JSRFrance? Why France? This is Tempest we’re discussing. France isn’t involved: it’s got Germany & Spain to sign up to another planned aircraft. Leonardo (Italian-based with a big UK operation) does rather good IRST stuff.
France is not involved but if a euro zone company get involved than France will likely get involved. its all about centralized funding and research. in short term it wont matter but going forward no company in eurozone will want to be outside.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/von-der-leyen-assigns-defence-challenge-to-france/
[B]Von der Leyen assigns defence challenge to France
[/B]
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/paris-air-show/2019/06/19/us-officials-threaten-retribution-for-european-unions-restrictions-on-defense-fund/
As we read the language right now, even European-based subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, with European facilities and European employees, would not be allowed to participate with intellectual property exchange
JSRIn the long run, a healthier domestic supplier base with income from deals with Western engine manufacturers will make Russian engine & aircraft projects more internationally competitive as well.
I doubt working with Western Engine manufacturer will make them competitive. and it will make them expensive without increasing reliability or lowering life cycle cost when things get complex or produced in lower quantities.
imagine maintaining 30 years old IL-76 if it was built with German engineering and not in same quantities like commercial fleet.
https://skift.com/2019/09/04/emirates-president-slams-airbus-and-boeing-for-lack-of-reliability/
JSR[QUOTE=RadDisconnect;n3872354]
You’ll have to ask [USER=”1724″]djcross[/USER], he first mentioned this.
“Countering” something doesn’t involve matching every performance number. Su-27 was made in response to F-15 but has lower top speed and doesn’t out turn F-15 in every part of the envelope.
.[/QUOTE]
unless Su-27 and F-15 similarly equipped with same protection level. Su-27 carry big wingtip pods.
Su-35 maximum speed given at 11,000m. acceleration Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.2 about 21 second at 1000m. presumable with 4AAMs at 50% fuel.. There is now where written this maximum speed at all altitude and all weights..
If Su-27SM is lighter than Su-35 and still equipped with upgraded engine. it will produce similar or better result.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/
JSRIf the expected trade war US-EU starts in earnest they will be highly vulnerable because of their sole-sourced parts, the French are probably acutely aware of this and hence their current interest.
It is not US-EU trade war but French has started trade war on Germany. French are very tough on Brexit, US, China, Brazil etc. These markets where Germany make money and the backlash will fall on Germany.
same with closing the door further East.
https://balkaninsight.com/2019/07/16/macron-dampens-serbias-hopes-of-rapid-eu-membership/
I will not be surprised French ask for Russia help in 6G fighter and further help in Airbus to make it more soverign.
JSRsmokeless MIG-35 with fuel tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DWz8ArUer4
JSRSu-27SK weight is about 16.8 tons. range with 9.4 tons fuel and 4AAM 3530 km.
http://www.sukhoi.org/products/earlier/251/
JSRhave you seen any recent Japanese aviation project that they can finish without external help?. I doubt they will even have workers and pilots to fly those planes.
JSRthere are so many things. just look around.
JSRI wonder why is heavy helicopter project going so slowly, cooperation on a concrete project was announced a decade ago. and yet one can read that actual airframes in service aren’t expected for another decade.
it’s not like it’s a super high tech, advanced design. at least Russian side should have some experience and knowledge, at least to lean on the mi-46 research.
only reason I can think of is that no side actually needs such a helicopter urgently. so the money invested is probably slim.
AHL is teaching China about making this kind of helicopter. it is not some 50-50 project. when ever Chinese learn to make it. its prototype will fly. but if they not learn. than it will not fly.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/04/15/russia-flexes-its-heavy-lift-helo-muscles-with-new-mi-26-test-flights/ [LEFT][COLOR=#000000][SIZE=18px]“Rostec is keeping pace with the times,” Kladov said, “and we are ready to offer the localization of technologies that our customers need … and are ready to consider a wide range of conditions and cooperation options.” Rostec has signed seven such agreements with Chinese state corporations, Kladov added. The AHL project is just one of them. One way to think of AHL is “Mi-26 lite,” a version deeply optimized for Chinese requirements: The takeoff weight will be 38.7 tons, with a payload capacity of 15 ton, a flight range of 800 kilometers and a max speed of 300 kph.One requirement that was especially important for the Chinese, Kladov said, is the ability to fly up tall mountains, like those found in Tibet. Russian Helicopters will continue to produce, sell and upgrade the Mi-26 to the Russian military and foreign customers.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/LEFT]
JSRAlso my proposals so far either were simply deliberately ignored or just turned down as a joke.
Dont you think your proposals are not joke?. They cannot certify 4600 km range aircraft on time and you are comparing there products with 10k to 20k range category
that’s why no one take you seriously and I keep repeating the same in every reply.
https://simpleflying.com/comac-c919-2021-target/#comments
[B]Comac C919’s Certification Not Likely Until 2021
[/B]
So let’s try again:
– Il-96M: as a tanker IMO too late since the PLAAF will introduce a Y-20 based design. However as Trident mentioned, it would have been a great option years ago
Trident does not know anything aviation. especially regarding IL-96M project.. look at his history about IL-476 vs An-70 discussion.
the word long range has different meaning than long range you used in common definition.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/page/146
Vladimir Putin: These are the things that need to be done methodically and as planned; I understand that for 2019–2020 there are going to be issues that need to be balanced, but you have to choose your priorities, and this is one of them. We have to build our own regional aircraft, otherwise we will always have to buy foreign aircraft in this segment. And we need a powerful engine, we need the PD-35, as you know full well. There are many aviation projects and ideas related to this engine.
Denis Manturov: It will be used both for a wide-bodied long-range aircraft and a heavy transport aircraft
I mean you can always increase thrust with PS90A1 or more efficiency with PD-14 but Playing around with Y-8/Y-9 is worthless for special mission aircraft. slow noisy and lower altitude cruising speed.
https://www.tupolev.ru/en/planes/tu-204/
[LEFT][COLOR=#818181][FONT=Roboto][SIZE=15px]Tu-204-100Ñ new generation cargo aircraft, which is based on Tu-204-100 modern passenger aircraft, is equipped with advanced PS-90A fuel-saving engines and designed to transport cargos up to 30 tons in International class containers for up to 3 900 km air paths or cargos of 15 tons for a distance up to 7 200 km.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
JSRI doubt if The Chinese have much to learn from any country in these categories, except perhaps with hypersonic missiles. In fact, it seems as if Chinese Navy ships have more advanced AESA radars fitted than can be found on Russian Navy vessels?
There is Air-Sea-Space battle concept. just look at Tu-160M2. 24 hour flights will become normal.
https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/2019-news-aerospace-industry-air-force/january/4808-russia-to-increase-its-tu-160m2-fleet-and-to-upgrade-its-tu-160m.html
[COLOR=#616161][FONT=ABeeZee][SIZE=14px]The aircraft will have NK-32 engines of the second series to increase the range and flight duration,” Shoigu said.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
Ships are limted by slow speed, limited radar horizon and a lot more manpower needed with limited strike potential.
JSRThe problem for some here in this thread seems to be, it is not an issue that China knows, that it is lacking behind, that in most cases it still would benefit more – while fast catching up and undeniable with the bigger budget –
There is no such thing as bigger budget in China that’s why Russia can subsidize 150 Sukhoi Superjet with more modifications.. while China barely at 10.
Russia can implement Glonas faster. It made more space ports.
Russia is not interested in worthless projects like J-10/FC-31/JH-7/H-6K and whole host of short range UAVs.
but the possibility to even come to the idea that it must be some sort of cooperation and not a warm-up of any old 1990s technology based design like these failed Kuznetsov designs.
Kuznetsov is not failed design. for Aircraft carrier need to be effective it need big support in EU/Middleast/Japan etc and it need a very different open economic system of interdependence.
Remember this. and in this Germany not actively participated to help French. I gave you enough hints in other thread that only worry about funding French space force and 6G fighter.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/…nalCode=cjcc20
This article examines China’s response to the 2011 Libya crisis and the emergence of a new diplomatic imperative: overseas citizen protection. Over a 12-day period in February and March 2011, China evacuated more than 35,000 Chinese nationals from civil war torn Libya
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.
One point that is missing is IMO a closer cooperation on space and rocket technology.
China will have to accept that Russia lead a project as Russia has more effective R&D, the right materials for heavy products and exactly knows what need to be done. they have million of sorties in cargo planes public and private operators. China will simply run out of money in upcoming trade wars.
JSRDon’t get me wrong and I do not want to portray the image China is ahead or even better than Russia, but I sometimes – ok, always ! – have the feeling, that besides the USA and Russia no-one takes the Chinese seriously, especially from Russia.
Not sure where this attitude comes from and again I don’t want to say they are ahead, which they are surely not in all aspects, but they are catching up very fast, they have the will and especially budget to do, something I don’t see in Russia.
I even must admit, when I last spoke with Piotr Butowski about the future prospects of the Russian Aviation Industries, it was quite sad …
you basically making assumption based speaking to those who does not know. you should only be concerned with how to fund French space force. Russia is too advanced and complex.
Chinese selling those plastic toys in Middleast/Africa will invite backlash from those who it needs especially for aviation technology. let see how far Chinese budget goes.
that’s why Russia simply not first concentrate on things that are merely for export or even export things beyond certain limit at this point.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/diplomacy/article/2144344/french-president-emmanuel-macron-vows-stand-against-chinese [h=1]French President Emmanuel Macron vows to stand against Chinese ‘hegemony’ in Asia-Pacific during trip to Australia
[/h]
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-wary-emmanuel-macron-space-force/
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=ff-tisa-web-pro][SIZE=18px]BERLIN — Emmanuel Macron’s race into space makes Germans nervous.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
JSR[QUOTE=Multirole;n3869922]
Oh dear, how did the poor Russians get by all these years without them? Surely the Americans could never have fought the Vietnam War with just turbojet powered KC-135s.
China never had it so good with tankers as they do now. They’ll be fine.[/QUOTE]
in Vietnam war US had 200m population, Oil was cheap, Pilot and maintainance salaries were so much much less,. There was no concept of building planes with advanced titanium and composite materials with large software lines.range of tactical missiles were short so not much range required for plane safety on airfield.
China simply cannot afford those substandard aviation products. they are totally inefficient/ineffective and built with external components.
Those days are almost over when Germany could run by big Surpluses with US/UK/Turkey/Middleast and re invest that money in China to produce even more profits.
JSR[QUOTE=Trident;n3869739]
The situation is similar for AWACS, but Russia having failed to adopt the Il-96 in the mid-2000s for the same reasons why it did not become the basis for a tanker, [/quote]
China and India only had money for Soviet engineering that was IL-76 based A-50. There was zero percent chance of IL-96 based AWACS. At the time IL-96 and IL-76 has identical engine power on offer. Only now the 17.5 ton PS90A1 is going into IL96M.
[quote]
From Russia’s point of view buying Ukraine out of the An-70 and An-124 in a similar manner to how they now cut Uzbekistan out of Il-76 production could have been even better, but would probably have been very difficult to achieve diplomatically.[/quote]
Again your lack of understanding of technicalities. An-124 is too big for AWACS role. An-70 too slow and short range for AWACS. the same constraint for Air-refuellers. Plus they have unique engines not shared widely with other aircraft.
Only IL-476 has the range, speed turn around time for AWACS. and it is fully multifunctional platform for transport and airrefullers.
The word long range is associated with A-50U. do you know why China and India cannot convert further IL-76 or Y-20 into big AWACS?
[quote]
https://defence-blog.com/news/russian-air-force-receives-sixth-a-50u-long-range-radar-surveillance-aircraft.html
“The A-50U long-range radar surveillance and control plane has been modernized as part of the large-scale program of renewing long-range radar surveillance aircraft stipulated by the defense procurement plan,” the Rostec press office said in a statement.[/quote]
Sign In
