missing IRST = people who can design and make ready such
a system are a finite resource in china (and india). so maybe they were busy elsewhere doing other things. a question of priorities assigned.

the IRST can be used in a “limited precision bombing” using a shallow dive – atleast on the su30s. I recently see photo of a su30 unleashing 18-20 small bombs in a diving attack during a iaf exercise.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040314/ids_photos_wl/r127092231.jpg

the micro turbofans as on tomahawk or efficient turbojet of kh55 make it possible
to achieve their enormous ranges. small turbojets like ptae7 or ramjets are easier but can never give the fuel economy to permit long ranges. I dont think anyone outside of usa and russia has the micro-turbofans yet (german/swedish Taurus uses a williams engine)
http://www.omkb.ru/trdd-50e.html

sharmaji only ~125 bison upg were authorized. the rest while still relatively “newer” than the FL and U ought to be scrapped too – sooner the better.

Mig27 only 40 are authorized for upg. the rest may or may not
be upg’ed depending on their condition and expected life.

UT = United technologies , the parent co of Pratt and Whitney.

PTAE is the new turbojet engine of the lakshya drone. I threw in
these mini engines as well – for drones, cruise missiles..Williams Inc is the world leader (supplies engines to tomahawks).
http://www.williams-int.com/index.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/24/stories/0224000y.htm

its deceptively difficult to develop these small engines.

whoever makes the engines for KH55 series also has my deepest respects.

Quality new-design aero-engines are a narrower list.

1. USA (garret, UT, GE, williams, alliedsignal….)
2. Russia (tumanskiy, saturn-lyulka, lotarev, raduga?,kuznetsov?)
3. UK (rolls royce)
4. France (Snecma, turbomeca)

wannabe powers
1. china (kunlun, qinlung, ws10…)
2. india (kaveri, ptae7….)
3. sweden (volvo has anything on their own? viggen and gripen
engines are derived from GE. in viggen they added volvo afterburner)

nobody else seems to be in the game and this technology is
a lot difficult to master and design expertise is not given away
under any circumstances by those who have it. Its a cash cow
and a key cornerstone of strategic power.

1,2,3,4 have always tried to ensure nobody manages to catch up
or develop their own by a regime of technology denials and sabotaging of domestic ambitions with cheap and easy deals of proven engines.

if they were not separated by the channel Hitler would have crushed them attitude or no attitude. I am sure many times in the past, stronger continental forces have been foxed by the channel.

was the british army after dunkirk in any shape to deal with the
wehrmacht immediately in a land battle ? and alone too without the americans.

your post is a great disservice to the millions who died fighting impossible odds with no secure island to run back to. some Poles
for instance charged tanks on horses in attempts they knew to
be hopeless.