BTW, Il-114 and An-148 did not equiped with aft ramp just like C-27J or C-295/CN-235. How big do you Gents think this as a factor?

Russian Air Force is supposedly interested in acquiring An-148 variants with a rear ramp. I’m not sure if they have ‘signed on the dotted line’ yet, but IAF also operating a ramp-modified An-148 would let the production be optimized over a larger production run, etc., so I see mutual benefits conspiring to make it a reality for both parties (if IAF inducts the Antonov).
I don’t expect that Il-114 will actually be bid.

I rather like the C-235 ‘NEO’ idea… Although EADS should really also bid the C-295 just in case IAF or MoD would really prefer what it offers.

C-27J has it’s pluses in rough field capabilities, cargo weight/dimensions, and range,
but either those factors matter enough to ‘kick out’ other competitors, or they don’t matter and price will determine the issue…
(AFAIK, there is no ‘trade space’ being considered for such things, as how the USAF evaluated Boeing and Airbus tankers)
Is this contest using ‘lifetime’ price, or upfront?

well, i’m sure ARJ21 experience will help them make certification for C919 easier,
but the delays in ARJ21 are meaning that they will be missing crucial experience with support requirements for an airliner with modern parts, which is important to airlines who may consider C919. UAC has been cutting it’s teeth on that topic with SuperJet (along with Alenia in their JV), and they will still be partnering with Lufthansa Technik for MS-21 support. i haven’t really read anything about that aspect of C919 program (or ARJ21), but the fact it isn’t being publicized (as opposed to Superjet/MS-21, much less Airbus/Boeing) doesn’t really strike me as confidence inspiring… 😎 but i don’t know if the deal with lufthansa is exclusive, if not comac would probably do the same thing.

All VLO aircraft are spotted when they bank.

Just thought I’d respond to this, to point out that PAKFA’s maneuverability/control surface ‘depth’ is planned so that it won’t have to bank in many scenarios, along with aiming to maintain energy capacity in turning maneuvers.

I have a question about the ‘nacelles’ which are taken to hold missiles, probably short range IIR ones…
Why couldn’t these missile bays be mounted on the back of the plane, basically just extending the ‘hump’ behind the cockpit, with empty space being used for fuel, etc… ? The hatch could open and a launcher could ‘throw’ the missile away from the aircraft, just as well in the top hemisphere as the lower. This removes lower hemisphere RCS issues, and ‘extending’ the hump backwards shouldn’t affect aerodynamics that much either, I think…?

countries that the US/NATO is embargoing? countries that don’t like constant US military presence in their neighborhood, e.g. all of South America but maybe Colombia and Paraguay? but hey, maybe there should be a UN General Assembly vote on where the USN operates if it’s so popular? 😎 anyways, let’s stay on topic, i doubt anybody believes that moral justifications, however believable, have an iota of relevance to the continuance of power projection by US or other countries.

What’s “platypus / flatpus” ?

I believe that’s Su-34. The nickname does make me want to see it with Disney-style Platypus mascot painted on the side 😉

um, anyways, yeah…
Mi-28 could go thru in the end. I’m not sure about Ka-52, I would say it should equally be in the running, but Russia doesn’t seem to want to export it right now…? I would say that both of these platforms are somewhat dependent on how soon they can be brought up to spec, obviously the Mil wasn’t quite there with India, but depending on exactly when Iraq needs these delivered, one or both could ‘be there’ by then.
Definitely Eurocopter Tiger should also be in the running, re: Mangusta/T-129, yes the T-129 is now the only competent option with that platform, which means going thru Turkey… which is not an option now IMHO. I guess you could even throw in HAL’s LCH, right? They’ve already exported Dhruv.
Between the platforms mentioned, I think the 30mm gun of Tiger, Apache, Mil, and Kamov is an important advantage re: gun range vs. 20mm guns in T-129 and the AH-1Z and LCH. Tiger along with the Russians and Apache also seem to have a operational range/loiter advantage, which seems relevant to me if Iraq envisions anything more than anti-terrorist/civil war where they are largely in control (and look at Syria where their airbases are not a safe thing).
Ultimately, the ‘readiness’ of both Kamov and Mil is a crucial issue. I’m not sure how Iraq views it’s immediate needs anyways/ when it needs them delivered, it already has the armed Eurocopter on order, and for ‘higher end’ conflicts they really need a range of other gear anyways (airforce, SAMs). If ‘Western’ models are chosen, I think Iraq would reasonably purchase a large amount of spares up-front as ‘insurance’. I do think that if they can be brought up to ‘maturity’, both Mil and Kamov (if offered) have a very good chance. Going with Mi-35 definitely should be considered as well… I would say that worries about Turkey and SA are what motivates interest in ‘real’ attack choppers.

yeah, given all the information points to ADVENT work continuing to be on specifically F135 sized engines,
i am very confident that the result of this program will eventually power F-35…
of course, i wouldn’t be surprised if that happens 10 years down the line, with more minor upgrades to F135 in the meantime.
switching to a new engine is a big deal, so they might as well do so only when said engine is very mature,
which will likely be very close to when it will be flying on a new F-22 successor platform (possibly shared with USN).
i don’t see how anybody would think this is a bad thing, i mean even france planned to develop a new next-gen engine for Rafale, albeit who knows if/when/how that will actually materialize. of course, the idea that USAF/DoD would find it useful to signifigantly jack up the thrust performance of F-35* does kind of indicate their perception of F-35’s current performance vis-a-vis future threats, but how is that surprising or controversial? The F-35 doesn’t NEED 5th gen aerodynamic performance right now in the wars NATO is getting itself into, even Russia itself is only operating a handful of Su-35. So although there was a debate about F135/136, in the long run the differences between those are minimal, and the real performance gains will be seen in 10 years (finished product).

* although technically that they are working on this engine that could power both F-35 and F-22 replacment doesn’t indicate a need/plan to install 20% higher thrust in F-35, the gains could all be ‘traded’ for higher efficiency, but it seems reasonable to me that they DO in fact plan on increasing thrust at one point: the same as pretty much every fighter platform, no surprise. (if anything, i would expect the reverse, that they would ‘trade thrust for efficiency’ on the dual engine F-22 replacement) albeit i’m not saying that the exact same engine would be used in F-35 and F-22 replacement, but it’s clear that the same-size requirement is attuned to at least a common core being used in both. of course, since 2 companies are being funded (and DoD has said they want to find ways to also fund continuing RR work) different companies could end up producing the engine for F-35 re-engine / F-22 replacement. this isn’t going to come to maturity in the near future, F135 will fly on many many F-35 planes, you can easily say that the vast majority of F-35 will fly on F135 even if they receive a new engine with MLU or whatever.