Extracted among other news:

– RACHEL new helicopter (project) from Mil to replace the Mi-8 family – Cruise speed targeted around 350kph (French or Russian engines)
[/I]

So what does this mean for Mi-38?

Obviously Russia was going to explore these new helo trends somewhere, but I rather thought it would be with the Kamov coaxials…

Congrats China.

I expect we’ll see carrier trials soon enough — that’s probably what the afterburner is for, given the lack of catapults on Liaoning.

For about five years (upto 2004 or so) the IAF operated arguably the world’s premier air superiority fighter. They hoped to recreate that with the FGFA, a variant just based on PAKFA but still very distinct (in the same way that the Su-30MKI is based on the Su-27).

India will operate the world’s premier air superiority fighter with FGFA too. And it’ll be just as distinct as Su-30MKI ever was. Just because Russia didn’t have the money to put its Su-30/35 work into practice itself and none of its other export customers felt like going to the expense doesn’t make Su-30MKI some unique achievement for Indian industry. All the hard work had already been done — in Russia.

You don’t need to read the fine print to conclude the FGFA is finished. Originally the idea was for the IAF to operate solely two seat FGFAs. Then it was modified to a ‘mix’ of single and double seats. Then came the news that all IAF aircraft would have the same airframe as the PAK FA. Same goes for numbers – formal acquisition numbers cut from 244 down to 144 aircraft. Given that participating in the PAK FA’s development is clearly not feasible, the entire effort has become an exercise in futility.

So operating the world’s premier air superiority fighter is an ‘exercise in futility’, ok. And the scaling back of projected orders is because the project has failed — not because the Indian economy dropped back into second gear and budget projections had to be revised accordingly. And the reduced customisation has NOTHING with the fact that the IAF wants the aircraft operational closer to 2020 than 2025 in order to shore up well known squadron strength issues. No, it’s all because the Russians won’t give them the necessary clearance/infos to add a second cockpit. :rolleyes:

the Indian MoD like most fossilized bureaucracies is slow to recognize changing circumstances, slower still to adapt to them, to add to which its directed by a political class that loathes taking hard decisions.

Speaking of fossilised bureaucracies and the absence of hard decisions, have you heard of the F-35 program, NATO, et al.?

Developing a modern military turbofan engine is as big a venture LCA program for a country with no industrial base in that segment. Had the Kaveri not been delinked from the LCA program, the latter would have remained a research project rather than a war-fighting implement.

And just in the previous paragraph you were lambasting the Indians for refusing to do the hard yards, lol. In terms of warfighting potential Tejas is only minimally relevant, its real significance is as a national development project and a means to keep Indian pilots from falling out of the sky. Tejas with Kaveri may not have outperformed e.g. JF-17s, but who gives a ****? That’s what all those other programs are for. Just like China with J-7/J-8/Q-5/JH-7, India has to do the hard yards. And with Flankers, Rafales, MiG-29s, etc. to cover the higher end, they’d be running a lot less risk than China ever did.

Its not going to happen. FGFA = PAKFA + Indian accessories (datalinks, IFF etc). The Indian MoD needs to move past this mirage of co-development and then see where it stands. The sooner the better.

We’re not talking about an IOU note passed across the table. The contracts governing India’s participation in T-50 were years in the making (and yet for some reason folk expect MMRCA to move faster…) In suggesting that India move past the ‘mirage’ of co-development you seem to be suggesting either that Indian negotiators are completely incompetent, or Russia is entirely disingenuous in fulfilling its contract obligations, neither of which are tenable positions.

Of course Russia will never ‘hand over the keys’ to T-50, so to speak, nor will France with Rafale, but this does not mean that India’s FGFA, MMRCA, and potential future such programs are without value in developing its aerospace capabilities. I fully support India moving forward insofar as is possible under its own steam — that’s why in another thread I even suggested India would’ve been better off putting Kaveri into production for Tejas — but to deny the value of simultaneously engaging in co-development/production programs is nonsensical. There is no ‘mirage’ — India is fully aware of what it is and isn’t getting with such programs.

The Dutch defence personnel who argue that 37 F-35s can do the job should be charged with crimes against the state for earlier attempting to foist an additional 48 F-35s on the nation to no purpose.

Hardly. Very poor example. Like I said, there’s much more designed, produced and manufactured in the UK than many think there is.

It was the first thing that sprung to mind as a product in 2013 that evinces a British design lineage or cultural sensibility. That Minis are actually German now is an ironic side-note that only goes to reinforce my argument. But perhaps you could provide more compelling examples of modern Britishness?

Bear in mind that simply making stuff doesn’t mean anything in the absence of a cultural stamp — else contemporary China would be a great nation, which it isn’t. The iPhone is an American product, regardless of where it is put together. The Swedish game developer DICE is probably the most important in Electronic Arts’ portfolio, and possibly the largest in Europe, but the fact that they’re Swedish is irrelevant — they’re American-owned and make America-hoo-rah games for American audiences. It’s an example of Borg-like assimilation, not a source of national pride or identity. It’s the difference between British television — which is a unique cultural thing — and British film, which isn’t. The former enjoyed (and enjoys) the protections of the state and has flourished as a venue for uniquely British voices, whereas the latter, lacking the protection of the state, was annihilated by Hollywood post-WW2 and today lives a zombified existence as a production venue for largely American productions.

I thought they were working on a Tu-204/214 MPA variant.

No doubt they are. From what little I can tell this is another as-yet-unresolved contest between rival platforms. And as much as I like sea planes and would love to see an updated A-40 design in production, I suspect the economies of scale and benefits of shared development from further Tu-204/214 orders provides a compelling argument in favour of that platform.