Even accounting for the partially built fuselage starting point, that is a promising pace.

Please clarify for me;
I thought the Tu-160M designation was for upgrading the existing Tu-160 with new avionics system, cockpit displays, and rebuilt engines. (Addition- the “M” retains a modernized Obzor-K but the M2 gets a new active array in development?)

Tu-160M2 would be new build aircraft with NK-32-02 engines.

Is this correct? So, the newly completed airframe above was completed to Tu-160M, are the engines new build or refurbished?

USAF rejected that (any jam in mechanism would leave aircraft unable to fire missile), I believe there was some question whether such a stack system would fit. Weapon separation might have been smoother than in the F-22 as the bay was to have a swing out baffle to protect the missile from airstream.

Basically irrelevant, the YF-23 proposal had a trapeze system for 3 AMRAAM and 2 Aim-9, the F-23 EMD would have had 2 door mounted AMRAAM, 2 (possibly 3) on a pallet that would have been lowered, and 2 Aim-9 in a smaller forward bay.

Well the second picture is definitive confirmation…….

Someone in Syria lost a portion of their roof.

unless I’m mistaken, this is about developing a laser system to counter incoming missiles (meaning, laser that will try to defeat missiles from close range)

It’s both. You are referring to the SHiELD system under the LANCE RFP. They are also looking at tactical (offensive) lasers, but size and power requirements will preclude fitting them to a fighter sized aircraft in the near term (AC-130 tests expected next year).

Blunt statement, but… wrong. Heard about anything called Kaveri maybe?

Industrial offsets aren’t the type of ToT that TooCool was talking about. Safran isn’t handing over engine technology from the M88 are they? They are helping India develop an engine that is 75% complete.

Not trying to get into a p@ssing match, I was pointing out the obvious: France, like the US, has and will use threat of military embargo in diplomacy, has and will protect IP by limiting ToT and source codes.

Every time this topic comes up, we have the usual bias: “The evil US will deny supplies or access to weapons in an active war zone, or can’t trust them on upgrades” heaped with a generous helping of fairy dust on how France supports customers and hands out ToT like Mansa Musa showing gold on a pilgrimage.

Let’s examine two of your last statements about US and France as weapon suppliers:

– USA: do as they want, and if somebody is naive enough to become “partner”, he only gets to pay but doesn’t get much more than tiny bits to make eventually and a few aircraft almost as “off the shelf” (and about zero “modern” technology shared by the USA)

Really? What was the final ToT agreement of the Rafale deal with India? Zero. Egypt? Zero.
The F-35 deal with S. Korea included significant ToT (though not everything the Koreans wanted). You act as if France just hands over IP and source codes with all weapon purchases. B.S.
Furthermore, nations can and have added indigenous tech and weapons to US designs: Phantom FRG.2, F-4F, F-15I, F-16I, F-35I, F-16 Block 60 (which UAE funds developed and owns royalty fees should anyone buy F-16’s with the technology from it)

France? Has a well established reputation of fleecing customers for updates, what was the final cost of the Indian Mirage 2000-5 upgrades? How are those Taiwan Mirage 2000-5 upgrades doing? (hint- France had refused and quoted “exorbitant” prices)

Suez crisis comes to mind… already today, the US block interventions with the weapons they sold if they don’t approve them, and with US made-fighter like the F-35, which is by default “connected”.. you definitely will be able to intervene only when and where the USA agree for you to do it

What did France do to one of it’s largest weapon customers in ’67? Cut off all weapons supplies to the conflict area between Israel and Arab states (which only hurt Israel), then continued the embargo after the war to improve relations with the nations that Israel just fought. That embargo included Sa’ar 3 boats that had been paid for. Or did you forget the Cherbourg boats? Now I don’t want to get into a discussion of diplomacy, or Israel, but that sounds very much like France did exactly what you constantly accuse the US of doing as a weapon supplier.

Ironic that two of our French posters love point out how “unreliable” the US is as a weapon supplier, and how they protect their industry. Customers of French weapon systems must know exactly how US customers feel.