I am also interested in it, because Thales is one of the possible co-development partners for Tejas MK2 AESA radar and wonder how good it would be for it with a diameter of 600 to 650mm and if that could be coupled with MMRCA?

But what does it matter how many modules Thales puts in the RBE-2?
As discussed, modules are limited by array area, since their wave-forms now need more separation than the physical modules. So who-ever co-develops Tejas Mk2´s radar will have the exact same constraints… Tilting the radar face gives more surface area, and if you want more ´shoulder targetting´ capacity, you have two approaches: swash-plate swiveling of tilted frontal array or discrete ´cheek arrays´ (which don´t need to be turned on when only looking forward, and only one cheek array would likely be turned on at the same time… possibly the frontal array itself isn´t needed during maximal cheek angles).

I suppose one could claim that Thales (and American manufacturers) may offer more expertise in cheek-arrays, since that´s their planned direction to evolve RBE-2, and Selex/Saab may offer more expertise in swash-plate swivelling, but all of those companies would likely be able to competently help implement either approach… I doubt the physical swash-plate is itself overly problematic, it is processing the data that is the main point. That, and the price each wants, seems more relevant than # of modules in their production radars (or vaguely near to production, in case of Saab and Selex).

Has anybody heard new mumblings about FX-2 contender home countries´ proposals for participation in C390?
I think I read of a concrete commitment for 10 air-frames from France, which isn´t huge, but a start.
It seems that if France organized it´s planes as an open EU/NATO transport pool, ala C-17 but cheaper, that would make it most attractive for other countries, especially smaller ones but every one counts, to join in (and (co)buy more planes). Not the just the French numbers alone, but firmly establishing EU/NATO partnership co-dependent on Brazil would seem a strong offering… ???

I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).

Anyhow, that´s another thread… 🙂

US client states in MidEast like to buy American (or European), US/NATO has C-17 and A400M and has a very expeditionary focus so isn´t going to give up rough field capability, Latin America has C390 in the works (with industrial work being shared around) besides Russian and US planes and likely isn´t going to want to give up rough field capability given their large land areas and few airbases, SE Asian nations and Korea (/Taiwan?) MIGHT have a use for it, but again lack of rough field capability means it can´t be used once an air-base is out of commission… And I´m also not aware that C-2 has really been designed for the full spectrum of military transport operations, e.g. air-drop, that A400M has… So I don´t think those countries would want to go for it either.

The thing is, most other countries in the market for this size of an airlifter plan on using it in war-zones. I don´t think Japan is really planning to do so, at least with the same urgency that other countries make these plans. For Japan, it´s basically an internal airlifter and for ´civilized assistance´ (for which longer range is nice), but not for real wars where nice landing strips aren´t always assumed. And it´s not a matter of simply not being able to use a given strip AT ALL, but using the same strip many times, where C-2´s footprint will just tear up a lesser strip in no time. Sure, you hear about Japan´s military shifting posture, just like you hear rumours of export bans ceasing, but that´s not a reality yet, certainly not to have formed the requirements of the C-2.

*IF* Kawasaki can see a viable case for establishing world-wide servicing (at least helped by the commercial engines),
I could see a truly civilian role in large-volume ramp cargo transport, below the really big Russians, but that´s it.
If they did think it was viable, I think there would have at least been some squeaks about getting a civilian-only export licence, so since I haven´t seen anything of the sort, I assume they aren´t trying. As Sens said, Kawasaki/Toyota are likely happy with the profits of fully-funded government work that fortuitiously increases their own aerospace capacities in general… Investing their own money to commercialize it may not really seem the best investment opportunity for them.

But it seem a reasonable success by Japan´s own aims, commonality with PX helping economy, and maintaining Japan´s capacity in aerospace. Certainly not a bad plane for what it´s focused on.

I was using the most recently agreed deal as the frame of reference to compare the scenario where 13 airframes could be diverted/sold on, since if the re-sell deal doesn´t happen, EADS is still delivering the same (reduced from original contract) amount of airframes.

Definitely there´s more history that doesn´t reflect well on EADS or it´s profit share-holders by proxy. At the least, it´s a scandal that not ALL of the additional monies/ erased airframes were structured within the loan that will potentially be payed back from exports. If EADS ends up exporting (/licencing) a ton, that´s all profit for them.

Germany is still ensuring that Airbus is paid for the exact same number of planes.

Airbus is clearly not RELYING on exports to validate the program for them, rather the initial partner orders which is unchanged by Germany´s move. Although these 13 planes are presumably planes that Airbus would otherwise sell (in addition to partner orders), Airbus actually agreed to payback (emergency negotiated) loans from the partner states based on export sales…

So if it makes alot of exports it pays back all these loans, if it makes less export sales, it may not pay back all of the loans. If there´s absolutely no exports besides these 13, I guess this could reduce the loan-repayments (to ALL partners, not just Germany) by the price of 13 planes, but in reasonable export scenarios (which is what the partners are assuming if they expect their money back ever) 13 airframes just doesn´t really matter that much. It also seems pretty reasonable that Germany and Airbus could write some contract so in a low-export/low-repayment scenario, that other partners aren´t penalized by Germany´s sale cutting away from exports.

Boeing withdraws from Indian midair tanker tender
Sounds like they don’t want to fund the necessary development work on the 767 unless they actually win the KC-X.
Which is kind of strange, between the Italian and Japanese tankers, how much development work would an Indian bid actually take?

Well, that makes me think they are bidding a more heavily modified bird for KC-X… One that they don`t want to be contractually obligated to deliver to India for the contract price if KC-X ends up not going their way. Presumably a more heavily modified tanker`s raison d`etre is doing it`s (KC-X defined) job better, but even still Boeing feels there`s a non-zero chance they will lose KC-X, and don`t want to be on the hook for delivering it to India. And apparently they don´t believe the same tanker they sold India and Japan would have a chance.

It seems like even if MiG has given up on MiG-35`s chances, some Su-35`s could be sent, which essentially would leave the point that India can just induct further more MKI (Mk. 2`s with Su-35 tech if they want).