If only 🙂

P.s. – not the X-32 😉

Nice concept art.

There is a “Replica” element to this aircraft at this stage isn’t there. Some of this is Japan saying, we can do this on our own if we want to. And to be honest they need to. If they don’t produce their own future fighter then that is it for fast jet production in Japan.

Well yeah, it’s basically leverage to extract some decent production/technology/indigenisation concessions from the US over F/A-XX.

It’s sound policy, but that doesn’t make it very interesting.

There’s no commitment to field an operational aircraft, nothing particularly interesting about the demonstrator itself, and it’s not a particularly interesting achievement for a world-class nation like Japan. In all likelihood this is just the latest project designed to keep the indigenous industry ticking over at minimum revs until they’re ready to licence the next US design for production. The Korean and even Turkish projects are far more interesting.

Indeed. Nobody ever doubted what the Japanese can do, the question is what they will do. In that respect, this demonstrator changes nothing and is of less interest than e.g. the recent Korean re-affirmation that hey guys we are gonna get started on this KF-X thing really, really soon.

MiG-35 is shelved?

and have the mother of all DAS, acting like a passive sensing AWACS for the F-35s.

I enquired a while back about the scalability and further development potential of IR and other passive sensing systems and got no replies. Would be great to have some informed input on this topic.

I don’t think there is any question that the HJT-36 program has been nothing short of a trainwreck. The crossover with Tejas is limited, however. HJT-36 is a HAL program through-and-through whereas Tejas is designed by DRDO, with HAL as manufacturer/integrator only. The travails of HJT-36 clearly indicate HAL’s limited in-house design experience and expertise, but it has to be said — there is only one way to learn!

Regarding Tejas, most of the technological improvements scheduled for Tejas Mk. II could be implemented on the smaller Mk. I design with F404– increased indigenisation, use of composites, upgraded cockpit, EW systems, AESA, IFR, IRST, OBOGS, etc. — if that was desirable, but as you say much has changed since the LCA program began; a larger aircraft is now seen as both desirable and affordable, with F414 being readily available. I think the best way of looking at the evolution from Tejas Mk. I to Mk. II is as parallel to that from Gripen A to Gripen E — the difference being that Mk. I arrived much, much later than Gripen A whereas Mk. II will (hopefully) lag Gripen E by only five years or so. Another comparison, in technology terms alone (i.e. leaving aside the increased size of Mk. II) would be the evolution from J-10A to J-10B.

Neither of those quotes suggest that the Mk. I variant is less than fully operational or that it does not meet IAF requirements.