Interceptors are built in response to something,
but MiG-41 would be in response to what ?

A MiG-31 replacement could also succeed/complement Su-34 and potentially replace Tu-22M3 also. Without crediting any specific rumour, I think it very likely that (a) replacements for these platforms are being contemplated for service entry before 2030 and that (b) platform/program consolidation is desired.

if they can’t afford F-35s what are the options?

Ordering fewer F-35s than originally planned….

Typhoon should be out of the picture in the mooted timeframe. Does anyone know when production will cease at current orders?

SH and F-16 out of the picture also.

Rafale may still be in the picture off the back of India and rumoured post-F4 “Rafale NG”.

Gripen E/F certainly in the picture.

TF-X and KF-X … question is if either will be ready in time.

PAK FA is a political question.

UCAVs would also be an option in the mooted timeframe.

Questions of indigenous assembly/production and technology transfer may also be relevant given national history and noting that Poland is one of the few major European nations with a ‘bright’ medium-term outlook.

In any case it’s certainly a lot more interesting and ambitious than replacing Su-22s with Predators! Glad they shot that idea in the back of the head…

I don’t recall there being a competitive tender put out for an Orion/ASW/MP replacement?
This Government we had six years ago did exactly the same thing with the non-competitive decision to go with the F-35, then the F/A-18E/F, when the F-35 program went balls-up

Jumping on P-8 four months after IOC is a little different from jumping on an exponentially higher-risk project (F-35) a decade before IOC.

The other major difference is that P-8 is just about only modern MPA out there, at least in the class of the existing P-3s. The Japanese P-1 is even less mature than the P-8 and Airbus’ A319/A320 proposals haven’t yet been picked up by anyone. Even Russia doesn’t have anything to offer (just for the sake of argument — not that we would consider it if they did). Add the commonality with Wedgetail and the plan to operate in concert with the Triton UAV and P-8 is a no-brainer.

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of questionable Australian procurements, but this isn’t one of them.

maurobaggio this connection you make between Brazilian-Turkish attempts at an Iranian resolution and repercussions for Brazilian-French and Brazilian-US relations are interesting. I would be interested in hearing more about why France did not back the Brazilian-Turkish effort and the resulting fallout. Also, where are you getting the idea that the US initially supported the Brazilian-Turkish effort but later backed out? My impression was that the US was affronted by and rubbished the effort from the very start; in any case, why did the lack of US support not have the same implications for Brazilian-US relations that you attribute to Brazilian-French relations for their lack of support?

The only way I can make sense of the claim that a twin-engine design has better long-term economic feasibility is if ROKAF is thinking ahead to replacing its F-15s also. If KF-X is a single-engine project powered by e.g. F110/232 then using it as the basis of an F-15 replacement is out of the question and this will require another clean-sheet project perhaps even overlapping with KF-X. A twin-engine design in the class of e.g. Typhoon could more readily be scaled up in future, particularly if this is anticipated from the very beginning. Such an evolution could also map onto the otherwise curious notion of internal stores carriage arriving only with KF-X v2.0.

That article does not say that Korea has decided on a twin-engine design, merely that the Air Force would prefer one. There are different factions with different preferences: ROKAF, DAPA, KAI, ADD, IDA … and of course LM.

Defense News

DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said, “We will listen to various opinions from different research institutes and experts before choosing KF-X specifications.”

The agency will hold a top executive meeting presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin to finalize KF-X requirements, he added.

PLA’s J-10C may be able to match US and EU counterparts

to read further
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140202000044&cid=1101

lol, what is this rubbish?

The only aspects in which J-10B lags behind Rafale/Typhoon/SH are derived from the fact that it is smaller, and no upgrade is going to change that!