So they should go ahead, open the purse strings and be done – given their dire situation, I’m sure Antonov will be only too happy to sell out in return for appropriate compensation. Didn’t the company’s leadership even offer precisely that a few months ago, when it became clear that the Ukrainian government would not be able to meet its financial obligations? It seems to me that one of the biggest issues with the An-70 is the hopelessly unrealistic expectations Russia has toward the Ukrainian side in terms of financing – they seem to demand wonders essentially for free. Ukraine is broke, and if there is genuine interest in bringing the An-70 into Russian service it’s time to face that reality and act accordingly rather than stubbornly clinging to unworkable plans. Yes, progress has been agonizingly slow, but considering how staggeringly insufficient the funding was which the project received from either government (due to inability in Ukraine’s case and political posturing, masquerading as dissatisfaction, in Russia’s), the fact that it is still alive at all is incredible! A good analogy would be EADS CASA being forced to see the A400M through on its own, with even the Spanish state paying less than previously agreed, which I’m sure nobody would expect them to manage, yet Antonov was able – barely – to keep the An-70 going through the hiatus in Russian and Ukrainian funding.

In fact, I think the only explanation may lie in the Y-20, which obviously received quite a bit of help from Antonov and may well have enabled them to generate some revenue from An-70 experience by applying it to the Chinese project (how about that JSR, maybe China DID adopt and rescue the An-70 after all, in a roundabout way).

You do realize Y-20 is flying with D-30 engines. so no major investment in engines of An-70. Engine life span, maintainability, fuel efficiency is key thing for transport. with out billions in investment the engines will be subpar with low production rates for An-70. We still dont know if modern production line has been established for An-70.
Second Chinese have just managed to flown Y-20. give them a decade of flight tests and its only for transport. It is still not universal platform for AWACS/Tankers.

Not really. It is the idea/politic to allow the survival of that plants and the related workforce built over decades with states money in Sibiria with no other high tech options really. Something closed down there is gone for ever in the end.

Workers from Soviet era retired. It is completely new plant with new worker training. they could have put an Auto plant there instead of training workers on new machines for this project. its shortage of workers not shortage of money.

Oman order of EF is rather small and too slow to implement with first deliveries in 2017. F-15 sales to RSAF have slow down the EF induction as Saudi dont see the urgency to negotiate on price.

China is strong Germany is weak. If China wishes they could take the whole Korea in 2 months and niuke Washington in the process. Nobody can risk to confront the Chinese and nobody can defeat them. We are heading for a Chinese dominated century.

China is military strong but not that strong that it can overrun a country quicker than US overrun Irak.

Germanic software and industrial machines are used by Sukhoi/Lockheed/Northrop. This company built Airbus assembly line in China. and now building MS-21 assembly line. ultimately Germany will shift EU part of EADS to Russia. as all the enabling technologies that make Airbus success is shifting to Russia.

http://www.aerotec-online.com/en/structure-assembly-line-for-russian-ms-21-will-be-made-in-germany/
Structure assembly line for russian MS-21 will be made in Germany

http://www.durr-aircraft.com/news-events/trade-presstechnical-articles/trade-presstechnical-articles/duerr-receives-large-aircraft-order-from-russia/
Ralf Dieter, Dürr AG’s CEO, commented at the signing in Zhukovskiy: “We have won this project because we combine innovative assembly technology with expertise in the execution of large orders.” Dürr has recently built assembly lines for Airbus in China and Lockheed in the USA for instance. “The order is a further milestone for our aircraft business and gives us the chance to position ourselves for follow-on projects for the capacity expansion in Irkutsk”, Dieter added

Russia has already got large pool of skilled labor from CIS countries that is supposedly greater in number than Spain/France/UK combined.
Now it expects Germany to shift all its industrial productions from the above mentioned countries to Russia. once Germany enter into this bargain. It will not need any armed forces.

lol you can go on any news site. world is begging china to stop north korea. obviously china is asias biggest influence. but even china cannot completely control a loose dog like north korea.
there is more korean in china than russia.

china is asia weakest influence.
Russia dont think China can control NK. so no point in making noise about it.

http://rbth.ru/news/2013/04/10/despite_growing_tensions_on_the_korean_peninsula_russian_forces_in_far_e_24853.html

It seems to me that LMFS is the most probable post-PAK FA project.

LMFS could be powered either by same AL41 engine as PAK FA and PAK DA or by new generation smaller engine in RD33 class. If the former, this would cut down on development costs considerably. If the latter, the new engine would be useful in other applications such as UCAVs and possible Su-25 successor.

In addition to replacing Fulcrums, if Russia has decided to press on with new carriers then new carrier aircraft will be required at some point to replace MiG-29K. And being more affordable than PAK FA it would have better long-term export prospects.

you can write off buidling export product. Even PAK-FA India variant is merely avionics change. So there is very likelyhood of building some thing from ground up for export. UCAV can play the role of light fighter as they are likely to be subsonic with lighter payloads. you can put those UCAV on carriers with smaller number of larger fighters for CAP.
I think this MIG-31 replacement is after experiance gain from PAK-FA.
PAK-DA is also post PAK-FA project. First prototype of PAK-DA will fly when PAK-FA will be in production. Things done is sequence and with same experiance team will cut down R&D considerably.

I’m not even sure where to start with some of this but a couple of points:
i) where are the giant electronic pods on the f35 a plane which sports probably the most advanced avionics system going? Saying plane X has big knobbly bits on and therefore must be good is a quite ridiculous argument.

F-35 does not need gaint electronic pods. as it is part of bigger support system.

ii) your point about the cost of an f18 growler from Europe is completely based on conjecture with no basis in fact as far as I know.

so EU can develop arms cheaper than US with same functionality?

iii) you seem to be implying that the su35 is a 6th? generation plane. Seems a tad off kilter.

It isnot 6th generation but it is built with 5G technologies in 4++ airframe. real 4++ airframe with TVC integrated FCS, fibre optics. super light materials considering the size of radar, internal fuel, TVC.
have you looked at F-15TVC weight?

iv)the EU nations are by and large members of NATO and therefore would have access to the US system so there would be no need to invest in a Gps system as a priority. Your point is therefore largely moot.

That access will depend on bargaining at that time.

v) The fact that Russia has experience with the most advanced semi conductors in south Korea seems to be implying that a) no other nation also has access and b) that no other nation’s research is as good. Neither of which I see a particular basis for. Not having an industrial base (which coincidentally many EU nations do) as large as South Korea’s doesn’t mean the research isn’t happening.

It is not just experiance but bargaining power to get some thing in return. Russia offer energry/material/farm land/transport rights to Korea.
EU is the weakest link followedy by Japan. These are dominated by firms that barely manage $1b capex per year now. There is no way it can match centeralizd R&D on scale of Samsung. The sooner it bankrupt the fabs in EU/Japan the better it is for South Korea.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2009/gb20090825_345428.htm
The trend began early this decade when Korea’s magnates tried to start leapfrogging their Japanese mentors with innovation. At the time there was no shortage of access to Russia’s underemployed educated class because of economic difficulties in their nation. Many Russian engineers worked in Korea for years at labs run by companies and the government to help iron out problems in the course of rolling out leading-edge products.
Wider Cooperation Now with the Russian economy back on its feet, many Russians have returned home. But big Korean companies have already firmly established their research centers in Russia.
“Partnership with the Russians allows us to tackle ambitious tasks that would be too complex and costly otherwise,” says Chief Executive Ahn Saeng Youl of Wookwang Tech, a beneficiary of the government aid

vi) While without doubt Israel has an advanced defence requirement, to imply that any system is therefore cannot beat Israel’s defences is circular arguing at its worst. ( apologies if I’ve read more into this than your post implies but I can’t see any other reason for your point here).

Israelis are master of electronic warfare/Survellence. Indian/Chinese try to get there AWACS more than a decade ago. Now with infusion of Russian money and scientists. The gap between Israel and EU has widened. EU has strong points in engines as Israel dont make engines.

vii) re the short of money point: arguable for gripen but not for rafale and seems to nothing but a trolling attempt.

A billion Euro a year hardly enough money. to keep update a system. It is not enough for engine upgrades let alone fundamental material and aerodynamic changes. and with no bargaining power with leading semi conductor manufacturer there is no way it is going to get updated electronics. it is not just electronics and but certify it quickly for military use.

viii) it could be happily argued that the $180b pa that Russia is investing is because it has to play catch up. You make a lot of assumptions in your point. I’ll avoid commenting on why Russia’s defence spending is so high generally as it delves into politics.

Why they have to catch up. It is leapfroging investment with multiple factories and multiple industrial chains. 7 to 8 factories will be able to independently built combat aircraft/UAV/transports/civil airliners/bombers. simlar will be engine production at 5 to 6 locations. It is fully supported by Titanium valley and two composite material plants.

ix) re Eads, airbus has been a massive money spinner which provides a near continuous income stream yet you somehow portray it as a weakness. While your point about the need to invest in research is true it ignores all the benefits associated with it including the ability to borrow against this future income stream. You also imply that airbus buying in items from other countries is a weakness rather than the simple economic reality of a company in he global market place, it certainly doesn’t mean those components couldn’t be built at home, merely that they simply aren’t almost certainly for numerous reasons including the desire for a diversified supplier base and political leverage.

EDIT: typos due to auto correct.

EADS hardly made any money. Its primary customers EU based airlines are in losses. It has to sell planes in deep discounts with airline rights to Middleast. It has to open assembly line in China. It is still depended on Russian titanium and US made parts for billions of dollars per year. Military side is even worse shape. there is no volume production. where else is EJ200 engine the engine of its primary fighter used? certainly not in LCA India or Gripen or JF-17. very similar situation with A400M. Now this product have no prospect for AWACS on scale of A-100.