JSRBrazil is a lot richer per head than China, & its poverty rate has dropped a lot recently & is continuing to do so.
per capita does not matter for the whole country. as long as those in Shanghai/ Beijing/Hk makes more per head and are more techical in software and maths.
Here your dealing with top 1% of 1% of talent in technical skills.
JSRA little bit from defensenews.com that seems to make sense of this mess:
“A Rafale order, however, was seen by the Emirati authorities as a political favor requested by Paris for domestic reasons.
“This is not a requirement,” a Gulf source familiar with the talks said. “It was pushed as a political purchase.”
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8271432&c=EUR&s=AIR
I won’t be surprised if UAE buys nothing now. UAE offered to do France a favour; France was unable to accept that favour, I suspect mostly because of Dassault’s lust for profit. I doubt whether Dassault are on Sarkozy’s Christmas card list this year. I read in La Tribune (I think) that Sarkozy had set himself the task of France getting Rafale exported during his presidency. Selling to a semi-captive customer who wanted to do France a favour would have been the easiest way.
One wonders what UAE’s reaction will be to a competitive Eurofighter offer if the deal was principally to do France a favour.
France was unable to accept the favor or the favour was withdrawn. as we havent heard from Dassualt what is so unworkable.
JSRThe world’s future fourth-largest economy (i.e. first amongst ‘the rest’ behind the superpowers of China/US/India) is not exactly going to be scraping to afford an air force, even with its laudably modest military spending. Brazil should opt for the platform that promises to deliver them the most capability coupled with industrial/operational independence over the long-term. And that’s Rafale.
Nigeria is also becoming superpower by 2050.
Brazil has very modest skills in aviation and may not even be able absorb.
JSRJSR- I agree with you that UCAVs are not going to replace fighters anytime soon. But not because of budgets, but because the AI in UCAVs is a long ways away from being able to safely fly and make decisions like a human pilot. But in the strike role we have already seen in the Libyan conflict that the use of Tomahawks to take out initial air defenses, that there is a need for UCAVs to do this more economically
budget is the reason that UCAV cannot replace fighters or cruise missile carriers be it bombers/fighters/submarines.
UCAV have very limited payload capacity. (One fighter can carry almost 15 UCAV payload with much faster speed/high G maneouring) and very expensive to develop & have very high crash rate and these dont even have EW suites to deal with more sophisticated airdefence or even go air to air fight with fighters.
it is like developing automated reusable space shuttle on tiny budget.
JSRi’ve got the same bet on with toan… we will meet back here in 20 years time and see who is right!
UCAV is simply not practical and unaffordable.
Look at the incremental trends. . 5G fighters will have 100,000lbs thrust. AWACS will have 200,000lbs thrust.
Now this very big leap over the tiny but super expensive current UCAV.
Space budgets are increasing so strategic survellence will be space based. but tactical survellence will be combination of UAV/AWACS/Fighters.
More advance faster, longer range cruise missiles will equip SSN/SSGN/5G Bombers/fighter. so that you covered for around the globe strike.
You dont need 20 years to see this trend and that being generous assumuing every one in EU is not Greece by than to built swarms of UCAVs.
JSRThe big challenge is finite resources. Either invest in UCAV or invest in next generation giant AWACS/5G figher combo.
I highly doubt supercruising UCAV will be cheap. There wont be a swarm of UCAV.
JSRhttp://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-14/irkut-introduces-ms-21-alternative-airbus-a320neo-and-boeing-737-max
Irkut Introduces MS-21 as Alternative to Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737 MAX Dubai Air Show » November 15, 2011 by James Wynbrandt
Russian aircraft manufacturer Irkut announced here yesterday that its MS-21 family of short- and medium-range twin-engine passenger jets (MS-21-200, -300 and -400) has now recorded orders for 235 airplanes. Among the customers are Russia-based Aeroflot, Ilyushin Finance and Rostechknologii, as well as Malaysia’s Crecom. Kirill Budaev, Irkut vice president, sales and marketing, said the aircraft is on schedule for its maiden flight in 2014, with European certification and first customer deliveries expected in 2017.
The MS-21 will compete with the new Airbus A320neo and Boeing’s 737 MAX, both using next-generation engines on their legacy airframes, but Irkut says its clean-sheet design will offer superior economy in purchase and operating costs over both aircraft. “A clean-sheet design is [what is needed] for competitiveness,” Budaev said. “You’re not able to achieve that where you just improve a program that is 50 years old.”
The Russian twinjet will feature composite wings and empennage and an aluminum fuselage. The fuselage is 25 percent wider than that of a 737 and 11 percent wider than an A320, and will still be lighter than either aircraft. The question most often asked about the design, Budaev said, is why the MC-21 doesn’t have winglets, given the design’s emphasis on efficiency. The high-aspect-ratio composite wings obviate the need for them, he said, the same reason the composite Boeing 787 has no winglets.
The second most frequently asked question, he said, was: given that Russia’s renown for aerodynamic engineering is not matched by a reputation for production quality and customer support, what is Irkut doing to address potential manufacturing and aftermarket support concerns? Budaev said the company is seeking international partners to assist in those areas.
The MS-21 series will have two engine options: the Russian PD-14, being developed by Aviadvigatel, and the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G, the same engine family that will power Bombardier’s CSeries.
In the cabin, the aisle width has been optimized to enable faster embarking and disembarking, reducing turn times and increasing flight time up to 142 hours annually on the -200 models. Larger cabin bins will take bigger carry-on luggage, reducing the need for passengers to check baggage and thereby reducing their travel time.
The cockpit will feature sidestick controls and an avionics suite with optional head-up display. Budaev also said the next-generation flight system would reduce pilot workload and be capable of supporting single-pilot operations, should they be approved in the future. The hold, with more space for revenue-generating cargo, is designed for easy loading and unloading.
The MS-21-200, with a 150-passenger capacity, is priced at $69 million, and the MC-21-300, with a 180-passenger capacity is priced at $78 million.
JSRYou can pretty much deduce it. 20% titnanium, 40% Composite price. and engines, landing gears, FBW.
only Joint Avionics with Rockwell.
http://www.marchmontnews.com/Archive/News/14065.html
According to AeroComposite president Anatoly Gaidansky, when the project is running at full throttle composite components will account for at least 30-40% of an MS-21—and of the plane’s price too
JSRMS-21 will not be more than 15% foreign content if Russian engine is used.
Based on domestic titanium, aerokomposite content.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1135324&pagina_chiamante=index.php
Gidromash will be supplying landing gear for MS-21
Moscow, Russia – Agrrement signed with Irkut Corporation
JSRhttp://english.cri.cn/6826/2011/11/14/2021s667196.htm
Russia’s United Aircraft Aims to Rival Airbus, Boeing
JSRAm sorry if you took it wrong. It looks poorly built compared to western planes and Su 35S or even an MKI. It may have no impact on its function, but in form it looks less than impressive up close.
Su-34 DNA is 15 year older than Su-35S.
You have to consider Aircraft designed for Strike/EW (look at is back sting) takes way longer to develop than simple Fighter.
Supercruise/Supermanevourability/climb rates/acceleration are not major consideration for bomber. so there is less need for using expensive lightweght materials in construction.
Su-35 seems logical step towards PAK-FA as Su-35 is going to share cockpit and engines with PAK-FA with time so less time for conversion interms of pilot training and tactics.
JSRThe basic premise of a co development is to produce something which both parties desire, at costs which are acceptable to both. However IP rights, work share, profit margins and sales rights are the reasons why partnerships are so difficult to work with. The kind of partnership you are talking about is, “i make nuts, you make bolts, lets work together”, however with a fairly capable partner which can handle several subsystems (which the senior partner could have developed anyway), the Russians can concentrate on technological breakthroughs in core capabilities which might have been left unexplored if the project was not jointly funded and/or jointly developed.
That’s exactly what I meant. JV is only done when both parties received the same product. Take for example Su-30MKI. If this was desirable product for Ruaf there wouldn’t be need for costly certification process of Su-34/Su-35. Now Su-30SM is after thought due production capacities and everything foreign will be replaced with paltry sum of 150m roubles (apparently for cerfication of new Russian components). PAK-FA is not JV and neither is Brahmos.
I will give you example of Russian JV. STMircro-Mikron, CERN, Soyouz-ESA, Siemens-Nokia-Rostech, Snecma-Saturn, Alenia-Sukhoi. And those JV with EU will be expanded to trillions as EU goes bankrupt with time. By concentrating on Core EU in bigway gives Russia a lot of lobbying power that ultimately clinch Mistral tech transfer deal. just like French thermal fixed T-90. . And I don’t think for second there be any major deficiency in Mi-28N.
India is simply too slow in money and dysfunctional for JV with Russia now. US will not do JV with India for small but overpriced purchases. So money and skills for JV with other countries is simply not there.
JSRYour posts are so full of bizarre inferences and claims. What do Aeroflot or Air India have to do with the professional air arms of either nation which are run entirely differently and have a totally different culture or ethos. Air India BTW, is paid pretty heavily by Indian standards and has only managed to stagger from one crisis to another, whereas if you talk to the average fighter pilot, his reaction is “I fly fighters/XYZ and can you believe that they pay me for this job”. There are so many differences in terms of the comparisons that your statements just don’t make sense.
Aeroflot/AirIndia are basically extension of professional air arms. just look at employees history and government management. infact Aeroflot has to deal with much more diverse fleet.
270% wage increase across the board will have big impact.
JSRIMO all future deals with Russians apart from Mi 17 would be JVs. IAF prefers buying from the west when its outright purchase.
Because through out the years there is a belief in GOI that Russian weapons are inferior but comes with great flexibility/ToT/JV etc. (Comment made by Indian Ambassador to SU in the past when SU offered TU-22 (not M) bombers to India was that Russian Bombers are not as good as American ones, but they are far less restrictive).
India practically does not have anything to offer for JV.
India is only acquireing licenses of Russian system assembling. look at RD-33 license. Russia is happy to sell licenses as it is upfront money without manufacturing the product. If you look at Russia acqusitions. it is entirely concentrated on EU firms & products.
There is expectation in India that if it buys from EU/US. there is greater option of training personal in those countries and the end immigrate. This MMRCA does not make sense. I highly doubt Mi-28 is that much underdeveloped. and it is not that India signed and getting choppers tommorrow.
JSRthere is 767 based AWACs, its already in operation, not a paper plane
two engined = cheaper to fly than a 4 engined beast like A-50 or E-3
767 has smaller dish and lower power even than current Phalcon.
what has cheaper to fly has anything to do with High End AWACS?
As is said there are other options that lower power/cheaper and but they will not be as capable as A-100. A-100 will at some point get PD-18.
And than there is question of upgrades over 50 year life span.
ability of smaller countries like Sweden/Israel/France to fund R&D on large scale will diminish over time.
Sign In
