Textron had to sweep the wing to reach the 0.9 mach requirement. Without any order for the straight wing version, I guess it appeared too hazardous to finance yet some major R&D work when giants like Boeing and NG where on the same line (new design).

Remark:
All this late discussion belongs to the T-X thread.

Hardened aircraft shelters sighted on the Spratly’s islands

Source:
Reuters.com

Marcellogo: Bah.. You’ve got the 345. Make it the low end T-X for everyone else (what is done now).

Just to precise as I deleted my post regarding power generation, jet fuel is probably used to regenerate the batteries charge through SOFC (solid oxide* + turbines). Hence the usage of a low power turbo prop.
We have:
Fuel Flow -> Fuel cells -> Turbines-> Capacitor & Batteries.

This is also the future in commercial flight in order to limit hazard exposure with Li batteries (smaller batteries, lesser risk, lighter encapsulement).**
There are certainly other technologies included to cope with the demanding power curve to sustain the laser and benefits from the residues (non-specified).

**or other?

**This is why the latest muffelrie – there are no other words – of Airbus management astonishingly backed by Eu instance charged of regulating airliner industry (“statistics”!?!) is just as awkward than non-sensical – EU R&D having already fully financed the design of a compact alternative and efficient solutions.

The similar comparison for Russian would be T-50 vs Su-35 and Mig-29SMT, to be completely honest, at the moment there is no evidence that T-50 would have better sustain / instantaneous turn rate than Su-27 in all parts of flight envelope, and IMHO it would be hard for that happen especially since they are around the same size and T-50 would need to be more dense ( internal weapons bay, RAM and what not)

Negative. With massive amount of lift, massive redundancy of moving surfaces*, high AoA design, there are no reason for that value to be inferior to that of the Su27. Even if we consider only classic aero.

*more moving surface, more travel rqnge available b/w trim and max.

He added Lockheed believes the production in India will also bring down the cost of the aircraft which in turn will increase its global demand.

Obviously. This the end goal on the big picture. Less costly, more sustainable and, in a distant future, you solve in part the problem with obsolescence and the incurring costs (more sustainability with the older airframes solving your acquisition line). There are money to do on BOTH sides of the equation.

Integrated industry instead of the stupid frontal opposition b/w manpower. You save jobs that way…

Build them tough, they say. Some impressive pictures here with a plane slidding 1/3rd of a mile off the runway. I don’t know at what moment the gear collapsed but that remains quite spectacular.
Glad no one was hurt as it seems.

Tomcat, it was found that the M-346 had the possibilities to meet the minimum requirement by itself, just with some software change.
[…]
Point , case closed, no use to spend more money on a rigged tender. Let’s concentrate into selling to all the rest of the world.

You have to excuse me but I never heard about that software change.