The ‘controversy’ surrounding T-50’s intake design is another example of the widespread intellectual defect that takes American hardware and American design priorities as a kind of holy writ. The truth is that in its basic design T-50 is both rather more advanced than the F-22, and reflects different design priorities. There is ample evidence in the public domain that T-50’s intakes and related features are the product of careful and highly sophisticated engineering. Whether they are quite as effective as an s-duct in reducing frontal RCS is an open question, but even if they are not that in no way suggests the design is inferior — that conclusion requires both additional precepts and additional data not in the public domain.

Brahmos-M seems a far more practical weapon for aerial deployment than Brahmos-A. Why are they even bothering with the latter — or rather with the expensive modification of only some Su-30s to offer only single missile carriage capability — when the far more flexible Brahmos-M is in the works?

The article cites Brahmos (non-M) weight as 2000kg rather than 3000kg figure I am familiar with, 2500kg for air-launched model.

The single weight figure given for both undersea and aerial Brahmos-M is also curious. I was under the impression that a large part of the 500kg weight reduction of BrahMos-A was due to removal of the initial booster with the aircraft itself providing the required velocity. Is this incorrect?

The rumoured US-2 buy is largely strategic in nature is it not, i.e. to symbolise and cement the burgeoning Indo-Japanese relationship? As such it doesn’t have to be an ideal match in terms of operational requirements and in the context of other fielded platforms, it just has to be useful.

Rustom II MALE UAV at defexpo.

It seems like all the antennas jutting out from it have been made conformal to the body. The Airframe itself is less boxy now. Compare it with sclae model displayed last defexpo.

Is there any planned path from this Rustom II UAV (seems analogous to RQ-1 Predator) to something comparable to RQ-9?

How does the KJ-2000/3000 compare with the likes of Western and Russian AWACS aircraft in terms of overall detecting range?

More to the point, have any of China’s AEW platforms actually been standardised and produced in significant numbers?

Everyone has a global economy nowadays. Uruguay & Switzerland sell to China & Japan. Should they therefore buy intercontinental bombers or aircraft carriers?

I think the implication is that they would if they could afford it; I tend to favour such an analysis myself.

I don’t doubt that India will eventually want — and have — a global strike capability to go along with all the other accoutrements of superpower status. What I don’t see is this happening within the next twenty years, or without fielding a regional strike platform first. I don’t even see China going straight for global strike; it would be unusual for a nation which has been so measured and deliberate in developing its capabilities to date.

Well, this started off silly and is now getting ugly.

My question is what’s going on behind closed doors?? As we hear surprising criticism with Russia over the PAK-FA. Which, is now closely followed by the Rafale Deal being put off??? What’s going on???

The ludicrous smearing of FGFA is likely an attempt on the part of IAF to dissuade Indian government from backing out of MMRCA on cost escalation grounds. The original article in Indian Business Standard raised this opinion itself, attributed to MoD. Once MMRCA is secure you will see this campaign vanish.

As to the broader question of what is going on … India is going on!*

* Not a criticism…