Pioneer has raised a sensible point, compared to Comanche the A129 is hardly overkill but then it brings up the issue of Kiowa. Compared to the Kiowa the Comanche was an absurd overkill. If they wanted a tandem seat attack scout helicopter why not the Cobra? They could of even used re-engineered Army Cobra airframes as a basis with some stealth features.

Probably because it’s a geriatric platform that nobody in their right mind would consider acquiring in 2013. If America did want a modern light attack helicopter without going to the trouble of developing an entirely new platform the most suitable candidates would be the Tiger or OH-1 Ninja. The option that seems to be going down the tube at the moment is for a variant of the UH-72/EC145 platform.

Why would the USA purchase attack helicopters to fill a scout helicopter need? The USA already has Apaches and Cobras and does not need Mangusta or whatever chinese copy. I am sure the scout helicopter role will be filled by a Sikorsky S97 type helicopter in the near future.

Your definition of ‘near future’ must be different from mine.

I’m less interested in the minutiae of this particular flashpoint than in the structural forces at play. The United States’ support for Japan alters that nation’s strategic calculus, inviting it to take more oppositional stances than it otherwise would, and therefore increasing the likelihood of conflict. Any mature reading of both the Korean War and the development of the Cold War in Europe demonstrates the power of peripheral actors to compel actions by great powers. One hopes that there is substantially more going on behind the scenes in terms of the US-Japanese relationship than is visible in the public statements of full, uncritical support.

By any reasonable standard the ownership of the Senkakus is not in question.

It is in question because China says it is in question. That’s how power works; ‘law’ simply reflects a particular accommodation arrived at between particular parties under particular circumstances at particular times. If Mexico were far more powerful, and the United States far less so, the southwestern United States would quickly become disputed territory. That the US and its allies have — by virtue of history — arrived at a distribution of power and influence acceptable to them does not in any way oblige rising powers to respect that arrangement. Indeed, it would be historically unprecedented for them to do so.

The interesting thing is, given an option for F414, would India consider to drop the M88 and go that route for commonality with Tejas?

There is no option for F414. This whole segue is rubbish. F414 doesn’t fit, the inlets couldn’t feed it, and a pair of F414s would add a half-ton of weight to the rear of the aircraft, with negative implications for flight characteristics. It would be far worse than the famously problematic British substitution of Spey into its F-4s without even the consolation prize of using a domestic engine at the end of it.

Hopsalot is doing his level best to troll and pollute this thread as per usual, but I don’t understand why you’re contributing to the situation.

Surely the F-35B’s lift fan represents a greater difference than any incidental similarities between the two aircraft? As I understand it the Yak-141 used the Lift+Lift/Cruise configuration in common with Grumman’s JSF proposal and some of the later BAe Harrier-replacement proposals.

PAK FA > The Rest

Debate finish. 😎

And why would the inlet design have a negative impact on the use of 3D flat nozzles?

That’s not what I said. What I suggested was that T-50 is not an aircraft that is designed with VLO as its overriding priority — indeed, the overriding priority appears to be creating the most kinematically insane aircraft ever to take to the sky, with as much signature reduction as is compatible with that goal and affordable in terms of both acquisition cost and maintenance requirements. T-50 is not an F-22 and should be judged by Russian requirements, not American ones — although it’s worth noting that even the Americans didn’t think rear-sector VLO was particularly important for an air superiority aircraft, hence not forming part of the ATF requirements.

It is clear that the 117 engines already fully meet the mods kinematic performance requirements

How is that clear, exactly?

Where did you get that from, even the much older design F22 stealth air superiority fighter has 2D thrust vectoring flat nozzles and after all this time the Russians should be able to go one better.

Probably they could. They could be fitting thrust-vectoring FM2s to Su-34 too, but they aren’t. In any case, it’s likely we’ll see flat nozzles only for a dedicated strike platform, where top-end performance takes a back seat and signature management is of greater import.