You would think IAF would rally around Kaveri in dry form for it’s future trainer. It could partner with L3 to develop a complete integration with the FCLS to simulate their whole inventory against a broad threat library.

Off topic, but it’s no wonder Su-47 never bore fruit with it’s tiny internal compartment. J-20 are much better suited for pragmatic duties. T-50 looks like it has tandem bays similar to Su-47’s single bay, but I’ve yet to see it actually opened in pictures.

How it connect with what I wrote? I newer used the term transparent, so i just don’t know from where have you taken it out: RAM applyed on those points with the most RCS , radar blocker and small frame changes are just that was needed, not just for Su-35 but generally for all 4,5 planes that went re-designed for reduce their observability. For the rest also the F-15SE Silent Eagle only notable structural variation is the 15% inclination of rudders, nothing more, still none doubt about it or Rafale D or F/A-18E, all planes entered service before Su-35.

Except that the F-15SE was to receive only it’s share of RCS reduction applications exportable by law. The CFT’s actually were part of the RCS reductions, especially from the side. The quote: “Flying with full ‘RCS Reduction Package’ the F-15SE will be able to carry Air-to-Air (AIM-9 and AIM-120) missiles and air-to-ground munitions to include JDAM and SDB.” Internalized weapons was a significant reduction alone. And then they extended the range of electro-optical sensors, gave it an LPI radar, data interlinked it to the ‘Battlespace’, and overhauled the complete EW suite. Oh btw, it also included fully digital control authority already developed. And oh btw, F-15SE was pre-qualified – because it’s improving COTS – to use SLAM-ER and Harpoon Block II missiles or any other type of weapon qualified for the Strike eagle… Gee, sounds like Su-35S compared to Su-27.

Silent Eagle did have short comings. It was optimized for GE’s F110’s because they were better optimized for the amount of electrical and power demands, which happened to be it’s weaker point with some potential partners. These engines cost more and required some partners to establish non-existent partnerships with GE. And it’s running costs aren’t exactly low, so cost-wise it’s not the best choice. That would be like an Su-30MK partner suddenly deciding their next version of Flanker would be Su-35S. A few very important new – yet non-trivial – supply lines have to be created to make that work.

Su-30SM is more similar to Su-34 than Su-35S. Different localities for production, Su-30SM has Su-34’s reinforced framing. Similar engines, although Su-30SM didn’t opt for FM2, nor do they seem destined to use FM3. Much stronger hard points compared to Su-35S. Weapons suite optimized for two man crew. Su-30SM has larger fuel load, too.

Su-35S is optimized for a ground crew smaller than Su-30SM, uses one pilot, depends on automation to maintain single seat operations,, and has engines with better longevity and fewer overhaul cycles.

In all honesty the Indian government cannot afford an MRCA.

Rafale brings more capabilities to the table than MKI, and does it in a dramatically smaller RCS.

Review their invasion of Georgia.