The S-400 talk sounds like journalists being fanciful.

Yup! 😎

At the risk of starting another boring An-70 vs. Il-476 discussion (From RIA Novosti):

Russia to Stick With An-70 Aircraft Project

Russia will stick with its original agreement with Ukraine to jointly build the Antonov An-70 propfan tactical transport aircraft, Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov said on Thursday, despite tensions between the two sides over the project’s progress.

zhengpao33 is on my ignore list too – for the reasons Snow Monkey mentioned – but I think its beneath some of you to make fun of someone who is clearly not a native English speaker for what is obviously a typo. The more senior (or serious) forum members should take it upon themselves to steer threads like this one back on topic instead of taking the bait of trolls.

******************************

Anyway, besides being a useful training tool, those missiles on the Yak-130 are also a handy marketing aid for potential customers.

Is it me – or is the MiG-29 slowly morphing into a Su-27 ????

Ken, its you, you’re getting old :diablo:

Only kidding. I know exactly what you mean 😎

So … you foresee the need (if ever there was such) for Cold War-level nuclear antagonism between United States and Russia? The ability to erase most of the country isn’t enough, one needs to make sure that capability is robust enough that it can’t be degraded by ABMs etc. to merely killing 100 million people or so?

Pretty much! 😎

The Cold War is over, this is true. Its end was, however, sudden and unforeseen. Relationships between powers can change quickly and nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. Besides, the US is still by far the world’s most potent military power, has a history of using said power beyond its borders and, as though that were not enough, is still working on ballistic missile shields that could one day, theoretically, make it immune to a counter strike.

If I was directing Russian defence policy, I wouldn’t take my eye off the US for a second.

I have to say I’ll be sorely disappointed if the PAK-DA ends up being a sub-sonic intra-continental bomber, more like a Backfire replacement than a Blackjack replacement. If you’re going to make a strategic bomber it needs to be able to threaten all of your potential strategic threats and for Russia that means the continental US.

Ideally, PAK-DA should be able to fulfil the following roles:

1. Strategic nuclear deterrent (whether this is with cruise missiles or not is immaterial) – able to threaten any strategic opponent in the northern hemisphere
2. Tactical nuclear strike – for those times when harsh language doesn’t get the message across
3. Long-range maritime strike/interdiction (nuclear or conventional)
4. Precision tactical strike (in low and mid intensity conflicts such as with Georgia or any of the other potential upstarts in Russia’s near abroad)
5. Bomb truck (guided/unguided) for low-tech, low-intensity conflicts such as the US intervention in Afghanistan – this last requirement is the least necessary in my opinion but USAF B-52s did a wonderful job and there’s no reason not to emulate that

Obviously, that’s a big ask but make it survivable and give it a great big payload and you’ve done half the job. A whishy-washy, medium range, subsonic stealth platform with a tiny bomb bay will be a disappointment. The RuAF needs a Bear and Blackjack replacement.

Today, the Russian two problems: The U.S. Navy and the Army of China.

I’d say, no. The biggest fear is still that the US will erode the nuclear deterrent. That’s why PAK-DA can’t just be a stealthy Tu-22M but has to be a real Blackjack replacement*.

* Which can also play a tactical role, a la B-1.

The Ka-52K has been nicknamed – “Katran”.

Катран means “tar” in Serbian :rolleyes: