French stuff is so poor that russia is buying BPCs :applause:

Aviation wing, weopon systems and some sub-assemblies are Russian.
It says engines are RR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship

When French role is minimized. there is reasonable chance that it will be implemented on time.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Itemid=229&id=4922&option=com_content&task=view

FX-2 (well, rather the far-reaching strategic relationship that will likely accompany or follow from it) will give Brazil influence over France, for the same reason that Russia has significant influence over Antonov in Ukraine! When you hold the purse-strings, you call the shots! Of course this influence over France would be limited, but it far exceeds the influence that Brazil could hope to exert in a relationship with the United States, which has no need of Brazil.

FX-2 deal is at most $3b to $4b spread out over 10 year if it materializes. Brazil-France has little trade when you look at overall context. it cannot give Brazil any influence infact it will give influence to France to squeeze Brazil because once this money is commited to Rafale Brazil will have little money left to look for alternatives incase the deal slow down in implementation or some other countries put influence over France. The same thing happen with India and Scorpene sub project. India simply dont have money for alternative. They have to accept first sub after 10 years and that without AIP.
Russia influence over Antonov is due to building of alot of sub assemblies for Antonov. Antonov backwardness and lack of money no Western manufacturer is going to work with them. offcourse the real influence comes form Ukranine need of Russia railway to trade with CIS/China and millions of Ukraninan need work.

Yes, exactly. For a Rafale successor France won’t be able to afford to go it alone and will instead be forced to surrender sovereignty to a Typhoon-style consortium unless it can secure more favourable terms elsewhere, e.g. in partnership with Brazil.

Brazil cannot commit so much money for Rafale successor. Snecma engines are small and not powerfull enough for 5G fighters. It will need complete built of new infrastructure.

You don’t know what Brazil gains by tapping into a world-class technology base with fewer strings and caveats attached than any other nation with as broad a portfolio? I guess it’s true what they say about being able to lead a horse to water…

That technology is obsolete by that time Brazil tap into it.

And before you say anything, yes, Russia is also one of Brazil’s better options in this respect.

Russia cannot share too much advance stuff with Brazil due to Brazil dependence and relationship with Euro Continent.

And America now perceives China as a strategic threat amidst increasing tensions between the two powers, which is precisely my point. The rise of Brazil as regional power and significant actor in global affairs is not in US interests, whereas it is in French interests. Who do you think makes for the better long-term partner? Someone who wants you to succeed and needs you to succeed to further their own interests, or someone who, deep down, is pretty happy with the status quo that allows it to intervene in the region at will?

America may need to keep its loyal allies on leash so it may need China as competitor. Your assuming France is independent country from Germany and league of Arab nations. Just look at Airbus sales especially the wide body one. Brazil is trade deficit country it cannot spare hundreds of billions dollars each year for French banks and property buying. Brazil simply cannot rise in current form. France can only be independent country once Russia spends great portion of $800b on rearmament and use the ending military power to put that league of Arab nations in place. Germany will be considerably weaken in the end result. so Brazil has to wait for that time period.

In contrast Brazil represents something of a lifeline for France insofar as ongoing strategic independance is concerned. Brazil can thus exert significant control over the relationship.

Brazil have practically zero influence over France. France is part of EU (aka Germany) and league of Arab nations. Its ability to act independently is diminishing with time. so i am not sure what Brazil is gaining by over expensive French technology transfer.
China rose due to American money (Japan/Taiwan/Korea aid and investment is American money). so who is preventing Brazil rise?

It shows the picture of the MIG-29k! Every prototype has a old photo!

Steven

Thats the the whole point. where is the picture of such MIG-29K before 2006?

You do realize that arguing with JSR is a total waste of time? Let him believe that the MiG-29K was somehow developed in just 3 years. No one else cares for what his opinion is anyway.

so show me current MIG-29K prototype flying before 2006?

Because operating the carrier is a very expensive and manpower-consuming business sapping funds that could be used elsewhere to bolster RuN capabilities. MiG-29K may be cheaper than Su-33 but it is certainly not cheaper than nothing!

Again baseless assumptions. Operating carrier is not expensive when you are doing one or two voyges in a year. and it does not take take manpower from shipyards to built other ships/subs. MIG-29K will be lot cheaper due to long overhaul times of engines and 50% less weight.Training pilot for carrier does not mean that those pilots cannot be used from land bases.

I agree that Russia has many greater priorities than new aircraft carriers. Russia is rebuilding its capabilities in a generally sensible fashion, de-emphasising Navy in the past and within Navy focusing on small combatants and submarines. Yet I believe that we will see new carriers enter Russian service before 2030.

In year 2030 it is better to start desigining space ships.
new carrier entering in 2030 means. The contact signing by now along with ordering long lead time equipment and than shipyard preparation. I will give 8 years for construction double the time of USN carriers. and another two to three years to certify nuclear power plant. and this only one Carrier at a time.

Fundamental commonality… 20 years of work developing and testing variations and changes, as well as materials, etc. This is all part of the “past experience” you cite… without this work it would have taken far longer than “2006-2009” timeframe you cite. MiG already had worked out most (if not all) of the changes you cite before the 2004 (not 2006) Indian order as part of the carrier deal.

The time-frame you give covers only the final phase of all this developmental work, which did include keeping the materials, structure, avionics, and powerplant current with those developed for other MiG-29/33/35 variants.

Note other aircraft to receive different and much more powerful engines during their production lives without major changes in their airframe…

A-4 Skyhawk: went from the 7,700 lb J65 of the A-4B to the 11,200 lb J52 of the A-4M.
A-7 Corsair II: went from the 11,350 lb TF30 of the A-7A to the 15,000 lb TF41 of the A-7E.
F11F Tiger: went from the 7,700 lb (10,500 lb with afterburner) J65 of the F11F-1 to the 9,600 lb (14,800 lb with afterburner) J79 of the F11F-1F.
F-14 Tomcat: went from the 12,350 lb (20,900 lb with afterburner) TF30 of the F-14A to the 16,800 lb (27,000 lb with afterburner) F110 of the F-14D.

Again base less assumptions. MIG export sales were not in level in the 90s and early 2000 to support development of new type from new FBW to engines to materials. Engines were mostly to increase life from 400hrs to 4000hrs in MIG case.
F-14D is new development at considerable cost if you translate into current dollars but it does not include increasing fuel capacity or new FBW.

You’ve got to find someone willing to incur the economic wrath of China. Europeans don’t seem to want to play that game.

so your assuming EU is weaker than US in facing Chinese economic backlash.