37/85 = 44%
A ratio that will be echoed across most program participants I expect, Australia and the United States included.
Dilma Rousseff has indefinitely postponed her planned state visit to Washington later this year amidst ongoing fallout from Snowden revelations.
Aviation-related as it had been rumoured Brazil was going to resolve FX-2 in favour of Super Hornet during this state visit.
Dilma Rousseff has indefinitely postponed her planned state visit to Washington later this year amidst ongoing fallout from Snowden revelations.
Of course if the more capable A330 had been selected for KC-X the prospect of retiring KC-10 would be far more plausible and palatable.
Yuck. I think Gripen is too elegant for American muscle aesthetic.
I’m surprised Israel hasn’t bought into the V-22; it would seem to fit their interventionism and the ‘mystique’ that the IDF likes to cultivate.
There doesn’t actually seem to be much disagreement on the substantive issues here. Lots of smoke but no fire.
The Super Sukhoi airframe strengthening programme when completed, will enable each of the Super Sukhois to carry two 290km-range underwing BrahMos supersonic multi-role (land-attack and maritime strike) cruise missiles
Would anyone care to confirm this?
Incidentally, would Su-34 be able to carry two BrahMos missiles in this manner?
Perhaps both Boeing and Lockheed think that the USAF may look for added capability over and above a trainer…
Everyone knows F-35 is totally unaffordable in the numbers ‘required’. The sensible response is to acknowledge that the US doesn’t actually need so many jets after all, but a corrupt Congress and sclerotic institutions are unlikely to embrace the restructuring, unit and base closures, etc. that naturally follow from acknowledging this. Filling the bathtub with Gripens is an alternative that rocks relatively few boats.
I think there is an unwritten rule that trainers shouldn’t be able to outfly the primary combat aircraft.
I simply don’t buy the argument that small countries cant afford a 40-50 sized force of 100 million dollar/euro fighters.
Of course they can. Most nations could sustain military spending of 10% GDP if they had to — doesn’t mean they’re going to, or that it would be wise. More civilised nations understand that the state exists to serve the people, not to feed an insatiable military-industrial complex.
What is the relationship between Buk, Pantsyr, and Morfey projects/systems?
China will not buy it. Why? It will only prove that J-10x and J-11x are not mature and they are not able to overcome problems discovered during service operations.
China is a pragmatic nation and will act as best serves its interests, in this case by purchasing Su-35 to compensate for temporary shortfall in domestic production vs. requirements. Undoubtedly the opportunity to closely examine the improvements Russia has made to the Flanker platform and powerplant will be welcomed also.
Isn’t Russia using Su-30SMs primarily for training purposes replacing old Su-27UBs?
The current Su-35 contract runs through 2015 and is almost certain to be extended to deliver another 50 units by 2020.
Isn’t C-17 production ending in the not-too-distant-future? Can the follow-on order afford to wait until 2017 or beyond?
The Su-30 MKI is developed in the opposite direction of Su-35, IAF has strengthened the airframe to allow Brahmos carriage, Su-35 doesn’t satisfy it’s needs.
I heard that only 40 MKIs were to undergo airframe modification/strengthening to carry BrahMos on the centreline. Haven’t heard anything for or against future ‘Super 30s’ being able to do so.
To be honest, air-launched BrahMos and integration on Su-30 seems more of an experience-gathering exercise than a real combat capability.