It seems you have to back the correct horse… and in this case it is the highest tech horse that must be chosen… no matter what the facts are.

You brushed aside a comment perhaps you didn’t read into it properly… here it is again:

The translation is… the AN-70 is a commie plane… how can anyone… especially an American like a commie plane… and what is worse haw can you say bad things about merican planes… especially high tech and expensive ones like the C-130J and the C-17? I mean how unamerican! You are supposed to overcome every deficiency with merican know how and merica can do attitude… after all you are either with the C-130J and the C-17 or you are with the terrorists… :diablo:

Really! I wasn’t even referring to the An-70 in any way!

I was just pointing out the fact that Airbus have decided to develop a large military transporter which will employ FBW tech and a side-stick controller for the pilots – which, bearing in mind that Airbus have already built literally thousands of large aircraft with the same features, shouldn’t be such a big hurdle for the designers to carry out. If there are problems to be met they will have to be solved – as usual.

And as Schorch has pointed out there are a lot of experienced people involved in the A400 project, including no doubt a lot of C-160, C-130 pilots whose opinion was asked for – and who don’t seem to have any problems with a side-stick controller.

I am a big fan of European consumer products but our weapons are overengineered and overpriced.

For example?

Poor exports, small domestic orders, no economy in scale effects,

The same problems that Russian industry is facing today.

Italian experience with designing weapons for wartime is laughable compared to Russian one, like it or not.

In general, true perhaps, but we are talking about naval technology here, and what combat experience has Soviet/Russian naval tech enjoyed in the last 15 years, in the last 50 years?

Which has exported more ships in the last 20 years, Italy or Russia?

OK, prove it I am pretty curious to know.

Certainly, Lada cars, which had respectable sales in many European countries during the 1980s and 1990s, until Avtovaz gave up trying, LOMO and Zenit brand cameras which can still be bought new I believe, various brands of telescopes and other optical equipment, which are popular in the West, and (I know, not a consumer product and not from Russia) “Belarus” farm tractors which even sell well enough in the USA…

Yes, absolutely. Given the conditions the aircraft were operated in, maintenance, spare parts (or lack thereof) I’d say that many aircraft have received comparable or worse punishment thatn USAF F-15s.

Could you explain a little more what you mean, cite some examples? Most USAF F-15s (A/B, C/D) have up to 6000 hrs on their airframe – I don’t think you will find a group of aircraft that have ever seen the intensive, long term, high G flying, that’s what kills an airframe, I should think…

Indian MiG-21s are partially 35+ years old..

Most USAF F-15A/C are just as old if not older, and I doubt very much if the average IAF MiG-21 has the same level of airframe time as your average US F-15A/C.

Irrelevant. They took the Su-37, modified the flight control system, removed the TVC engines, and had no loss in agility. TVC is therefore, for the FLANKER at least, not necessary for extreme agility.

So why do they persist with TVC, for short field performance?

The SM is just the Su-27P all ready in service, with its avionics and powerplant replaced and it’s unlikely the RuAF would try to refit TVC as well.
But really I’m not interested in arguing which is the most advanced, the fact of the matter is, IAF Su-30MKIs were certainly the most advanced Russian/Soviet built combat aircraft anywhere in the world, including Russia, when they entered service a few years ago, and that would not have been allowed to happen in Soviet times.

What’s funny about Russian vs American at the moment, is that you can buy two Su-3x aircraft vs one new F-15 variant. Now considering a lot of people even here would tell you even a single Russian fighter would be better, that’s pretty awful news.

The Russian Federation can sell a lot of manufactured products for “half price” compared to their Japanese, German or American competition, but Russia still has a lot of problems selling their cars and TVs abroad, don’t they?

– European made is always better than Russian. Again, Eastern European does not count, since it is a worse copy of Russian made, anyway
– Everything Chinese is a copy or Russian and therefore as bad as Russian made. Chinese stuff based on Western designs is, of course, superior to anything Russian, but greatly inferior to the original designs.

You could try to make a distinction between Russia and the Soviet Union!!:)

You will find that they are two very different countries with very different philosphies in the design, production, marketing and selling of its aerospace products. The Su-30MKIs in Indian service are probably more advanced than any aircraft in the Russian air force – a scenario that would never have happened 20 years ago in the old Soviet Union (to give an example).

Where did you read that? I never heard of that, and neither did former Bear crews tell me about it when i spoke to them.

That’s probably the old Soviet “AWACS”, the Tu-126 he’s thinking about. The radar operators were said to have problems with noise and vibration when sitting in the centre of the the fuselage, directly across from the engines and their props! Also the radiation from the “Liana” main radar and internal electronics was said to cause premature baldness and cancer among the crew as well… not a very comfortable aircraft.

I wonder was there ever a problem with excessive radiation from the radars on the E-3 or the A-50?:confused:

That was a Chilean helo, the Cardoen. The guy Cardoen himself is of the nasty arms dealers type, made a whole load of money selling stuff to Iraq during the 1980s. There was at least one prototype built on basis of a Bell 206 and flown in the US, and production was planned with the then recently retired Canadian CH-139 Kiowas which were already purchased. The deal fell through when US customs impounded the Kiowas on their way to Chile, since Cardoen failed to properly cover up the end-user on the documents.

Drawings at http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/cardoen.php

That’s a very interesting heli project you’ve brought to our attention there, Arthur, but not what I had in mind.
It’s the “Zafar-300” (I finally found it on the web) which reminded me of the Argentine Helicopter, and I don’t think you’ll ever see such a crude, slab sided looking helicopter for a while…

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/zafar-300.php

What is your opinion on the Soviet practice of designing for “war sortie and attrition” rates versus the Western model of designing for peacetime rates? Who do you think got it right in your opinion?

Wilhelm, could you give an example of successful application of the “war sortie and attrition” system in post WW2 jet aerial combat?

Two very different methodologies. I suppose there are pro’s and cons to both concepts, but it did lead to certain criticisms of the Soviet system and the so-called “junk” hardware it produced.

And a system which the “Soviets” have abandoned! I’m pretty sure the MiG-35, Su-MKI and PAK-FA will be built to a different, frankly more traditionally “western” system.