variant.
(4) Single engined.

We can discount the last (4), it would be a completely new aerodynamic concept and new airframe.

Any of the other three are possible, however with the MiG-29K purchase for Kuznetsov, the Russian Navy have no need of a new combat aircraft in the near future, so (2) is unlikely, and Kuznetsov is in (or soon will be in) for refit at the moment anyway.

Leaving (1) and (3). The two-seater or the enlarged strike variant.

You pays your money and you takes your choices…. 🙂

BTW I think the Gripen won mostly on politics in Swizerland.

It won because it was the cheapest and by far the best fit for requirements*.

The swiss don’t need a big twin, long ranged fighter.

*yep, obviously the pilots would love the jet with the most bells and whistles, which was reflected in the Swiss Air Force ratings – but there is more to running a country than satisfying the egos of a few pilots.

Air dominance?!?!

WTF are they smoking? 😀

I’m comfortable with my assertion that the humble gun will prove of more use long-term to CAS than PGMs.

PGMs are only as good as the thing guiding them. The obvious tactic of any enemy will be to try to disrupt the guidance communication from land/plane to munition. Be that through laser dazzling or similar.

Seriously? You’re bringing up very rare errors and trying to compare it to the normal use of the gun?

Yep. This might come as a shock to you; there is much more to accuracy than just CEP.

Who gives a **** if your reliably less than 5 yards* away with a gun if your PGM doesn’t work and is 500 yards away?

*Unless your insinuating the USAF personnel flying the A-10 aren’t very good and have significantly degraded accuracy with their guns?

so they can take cover thereby making the GAU-8 even less effective).

Cover?

Please tell me – behind what?

LG PGMs will always be more accurate than a gun.

No, they absolutely won’t.

The cannon round follows a straight (well, parabolic I suppose) curve from the muzzle to the ground.

A PGM has a significant time delay from release to ground, and is dependent on external guidance. That guidance is interrupted, then the munition is inaccurate. If the guidance software is malfunctioning, then the munition is inaccurate. If the tactical situation on the ground changes, then you cannot react. 3 problems that do not occur with a cannon round.

You are not comparing like with like – you need to price a missile against the cost of a burst of cannon rounds, and Gatling guns get through ammo at a prodigious rate.

Erm… I kinda did (last sentence). 🙂

2. The gun requires that you fly low & slow directly towards the target. PGMs allow a much safer and more accurate engagement of a target.

It can do. Not always.

However, lets examine… say… a current war. A current war where the grunts request air support. The A-10 is low and slow enough to discern the wheat from the chaff, it is armoured so can take any small arms fire, it has two engines so power loss doesn’t equal instant bail-out and it can fall back on PGMs if need be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eD_Lo61rAw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pBfrt_anf0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKRt2DYMvdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYCO23d6Oxs

Good luck doing that with your little dinky toy of a JSF.