Anybody have info on a Mongolian MiG-29 purchase? Would they be SMT, or possibly with -35 upgrades?

Airbus has given a specific date that they now forecast A380 to turn a profit.
I would fully expect them to issue further announcements in this area, as press releases or financial reporting statements.
Them currently moving from re-couping 50% to 55% of investment over the last year isn`t that note-worthy a press release.

Re: Open-Rotor engines, check this NK-93 link
Direct link in Russian, though the commenters provide some clarity in English.
Basically, they are going thru with development of late-Soviet open-rotor design that doesn`t have an intended platform application, but they plan on using the tech in a different platform around 2020 (improved with carbon fan blades, etc). That could co-incide with their `Ecojet` wide-body (as intended application?), but would also put Russia in a good position to participate in possible Western open-rotor designs to power the A320/737 class replacement. Will be interesting to see how future JVs develop with Russian engine houses. SaM`s 146 product on Superjet is underwhelming, not helped by being late, but that provides an existing JV structure (with Snecma). Saturn has also shown good relations with Pratt, although they were burned by US export restrictions, but I believe SaM points the way forward to JVs in addition to their `fully indigenous` programs. GTF technology similar to Pratt is also within their PD-14 development schedule, so integrating with such an approach will definitely be within their expertise.

Yeah, I was trying to convey that RR is out of the market, but was speculating they may like a way back in, though who knows…
I was thinking a turbo-prop could have fuel advantages, albeight only viable on shorter runs because of flight speed.

…I think you`re on to something, that IF Boeing can scale down at least some parts of 787 design with minimum design/qualification work, it could be a cost-effective and lower-risk alternative that could be a good option if it is workable. …We`ll see… 🙂

So why didnt he just call it 4th Gen? or compare it with a Mirgae 2000, which India has. Pakistan didnt say JF-17 is a F-7+++ or a Mirage 3/5 ++. They went for the the best in their fleet (F-16) and compared their fighter with that.

Because he doesn`t feel compelled to use internet fanboi dick contests as the determinant of all statements he makes?
Because besides having used `Generation` terminology on occasion, he doesn`t feel compelled to EXCLUSIVELY use that,
as opposed to terminology corresponding to a comparison to the platform the Tejas will be directly replacing?
Because he doesn`t feel compelled to exactly mimic the exact communication strategies of the PAF?

But what do I know… Perhaps you should write a personal letter to him, and second guess his every word directly.

Yes, Tejas Mk.2 seems to be shaping up to `not quite` 4.5 gen ala F-16 Bk. 52, Gripen NG, etc.
Plans were toned down to reduce risk / development time, certainly it will be a one-of-a-kind product by Mk.3/4.
(I mean that in a good way)
I don`t see any problem with it`s capabilities as of Mk.2 with the roll it will play in IAF force structure,
and hopefully Mk.3+ modifications can be back-ported to Mk.2 fleet as MLUs…
Eventually it should have interesting export possiblities IMHO.

Well, as already alluded to, Airbus is almost sold out of NEO out to 2020, so it won`t be a matter of competing with them, rather with new entrants like CS300, MS-21, and C919. Current 737 operators are really Boeing`s target market realistically speaking, and emphasizing commonality is the best approach to prevent `defectors`… Though even for new customers, 737 infrastructure can be more convenient when expanding to new routes, etc.

Leap-X is the best option for transitioning from current CFM engines, and you can see that airlines springing for Leap-X have done so in large part due to good maintenance offers including their `legacy` CFM engines… This would synergize best if current NG`s can be upgraded to `NNG` or whatever it`s called. Alternatively, I wonder if RR could be interested in developing something from their `Next` technology… They have failed to put forward new products in several of the new programs, and could well be interested, especially if there is upgrade market for `legacy` NGs.

It does look bad for Boeing, and it certainly isn`t a GOOD scenario for them, but I agree with the other posters pointing out that it will be WORSE for them long-term if they go ahead with a new 737 replacement now (though I expect they would go forward with an all-new upgrade before Airbus does, though still around 2020-25). 777 looks to be in a decently good position regards an A350-1000 stretch, and 787 looks to maintain a solid foot-hold just below A350 – this is reflected in the large number of carriers deciding to fly BOTH 787 and A350. Some of the Gulf carrier`s compaints about AB`s proposed A350-1000 stretch and it`s lack of benefit vs. existing 777-300ER should be taken with SOME measure of salt IMHO… That analyses may well hold true for those carrier`s business models, but other carriers (i.e. who don`t have a middle-east hub between europe and asia) could very well find the propsed A350-1000 a decent prospect. Over-all though, 777 with moderate upgrades should be a competitive product.

Offering something like a shrouded prop-fan, which works better on the shorter routes that 737 tends to excel at vs. A320, would be an interesting option, but since it would probably be in addition to another offering, I`m not sure if it will happen.

That `almost full` is based on all the options being 100% converted, I assume…
Of course, if Airbus are that close to filling out completely to 2020, I`d expect them to open a new line. (China?)
It does hi-light that it`s not a `game` that any one company is going to win 100% of, because nobody has production capacity to meet 100% of demand. So whatever Boeing does, simply offering a product that can be delivered is something that some customers will need…. And it definitely opens the doors for other competitors like the CS300, MS-21 and C-919.

(Why is it I see the C-919 mentioned 10x as often as MS-21 in `Western` press, yet never any mention of what it brings to the table, besides the Leap-X engines and unremarkably modern avionics?)

CIWS are standard on naval ships. ASM manufacturers respond with unpredictable jagging maneuvers, which are presumed to be somewhat effective if people still buy ASM missiles… not to mention higher tier SAM defenses to shoot down incoming missiles at larger range (which would be un-necessary if CIWS was so effective). A2A missiles are going to be more maneuverable than ASM missiles. So like I said, such a system could help by effectively reducing the NEZ, only missiles with more energy for effective extreme maneuvers would be able to beat the CIWS (current missiles really have much more maneuvering energy than they need except at edge of NEZ).

Of course, the response would just be to convert missiles to cluster munition carriers, imparting their velocity to all the sub-munitions which disperse to independently maneuver to target… It doesn`t take much warhead to take out a jet, and you don`t need that much more propellant either, since all of the sub-munitions have the carrier missile`s final velocity, it`s just a matter of independent seeker heads and maneuvering thrusters. On the flip side, the carrier missile itself has alot of design factors simplified since it doesn`t need superb end-game maneuverabiilty itself, it just needs to build up the max velocity by the time it closes.