@halloweene: AFAIK, Elettronica was/is the foreign vendor working on the EW suite for the MiG-29 upgrade.

Why is it so often touted that Finmeccanica will be blacklisted?
Didn’t India JUST ANNOUNCE that they will no longer blacklist foreign firms?
If there is a specific source of info that blacklisting will be return to being legally sanctioned, please cite it.

Here is that chart again that Austin first posted…

The Yellow parameter column, from top to bottom:
Fan diameter
Takeoff thrust
Bypass Ratio
Total Compression Level
Thrust @ Cruise
Specific Fuel Consumption
Number of compressor stages
Number of staged in Turbine
Total number of stages
Number of shafts
????
Engine Weight
And the last two are emission reduction and noise levels.

Piaggio Reveals Unmanned Avanti

Named P.1HH Hammerhead, the new variant of the Avanti has been extensively modified for its UAS role. According to Piaggio the new version will be capable of 16 hours of operation carrying a range of payloads including Sigint and Elint packages as well as being able to conduct border and maritime surveillance and electronic warfare. Weapons and other external stores could also be fitted to pylons attached to the forward fuselage. The aircraft has been developed to capture part of the medium altitude, long endurance (MALE) market against aircraft such as the MQ-9 Reaper or BAE Systems Mantis.

…This is the third special mission variant of the Avanti. At the 2012 Farnborough Air Show, Abu Dhabi Autonomous System Investments (ADASI) revealed plans to develop a maritime patrol variant of the P.180, and Rockwell Collins has been selected to provide a new avionics suite for the MPA variant. First flight of that version is expected in 2014. There is also a ‘flight checker’ version of the P.180 for flight inspection duties.

I love this plane, but 16 hours endurance does not seem much for a UAV, certainly not of this size… I don’t know if this platform really is competitive vs. optimized UAVs such as Predator or the mentioned still-in-development Mantis. Mantis is supposed to have have up to 30 hrs endurance AFAIK.

Perhaps the enlarged wings could be used for the MPA variant though…? In fact, the sensors themselves, as well as weapons pylons, could also be applied to the MPA version. I really don’t see this platform as a direct competitor to Predator or Mantis, but it does seem possible as a UAV successor to Sentinel, or more specifically the Beechcraft Shadow/Super King Air, with more sensor payload than would fit on a Predator-sized UAV…? The duration could also be extended if it could manage to pull of mid-air refueling.

Ah, yes, I would expect certainly all external panels to be coated as designed for, although they could be using some non-RAM ‘filler’ temporarily. If anything else, just aerodynamics would be an issue if they wanted to increase the external volume by 30mm thick. I don’t see any reason to believe there is some deficiency that would require substantial RAM changes to the design though (beyond what is planned for, even if RAM isn’t flying yet).

NICE! How many SSJs have been delivered to date by the way? …While it isn’t a block buster and, with GTF-powered competitors looming, unlikely to become one, it’s still a respectable achievement by international standards and a resounding success in Russian terms.

It still remains to be seen what happens with the new 130 seater (engine-wise, as well as airframe, along with partners for both), but it seems plausible that a new engine for SSJ could be shared/derived from that for the 130-seater, and possibly also an updated wing/tail design. That should more than keep Superjet competitive with GTF re-engined E-Jets circa 2020. That may be a somewhat short lifespan for the original specs, but the project was clearly a learning project, and such a re-fit would seem to keep it more than competitive for a normal commercial duration.
One factor for that is the contract with Safran/SaM, what guarantees they have… On the other hand, they could be willing to participate in a new engine themselves. With the engine competition being Pratt’s GTF, it seems reasonable Safran would be willing to contribute newer designs, especially if at that point the commercial prospects for SSJ would seem good (having been proven in service in the initial config by then, and competitive (re-engined) with Embraer’s updated offerings), and Russia’s own capabilities on the engine would have much improved since the beginning of SaM 146, so contributions derived from PD-14 or even PS-30 could well find there way into future SSJ-130/ SSJ-100NG… ???

Not a single panel would fit after the application of the coating.

Is this really a problem for a new platform all of whose panels are being designed from scratch to work with the planned coatings? I don’t really think the exterior will be coated 30mm thick, but the issue of panel fit doesn’t seem relevant here, panels fit as they are designed to, if a thick coating is planned, that is part of the design.

I thought I would go into the ‘flat bottom’ topic that supposedly distinguishes PAK FA stealth from the F-22.
The F-22 belly isn’t even fully flat, probably 40% of it in the aft portion resolves into a ‘valley’ between the engine nacelles. So certainly this portion of it is more or less equivalent to the current PAK FA design there. More forward, the PAK FA intakes clearly have intentional faceting, so the difference there is not total, not to mention the intake/fuselage interface for F-22 is more complcated than PAKFA, whose ‘flat belly’ extends all the way under the cockpit.
But my main point was that the F-22 belly is not completely flat (presumably for aerodynamic reasons), and so lack of completely flat belly is something shared by both F-22 and PAKFA. On top of the fact that PAK FA has the opportunity to integrate much more advanced RAM into it’s design (not just RAM refits as compatible w/ existing design specs, as F35 RAM applications to F-22 are). I don’t see any clear-cut RCS discrepancy to the extent that some seem to claim (I don’t necessarily think PAK FA RCS will exactly equal F-22, but I don’t see grounds for claiming some insurmountable extreme discrepancy, and it could even be better in certain sectors… some sectors are certainly more important than others, f.e. rearward RCS matters much less for a high speed platform like PAKFA with good situational awareness). The L-band arrays also allow PAKFA to detect and directionalize emitters in that band, at minimum enabling maneuvering to avoid that source or orient to minimize RCS.

IAF thinks HTT-40 sucks don’t want it. Thinks HJT-36 also sucks because of its Russian Engine
can’t they re-engine it with a French alternative?

F124/125 would seem to make sense, given it will also be re-engining Jaguars.
Whenever Jaguars are retired, all the engine and spares could be transferred to the HJT fleet at no cost.

The title and first two sentences?
It will be interesting to see if the contract ends up so Dassault (/Thales/Safran) isn’t liable if HAL screws up.
Of course that wouldn’t apply if they are at fault, and presumably they would need some sort of arbitration clause to resolve contentious cases.
At the least, it seems reasonable for the portion of the contract value covered by HAL/Dassault (as opposed to the Reliance JV and other supplied subsystems) to be held jointly liable by both Dassault and HAL as the owners of the JV for IAF Rafale assembly, etc.