I have opened a thread about the M-346FT i.e. the specialized armed version of it, just a month ago, so your information are, how to say, slightly outdated Y-20.
T-100 is just the Macchi proposal for the T-X fighter, not another plane from the M-346 at all.
In any case seems me that those planes are way more costly than previous trainer, so I doubt they would be so convenient to use them as an attack plane.
At this point, let’s take a Su-25 or AMX updated version instead.

They are two different categories, Mirage is a light plane with just an engine, while the Rafale is a medium size one.
Introduction time between the two is about 17/20 years, more than between the F1 and the 2K.
It’s the normal French practise, to mass produce a single line of fighter at time, keeping in service the whole lot of precedent generation one until a thirth one is ready to be produced.
So the 2K is not the sostitute of the F1 but of the III, Rafale has instead taken the place of the F1 and the Super Etandard just now.

Complete nonsense.

IRIAF use pretty much everything they can get their hands on. Including Su-22M-4s..

That’s an hell of good attack plane by the way. Ask Poland for it.

For the rest we can say that the same original concept of MiG-29 doomed it, it was conceived to be the ultimate Warsaw Pact’s frontal aviation fighter and when such system fell down turned out to be not easily converted to any other alternative setting while at the contrary its own superheavy twin Flanker proved to be instead the embodiedment of flexibility itself.
Now Mig-35 would probably show what it would have been if its own development would have naturally proceded, but it is probably way too late.

Perhaps the philosophies are far different but now and then there emerges a rumor of the mongrelization of an aircraft, like when Iran was rumored to be considering re-engining their F14’s with AL-31’s. Or the realization of the J79 in a Mirage. The ideas are always intriguing. Sorta like hot rodding engine swaps.

I’m not sure a J-79 could be put in a Mig 21 or if it could, would it be better or worse?

The J79 on a Mirage is called IAI Kfir and worked well.
Actually there were many of such , how you call them, mongrelizations: UK F-4 with Spey, turkish F-4 terminator, F-14D.
Proposal to overhaul former soviet planes installing a russian made turbofan engine was proposed but AFAIK never put in practice.
Passing from a eastern to a western made one and vice versa was never done, probably for my above considerations.

Let’s aspect instead a whole lot of such mongrelization on Chinese planes as soon as they begin to produce acceptable domestic engines.

Even more difficult to made a comparison as Western and Soviet engines during the Cold War responded at two opposite logistical models, former were and still are conceived to be continuously overhauled while the latter were thought to be scrapped and replaced by new ones once a certain numbers of flight hours was reached.
Soviet system went way further to that, even the fighters were conceived to be stored away and replaced by a newer one once they have just a certain amount of flight hours left instead of going through a mid life update.

Such system worked well until Soviet economy collapsed and the dramatical fall of operational readiness of the reborn Russian air force during the nineties was determined also by such a model, involving the whole production system and not just a branch of the military.

Yes, but i thought it was more of a hypersonic ballistic Rocket profile, aimed for Naval targets and not a low skimming cruise missile..
But hey i’m obviously wrong.

My guess is that the one launched by Bastion coastal defence system adopt immediately a low profile in order to not reveal immediately launcher position as it would happen with a parabolic launch.
Ships are much more visible but can also self-defend themselves.

What is the major difference between Brahmos and Onix?

Range, I guess.
Onix are the Russia original one, no need to limit it for exporting them without breaking IMF treat.

Actually j-20 is very agile. it has many more lifting and control surfaces than pak-fa
you can see in this picture.

the article assumes they have the same rcs and radar range, thats why it will be a dogfight. pakfa- is just a prototype stage, so we won’t know its radar performance. but we can make strong guesses on its power. look at the radome

now look at J-20

Pak-fa is long but very flat. that mean the radome is smaller
look at the j-20. the Radome is huge.
to put it simply, bigger radome fits bigger aesa radar, better range and detection. pak-fa is limited due to size, just like tejas.
j-20 will find the pak-fa first. pak-fa is more comparable to j-31

the reason why Russian planes are so agile is because of design philosophy. Soviet and Russian planes were always behind US and European ones in radar range, accuracy and reliability. So Russia placed more emphasis on dogfighting, with IRST and helmet mounted sight and other stuff. they plan to win in there.
but most fighting of today and tomorrow will probably be medium and long range. so the tvc of pak-fa is not as special. that is why US and China stopped with tvc and why the US 6th gen fighter are all interceptors.

So because all F-16A/B of Usaf and allied forces were all without radar guided missiles? And F-4F i.e. the primary Luftwaffe fighter also?