Give J-31 the NK-32 then we can talk about it being done right

After they cancelled the Su-37 Terminator and basically wrapped the technology into the canardless Su-35S, it’s a disappointment the Su-37 designation wasn’t recycled for a follow-on to Su-34 in a tandem two seat multirole fighter rather than warming over Su-30 into the Su-30SM. The classic Su-27 look would live on with Su-35S. But all canard Flankers would derive from a common body. As it is now they need three separate fuselage lines. If the Russians really were efficient they wouldn’t run so many separate engines lines, too. In all honesty, shouldn’t they run two lines for Flankers, one for export and one for domestic orders.

Hire

Turkey should be Pakistan’s source for any follow up F-16 if the production moves to India

767 would be better as a tanker than rough field capable transport conversion. Twin engines is better than four for overhead. If three made more sense then certainly we’d see trimotors dominating this segment. It’s pretty obvious they don’t want something as big as KC-10, otherwise they’d jockey for ex-USAF KC-10A’s when they retire. It’s pretty obvious the Russians pay better bribes.

Rough field capability is like TVC on fighters, wishful thinking but not efficient. Strategically worthless. Tactically risky. Unorthodox as a label is being kind.

India just cancelled MRTT deal for six Airbus 330-based tankers due to costs. Can they find a half dozen matching, used airliners in the required weight class and convert them?

So is this Super Flanker program the new AESA radar front end? I assume more MKIs are to be structurally enhanced for Brahmos. What else is this program about for justifying $8 billion?