They haven’t reduced the program of record, in fact the total procurement number was recently reaffirmed. The buy is stretched by 6 years to make up for the lower number to be aquired per year.

Purely symbolic, one cannot make meaningful procurement decisions for period which is over 2 decades away.
Total buy will be reduced, it is obvious: there is no way USAF can afford to replace legacy aircraft on 1-on-1 basis.

The question is why would they need to do that.. They are basically surrounded by allies.. and no matter how hard Russia is being mocked as the Great Evil for the next decade, the fact is that Europe does not have urgent need to spend more on defense (not counting coastal surveillance..) .. unless they want to boost their military industrial complex by creating domestic demand..

It’s those “allies” who have a habit of violating Austrian airspace, not Russia.

Drones, prop planes or subsonic trainers ain’t gonna cut it, they need a supersonic aircraft for QRA. So it’s probably FA-50, Gripen C or F-16. Maybe Romanians have some stored LanceRs they could sell for Austrians? 🙂

Austrian military spending seems hilariously inefficient. For example, Finland operates fleet of 60 fighters – and much larger army – for basically same amount of money Austrians spend.

It seems that RSK MiG did not drop the M/M2 designation.

They’re also separate in RSK MiG web page. AIUI, MiG-29M has basically same avionics set as MiG-29K and -SMT, whereas MiG-35 has an improved “fifth generation” avionics set. Whatever that means, they’re pretty nebulous about the details.

How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be… impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don’t recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.

Didn’t experimental variant of Kh-22 achieve Mach 6 already some 40+ years ago? Though that is of course rocket engine.

Belgium RFP:

http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf

Have a look at those scenarios in Annex C….

executing those missions with no AWACs, no jammer support, only a 4-ship….

I wonder why Saab, Boeing and Eurofighter bother to participate in this competition.

RFP specifies that first four aircraft, all internal systems installed, must be delivered 2023. This is too soon for Gripen E or Rafale F4.

Scenarios have JF-17! Did NATO just rat out its plan on who to invade next? 🙂

Didn’t French few years ago add rocket pods to Rafale’s arsenal? At least it was seriously considered at some point, based on effective rocket attacks made by older French fighters.

No such engine requirement was specified in the RFI.

I am aware of that, but Parrikar said in January that Navy was looking for a twin-engined fighter.