good day to you there in sunny kavkaz.

as for the MiG-35.. well lets look in history.
the Russian aviation industry makes alot of things they’d like to make. Su-27M/35, Su-35UB, Su-39, MiG-29M, Su-27SKM, MiG-31E, MiG-31M, etc and etc. but in the end the only ones that go further in development are the ones that are funded by exports to China and India. Whats being exported to Vietnam, Venezuela, and Indonesia are based on the Su-30MKK and MK2 that China bought in large numbers! whats being exported to Algeria and Malaysia are Flankers based on what India bought, the Su-30MKI.

and even then, it required China and India to put in more funding to complete the development. Those Su-30MKi didn’t arrived fully complete.

It is because of China and India that Sukhoi survived the 90s.
Mig basically sold unfulfilled Mig-29 orders (already built, but not sold) during those times.. they survived because of Klimov.. but barely.

I would not say its because of India and China that Sukhoi survived, its because of India and China that they were able to fund upgrading their technology, at times when the state was not keen to.

And while PRC has reduced its exports (they have been trying for many decades), the relationship with India has changed, now they will be able to distribute the cost of developing their latest efforts in engine, radar avionics, the complete PAK-FA project into several platforms over a long period of time (although manufacturing wise, this time around India will set up a lot of the tooling from the start with HAL).

I think if Russia pushes and achieves the same in several other projects it will be able to keep its defence industry very cost effective, however even small difference in requirements of the two military forces might cause some problems.

The J-20’s wing actually looks kinda similar to the X-32.

It is similar looking, i even fine the top view of the plane’s wing similar to Rafale, however that does not matter a bit in how the plane will fly.

All the talk of zig jag and serrated edges on prototypes and tech demonstrator’s, the X-32 demonstrator had very few of them, yet was the solution boeing came up with.
As long as the manufacturer satisfies the requirements of a air force with out going over the budget everything is fine.

I guess people must have ‘mine is bigger’ contests, they can be fun.

Haven’t you noticed that your beloved Rafale doesn’t fly low & slow to do CAS? Nor do USAF F-16s, or most of the other types that are now used. They do it from medium altitude, where they can’t get hit by MANPADS, rifle fire, machine-guns, light AA, etc., & fairly fast, usually at an economical cruising speed.

I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve been here before, under other names.

BTW, your Airforce Technology link doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.

Does flying low put the airframe of a fighter/bomber jet under more stress than at medium altitude?

What are the ‘lo’ parts (as in how low) that are quite often stated in a hi-lo-lo-hi etc. a combat aircrafts mission profiles?

@deino
A corporation that depends upon either the money it earns from the market or the bailout provided by a government can not stop its PR department from extracting every possibly bit of publicity, it will be very counterproductive.

Eventually releasing information about a programs goals and dates keeps a company honest, well informed that delays, performance shortfalls and budget over runs are known to all.

Outside of all this news media is free to report on any issue they deem profitable, and people are free to comment upon them, can not stop that.

Thanks for admitting that … and Sorry, for being maybe sometimes TOO over-enthusiastic (maybe like You for the T-50). O.K.

But … and here’s one thing You can’t deny are the CHinese different. They were not proclaiming anything … they are just doing their things on their own way – I think You agree, no-one thought this would happen so early … with such a radical different design (regardless any analysis in pros and cons) and then with two protptypes at the same time powered by two different engines, seems to be a Chineses-ATF !

On the other side there are hundreds of press announcments, each new titbit is proclaimed as a hyper-super-news reagarding the T-50 and the Indian development. There are reports from the Russian officials and military leaders that they will procure x-hundred new airplanes and so and so … in China nothing is said and as such it’s only failr to be judged by the things that are and on what was told. As such, the CHinese have at least at the moment the better position.

So long, Deino

:confused:

Perhaps they should try to be more transparent, eventually justifying the investment of money into a weapons program to the public that pays for it is not a bad thing, by comparison this is the most open equipment development program PRC has come up with to date.

So please before you go on about the Russians or Indians talking more than they work, do realise that such weapons development program do the work that is planned (xx test flights and xx flight test points), and outside of press releases provided to the media(and accessible on the websites), news is from media companies which are as unrelated to the defence manufacturer as possible.
Sukhoi news release page:
Russian
English

HAL news release page: http://www.hal-india.com/press.asp

If you wish to propose that the J-XX program has tested more flight points than the PAK-FA, perhaps providing more information about the program would be helpful.

From what I know the Typhoon consortium is proposing India to participate in the R&D of the AESA. I have no idea if it has changed since. I havn’t found any indication of a Typhoon with AESA in India but since they apparently tried a prototype maybe they brought it to India.

Kindly give proof that the Eurofighter which participated in the MRCA field trials had an AESA. IIRC they didn’t have any flying prototype to bring to India.

You would not have seen the news about Gripen NG either, however they did bring the plane and there is a photo of a couple of radar reflectors picked up on the radar mapping shown in a you tube presentation.

If a contender does not bring a component to a trial, they can not sell that capability, its as simple as that, otherwise if a contender is selected in the tender on the basis of a capability they did not demonstrate, rest of the contenders can file a complaint in the legal system against the unfair tender (Boeing India for e.g).

If they did not bring an AESA radar to the field trials, they are out of the technical bid……