star49Buy one from Kazakhstan? They operate the type as well.
If it was that easy China would have bought it. Kazakhstan/Belrus are much harder nut to crack.
star49china will compete with FC-1. there is little chance of J-10/L-15 export in next 5 years.
Another batch of RD-93 aircraft engines to be sent to China soon
MOSCOW. April 21 (Interfax-AVN) – The Chernyshev Machine Building Plant based in Moscow is preparing to send another batch of RD-93 aircraft engines to China.
“All the formalities related to the Chinese contract have been settled. We plan to deliver another batch of RD-93 engines to the client in May or June,” the plant’s Deputy General Director for Foreign Economic Relations Gennady Arkhipov told Interfax-AVN.
Arkhipov said the deliveries had been slightly delayed for reasons beyond the plant’s control. “The delay was caused by certain problems in interstate relations. The engines were meant for Chinese planes, which would be exported to third countries,” he said.
In all, China may receive up to 500 RD-93 engines, he said.
The current contract implies the delivery of 100 RD-93 engines to China, Arkhipov said.
star49Just quit it with that one, you obviously missed his point or aren’t willing to grasp it.
I already grasp the point. He is looking at next 20-40 years.
What, is Russia going to bomb OPEC now? :rolleyes:
so do you think they will not take steps that make logical sense for them.
star49Yeah, they’ll release images of brand-new ICBM flight tests, but keep AAMs which aren’t even the best performing weapons they have secret. Sure. The only reason we have never seen the R-33S before someone brings that up (and there is one image available actually) is that the weapon may not have been fully tested or fielded before the USSR broke apart.
why testing a missile is big deal. they had hundreds of tests per year.
Seekers are not plug-and-play. You can’t change the seeker without considering a change in the CG of the weapon (see the R-33S), and you’ll have to then integrate the new weapon with the aircraft’s guidance system. Russia produces a bunch of interesting products, like your seeker line, that they intend to market abroad and not necessarily procure for home use. The old stale argument that “Russia keeps the best stuff for itself” is a bunch of BS to an extent anyway. A lot of those seeker upgrades are targeted not only for AAMs but for SAMs as well, of which there are tons of users abroad who might be potential customers.
market abroad. why would they market seekers abroad. there arent that many air to air missiles in making. when u put newer lighter/compact electronics into missile u make missile weight lighter and create space for more fuel. Very simple logic. the same they did with Kh-31. Range becomes double but not necessary size becomes double.
They sold license for T-90 because they wanted T-95. They are not accepting export model stuff.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080321/101944316.html
Russia hit by tank crisis
General of the Army Nikolai Makarov, chief of armaments, looks forward to a breakthrough in tank building soon. In 2009, the Russian Army will get a new tank – the T-95 – far superior to existing models.
The general said that even the T-90 (which is considered a modern unit and with which only the elite Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya tank divisions will be equipped by 2010) is outdated and no BIMS will be installed on it. That is to say, in battlefield conditions Russian tanks will still be shooting in the dark. Maybe the adoption of the T-95 will lighten the skies?
star49No need to , They are still based OCONUS (against your claim that they are based CONUS) and can deploy when the need arises . No need for them to be based at SK or japan , if tensions heat up they can deploy in a very short period ready to fight .
Nope. Guam & Alaska are as far as CONUS.
To think that a tactical fighter is only relevant for 6-8 years is bordering insanity . So how long will PAKFA be relevant ? 5 years ?
PAK-FA will contribute to Russian economic and military muscle in direct way as they are going to use it. US cannot use F-22 to decrease Oil prices but Russia will use PAK-FA to increase Oil prices. this is just one example.
F-22/F-35’s will eventually be used , ofcourse at a lesser number becasue their arent as many F-22’s as the F-15C’s they are replacing.
thats the whole point. F-22 are very less in number and F-35 is not there.
You say that after reacing IOC they will take 5 years to be able to forward deploy and go to war ? That is historically incorrect with the 5th gen fighter like f-22 as F-22 took 24 months between IOC and Full operational capability . The F-35 will likely take a little less as production rate is higher , greater training sims available , pilot training and maintainers training program is bigger and more refined and the aircraft pysically has a lower logistical footprint .
Strike fighter takes alot more time than air superioity fighter.
Sure but the F-35 was designed to be a F-22 supportive Bomb truck for the USAF with CAP capability , for high speed attack they will better use the F-22A with its super cruising ability and 1000 lb JDAM , or use long persistance loitering assets such as big bombers , comming in loitering , refueling , loitering some more and returning after using their munition . F-35 and F-22 will complement each other nicely .
F-35 price is getting close to F-22 and is deployed a decade behind F-22. it is not F-15/F-16.
star49You’re right, and the R-33S had different aerodynamics tailored to counter the CG issues with the new guidance assembly, not improve maneuverability. So unless you can prove otherwise, the Russian source data should still be accurate insofar as maneuvering is concerned.
that 200KM range missile is in airforce inventory. It is not the same as R-37 which is not operational but has 280KM range. why would they disclose data of most top secret weopon?
http://www.cast.ru/eng/search/?word=mig-31&x=13&y=8
Iknow that until we came there had been some offers on MiG-31 but the corporation had been refused.
The Vietnamese market is small but the sales in China could make up dozens of units.
————————————————————Such decisions should be taken with great caution. On the one hand, it could be good to sell, on the other hand, MiG-31 is a high-technological machine but the Chinese people is so diligent
…but not where those seekers have been retrofitted to the R-33. The R-37 is another thing entirely and is supposed to be part of the ongoing MiG-31BM upgrade. R-33 and R-33S missiles, however, remain SARH weapons.
why seekers should be such big deal when they are upgrading aircrafts along with engines.? even for SARH it is logical to upgrade the missles.
star49Again you take a post of FACT and distort it and take it to a totally other direction . You said that the F-22 will be based CONUS , i showed that atleat 1/3 will be permanently based OCONUS doing forward deploying stuff in situations their force asks them to (Such as being deployable to SK and JAPAN in case of elmendorf birds) .
They arent based in SK/Japan permanently.
The F-22 isnt designed for wars of today but wars of tommorow , Iran has a growing S-300 inventory , who knows what russia and china might sell it in the comming 10-15 years . The F-22 will be safest fighter in the USAF inventory against that stuff and it is most capable also.
10 or 15 years is too long time. I am not sure F-22 has any role to play.
Again you make no backed statement . Look at F-22 basing documents (official documents) , 1/3 will be based OCONUS , the rest will all be forward deployable . WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMBAT ROLES HERE – NOT PEACE TIME ROLE . EVEN MAJORITY OF F-35’S WILL BE CONUS BASED DURING PEACE TIME just like majority of F-16’s are CONUS based during peace time .
I doubt USAF is going to use F-22 like F-15/F-16 to shuffle around the whole world for even small provocation.
Add another 12-18 months after IOC for Full operational capability (about the time it took the F-22 )
Atleast 5 years away.
As designed FB-22 was non-afterburning non 9G bomber , not a F-15E like system but F-117 like system . Maybe you want a F-15E like setup , which would be very interesting no doubt.
A little bigger than F-15E.
Also more cost of procurment and maintaince . The F-35 according to many has more combat range then the F-22.
Range at what speeds. F-22 may go towards the target faster and generate more sorties.
Surely but for MIGCAPS the navy boys felt the sparrow had a better chance against fighters then the phoenix , which was better for bombers.
And those times i think only MIG-25/MIG-31 if Phonex had hard time against those 4.5g machines so i think it some thing worse than imagine.
star49http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html
Max range: 120km
Target g load: 4
Fighter kill probability: 0.65Anything pulling over 4gs can, according to Russia, have a good chance of avoiding the R-33.
there is alot of outdated stuff in that document.
R-33 built in 1970s is not the same as built 25 years later.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_31_E_e.htm
The RAC “MiG” accumulates and summarizes the unique experience of the MiG-31E aircraft application which is called by the leaders of the Russian Air Force as the main aircraft of the air defense fighter aviation. The aircraft and its airborne radio-electronic equipment are being continuously upgraded and new aircraft weapons are being introduced.
When you find data on the seekers actually fitted in the R-33, which are semi-active, it’ll make a difference.
I have clearly shown 350MM active seekers. I doubt they are flying with 20 years old missiles.
star49And where does he say that they’ll kill fighters at the maximum range of the R-33? You’re extrapolating things that simply aren’t there.
he clearly said long range missles. not medium or short range missiles. It is the long range missile that is advantage. offcourse no missle is going to be effective at maximum range.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_31_E_e.htm
“A-A” missiles:
– long range 4Ρ R-33E
– middle range 2Ρ R-40TD1
– short range 4Ρ R-60MK
350MM seeker has more than twice the lock on range of 200MM seeker (R-77) which is twice of 150MM (R-73) active seeker. so there is more autonomous operation with larger missile.
http://www.airshow.ru/expo/334/prod_705.htm
2. Acquisition range of RCS=5 m2 targets (km) – 40, not less.
3. Seed of digital computing system (op/sec) – 50×10^6, not less.
4. Volume of REPROM (K) – 64, not less.
5. Time ready after preliminary transmitter heating (sec) – 1,0
6. Mass without radome, (kG) – 13, not more;
7. Diameter, (mm) – 350
8. Length without radome, (mm) – 330
star49Missiles loose kinetic energy and therefore the ability to maneuver against non-cooperative targets (like highly maneuverable fighter aircraft) the longer they fly. A large missile like the 48N6 uses aerodynamic controls and high-impulse motors to get to very high velocity, giving it more kinetic energy. That’s how a big Mach 6 missile retains a lot of maneuvering capability to hit a fighter jet. You also have to consider that a SAM can be far less maneuverable than an AAM as it will carry a much larger warhead with a corespondingly larger kill radius.
R-37 is believed to be more maneuverable thanks to the refined aerodynamic control layout, but at maximum range it won’t be taking out a fighter pulling a 9g turn to evade. Maximum range is one thing, but is ultimately basically useless in combat unless you’re firing head-on at a cooperative target like a B-52 or 747. If you want to measure body parts using missiles, you need to have the no-escape range of the relevant weapon system calculated against a non-cooperative target.
R-33? Not designed to shoot down fighters, and while it could be used in such a role it’ll likely be just as effective in RusAF service for that purpose as the USN’s AIM-54 proved t obe in DESERT STORM. R-33S aerodynamic improvements were only tailored to fixing CG problems due to the new guidance system.
ur mixing different time lines. In R-33/AIM-54 time line even AIM-7 would be equally ineffective at maximum distance. Larger missile has larger more powerfull wide seekers with bigger motor. it seems they will come at the target from most favorable position at much higher speed.
here from MIG-31 commander.
[Knysh] As distinct from the Su-27 or the MiG-29, for instance, which are manoeuvrable fighters, its own manoeuvrability is naturally not as good as that of many others. But I don’t think anyone is going to try and perform close air combat on this fighter plane. We will shoot down all our enemies with our long-range missiles.
star49how this compare to others. At 36000 feet achieving Mach 2.25. and only 13.8 sec from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1 at 1000m with 6000kg internal fuel.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp
Take-off weight, kg:
normal (2 x RVV-AE + 2 x R-73E) 25,300
maximal 34,500
By-pass turbojet engine:
number, pcs 2
thrust, kg 14,500
Maximal fuel load in internal fuel tanks, kg 11,500
Maximal combat load, kg 8,000
Ceiling, km 18
Range with maximal fuel load, km:
Π=0, Π=0.7 1,580
Πcr, Π cr 3,600
Ferry range: 4,500
with 2 Ρ PTB-2000 external tanks, km
Acceleration time at H=1,000 m and fuel bingo 50% of the standard capacity, sec:
from 600 km/h to 1,100 km/h 13.8
from 1,100 km/h to 1,300 km/h 8.0
Maximal rate of climb (Π=1,000 m), m/sec >280
Maximal airspeed :
H=200 m, km/h 1,400
H=11,000 m , M 2.25
Maximal g-load, g 9
Take-off run in “full afterburning” mode with standard take-off weight, m 400-450
Landing roll on concrete runway in braking mode with brake parachute and wheel brakes use, with standard landing weight, m 650
Length, m 21.9
Height, m 5.9
Wing span, m 15.3
star49Nope
for third world wars u will not need F-22 as F-35 and F-18E will do the job. why use airframe hours? It is like sending MIG-31 to shoot a drone in peace time. and for big war small number of F-22 will not find a place to park and will have negligible effect. so it means it will spend most of its time in Conus.
Alaska and hawai are both OCONUS π
these are the places where it makes it role less important to others.
K , but they havent charted out batch buys for the PAKFA ? I mean the thing is supposed to fly in a quarter or two .
well the factory statement is that permanent work for employees based on 70% Civillian and 30% military with flexibility in between so it means the factory will produce aircraft year after year. thats the way it should be.
Well that couldnt stop the F-15’s and F-16’s dropping PGM’s . F-22 with diamondback JDAM gives it SO ranges , If the AD’s are strong and dense , they can be saturated with B-2 , F-22A force (KICKING DOWN THE DOOR – Jumper offical policy statement) using all sort of weaponry JDAM’s , SDB’s , and other assets aswell (cruise missiles) . You take everything to US vs russia which is not a real scenario in the next 2 decades .
well F-15/F-16 are no stealth aircraft advance IADS will find them from hundreds of kms and track there path. and i am putting real scenario. where will that all natural resources wealth go in the end. but to buy more natural resources which will lead more higher prices and than buy more with that profits. there is no end insight. and it is not just related to food.
F-35’s will start replacing old F-16’s in FULL PRODUCTION numbers in less then 4 years.
4 years does not mean operational readiness in front line.
Not much earlier given the complexity (maybe 5-6 years early)
but not cheap , the USN’s F-35 fly away is very cheap becaue no. is subsidized by over 1500 buy for USAF , a FB22N would only be 100-200 purchased and that would be as expensive as f-22 if not more (greater cost for naval version , etc etc ) . Moreoever they would still need something for Air defence and CAP because FB-22 cant do two things at the same time .
FB-22 should be faster and more BVR capable than F-35. More thrust, weopons, bigger sensor sutie.
I was reffering to the 4-5 times range increase on the R-77 . Many feel the R-77 is the best suited weapon (BVR) for 9G fighter threats available in russia just as Aim-120 and sparrow was considered better for USN fighters as compared to tomcat with phoenix (for figther threats and MIGCAPS)
I think even older R-33S are perfectly capable of taking out fighter aircraft. R-37 should be even more why it shouldnt be as even larger SAM missiles are used for shooting fighters at long distances.
star49ROUGHLY 60-70 (more then 1/3 of the entire no. procured) OF THE F-22’S WILL BE PERMANENTLY STATIONED OCONUS.
I never said that it wouldnt stay in the US for some time , Its COMBAT LIFE would EXCLUSIVLY BE OUTSIDE CONUS . When the F-15’s star to retire in greater no.s we may even see F-22’s being permanently based outside of the US which i am almost certain would happen in the comming years . F-22’s with the Pacific sector and atlantic sector are all required to be forward deployed to combat zones just as F-15’s are in case of need.
I think ur wrong on F-22 deployment. The quantity is too small that it will exclusivly be deployed outside. u need some for Alaska and training, maintaiance inside US.
So the russian defence budget does no planning for larger procurment ? No allocation for 3 years down the line , 5 years down the line etc etc ? I would doubt this honestly . Most govts have pretty clear plans what they are going to procure in the next 5 years and have provisional plans drawn up . The F-35 production slots have been pretty much drawn up , ditto with the f-22 when it was under testing , they knew roughly how many , and when , money was appropriated .
well they have 5 trillion rubles procurement budget untill 2015 out of which 116 are new planes procurement. Most of it will be Su-34 in this period. but later everything will become PAK-FA.
R-77 is 200km ranged with Mig-31?
R-77 is not primary BVR for MIG-31. and without R-77 MIG-31 can do all the Airsuperiorty function.
What are you talking about ? We are talking about F-22’s ability to drop PGM’s .
and that PGMs are so limited in quantity that any decent airdefence will handle it.
I am not denying this at all . You seem to take my quotes and turn them around totally . This is bordering distortion. I am saying that the US needent really prepare for an immediate confrontation with Russia (immediate in this case being 20 years) and you are talking about russian industrialization and hard currency . What the HELL Does this have to do with the para you quoted ?
20 years is too long time. I will give 5 years at most in current rates.
No , i am saying that with the F-35’s induction the overall effectivness of the squadrons which replace their aircraft with F-35’s will increase many times . Their is no disputing this .
F-35 is too far into the future.
The F-15 was a damn expensive aircraft which would “Bankrupt” the DOD , these were the sort of slogans which greated F-15 in the senate/congress and from the bean counters , back then the F-4 was the cheap fighter and F_15 the ultra expensive fighter
Here is a direct quote from those times –
This aircraft is too complex to maintain and operate. Itβs too expensive to buy * four times the price of our existing fighters.β
That quote is not from 2001; it is from 1970. The United States Congress is moving to kill the F-15 program, claiming that the aircraft is too expensive.
This quote from 1970s is wrong. i can mathematically prove it wrong. but we will need another thread. 4 times of $4m= $16m but 4 time of $40m=$160m. both are four times but they belong to different periods.
Lets see them get their first , lets see how long it takes them . The US is constantly developing its weapons aswell including all sorts of things , we dont just sit down after f22 and f-35 are developed and shut shop.
u did exactly with B-1/B-2 and now F-22.
Only option for cancelling F-35 is buying more f-16’s and 18’s and harriers . The F-35 carries way way more internal fuel then any of those and has greater range . They knew that freindly air bases would be harder to acheive therefore the increase in range requirments aswell as emphasis on a robust modern tanker fleet.
that whole F-18E is wrong concept. It would have been better FB-22 class Naval fighter. it would have come earlier than F-35 along with reduce cost and more capability and small number less pilots.
star49I made a general and obvious statement . The F-22 like the -15 will see its missions outside CONUS . if you think that it wont and will se many missions in CONUS please say so .
F-22 will spend most of its life inside CONUS unless it is exported. Its numbers and capabilities puts limitations on its role.
I have no doubts that they are working on the B-3 ( the black budget for DOD is quite huge)
thats good to hear.
How many firm orders ?
there is no such thing as firm orders. Factory has to build per year basis.
Lets visit this conversation when that happens and they are operational . Or atleast in FINAL DEVELOPMENT-TESTING PHASE.
so what is 200KM with MIG-31.
Coupled with other strategic and tactical assets such as F-35 , B-2 , B1 , UCAV , Cruise missiles , they surely will . Again it depends who the enemy is , the US needend maintain forces to be able to fight against russia , such is not required in the current enviroment , US-Russia relations will only improve and nations are less likely to ever go to war.
ur working under questionable assumption. world resources are limited & business interest will clash. u fail to acknowledge the point that since Russia has lots hard currency it has become able to import high end industrial machinery that enable it to produce much higher end products at faster pace with cheaper investment in money and menpower compare to ColdWar. It is the hard currency that is changing the equation.
It is a multi-role fighter for strike missions , EF is quite a capable fighter , the F-35 relies more on LO , Sensor fusion , Active-passive sensor integration and flexibility . It has limitiations hence it is called the BUICK OF FIGHTERS , it was never planned to match the performance of the F-22 rather be way above the F-16 , -18 and harrier it is replacing in terms of performance , with 5th gen avionics (upgradable) and Stealth . F-35 is first US aircraft conveived from a POST-COLD WAR threat enviroment , no need to conveive it such as to enter an ARMS RACE with SU , it doesnt need the high performance , supercuise as the F-22 (conveived in SU times) but can be made cheaper and still provide 5th gen + avionics , Stealth and better range and performance as opposed to the aircraft it is replacing . A smart move by all accounts.
u are explaining F-35 based on number of fighters it is replacing along with Post Coldwar threat enviornment. but here enviornment has become much more dangerous than the Coldwar. when Russia along with its associates continue to charge higher price for natural resources it makes EU poor and make EU banks less inclined to loan money to US conumers. Every thing is interconnected.
Is it the aircrafts fault ? Us f-15’s and F-16 are probably the most used Fighters of the last 2 decades , If F-22’s and F-35’s suffer from high uses i am sure they would buy new ones .
F-15/F-16 were built in very cheap times. I doubt F-22 will be replaceable when it is playing no role 20 years after conception of project.
No way towards 750 , 750 (more like 600-750) was a cold war number , with SU gone they didnt need that many . The USAF itself isnt asking for that many aircraft . The F-22 was supposed to be a high end fighter of a two fighter air force , just like the F-15C was in the previous generation .
And u needs much more than Coldnumber. no one is going to stop china building 5th generaton fighter at some point in big numbers just like Ship building.
Strategicaly the f-35 is more important to the USAF as it replaces majority of their fleet . The JAST/JSF was always meant to do that , they knew that something was going to come up in this timeframe and replace all those thousands of F-16’s , the F-22 was always meant to be a AD fighter replacing F-15C’s .
F-35 is not important strategically. it has become important because of so many stake holders from countries to corporations. It would have been better with FB-22. Medium size theatre bomber that u can use from long range island bases or refuel it from far away from war theatre. F-35 will too much depend on other countries bases which is not good when world is changing.
star49Like the F-15 , All of F-22’s combat missions will be outside of CONUS .
First we are not living in coldwar era. former communist countries are well integrated into world economy so 95% of countries will be neutral for economic reasons. than best place to park F-22 is Turkey as Russia is likely to first expand towards caucas and block that gas pipe. but Turkey may remain neutral due to economic reason. I just gave one example how difficult is it is deploy F-22 on short notice. In cold war bases were permanently stationed with no bluring of economic lines.
Been there done that!!! The B-2’s stealth is improving , they work on it , Production stops but not improvment .
that kind of imrovement cannot continue for next 40 years. u need another bomber Just like Russia will continue ICBM missile year over year on batch production. Once you enter weopon system u have to continue building it.
remember when u continue to increase SAM ranges u expect sensors ranges correspondingly increase.
http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/18-2007/def/def2/
The media reports quoted a source from the Russian defense industry, who explained that Almaz-Antey has already built the first prototypes of the new missile, which carries the code name Kh-96. The missile that reportedly is being tested with the S-400 system is said to be capable of overcoming enemy electronic countermeasures and air defenses, and can hit ballistic and cruise missiles in any flight trajectory. The missile will have a range of 500 km β which is 100 km longer than the reported maximum range of the S-400’s standard missiles. According to the industry sources, Kh-96 will also be able to obtain target designation information from space-based resources
Too early to talk about success or failure . Like the F-35 , let the darn thing fly.
Why it is too early to talk about success. Su-34/S-400 become operational in very difficult times. PAK-FA seems to be piece of cake. At Knaapo they are creating production capacity of 100 aircraft per year on which 70% Civillian & the rest fighter. So 30 aircraft per year for next 40 years= 1200 aircraft. In that u can include naval versions.
As far as fighter weaponry is concerned the main weapon is the R-77 (against manuvering fighterS) , 400km might happen but then again lets get back to the topic when it happens .
No one clamins R-37 is agianst non manuvoring target. and R-77 variants will be 4 to 5 times range of current versions.
So all possible weaponry will be integrated when the first aircraft flies ? The F-22 is as multi-role as they can get with the no. they allready have . JDAM , SDB and in the future Mini-JAASM_ER , JDRADM . They dont need to integrate anything else because the F-35 will deal with other weaponry , the F-22’s A2S role is only restricted to DEAD/SEAD and some TOHV destruction.
There wont make a difference between heavy AAM and ASM.
Who’s doing that ?ho’s putting 4th gen tech onto 5th gen airframes ? ANd F-35 only releveant some years ago ? So its RELEVANCE LIFE is only 5 years?
F-35 is single engine fighter with no better TWR than EF. I cant expect it flying at Mach 2.
How long have the F-15C’s been in service ? and they are still fighting wars arent they ? We aint changing fighters every 15 years , nor is anyone else . And FB22 (hyhptothetical) hasnt even flown yet so how come 8000 hours ???
they arent fighting high intensity wars where thousands of sorties with high manuverability are required.(where they are equally challenged in aircombat) it is mostly straght line performance.
WHen the cost becomes less with time and you limit cost cutting measures and then reduce number ….. The raptor team has saved close to 18 billion dollars from 2001 estimates of the cost of 183 raptors . Thats over 2 billion dollars saved per year . If USAF was allowed to buy as many raptors that the congress then promised the USAF (CONGRESS PROMISED BUY AS MANY AS YOU CAN FOR 80 BILLION) THEN THE USAF WOULD HAVE a much higher number by now .
If F-22 has all the capaiblity of F-35 it would have continued its journey towards 750 numbers. The moment you introduce another project u make it less important. Naval variant is another issue. PAK-FA does not face any such challenge.
Sign In
