I will never understand the plethora of modern Mi-8M/Mi-17 variants on offer at the moment. I content myself with knowing that the Mi-8MTV5 is the latest version for Russian military use and AFAIK procurement is ongoing. Saves headaches.

Does Mi-8MTV5 = Mi-17V5, btw? So they’re built by Kazan?

(It’d be nice to see the Mi-38 enter service this side of the heat death of the universe, too.)

Re: Buk-M2/M3 overlap with Vityaz, it won’t happen. Buk-M2 and M3 like the Buk before it will be for the defence of ground forces and so will be part of the Ground Forces, whilst Vityaz I imagine will go to the air defences proper.

If that’s a MiG-35D, where’s the optical systems that were fitted on the original converted MiG-29M prototype? Looks more like a MiG-29KUB. If only we had a better angle, the airframe is supposed to be different, right?

Am I the only one who finds this controversy uber-tedious? Why is this even a controversy? You’ve got people on both sides assuming (unless they say otherwise, and kudos to them) that shielding the compressor face F-22A style is the only viable stealth solution (leaving aside that there’s an entire airframe facing to consider) and chortling one way or the other based on total ignorance.

Well they will fire both the missile and if both fails program gets cancelled for good

Fate of Russia’s Bulava missile must be decided this summer — Navy

Well the article is a bit contradictory in that regard – it is absolutely true that there is no alternative to the Bulava as far as the Project 955 boats are concerned, of which there are three under construction right now. They can’t be modified to hold Sineva, and the Navy doesn’t even want Sineva.

Got to agree here, the Il-76/78 is a classic workhorse but a viable replacement is overdue. Russia should have pressed ahead with the An-70 uninterruptedly and started developing an Il-96 tanker much sooner.

The An-70 was originally meant to be an An-12 replacement, but then it got heavy. AFAIK, it doesn’t have the performance to compete with the Il-76 series.

I always thought the Il-76MF was going to be put into service, what ever happened to that?

In any event, what’s wrong with Il-476? If the design is sound and they’ve improved the design with all sorts of 4th generation improvements, why not keep the design as a new-build aircraft? Its just a freighter.

I thought the Il-106 was the proposed Il-76 replacement, anyway. Has that fallen by the wayside?

Guys – stop calling it the damn Su-50. If it was the Su-50 then the Su-27 would’ve been called the bloody Su-10. Its totally wrong. As a Military Aviation forum, I expect higher standards from all involved. 🙂

You should know that all Russian fighters are given odd numbered suffixes. Not even numbered. The only exception to this rule that I can think of is the Tu-95, which was originally Tu-20 anyway.

If I had to guess, its designation will be Su-51- Su-47 and Su-49 are technically taken and it wouldn’t make sense to undercut those designations and name it Su-41, Su-43 or Su-45.

That one of the prototypes is now Blue 51 may be a clue for this.