Stop incorrectly quoting me and making straw-man arguments.

If I didn’t construct arguments for you then you wouldn’t have any. Your entire previous post was predicated on a falsehood — that scrutiny of the Blue Angels was originating from some external and avowedly anti-military source, when in fact it’s coming from the US Navy.

I’m sorry but we have a different definition of that word than you do.

A wise American once described the patriot as “the dupe of statesman and the tool of conquerors.” So you see, we are in complete agreement.

And you’ll excuse us if we don’t take suggestions from a nation that buried much of their Air Force 2 years ago.

…what? I think you have Australia confused with some other not-America place!

It’s not a matter of taxation, it’s a matter of allocation within the US Navy budget. No surprise that when that budget is being squeezed, non-productive assets like dedicated aerobatic teams come under the microscope.

Seems to be working fine for me now. Thanks for repair!

That’s exactely what I feared. Well, I hope they know what they are doing (and I’m sure they probbably do) and dont let them selves be dragged into the glamorous looking but Ruble/USD/EUR-eating “Light Fighter”-trap.

Why is this a trap? Modern combat aircraft are too complex and expensive for many nations to operate, and even nations that can afford top-tier gear would appreciate inexpensive aircraft suited to less demanding operations, e.g. France in its African Adventures.

What does “pilot associate to reduce pilot workload” mean?

bubble canopy is useful but not every country can make one.

Oh God, single-piece canopy is the new DSI. :rolleyes:

it would be hillarious if all AMCA ends up to be is a stealthy airframe with Rafale guts, and KFX is a stealthy airframe with Eurofighter guts.

Sounds like a sensible approach to me. Get the airframe and powerplant right first, worry about whizbang systems later. Imagine if United States had done that with JSF: Block II Super Hornet systems and F414 engines in new VLO+Supercruise airframe. Much lower development cost, much less risk, lower production cost, aircraft would be in service now rather than partners delaying all but minimum contracted orders. Bonus: further developments would be cross-compatible with Super Hornet.

With either partner, I think a brand-new engine design should prompt consideration of whether a single engine F135 style would be the more economic choice.

Single engine means you can’t re-use it for smaller UCAVs (can of course go the other way and re-use it for larger platforms, but those aren’t on any European agenda) and also introduces problems in terms of weapons bay design: look at F-22/J-31/AMCA’s single large main bay compared to F-35’s split bays.

As things stand I’m not sure how Sweden is going to go building a future VLO combat aircraft around a single uprated F414.

I doubt that Su-30Mki production would be further extended, for as soon as they are done making them, they will start upgrading the older ones. Besides FGFA final prototype is supposed to fly by 2017, even if it is delayed by 2-3 years, HAL would be neck deep churning out MTA, Tejas and Rafale. They can always use a breather 😉

Hmm yes, these are good points. Thanks. I do think an FGFA delay is likely, either at the Indian end or the Project 30 end.