IMO right now Russia does not actually need the Indian funding but there could be a problem when the revenues from the oil and gas fields eventually run down. Developing a reliable partner for the future is what I am thinking.

would they want a reliable partner? it could create a potential future rival over similar markets like what China is becoming (i.e. Chinese and Russian tanks competing with each other in Peru).
it also means potential loss of a customer that was reliant on them.

the US industries don’t really develop partners either unless its a dominant relationship where the partner is tasked to do sub-contract work

There are of course two dozen ways to look at this, but my quick 2 cents:

1.) Russia is upgrading its Su-25s and making a successor. The US (funds aside) has upgraded the A-10C and would like to keep it in service longer. Both ground forces from respective nations love the planes. That, of course, says a lot for the slow, low flying mud movers.

2.) Modern guided technology is great and all, but flying higher and farther away puts you in the way of the big predators: long range, powerful and mobile radars and missile systems that have an absurdly big aircraft engagement envelope.
Fly low and use terrain to your advantage, and you avoid tangling with the big boys sitting safely far behind enemy lines. That puts you in the way of MANPADs and various small caliber AA systems, but with armor and modern defensive aids, you have a good chance of surviving.

I’m not sure where I stand on the fixed-wing CAS vs attack helo debate, but playing the devils advocate here (and much better than the poster with the same name)..

a number of other Su-25 users have also opted to retire their fleet and go for mi-25s or other attack helicopters.
the US seems to be going for a mix of attack helicopters, ucavs (better endurance, less risk), or dropping weapons from higher using multi-role aircraft

Your nick and Antonov. 😉

And it is well known that some former MiG engineers have migrated to China.

Do we have another chicombot on our hands?

y-20 and antonov? interesting. can you go on a bit more?
I’m learning lots of new stuff from you.. makes me want to take back any negative stuff I said about you 😉
and you’re right about plumberunion, don’t worry about it.

Of course ignore quotes from high level Indian official as they are mere mortals against forum keyboard generals and ninjas :rolleyes:

say its legitimate.
what options does India realistically have for a 5th gen air superiority fighter?
F-35? no way
something from France? can they actually do it?
China? unlikely
Korea? lots of ideas, no balls to actually do it… or the expertise

It all depends on what you mean by “designed by”? Kamov might have provided consultancy work and worked out the concept and basic layout of the aircraft – but did they carry out thousands of hours of wind tunnel and bench tests – who knows? It would be interesting to see who’s design is used on the Z-10’s rotor blades? Do they look like those on the Ka-52 or Ka-62?

when you’re done researching the Kamov link to the Z-10 post it here.
the Z-10 looks more like a European helicopter than a Russian one.
Tiny, sleek, versus big, heavy, brutish

PAK-FA (T-50) thread

I don’t know what happened to the last thread but it went poof.

So lets re-build the discussion on the best stealth fighter built in Asia!

some news that was posted in the vanished thread.
http://indrus.in/blogs/2014/01/16/patent_analysis_shows_how_pak-fa_differs_from_f-22_in_air_combat_philos_32309.html

Aerodynamic question.

Root of J-20 canards is on the same position to main wings while canards on Rafale is above the wings. Is this why the Chinese have no choice but to angle the canard above the wings to generate vortex to the same effect?

you are right
all American canard stealth designs had it on the same plane as the main wing


etc.

the only one that didnt was the yf-23 navy version but that was a compromise to reach desired carrier speeds. other wise they preferred not to use it
J-20’s design decision is more influenced by engine availability (or lack of), just like the j-10.

Not enough thrust at approx 150kN wet. ADA is probably looking for 180kN or more. The only type that can pull that off is the P&W F135, though its not designed for sustained supercruise.

well the F135 is a variant of the F119 which itself is super cruising.
perhaps the F119 then?