When you know than Aesa “cheek arrays” are planned , where will they get the power from ?

But do cheek arrays need to be powered/cooled simultaneously with main radar, much less all the time?
I don´t think so, certainly both cheek arrays don´t need to be used simultaneously.
UAE wants more power output… Thales/Dassault might as well redesign the power supply for both UAE´s higher-output main radar AND cheek array needs (?) AND a margin, since an upgrade will likely be needed/desired anyways, there´s no reason not to put it into one batch. That´s why I think the complaints/worry of ´non standard -9´ is silly, the increased power supply can BE the new standard on-going. Any UAE deal, which this is based on, allows diverting the minimum-output of Rafales which France would otherwise be forced to buy, so any marginal increase in unit costs is covered by the ability to buy less planes as is desired. Older Rafales would just need to ALSO replace the power supply when they are upgraded with cheek arrays, etc, but since I doubt France is in a hurry to do that and it likely isn´t that huge of a difference considering other upgrades (like proposed all-new main radar post 2020) it doesn´t seem overly problematic to me. This depends on Rafale actually needing more power for cheek arrays and other future needs, besides the extra range for UAE which France doesn´t seem to care about.

just part is shown – blocker lenght rougly equals its diameter and not a mirror copy of this section

So that x-section would be ´extruded´ thru at least one 30* turn before reaching the fans, correct? (yielding multiple S-curve equivalents across full LoS or near it)
Is that a patent image, or what?

AFAIK the 0.5m2 RCS figure was released along with statements stating the PAK-FA to be on-par with F-22 in RCS (and the F-22 is understood to have a much lower RCS). The 0.5m2 RCS figure is highly likely to refer to RCS before RAM treatments, and may not take into account the blocker either, i.e. just the raw air-frame shape without reduction measures. Mr. Shukla admittedly writes for a generalist audience, for which his material serves mostly as patriotic banter, and technical details are mostly irrelevant beyond making generalist comparisons between platforms he may want to compare.

Exactly what export tenders is Eurofighter possibly facing vs Rafale in the 2015+ time-scale?
I don´t think there will be any… Besides India which will be decided before then, I don´t see anybody else.
If Oman goes for EF it will likely be before then, and Rafale has never been mentioned there to my knowledge,
Greece is likely to go with Gripen NG IMHO, and also is likely to be resolved before 2015…
There is really just a certain window where exports are up in the air, after which point there really won´t be much more competition… Certainly not involving EF… Gripen NG, or simply Gripen E/F may challenge Rafale and F-16 / F-18 / F-35 but I don´t see Typhoon as having much further export prospects. If anything, it is just sales of used ones, like the Tier 1s suggested for Romania, etc.

did you guys notice how the Boeing scaled down the size of the Mi-26 in their presentation to suit their needs?

As already mentioned in this thread, they are actually comparing it to CH-53 in all but one of the images (the 4th one or so, where the Mi-26 is NOT scaled down). The Boeing definitely may have advantages in the CSAR role, as the slides lay out… Mil isn´t contesting that contest though, just heavy lift. Sometimes it´s nice to be able to recover your CSAR helicopters when they fail, as the Mil rescuing a Chinook picture shows off well (besides the multitude of other heavy lift tasks the IAF would like to accomplish).

Honestly, I doubt Boeing expects they have any chance of winning Heavy Lift, but they´re helping out IAF by allowing them a ´competitive tender´ which makes everyone look and feel good, so tendering for Heavy Lift can only help their CSAR bid. EH-101 has several things going for it as well there, so I wouldn´t place bets on CSAR.

Well what ever they select based on what they need I just hope they dont split the deal , its not that IAF fleet is not like circus with many different animals , adding additional new type will not make it better and will strain the logistics.

The Chinook can’t do these and transporting troops, or even the new M777 artillery will be done by the numbers of Mi 17 anyway… the Mi 26 is the clearly better choice.
But as I said earlier, the key will be the reliability and overhaul/maintenance issues that might be solved and it also depends on, if there is a link with the combat helicopter competition.

I don´t believe there is any link between CSAR and the Heavy Transport tender.
If there is, and it is enough to sway the result, that means there is only one possible winner, because only Boeing is tendering for both.

BTW, ´splitting´ (bizarre term, as they are already separate) CSAR and Heavy Transport need not result in so many additional types… EH-101 is already selected as the VIP transport, and is contesting the CSAR bid. The modernized Mi-26 on offer presumably still has much commonality with older IAF Mi-26 (or those could be upgraded to the newer standard, at least partially).

Reading an article on AW´s blog which discusses potential US DoD interest in using the F-35 engine (it mentions F135, could apply equally to F136) for their hypothetical NGB program (which isn´t currenlty funded), it makes one imagine the possibilities for Russian partnership on AMCA… Re-using Izdelye 127 / 2nd stage PAK-FA engine tech for a F-136 class engine which Russia could also use for it´s PAK-DA program.

The only problem there is flight testing before such an engine is available, although if the decision was made now I don´t think it would be overly problematic. …And an 117S/127, possibly up-rated or just operated in after-burner, might even be sufficient for initial flight-testing with empty load conditions…? Probably not happening, but it WOULD make possible an F-35 (or better) class single-engine AMCA…

In terms of absolute lifting capability the Mi 26 has no rivals. But the Chinook has a shorter landing distance, higher service ceiling, can insert extract troops from difficult terrain such as mountain tops and rocks, also because of the lack of rear rotor vehicles can be backed up closer to the ramp.

Sounds like capacities that could be valuable in the CSAR tender…
IMHO, the heavy-lift tender is Mil´s.

It seems to me that Gripen makes sense only in the context of an “all in” strategic partnership between Sweden and India for future development of LCA, Gripen and AMCA.

India gets Sweden’s expertise and a partner that it can, frankly, push around a bit. Sweden gets India’s money and a chance to stay in the game post 2020.

SAAB is not in a state to be pushed around by anyone, it would be very foolish for HAL/DRDO to think it could do that. SAAB should be treated with the respect it deserves…

And further to the point, there just isn´t really any linkage between MMRCA and AMCA consulting. Whether SAAB wins or loses MMRCA isn´t going to affect whether it will consult/sub-contract on AMCA (which is the relevant term, NOT ´partnership´, when Swedish government who funds SAAB´s actual development programs, is certainly not going to co-fund AMCA).

There isn´t really going to much commonality in subsystems between NG and AMCA, which isn´t surprising since 2020+ is the timescale being considered for AMCA introduction. NG and SH´s 414 engine is touted as a commonality benefit with Tejas Mk.2, but that neglects that the 414 is the TEMPORARY engine for Tejas Mk.2, and it will be using Snecma-Kaveri likely well before 2020… Which would amazingly offer the possibilty to use one engine in 3 serving IAF aircraft!

Anyways, NG is a nice plane with very nice operating costs to counter it´s lower capacities in certain areas. I just don´t think talk about ´grand bargains´ with actually fairly small defense companies is really relevant… Price, capacity, ToT is.