UMS produces chips of others design, not systems. If im not mistaken.

Only ever for space, no way an air craft will use nuclear powerplant

why?
We are still in the begining of understanding energy from the nucleus. only a handfull processes is known, and dont mention the processes of waste of those. and the energydensity are enormous! To bad the research in some countries are even banned due to lack of knowlage of public. ofcourse im not talking of any fast breader or lightwater reactors, more like LFTR and Fusion or even antimatter gismoplant.
In the really long run, to destroy matter for energy is the only viable future for a future civilisation. the options to that are going back in time, which only going to create conflicts and poverty.

I bet a lot of european governments can’t wait to have another “united europe” plan that sees responsible countries paying more to the people who think why bother.

There probably no market for A/B:s but upgraded ones. Gripen as used one are very hot, due to tha fact your in the used market for one reason and one reason only. You got no Money.. A used cheap to buy/lease and fly fighter are therefore very hot.
F-16.s are also cheap, but old and more expensive to fly. But have a political gain..
EF dont have any luxury in this market.

Basically not, my dear colleague. I only reminded the fact, which is quite often forgotten.

France has different needs than Romania, UK has different needs than Finland etc., that is what I meant.

And… not all European countries have 4,5th generation eurocanards – only 9 of them.

Ofcourse, what i meant with “Europe”, i meant, no country in europe needs a 5 gen fighter. Those that have 4gen+ will upgrading those to cope with new threats. And Rafale/EF/Gripen origin countries, which have the most ambitios AF in Europe. Will develop stealthy UCAVs to complement the 4 gen+ for strike and rec. Countries like Romania will probably buy used 3/4 gen fighters or rely on others for air policing.
Thats my 5 cents…

Europe doesnt need a new fighter in a long time, they need a stealthy UCAV striker and upgraded avionics and sensors on there 4 gen+ fighters.

The Sensors need to be very very good to make it possible to use of Meteor to its full potential on stealthy AC. i think the sensors of this kind will make “x-band stealth” known to date not as effective….new approach in stealth is needed in 6 gen, and there goes the evolution of weapon development..:D

After that, in 2040. who knows?

That�s the point though- the Mk1 doesn�t need to be more advanced than the Gripen C/D. Since the C/D is a state-of-the-art light fighter as per you, it will remain so till the Gripen E/F enters service. Which isn�t happening till the end of this decade. So, as long as the Tejas Mk1 enters service before the E/F, when it will enter service, it�ll be close to state-of-the-art. Obviously the Gripen C/D has the leg up on maturity and perhaps even some performance parameters, but the Mk1 will be close enough to most of it to still be considered state-of-the-art. Especially so in the context of the sub-continent, where the orbat of both the principal enemies of the IAF operate many aircraft that are nearing obsolescence and the principal new combatant of the PAF isn�t as sophisticated as the Tejas Mk1.

Pray tell me, what is keeping it from being delivered from 2013 onwards itself if it�s ready? The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F, so its flying is not the same as the E/F flying. There are avionics systems that are still being developed and tested, and the timelines for its testing and delivery put it in nearly the same timeframe as the Tejas Mk2.

Anyway, going by your logic, the F/A-50 will not be state-of-the-art within a few years of its entering service- what is being done about that? Is there a Gripen E/F, Tejas Mk2 like variant being proposed for development and for delivery by this decade end?

It�s a well known issue amongst Indian defence watchers that HAL is not efficient, being a Public Sector Undertaking. I don�t need you to tell me that. But, inefficiencies are not the same as meaning that they cannot develop something. It takes longer, thanks to the procedural issues that plague each DPSU, but HAL can eventually build (they are not the developers, I repeat this once again to you) an AMCA if they can build and overhaul Su-30MKIs, Rafale and the FGFA. Nobody will say that HAL is a lean and mean organization like a private sector Dassault or Boeing, but I don�t doubt their ability to manufacture the AMCA. If anyone in India can manufacture a fighter plane currently, it is HAL.

Don�t just go by Dassault (which picked Reliance Aerospace, a company that hasn�t even put together a flying club trainer) and what they say about HAL- they were more than happy to tie up with HAL when it came to the Mirage-2000 upgrades and the primary reason for not wanting HAL to be their partner is their reluctance to share technology as well as a under-handed attempt to win back as much workshare as possible. Since Reliance has no experience, nor any infrastructure whatsoever to build any aircraft, what they�ll be doing is primarily getting the bulk of the Rafales built by Dassault and then putting a �Assembled in India� stamp on it.

Which is a bone of contention between the IAF and HAL. HAL won�t increase the size of its assembly line to more than 16 a/c per year (beginning at 8 per year) due to the small Mk1 order size and at that rate, they�d have just finished delivering the first 40 when the Mk2 would have been tested and be ready for manufacturing of serial production airframes.

Regarding 40 being a small order, how many MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s do you think the IAF acquired? How many MiG-29Ks do you think the IN has ordered? At its peak, the IAF will operate close to 123 Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 fighters, assuming another purchase does not occur. That is nearly the size of the MRCA order. Hardly something to scoff at, IMO.

Only because the E/F is not going to be ready for another 6-7 years at least. If their timeframe was such that the E/F would be available for delivery by waiting for 1-2 years, they�d much rather take 8-12 Gripen C/Ds on lease and then take delivery of the E/F. When the E/F offers more capability and assuming the capability is required (for air policing even a Gripen C/D is overkill), why would anyone want a less capable, older variant?

.

Tejas mk 1 are the first generation and first version, first revision of HAL and India fighter, a small order due to the costumer wants a better plane after about 30 years development. Gripen C/D are the sixth generation, second version, 20th revision of SAAB and Sweden fast jet fighter at the moment, exceeding costumers requiements, delivered prior first deadline and budget expectations (10% cheaper than budget). Just a reminder on the “leg up”. Are even Tejas mk1 a 9g fighter?
“Good enough” isnt good if youre a pilot, you and youre girl as well as children want better…
Still Mk1 are still ordered and will serve its purpose. Mk2 will be better serve a bigger purpose.
“state of the art” are just an expression of the eye of the beholder. State of the art in the big picture for me are only F-35 avionics and F-22 as a hole. Some parts of Rafale and EF as well as Gripen are that too. Things that makes the pilot have some kind of big tech advantage over the a highclassed enemy. But non would make it class it as “state of the art” as a hole. To me it needs to be extreme for that. I hope i could label Gripen E “state of the art” when it comes to market, i hope so. Mostly doe avionics and missile integration as well as classic fighter agility.

PS. If systems works in the Gripen DEMO its works. Although it will be SW upgraded for next 20 years, it works. Its a splended way of slashing cost, risk and time to market. Maybe India should do the same with a Mk1 to Mk2?

nice

Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept

soo, now Stealth is really really compatible with canards? 😀
After years of doubt, can this “pro-american” myth be burried for good?

Did Lockmar make a wrongturn on the 5 gen? 😉

i ment for my self, and maybe one in the backseat 😉