I think they just need to build Mig-35 with AESA radar in large numbers rather than keep bringing LMFS.

Mig-35 is very competitive desin for next 25-30 years with upgrade in Electronic and Weapon also likely to get bigger export market due to cost effectiveness over Flanker or PAK-FA

I partially agree, but it is a suboptimal solution. The main advantage of MiG-35 is that it is already available. The airframe was created at a time when it was apparently not possible for the Soviet Union to create a single engine aircraft of enough performance, today it would be much better to design a lighter plane using one of the already available engines for heavy fighters and include basic shaping for signature management, modern aero and other state-of-the-art features. In the end it should be no different than Su-35, a temporary measure until an up-to-date design appears. In fact there are doubts about whether Rusia wants the plane beyond their need to keep MiG afloat, if they at least win the tender in India, the company would be finally safe over the medium term and we would see the real interest of the VKS, until now the only real trend, despite nice words from the politicians, is the substitution of the MiG-29 squadrons with Sukhois. State tests still running and not expected to be finished until 2021, for a plane that is essentially a MiG-29K? Seems a bit weird to me, maybe they are just making time until the India tender is finished.

As indicated,considering that we would talk about a 5++/6G plane, the substitute could be an UCAV to work for instance in mixed regiments with the Su-57, it would allow much better overload characteristics and simply better overall performance plus lower costs and the advantage of being disposable. Manned aircraft are already having issues with radiation from the radars (apparently US pilots are complaining from high cancer rates among them) and with newer electronics the trend is only to increase manifold the powers involved, both for the radars themselves and for EW. Russians have already said that future RF DEW will be only operated from unmanned platforms due to health effects on the crew.

With the Su-57 the high-end airframe is there, and the AI support will turn the pilots into battle managers rather than fighters. The writing is on the wall already with Okhotnik, only a A2A UCAV is missing by now.

MiG-29 – 15000 $/hour for Russian air force 35000 $/hour for foreign customer
MiG-29SMT – 9000 $/hour
MiG-35 – 7500 $/hour
Su-27 – 20000 $/hour
Su-35S 11000 – 12000 $/hour
F-22 – 68362 $/hour
F-35 – 35200 $/hour

Thanks!

Wouldn’t this depend on the ruble / dollar exchange and oil prices?

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n…an-il-96-cr929

“Current plans call for combustor trials to begin next year, completion of the first gas-generator in mid-2021, and the first engine to test in 2023.”

Well, that answers my biggest question on MAKS-2019. I was wondering if they already had any working hardware to exhibit or discuss. I always knew it was a long shot and it looks like they won’t start testing their hardware until 2020. And, since PD-35 seems to be coming along faster than PD-12V, probably nothing there either. It might be a while before us average Joe’s see how their common design concept for engines is going.

This is what I have found, they are apparently going to cover all the power classes, but it still remains to be seen how the different manufacturers are going to share the market, i.e. Aviadvigatel and Kuznetsov.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”PD-14_RAZVIT_180624_01.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3871040}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”UEC_660x430-620×404.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3871041}[/ATTACH]

Apart from that we would have the PD-30 based on the NK-32-02

Simply for the same reason, other cooperation projects were initiated, executed and successfully completed: to share resources, since ghe burden to carry on alone is much harder – and IMO this is the reason, why at least one if not both great European projects will fail – and eventually since it strengthens a political alliance.

That’s why it is called cooperation.

I think that comparing the European projects with anything countries with real geopolitical burdens are doing is not the best approach. In Europe there is no need for self-defence and accordingly no real political will to develop military technology, in China and Russia is a matter or survival of the nation. Also their developmental costs are very much lower than in Western countries where the MIC’s goal is to produce value for their shareholders, contrary to state-owned industry in Russia or China. So the focus is placed on getting the technologies that allow them afterwards to defend themselves and they try to offset them by accessing export markets without restrictions (full IP rights). Cooperation is no big help in terms of procurement, which is the lion’s share of military expense in new HW. Having said that, there are niche products where what you say may apply, but as of today I couldn’t easily name a single example of such approach in RU-CN cooperation.

It must be a partnership in which not only Russia leads and China pays. As long this is not accepted I see barely any chances regardless that such a partnership would be fruitful for both sides.

Why would China be interested in a project with Russia if they had all the technology already? And why would Russia be interested if it was not for the money it can bring? Just look at the current cooperation projects in the fields of military and aerospace and this is a constant characteristic: Chinese use the cooperation to learn faster and the Russian to make cash and keep their industry active and up to date. Cooperation brings IP and exploitation restrictions, safety risks and in general organizational complications. They need to be offset with a substantial contribution that one side is lacking but the other has in abundance: experience in military development in the case of Russia case and cash in that of China.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-f-35s-next-engine-to-reach-for-more-range-459856/
...For its part, GE Aviation announced the successful completion of the XA100 detailed design process in February 2019. The company believes the engine could result in a 35% increase in range and a 50% improvement in loiter time. That range improvement applied to the F-35C would add 420nm – taking range for the USN’s variant to 1,620nm.

Are we sure the numbers we are being told make any sense?

I mean, TSFC of a fighter-type, relatively high-bypass engine is around 0.65-0.7 lb/lbf/h, how are they going to reduce that a 35% percent without massively impacting the diameter of the engine? What is the bypass ratio needed to get a TSFC of 0.4, which would be rather close to that of an airliner?

To me it clearly looks as a case of trying to overstate the advantages of the product with a dubious and even misleading use of absolute best-case data (maybe extremely low speed flight), but maybe I am wrong.

Not only buying R-27 but apparently many more Russian missiles:

https://tass.com/defense/1070981

Because I like pissing off Chinats on multiple forums, I’ll state that the Su-57 in Chinese service is a great opportunity to have an agile, attritional fighter conduct dogfighting duties that the J-20 would prefer to avoid for cost reasons.

Only to start:

> Su-57 would never be cheaper as a export for China than a locally built J-20. They sold the Su-35 for ca. $85 million IIRC
> There are no modern fighters specialised in dogfighting, this is just a Western narrative used to decry Russian designs
> Su-57 is no “attritional” fighter

so simply since it is not a 100% Russian aircraft, a much more modern and capable aircraff cannot be a tanker or AEW, but an old much outdated airliner that was never successful could?

You really should consume less of what you currently smoke.

And you should be less rude with other posters, they may be right on what they say.

Il-96-400M is being currently developed, it will be used as a domestic airliner and base for special models for the air force. If they do this effort to be independent with civilian planes imagine what they would not do with their military models.

Il-96 was a great plane with excellent base design which is every bit as good as current ones. They will update its systems and engines and there is even talk about making it twin engine in the future, when PD-35 is available

Regarding AWACS, the talk is rather to make them smaller based on the Tu-214 than bigger than Il-76.

@XB-70: great post (again) about stealth, thanks