Very doubtful if the C-132 would have become a real great thing. Aviation technology progressed so fast that large aircraft could efficiently be built as jets in early 60s. Note that props were only adopted because jets at that time just sucked. The B-52 for example hardly made it with its eight jets. It was nearly as large as the An-22 but much faster.

Generally, the pursuit for jet-transports greatly helped civil aviation in the pioneer days of jet airliners.

So how does the turboprop Airbus A400M fit into your theory?

You mention the An-22, but the performance of that type was compromised by the straight wings.

The swept wing XC-132 was far closer in performance to the similarly powered Tu-95 “Bear.”

It is all to easy to forget that the An-22 was far later than the C-132, but was a far less ambitious project.

The Monitior jet has been dead since the 1990s and the BD-10 has been grounded for years.

Whether or not the Republic of Singapore Air Force will ever consider short-legged lightweight fighters such as the Gripen and the proposed F-50 depends on the force structure the RSAF wants to build – a ‘strategic’ air force with long range fighter bombers, an ‘army’s flying artillery’ dedicated to close air support or an awkward compromise between the two.

Is the Gripen even a competitor in any long term requirement? In the absence of further export orders, how long can Saab keep the production line open?

More to the point, will the Koreans actually fund development of the F-50?

Some might say that the F-50 is far from a reality and the Gripen is fading fast.

The most likely contenders are Aermacchi M346, BAE Systems Hawk 128 and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50. Following the AJT, aircraft manufacturers expect another competition will be held to pick F-5 replacements. The article extrapolates that “Singapore is expected to consider the JSF against contenders such as the Saab Gripen” and “If the T-50 wins the AJT competition, KAI’s proposed F-50 may also be considered.”

A T-50 buy would make sense for Singapore. Even though supersonic capability isn’t strictly neccessary for an advanced trainer, the T-50 is the only alternative that offers a realistic secondary air defense capability.

The Aermacchi M346 offers no clear cut advantages over the current A-4 fleet, not to mention the fact that the M346 program appears to be doomed if it doesn’t win the Eurotraining requirement. The Hawk 128 is notably inferior in performance to the F404 powered A-4.

The F-5 replacement should be key to any advanced trainer decision. Initial procurement of the T-50, followed by full partnership on the F-50, would certainly represent an advance for Singapore’s aerospace sector. The purchase of either the M346 or Hawk 128 would represent a backward step for Singapore’s defense interests.

The Meteor should be a superior weapon to the AIM-120C, and it will enhance the EU aerospace industry, as well as what sekant said. It should also be a viable competitor to the later AMRAAM variants that are now being worked on.

It is virtually certain that the continually updated AIM-120C will have superior seeker performance over the underfunded Meteor.

Any advantage that the Meteor might have at the limits of the engagement envelope will be compromised by the limited autonimous acquisition range.

The Meteor program might have great significance to the European aerospace industry, but it represent poor value to the taxpayers of the participating countries.

It grieves me that such a promising plane should languish outdoors subjected to the harsh environment.

Actually, a hot and dry environment is nearly ideal for storing an airplane.

Why do you think that just about every airliner (that isn’t currently in use) is stored somewhere in the western deserts of the United States?

I don’t know what the brown stains are around the panels on the underside of the Lavi demonstrator? It can’t be conventional rust because nobody (other than the former Soviets) uses ferrous metals for an aircraft skin. Perhaps its a bit of hydraulic fluid mixed with dust and dirt.

The Euromil Mi-38.

What do you folks think about it? Chances on the Western market?
Has about the performance of the EH101 at about one third of the purchase costs.

I don’t honestly believe that sort of cost guesstimate.

I also don’t think that he Mi-38 has a chance? It might be superior to the Mi-17 – on paper – but this project still is too expensive and unproven for large scale procurement – even in Russia.

Running costs unknown, but propably lower than Western machines I guess.

I doubt that as well. It is possible that the Mi-38 will have lower running costs than the Mi-17, but the vastly higher cost of acquistion will offset that as well.

Picture below is from the first flight.

Just how many years late is that first flight?