In keeping with their compact size, if they went with a European partner then M88 makes about as much sense. Considering they already have strong American ties then it would probably make more sense to stick with the engine they already use or go with F4x4. They are aiming for a light fighter and a single F4x4/EJ200/M88 would be too little, but two of any this size would be too much. Twin engines would lead me to suspect an even lighter engine, something between F125 and M88 in size and power. By the time they do twins in that nonexistent size they could go a single F100.
I just don’t see the point in designing and building an F-35 sized or smaller air superiority aircraft. It would make more sense to buy something that is already VLO and has the features they seek, especially a mature design used by European partners.
Good communist sympathizers do that.
If they had not downgraded the Typhoons it wouldn’t have been so bad. But Austria wasn’t exactly using missiles on their fighters until all the intrusions by Yugoslavian MiG’s. So it was consistent with their tradition to use topnotch fighters downgraded to be nearly useless.
Swingwing mechanisms offset internal fuel space, too.
It’s all about interpretation. One could say the F-35 and F-22 demonstrate his conclusions.
Skyflash had something comparable to midcourse guidance already integrated to Tornado F3. It might have been easier to make AMRAAM conform to F3 if the RAF had numbers of decent size.
Obviously he confused Al-31F with F100-PW-229.

The advantage of an R-40 over lighter missiles isn’t just age, it’s also potency of the warhead. Near miss warheads are far more potent than direct hit or near hit warheads. Of course they also cost more. Best to keep these missiles in service until they expire. Soviet missiles could be upgraded to some extent, because they were built around long shelf lives. Not modular per se, just possible to refit sections in an upgraded.
Side by side the A-6 is collosal to the A-7, which is already big compared to an A-4.
Acceleration and speed are not linear relationship. Because of air friction the wing loading does factor into top speed.
What kind of numbers are they projecting for Astra?
Realize that B-2’s shape was necessitated by materials limitations. There is no reason for the pumpkin seed or sawtooth shapes. I suspect a more traditional look with less flying wing appearance. A canard shape is easier to adapt into multiple roles. Three engines are more affordable than four. Two engines more affordable than three, but less redundancy, so I predict at least three engines minimum. The USAF likes four engine bombers, but reality is they have to reduce costs somewhere.
Excerpt from http://aviationintel.com/americas-next-bomber-a-tragically-fantastic-opportunity/:
“When the B-2 first went into service there was no such thing as GPS guided munitions. Then in the late 1990s the B-2 pioneered the application GPS guided weaponry over the Balkans. All of the sudden a single stealthy aircraft could hit 16 individual targets on single pass with a high degree of certainty that the each target would be destroyed. Now, the B-2 can do the same thing with 80 separate bombs and their intended targets on a single mission. Soon, with upgrades and integration of the small diameter bomb, the 20+ year old bat-winged aircraft may be able to hit two and a half times that amount of targets on a single sortie, with each bomb being able to fly autonomously to its own objective some 50 miles away from its launch point! That means the B-2 will threaten 200 potential targets in an alley of airspace over 100 miles wide and thousands of miles long during a single mission…”
His proposal is to build the LRS-B around a stealth transport program. A conventional bomb-specific aircraft technically would not be violating START treaties, but the Russians don’t seem to want to continue the agreement anymore. If they design around the START rules then look for LRS-B to be not designed for WW3, but for low intensity conflicts. And if that is the case then a subsonic bomber already “able to strike 200 targets through an alley of airspace thousands of miles” around a target will be only necessary and costs shouldn’t be exceptional. Quite frankly they could use a VLO tactical bomber and a complementary VLO tanker to pull that kind of role off much cheaper.
How could MiG-35 be operational in Iraq by now if production has slipped to 2016? Never mind. It’s JSR.
I’d be happy with a canard delta wing design to maintain simplicity. I’d prefer three rather than two or four engines. I’d prefer super cruise dash capability, but optimized for high subsonic maximum range.
Facts are stubborn, especially when it comes to debate. ISIS is not supported on the surface by the US. It’s precursor in Syria has been supported by proxy and policy. Officially the US does not support ISIS. Unfortunately foreign policy is a mess right now and the hands are dirty everywhere.
Yes, I agree. Which makes it as unlikely as the Kurds to get deliveries. Unfortunately the area is strife with corruption and somehow they would get through.