well reducing orders means reduce workshare. so previous best and cheaper supplier model no longer apply. but it still does not solve the delay orders of so many partners.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130214/DEFREG01/302140027/Official-Italian-Cut-JSF-Order-Would-Reduce-Workshare?odyssey=nav%7Chead

I don’t think that it will be T-50K or only it. VMF will need some very universal mid sized platform for all kinds of operations – from close air support to intercepting enemy air vehicles. Moreover RSK MiG needs such development contract…and is declaring that is able to continue work in carrier fighters area. In my opinion its not a matter of two three years, i think 2020 – 2030 period.

Geo

That platform would be PAK-DA in global strike. with futuristic hypersonic/supersonic missile and high powered engines that will provide much more power to sensors. there is no point in anything smaller.
for lighter strike UCAV is better.

when Rafale was declared L1 relative to EF. it means they have calculated all the costs. there is no point in further negotiating.

Cost escalation for future upgrading technology, i’m not english born, but even i can see how you twist facts and present a sentence out of context

My quote was only related to calculating maintainance & life cycle cost. how come it wasnt done before the selection of Rafale. and there could be upgrades to Indian variant.

Putin asked if SU-35 was PAK-FA, he was probably asking if this is Gorshkov.

maybe it some misquote.
I think your underestimating Putin insights. see his Gold prediction.
http://goldinvestingnews.com/32091/russian-gold-buying-increases-almost-400-percent-under-putin.html

He also declared IL-476 is more than 70% new despite looking same like IL-76. so he believes in internals not just the shape.

You know there is wrong and then there is “JSR” wrong! 😀

Iran hasn’t been able to just go and buy surplus Mig-29 from the 1990’s. After the last Russian delivery in the 1990’s they have struggled to get more. Firstly because Russia joined sanctions on the country and secondly America has actively spoiled attempts to procure surplus examples even going so far as buying surplus Mig29 to prevent their sell onto Iran.

The problem is why they order small numbers in 1990s.
Russia joined sanctions only in 2010.

As for why Iran spends money maintaining their F-4 and F-14? It certainly isn’t about wasting money the reason is down to what happened prior to the revolution in the 1970’s. Firstly Iran had a VAST spares inventory for those types.

every thing has shelf life.there is no reason to maintain some thing that is obsolete and consume more fuel. and require more maintainance hours. they are not saving anything.

Secondly is the agreement struck with the US around the procurement of the F-14 to allow autonomy in the maintenance of Iranian aircraft and improve the domestic aviation industry..

India-China also had autonomy around most Soviet/Russian stuff they bought but it does not mean they dont built or buy modern planes.

The US had to update the local aerospace industry with manufacturer grade overhaul facilities for the types in service with the Iranian airforce. US aviation companies like Northrop, Grumman, MD and Bell were paid billions of dollars to replicate manufacturing facilities in Iran. Apparently the overhaul facility put together for the F-4 is not much different from St.Louis. The same goes for the facilities to support other jets and helicopters. A picture of their helicopter overhaul plant looks much like the Bell factory.

Your keep repeating the same. China-India they started from 1960s with Soviets. Iran simply had unwillingness to modernize.

With such high quality overhaul facilities for US types with plenty of well (Bell, Grumman, MD, Northrop and many other) trained personnel they have been in a strong position to keep their American types running long after the withdrawal of American support. Apparently Iran has always been dissatisfied with the lack of tech transfer from Russia to allow autonomous support in comparison to what the Americans gave them.

so old anad heavy aircraft are more efficient if they had local autonomy in maintainance. and lack glass cockpit and modern simulators for training. ur making stuff already dissatisfied. when it was Iran that paid advance payment for S-300 after successfull delivery of Tor missiles.

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-news/iran-could-not-have-properly-repaired-its-sub-unaided-russian-source-2/
Iran could not have properly repaired its sub unaided

Although i do tend to agree that throughout the cold war the fighters were pretty much at par tech wise (with strengths for each in some area) however since then LO and VLO R & D, Production , refinement, combat testing, etc has really taken off. Having spent billions on developing and operationally using LO and VLO assets like the F-117, B-2 etc the US defense industry is bound to have learned lessons which could not have been learnt just by theorizing such designs so they would have some edge as far as the final product is concerned due to their vast experience. That is why i think the f/a-22 would be a benchmark for VLO fighter design for the foreseeable future as this is one area where the US defense industry has a huge investment gap and experience.

defence industry investmenst are very small. Compared Germany industrial exports between 1990 to 2012. (all that China boom) when you have this scale of money and continous experiance. there is little chance that defence industry can develop some special equipment faster and better than civillian side. see this dependency.

http://www.controleng.com/index.php?id=483&cHash=081010&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2196
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=642

and most of 1970s and 1980s experiance is not even relevant. as those person could not have used supercomputers as effectively as recent graduates with new software. with see China example. moving from MIG-21 to J-10 to J-20. but Japan stuck with paper planes. ageing workforce cannot deliver. with computers/robotics. theory is very fast put into practice and unsuccesful designs are quickly discarded. and there is political will also necessary to do that. see scraping of MIG-1.42 and relaunch of PAK-FA. otherwise nothing preventing in continouse refinemet of MIG.

Wrong. Iran is under UN weapons embargo respected by the Russians. Syria has no common border with Iran and the Russians will prevent it as well or loose the future Syria as weapons-market. The civil war in Syria is not directed against Russia.

civil war may or may not directed against Russia but Russia will take advantage of it.see the bottom part.it is very clear that those 90% represent threat. and Russia has to rearm itself very quickly and same level of internal security protection as Israel.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_08/No-historic-breakthrough-between-Egypt-and-Iran/

By the way it looks the weapons-embargo against Iran works very well despite contradition claims from the Iran. The limited number of MiG-29s in Iranian service show that. 😉
Something in flying condition is no proof for something in real combat condition as the Iranians try to convince the public.

Those limited MIG-29 were still limited before the embargo. There is nothing prevented Iran from buying surpluse MIG-29s in 1990s to all the way to 2010 at throw away prices. instead wasting money on maintaing old F-4/F-14. It seems most iraning pilots or crew prefer western airplanes like old boeing/airbus etc.