This will be interesting for sure, all the while the decidedly mediocre Il-476 (despite being nothing more than a minimally modified Il-76TD-90) still hasn’t made it into the air. I won’t be a bit surprised if due to the Y-20 the Russians eventually come to regret not having backed the An-70 instead.

First this things need to be certified to very high level before it is acceptable.
Chinese have very long way to go before they can built something comparable to IL-476.

Do French still have products to sell. at most improving production qualities of Russian products.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/news/2012/01/1576718602/paris-seeks-broader-military-cooperation-with-moscow-after-mistral-deal-french-expert.html
Paris seeks broader military cooperation with Moscow after Mistral deal – French expert

I’d be very surprised indeed if they replace Tornado with Super Hornet. The Saudis have deliberately divided their combat aircraft purchases between the USA & Europe, using the Europeans to put pressure on the USA to upgrade what they’ll sell, or to get capabilities the Americans won’t sell to them. The UAE did the same with F-16E/Mirage 2000-9.

The Saudis are reported to have bought Storm Shadow for use with Tornado, & Saudi Tornadoes upgraded in the UK have been seen carrying it. The USA is unlikely to allow them to integrate it with F-15SA or Saudi F-18Es, just as it’s refused to allow Black Shaheen (a variant of the same missile) to be integrated with F-16E for the UAE.

Also, Super Hornet may be out of production by the time they start replacing Tornado.

Typhoons 25 to 72 have never been in doubt. The only problems have been with the project to assemble them in Saudi Arabia. That now seems to have been dropped, & they’re being built in the UK. It looks likely that the Saudis will build a facility to do deep maintenance & upgrades, rather than assembly.

why you would be surpized if Tornado is replaced by Superhornet. They have practically lost confidence in EU military & economic power. and they simply cannot afford equal distribution of contracts either.
see Rafale deal become unworkable. and no AESA upgrades to RSAF yet but but 20 years old F-15s getting AESA upgrade.
Most of new large contracts will go to US firms and they deserve it by concentrating largest concentration of forces.

Well, whatever… :rolleyes:

Russia is a big country, no discussion about that. Russia has a lot of wealth as well, but it’s concentrated in hands of a very small number of people.

but having a lot of wealth doesn’t make it “the wealthiest country around”. Just about the GDP (Gross Domestic Product (the amount of wealth produced if you like) Russia (<1500 billion dollars – 10th ) does barely more than half the french product (~2600 billion dollars – 5th )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

bring that to the size of the country (biggest on the planet) and it’s nothing phenomenal. If you take the GPD per habitant, it’s even less impressive.

In the end, the last detail, in case you missed it: Russia IS an east european country, it’s even the easternmost country in Europe

Different countries have different GDP calculation methods. by Russian calculation France will have either zero or negative GDP as each year it is destroying more wealth than it is creating. and this thing is reflected in banking system. wealth is much more evenly distributed.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222994/Russia_building_10_petaflop_supercomputer
Russia building 10-petaflop supercomputer
Like Europe and China, Russia is developing an exascale plan that aims to be less dependent on U.S. technology

It is not a Eastern EU country. It does not share any qualities with modern day Eastern EU. It is old geographical definition that was not even fully correct even during Soviet times.
I have no doubt they would have bought Rafale a decade ago if they felt there industry cannot develop superior aircraft . as Su-34/Su-35 delivery is slow. since they are waiting it must be acceptable to wait.
Remember Mistral are suppose to deliver in three years time. Quick execution is important. Russia simply cannot wait like India for slow execution of 10 years for first Scorpene delivery. . Powerjet consortium ring the bells.not like Kaveri-Snecma.
and i believe French Industry itself like quick execution and fast delivery of cash. so there prefer choice will always be Russia not some Arab country or India with endless negotiations.

Many european companies outsource a part of their software development in former soviet coiuntries because the manpower is cheap, not because it is better.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t… depending mostly on how good the management is.

Eastern Europe?. Moscow high tech manpower cheap? what has Moscow anything in common with bankrupt EU.
The most expensive home in real Silicon valley belong to Russian tech founder. Those who know Aviation related programming on advanced scale will not work for French company. Period. unless Russian company force them to do it as part of joint project. French socialist system wages simply cannot compete for high flying tech geniuses. your living in past tense.

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/75099/French-government-start-up-se…
French government start-up seals $300M deal with Russian government fund

It’s still a bit of a zoo, almost like the Indian air force. Subsidising the industry aside, from a purely military point of view I doubt the additional strike performance of the Su-34 is worth the higher price – and it IS going to be more expensive than a Su-30SM or Su-35S. Not only is it bigger and heavier, it is also being built at an uneconomically low rate in a plant which was obviously in dire need of modernisation until recently, and somebody will eventually have to bear the cost of said modernisation too.

IMHO, the Su-34 is a bit of a Cold War relic while at least one half of the Su-30 family arguably owes its existence to the desperate fight for survival in the 1990s. Almost without any domestic market at all, Sukhoi tried to capture as many customers as possible with minimum modification to the basic design and the company as a whole was a less homogeneous entity than it is now. In many ways, Irkut was doing its own thing with the Su-30MKI and let’s not forget the variants that never even made it into service, like the original Su-27M. In the short term, this approach might have kept the company (or companies) afloat without state help, but from a long-term perspective it generated a lot of waste and duplication.

I think the industry should have been restructured and consolidated much earlier, concentrating on far fewer projects: a Su-27SM/Su-30MKK-style programme with retro-fit options for existing airframes, something along the lines of the Su-35S/Su-30MKI and a clean-sheet medium-weight design. The former two would simply be single and twin-seat versions of the same aircraft, rather than individual variants, so apart from the eventual fifth-generation project it would boil down to three fighters as opposed to five or more. This very likely would have reduced cost considerably through strong economies of scale while still being able to capture all, perhaps even more, of the export orders that the Russian combat aircraft industry did win in reality.

How much of a loss would the cancellation of the Su-34 have really been for the RuAF? Even a multi-role Flanker is *easily* among the world’s best strike platforms and with the plants churning out airframes at a steady, high rate the modernisation programme could have been sped up a great deal. Based on the real sales generated by Russian fighters after 1990, each of the three projects I suggested could have reached production totals well in excess of 200, as it is only the Su-30MKI is likely to achieve a similar run.

how do you know addition strike performance is not worth the price?.
Su-34 has successfully done 16 hrs mission. Has strike targest at 8000km with bomb laden package in single mission. (unlike empty missions of Su-30)
Su-34 is designed around Ruaf requirement of giving comfort for long range missions. It is certiified for much higher MTOW with bigger spine and wider nose. Every thing is bigger than Su-30MK. Su-34 already had large ET. so bettter loiter time on battlefield.
Just adding another seat to fighter does not make it suitable for long range strike.
Su-30 is middle ground more suitable for training aka Su-27UBK. Not good fighter as Su-35 but not good enough in long range strike like Su-34. Su-30 was good when China/India was poorer in 1990s. so single fighter for dual role.
and having three factories running with different products is not bad for large airforce. As i said you were wrong about IL-476 project.
Su-34 has long future spanning over decades. as newer IL-476 tanker enter airforce the long range utility of Su-34 will be further enhanced as aircraft having deeper fuel tanks will multiplier effect on extending range.

cost effective as in having one less airframe type to support.
I’m sure the Su-34 is better than the Su-30 for ground attack.. but rather the better question is.. can the Su-30 complete the same job.

see for example, Switzerland Gripen vs Rafale. Rafale is better than Gripen, but Gripen can still do the same job.

Gripen can do airdefence but not Strike as good as Rafale. Rafale can carry twice as much in operational missions.