Reports like these are suggesting a deepening strategic partnership between EADS and Lockheed, to the extent of Lockheed supporting/ providing local work-share for a USAF A400M. I don’t suppose EADS would be paying back all the extra funds they’re requesting if they effectively extend their production run by +200% with a USAF order? :rolleyes:

Seriously, the only option the partner nations should legitimately consider if EADS says it needs money to complete the project (let’s assume they need some amount of money MORE than refunding the entire amounts paid already) would be to purchase further EADS shares via a new capital issue, which would of course depress share price, but they could either re-coup this money at a later point by selling shares or retain it and have a larger say in the company. Perhaps in interests of intra-EU balance, countries like Germany could take a direct stake while France would not and leave private investors to purchase a portion of the new shares. The partner nations themselves do not even have to do so, EADS can just issue new shares to the market and sell them to banks.

It must be the fifth or sixth time at least. Doesn’t anyone read previous posts? PAK FA flew with the new engines installed, NOT the 117S++.

The previous posts pointing out it was using a different engine than Su-35? Yes, I read those.
It wasn’t clear to me they were talking about an entirely different core, as opposed to digital FADEC and various tweaks. I have posted saying if that was all it is, it seems strange not to bring it into the Su-35 program. If the alternative is true, meaning there is no further planned engine for PAK-FA besides what is now flying, then great for them! 🙂

If this new all-digital FADEC / upgraded beyond 117S engine is flying, wouldn’t it make sense to bring it over to the Su-35 as well?

The mystery fairings just outside the intakes are… very mysterious. I was even thinking gun fairings at one point. Lateral arrays/ EW seem reasonable, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t mounting them forward of the intakes, on the forward fuselage (where the cheek arrays were located in earlier drawings), be a better location with LoS ABOVE the aircraft as well as below?

Is the D model the one included in the Boeing FX-2 armament component?
I would be surprised if it was, given it hasn’t been exported to anybody yet AFAIK, but surprises do happen.

If it isn’t in the tender, I don’t see the relevance of discussing a non-exported missile to the FX-2 process. Meteor of course is available in the time-scale FX-2 will be inducted, and Brazil will likely be favoring it’s own A/R-Darter unless a completely unique capability is offered by an off the shelf product (say, Meteor), though I expect an initial batch of armament will be purchased to have initial capability before A/R-Darter is complete, as well as for knowledge of their capabilities.

So in essence, all I am saying is that if FAB wants to integrate other weapons than what is currently offered with Rafale, they will have to be very careful with the context of the contract they sign.

This is a bit more back to the topic. 🙂
Of course they should make sure they write a good contract. Which by all the signs, they will be doing.

Brazil is currently funding several national and cooperative armament programs, so they OBVIOUSLY are going to be integrating these weapons – else they won’t have a platform to field them if they standardize on FX-2. 100% ToT, source codes, operational sovereignty (integration, etc) have all been the bywords of this contest, and all the bidders are well aware that some of these programs overlap with their own weapon capabilities (though in many cases complement them). Certainly Dassault is not expecting that if the full source codes and means to test them have not been transferred by time production is supposed to start/ the first plane is to be delivered, that they will receive further monies.

So sure, it can definitely be said that this contest is a sea-change for Dassault. As well India’s MMRCA given they request similar ToT. But given Dassault and French Defense Ministry both say they don’t foresee going it alone on future aircraft, opening up to another partnership is probably the best choice to allow MULTIPLE partnerships to emerge, making the most of their technology base as well as complementing political aims.

So is the story that Saito was not involved in including rankings in the report, contrary to the remit?
If not him, what parties chose to go against their remit and do so?
What sort of investigation and consequences are seen happening re: this issue?

I see almost exactly the same story, put out by AFP:
“Folha said the air force preferred the Swedish model because it was less costly and potentially had better commercial possibilities. And profit margins on future local production of the French jet were theoretically less interesting to local aviation giant Embraer, the Folha report added.”

What exact ‘FAB technical evaluation’ cares about it’s commercial possibilities and profit margins for Embraer’?

F-18 I honestly can’t see because of the US’ on-going export restrictions, preventing Super Tucano exports for one. And if they choose Gripen NG, the absolute minimum required would be a contract with Saab detailing that if Saab has any parts on stock, they are required to sell them to Brazil on request, i.e. if US wants to impose engine part restrictions later, either Brazil gets it’s parts anyways or ALL Gripen NG users (including Sweden) would be unable to get stocks, because US could not transfer parts to Saab without allowing them to be re-transferred to Brazil.