Nobody expects stupidity. If it is perceived to be in the national interest countries will do the dumbest things.Nato does not have the money to do anything. It will create more debt and seeing how credit squeezed. I dont expect any stuipidity.
No, but if true the waste does not bode well for the future of the Russian Armed forces.have u read about Putin visit where he said new built fighters should be bought instead of ugprading old one.
Your solution will work though... with only PAK-FAs, Su-34s and Su-27BMs new built the Russian AF will only have about 800 planes anyway.There is personal shortage already which is getting worse.
Making good decisions in addition to luck. But keep in mind of those places, Japan became the west (ie Japan was basically the US for a time) and SK and Singapore are small countries. China always had huge potential and things are currently going well, and the same can be said for Russia, but it is a tight rope walk and a fall can be as simple as a new fuel source (for Russia) or increasing wages in China meaning cheap stuff is made in Africa somewhere instead.How Singpore/SK/Japan/China got wealthy at much faster rate than West?
Such things are hard to predict... but you know what I mean. A small thing can change and everything goes t!ts up.
Russia needs to ignore what others are doing and decide what it wants for itself. Having a superpower armed forces is nice, but it has a social and economic cost. Better living standards, improving the lot of the average Joe and making sure those at the top remember who is below them and why.Russia has to maintain even faster rate than them.
For the Mig-29K? I thought the first 16 were confirmed to be built in Russia and supplied built. Any other orders will be negotiated and might include Indian assembly, but the 700 million was for an airwing built by MIG.First 4 will be upgrade by Russia the rest is HAL job. and it may take upto 2013 to complete.
Local production/assembly doesn't make sense for 16 and if they don't buy any more then it is a bit of a waste. If they order 60 more then local assembly makes a bit of sense, but to assemble 12 themselves to have 16 aircraft is strange.
Considering the condition they were probably in I would call it a near full upgrade.Serbian aircraft nowwhere at Su-27SM level with new engines, fbw, IRST, EW , datalinks etc.
No, I think the RuAF are smart... who wants a 6,000 hour brand new Su-27SM that will operate for 50 years when what they want is an interim fighter to operate and get the airforce up to date operating aircraft with LCD displays and active radar homing AAMs... you know things a few Mig-29SM pilots, and a few Su-27SM pilots and a handful of Mig-31 pilots and a couple of Su-34 pilots might have experienced?Sukhoi has much longer life than any MIG plain built. do u think Chinese/Indian/Malaysians/Algerian/Ruaf are stupid?
Of course they will, they use the Utes 12.7mm HMG on their tank turrets too, but are gradually changing to KORD HMGs made in Russia. A lot of Ukrainian trucks are in Russian Army service too and they are gradually being replaced too. Not urgently dropped immediately, but as they are replaced they are replaced with Russian equipment when it is available. Another example is the Ansat helo, that uses Pratt & Whitney engines is going to enter Russian service in a few years time but a new engine is being developed and should be ready when the helos enters service.They will continue to use Ukrianian components as long as it is economical. There is no AL-55 on Yak-130 for next 5 years alteast when all Ruaf planes will be deliveredl.
The Al-55 was suggested as an option for the Yak-130 and will likely be the engine of choice in Russian service.
When the AL-55 is perfected it is likely to replace a foreign engine on a local jet trainer... otherwise they might as well have just bought L-59s to replace their L-39s and L-29s.They are using MIG-AT test bed for AL-55. Yak-130 engine contract is with Salut. These are long term contracts.
No I wasn't. I was suggesting that any new companies created would have production and design departments and the companies needed management. The management needn't come from the factory or the design bureau or the radar maker or the engine maker or the missile maker.You were claiming that it is design bureau that are incharge. But now it is factory that is incharge and design bureau is a subcontractor.
If that worked why is there about 5 aisles of shampoo in the local supermarket. Surely one brand works the best and all the others are inferior... yet there they are for all types of hair including bald people...Those design bureaus will close down with time anyway when no one wants to join them.
The reality is that the quality of a product depends more on the design considerations than the team working on it. I am sure those making the Commanche were top level engineers that did a good job of building what was wanted at the time. If left now without a government order and trying to make money on the export market what with their government limiting who could buy your helo to very few customers and no US government support, meaning whoever takes it on foots the bill I doubt that company could survive if they didn't have other projects they were making money on to keep the business going.
Claiming MIG is crap just because the Mig-29 has not exported as well as the Flanker is pretty harsh. Have you picked out your best son or daughter and have chosen to ignore the rest because they just aren't good enough?
Sorry Sergei... you are a brilliant engineer but go and work in a coal mine because MIG is finished and Sukhoi aren't hiring at the moment.
How? Do a good job or we will buy F-22s from the Americans?The government will push Sukhoi to deliver.
Currently the only real 5th gen fighters are the F-22 and F-35 and I agree that OAK can't make those on its current budget.It is beyond the technical and financial ability of MIG to make 5th generation fighter on its own.
Can it make a Mig-35 with a stealthy airframe shape that is able to supercruise. Yes, I do believe it could. And I think that would be cheap enough for rather more countries to afford it than they could afford the PAK-FA.
In fact if they can keep costs reasonable... say a single engine no VSTOL stealthy plane or a stealthy twin with perhaps 10 ton thrust RD-33s or something slightly better like 12 ton thrust RD-45s and Mig-35 AESA and avionics customers of the PAK-FA might even want it too... as a cheaper aircraft they can use to maintain numbers.
So the increased cost of raw materials doesn't matter now?nope. It is maintaining and flying aircraft that is huge expense. U only need the best to fly.
So to direct your interceptors to targets over the battlefield (in the air and on the ground) your AWACS needs to see the ground. Even if it had a zero RCS it will emit radar waves and be vulnerable to passive homing missiles.The otherside also got AWACS and AWACS has huge RCS signature. The only point for AWACS is to guide the aircraft to battlefield and use fighter radars in last moment for execution.
With few airbases the flight paths from Russian Airbases to a country can be estimated. Radar coverage is quite broad too.Oceans are pretty big. u cannot cover that with Ships. there is always space for airrefueling at safe distance and long range of Flankers gives that flexibility.
Considering they will be trying to defend themselves from surgical strikes having ships near coastal targets would be enough.
Countries with shinier toys rarely do. They usually underestimate their enemies and think just turning up will mean they will win. In western Europe that was all that was needed in WWII remember.do u think US used all its power in right way?
I wasn't criticising the Japanese. They might pay too much for their weapons, but they are certainly supporting their own industries by making things themselves as licensed copies so to speak.Japanese have the right idea of introducing composites,
The Algerian SMTs were vastly overpriced because they were for debt clearance. If you owed me $1,000 and to clear the debt I offered to sell you something I wanted to sell then I would have to give you generous terms.compare knapo Su-30MK2 price with Algerian SMT for same year?
In other words I will ignore the $1,000 dollars you owe me if you buy $10,000 worth of stuff from me now. You save the $1,000 you owed me and get $10,000 dollars worth of credit to spend, but the stuff I sell you I will charge you more for each item than I would have if you had owed me nothing. You still end up saving some money but I get to sell you new products where otherwise I might have only gotten a few interest payments instead.
They are working on UAVs, but that doesn't mean they should not upgrade old MIGs. They are actually upgrading old MIGs as we speak... Mig-31s.It does not mean they are going to waste money in upgrading old aircraft. they will better spent that money in developing UAV which takes less time than upgrading old MIGs.
By now most will be Mig-29S and Mig-29SM.There is MIG-29SMT in Ruaf?
A Bear is a long range aircraft... it has longer range than most tankers so apart from a top up after takeoff, unless it is flying in circles near the end of its flight it will not be near friendly tankers.It is better to spend money in building tankers than wasting money on foreign bases. . how do u think Bear manages 20 hr patrol? or Su-34 10 hrs?
Just had a look at the quote and it was 24 fixed wing aircraft plus UAVs.when the price of labor, energy and raw materials goes through the roof. No one in right frame of mind will built a carier for 30 aircraft? 30 aircraft just dont have any impact on large battfield.
History has proven aircraft can't win wars and there is nothing that can replace a tank... except another tank.Airpower can win wars when used in right way and in future holds for airpower alone. Tanks are going obsolete.
Indeed. Most of WWII on the Eastern front was a hard slog because the Soviets lacked air supremacy or just didn't use their air power well.without airpower things would be alot more difficult.
The Russians have about 10,000 tanks... about 6,000 west of the Urals and about 4,000 East of them. Less than this number are operational, but still rather more than fixed and rotary aircraft combined.Why do u think they want to increase helicopters/UAV/aircraft production but not not ground sysems in same proportions. Future is for airborne troops that u can drop with speed.
As are tanks.aircrafts both civilian and military are going towards composite.
Why not? They have talked for a while of new material fuel tanks that allowed missile carriage as on the Tornado.2500L tanks and MIG? show me on MIG website.
Hawkeye seems popular with users as does that other one on the small business jet with the fixed bar over the fuselage.Why do you think bigger AWACS is preferred over smaller one?
Stealth shape, Powerful enough engines, AESA radar... which you claim isn't expensive, and 4++ generation avionics. Engines and external shape should allow supercruise and reasonable level of stealth.Cheaper 5th generation is oxymoron.
Which model Mig-27? The K model?MIG-27 does not even have range and payload of Su-27 and more than likely they would have lost in greater numbers because of there unsophisticated nature.
When Mig-29s get an upgrade it might be deployed there...why they are deploying Flankers to Kant airfield but not MIG-29?
Because it is beyond the financial ability of most of the world it makes sense to make a cheaper option that can be made in large numbers. The USAF is getting 189 F-22s and about 1,200 F-35s Do you think 400 PAK-FAs would suffice against that... even ignoring the NATO F-35s added to that number, plus the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, etc etc.I am telling building and operating twin engine 5th generation is beyond financial and technical ability of most of the world. so whats the point of lowering the bar with single engine with less performance.
Yes... I know you will say there is no need to take on everyone at once, but what is the point of large numbers of very very expensive 5th gen fighters if you are not going to go to war with them?
Buying all top of the line is a nice concept, but unreasonable for anyone to adopt as policy. No one can afford to do that.