Imagine each fighter with 2-5 detachable stealth cruise missile-shaped drones that fly supercruise and work with data links to the flight leader. IRST, SLAR done with AESA technology, a single low rate of fire but computer aimed cannon, a small chaff and flare dispenser to plug the skies around the group with distractions as needed, and suicide mode against air/surface targets to defend the friendlies if necessary. Computer aimed guns are extremely deadly now; could even be a side firing recoilless gun. Networked sensors will only become the norm. And when the drones are attached perhaps they could be optimized to run their engines off the mothership until released. Save the main engines from abuse and perhaps make afterburner even less necessary for non-supercruise capable carriers.

The USSR developed big, long-range interceptors (e.g. Tu-28P), because the USSR was such a big country that its airspace couldn’t be effectively defended by shorter range aircraft. Russia is still big enough for that logic to be valid. While the PAK-FA could be useful in an offensive role, that is not necessarily its rationale.

And that is a good point. There is no reason to think it would be used offensively, yet obvious reasons it will be used for defense.

The best lines I could see from it:

But flying 100,000 feet requires all sorts of fancy gear. Kind of defeats the ‘affordable’ angle to the program.

But the majority of the aircraft’s flight time – we’re talking over 99% here – is not going to use the M53’s strengths. Modern designs have been optimized for pragmatic usage. If you want point defense then take the F-5E and modernize it to a single F124. Much less program cost. The F124 is probably two years away from an extra couple thousand pounds of wet thrust. So what if it’s not world class performance. It’s more affordable than anything the size of an F4x4 engine. It should make a nice trainer airframe, too.

Why go with M53 when the EJ 200 would match the space better? Or they could contract with Saab’s engineers – their experience at turning turbofans in afterburning turbofans – and piggyback off the CFM56 core or something else commercial ots. You want to avoid the french materials as much as possible or you escalate costs over mere whims.