it dose not look bad if you “5th gen it”

mig-37 😛

It will probably look more like a J31. The two aircrafts are similar except for the central lifting body.

i just mean it is veeeery long process. Same example, first Rafale flew in 1991 and Rafale M was tested on carrier in 1993… First F-35 in? remind me?

Sry Hallo to tackle you but the Raf naval qualification didn’t go that smoothly.
1st : the front landing gear had to be redesigned as it failed structurally (non-MD stuffs)
2nd: The tail hook went through an iterative process before setting on a final design
3rd: The minimum launch speed was quite awkwardly defined through a single day test with only a single parameter to validate the suitability of the plane (alt from deck after 3s). Scientifically, something does not sound right here..

Last but not least, the service introduction of the Raf M was an urgent requirement with the Cruz down and the SEM not really fit to protect the carrier in OP (Persian gulf, I guess). So the Raf was introduced as a “twin magic” aircraft with basic system and a rather primitive structure (in the sens that it was not fully optimized – see the rebuilding of the plane).

This is a fairly diff. aproach from LM and the USN. Was MD right doing so ? Well IMOHO, if we discard the primitive A2A systems and the conditions that have led the FRN into that situation, yes.

… but again, this is a fairly different case of study from what the USN wants with its 35s. Apples and oranges to re-quote an over quoted maxime

~S

@Bio: the E/F will have a very strong potential in the used market. With the rapid introduction of the 35 (to minimize cost in both way (acquisition + production of a singe operator aircraft), a lot of airframes will be at disposal in a short period of time if the USN does not set a structure to artificially keep the price up (they are not obliged to do what the USAF have done with their 16). Fact also is that the G will have a very long service life, hence plenty of new spares will need to be produced and at disposal to refit the old airframes.

All this make me think that the nation that will have the b**** to commit itself into that will have a very capable airplane in a non Air Dominance target capability and relaxed threat (in the sense that you do not have to go frontal against a major enmy alone).

… And perhaps there is even some big money to make 😉

For example, if I was a Sth Am nation that will want to surface as a major partner for foreign investment aside of Br, I will try to get a deal with Boeing… I don’t know… Colombia, Argentina, Chile…

~S

Russian jet show off its “belly” during a reconnaissance*

source:

CNN.com

*Unrelated to the above – but who knows ?

Night Vision eq. for Ukr forces

Obama spoke just after announcing new U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s armed forces, including body armor and night vision goggles — the first such delivery of tools that would directly help Ukrainian troops in their battle against pro-Russian separatists.

Sources:

FranceInfo.fr

ABC

Perhaps what cap they bring don’t show up on your own “radar” 😉

The evaluation and procurement of a new aircraft takes 10 to 15 years. (For Gripen E 7 years evaluation and 4 – 5 year procurement) So the question for an aircraft ist not the situation is today, more the quastion is how the situation will be in 15 years. And regarding the financial crisis and the bonds discussion for Greece, europa has no constructive consense culture so far (or any more) from my point of view. And this leads to the recent election results with the national parties like Front National. You can not lead a nation from the capital, you have to go to the people and ask what are they concerns and to work with the people with no manipulative game.
So maybe parts the EU will separte and then switzerland will no longer receive radar data from the neighbours and then need fast aircrafts as described by Sintra.

Yes. Anyone planing a long term defense will have to take into account that possibility. But something says me that there is not only disadvantage in that for Switzerland. The strong point being the unlocked geographical situation. If they play smart they can even re-couple the defense questions with the new objectives of their industry .

[…]
For Switzerland it will be only a question of time till the rest of the industry is substituted by the neighbours country, based on the fact that the management of the industry and also defence industry is more and more not swiss. and it’s natural that every one like to support his country of origin.
[…]

I don’t share this vision. There is more weight in the balance to go the other way around.

But at the end, SAF will probably have no better choice than ordering more 18 and that won’t be a bad one!

The Indian deal hasn’t been signed yet and given the planned development cycle of the Typhoon and the time it would take to deliver those Rafales, the longer it drags, the more likely Dassault is to remain without a contract.

It won in 2012 based on the fact that it already had AESA, already had interferometric RWR and already had a list of A2G weapons qualified and better A2G capability. By 2016 all those bid-winning advantages will be gone without trace. The Indians are looking at the price now and they don’t like it, and they see that the Typhoon is overtaking them and they’re playing the patience game. Dassault will have to drop the price significantly if they want the deal.

+1
but I am not sure that the leverage variable is the price.