Aspis, How is that `admission` inconsistent with the possibility that perhaps Mirage 2000-9 upgrades aren`t economically rational because the associated costs are too high, whether because the infrastructure has been killed from lack of continuous work and would need to be resurrected, to inflation on all the systems, some of which are out of production and would need design work to integrate modern equivalents, to the producers simply having high costs even if they are doing stuff half a generation behind Rafale…? That isn`t high costs `just to force you to buy Rafale`, but high costs to customer because of high costs to produce, and Dassault is simply telling it like it is. I know, I know, less drama… 😎

Interesting news…
That map looks ridiculous, with all the blue areas to the west,
but not even the internal seas between mainland and Ciclades is blue…
What happens after you pass between Crete and Kythira, much less between mainland and Peloponessus (!?) 😎

BTW, the saga of Skaramanga seems to continue… Any solid info is always interesting to hear.

Both designed from the beginning to be multi-role platforms, one is more in the direction, or prioritised early in its life, as an A/A platform where as the other is more in the direction of being an A/G platform, although both being rather, very good in the areas where some particular roles were not as thoroughly thought through.

I doubt you would claim that the Eurofighter´s landing gear and hard-points were designed with A/G in mind, even though doing so would not have impacted A/A at all, and would not fundamentally have required any more work to be done (just to be done correctly in the first place).

Incidentally, while Rafale is getting a more powerful engine option and CFTs, Eurofighter MAY get TVC (more chances than Rafale at least in the near-term), which may help keep the odds as they are in high-alt BVR maneuvering. I´m not an expert enough to say how TVC can affect STR though…:confused:

just so you know, India’s rouble debt to russia was unilaterally re-evaluated and hiked post break-up of USSR, which means that the weapons supplied cheaply weren’t so cheap after all.

I don´t understand your point here. USSR DID supply them cheaply, Russia adjust upward prices on Cold War debt. That doesn´t change the fact that USSR was a cheap supplier, in fact unreasonably cheap, as reflected by the fact that nobody offers such deals anymore… :confused:

also, let us not forget that India (and china) saved russia’s MIC from bankruptcy during its most vulnerable years.

So what? :confused:

to an outsider however it seems like russia is dying to destroy any relation that exists.

Are you speaking of your own opinion? It actually doesn´t seem like that to me.
I wouldn´t say there are no problems between Russia and India, but that doesn´t mean that either side wants to destroy their relationship.
There are more direct ways to accomplish that if that was the intent.
(compare to US´ cutting off of spares and export licences to Venezuela)

The high speed helicopter competition is strange, Mil and Kamov are pitching not only different technical approaches, but completely different capacities of aircraft (MTOW-wise, passenger-wise not much difference). I couldn´t say for sure if either one of them chose the scale they did because that ´fit´ their chosen technology the best, or if it was solely their guess on what size platform the government would want to fund.

I would hazard that Mil´s chosen scale would have more civil application, but then again a larger platform like Kamov´s design could find applications as well (as well as having heavier military application). The government could well choose a techinical approach, and order it re-factored to the desired scale.

I noticed the picture above Kamov´s Ka-65 model has exactly the same layout as Mil´s high speed design, though it´s fuselage looks different than anything I´ve seen for Mil´s proposal… Is this just a new fuselage for the high speed competition, or is it another aircraft with the same layout? …By the looks of it, either a UAV or a ´stealth´ scout/attack helicopter.

The numbers I’ve seen are between 150-250 aircraft. The RuAF will need something else, to be the low part of the mix.

That is the current order I believe. They will likely order more, though of a later block of course.
I don´t belive that number includes the 2-seater FGFA they are on the books for (at least 50 I believe).

I agree that fielding a (near) completely SU-35 + PAK-FA fighter force post-2025 would be expensive and superfluous, and a light/med F-35 equivalent recycling as much as possible from PAK-FA program would be more economic and realistic to field, especially if they can partner with India on it´s development. The attractive thing about that is that recycling from PAK-FA, but with continued improvements and new developments, would essentially create a beneficial spiral development cycle which goes back to benefit future PAK-FA upgrades, etc. (and puts the maintenance of both MiG and Sukhoi on a more rational basis) The main thing here is that a direct conflict with NATO or China is much less likely to occur than somebody like Azerbaijan, Georgia, or the Stans. A light-medium class fighter with focus on economics also looks to have alot more potential customers to their traditional export customers than PAK-FA.

Indian Navy seems all in on AMCA, so Russia would not need to unilaterally fund a naval variant to replace the 29Ks. IMHO, Russia should just ditch carrier aviation completely, but if they can continue using the same carriers, and have a viable naval variant for the 29Ks (and can share naval variatn PAK-FA with India´s future larger carriers), that may be attractive enough to actually put into effect.

IMO India should do the AMCA on its own, it can do everything apart from the powerplant which the GTRE/Snecma Kaveri Eco will sort out. Rope in some one like SAAB and you will get something that would have very low operating cost as well.

How does ´roping in SAAB´ more count as ´doing it on your own´ vs. ´roping in MiG, TsAAGI, Salyut, Saturn, Tikhomirov, etc´?
I understand, you really really like SAAB, fine, feel free to advocate for that, but you just aren´t being that coherent.

Russia joining AMCA also has the benefit of state funding and procurement, Sweden doesn´t have any plans nor means for projects beyond upgrading Gripens to E/F in the stated AMCA timeframe (c.2020-25), if anything they will be busy paying for new UCAVs following the line of nEUron. Russia really has alot of planes to replace by 2025+, and a cheap AMCA could well make that more feasable than just PAK-FA and Su-35. With Russian procurement spreading costs further, not to mention simultaneous assembly lines with more capacity, exports seem much more viable compared to if India was sole purchaser/partner.

Anyways, going on the assumption there is any substance behind this story ;),
I think it may be a matter of Indian MoD realizing a twin-engine AMCA may just not really have any cost advantage compared to PAK-FA. Given the great progress on PAK-FA engine program, it seems more than feasable that a derivative engine could power AMCA in a single engine configuration, with perhaps more or less vanilla engine powering early flight testing, while an up-rated and optimized version could power the final article. Utilizing the same infrastructure would further amplify the economic benefit, which is the entire reason of having a light/medium fighter vs. a heavier one like PAK-FA.

Anyhow, if this realizes, I think it would be a very interesting partnership for India, if they are in it from the start and have at least/more than 50% role. I see no reason why such a plane would be ´all designed by Russia´, as suggested. Sure, Russia´s advanced aerodynamic experience (and in other fields) would be in play, but there´s no reason HAL can´t do most of the implementing of the design, i.e. actually designing the structure to implement the design (deeply involved in entire design process), and India can play as big a part in all other sectors as it´s capable of (and it´s procurement/funding share is appropriate to), from engines to electronics. You could even say Russia could learn from learning to work with (and manufacture from the spec of) a non-Russian designer… If Russia wants to indefinitely maintain design & production redundancy/duplication, it makes sense to allow them to diverge somewhat, while maintaing ´state of the art´ but in different ways.

But who knows if it´s for real, I can equally see the Snecma-Kaveri project developing to something that meets the requirements, if not spectacularly, adequately… And the rest of the AMCA design could be pursued with consultation or JV as needed… I don´t see this route being AS big an export success (perhaps ´parting out´ individual sub-systems and technologies would have the best immediate prospect, including for offering upgrade packages ala Israelis), though perhaps HAL would have spare production capacity once IAF/IN production is done… but that doesn´t seem a major concern of India at this point anyways.

I do think that India is hoping for AMCA to be more immediately USEFUL than Tejas, for example, not needing 2 or 3 evolutions to achieve it´s performance goals. I think Russia would certainly agree with such a perspective if it was a funding partner and inducting AMCA into it´s own forces, but I don´t think either approach is incompatable with that goal… It just means it´s a different type of program than Tejas.

EDIT: Incidentally, I see a similar pattern eventually being chosen by European countries, though further down the line whenever they decide to start a replacement for manned fighters. I see the impetus for a common European fighter being even stronger in the 2020-2030 period, and there is simultaneously the aspect that med/hvy jets aren´t really needed for things like routine air-space patrol. Utilizing a mostly common engine between heavy twins and single lights, along with common avionics and other technologies would best amortize the costs, and allow countries to contribute/participate even though they only plan on inducting ´light´ fighters (Sweden), while others could induct both or only heavy twins if they wish… Commonality letting both jets function as a single effective ´platform´ in terms of integration, infrastructure, etc.

Scorpion, you`re missing that they`re talking about more than 3rd party targetting.
3rd party targetting means 3rd party emits and receives it`s own signal (subject to it`s normal range limits), and transfers it`s own track to a shooter.
What they`re talking about is 3rd party emitter, the shooter (or another jet) receives the emitter`s signal reflection and thus extracts the track itself, possibly allowing a further range from emitter to target than the emitter could normally achieve itself. But that comes down the performance of this `triangulation` system, and what benefits it actually provides vs. `vanilla` 3rd party targetting. If it had signifigant benefits, I would have thought we`d have heard more about it.