Sukhoi PAK-FA ?

[EY]

Hi all,

I found interesting pictures at http://warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280
Are they really show Sukhoi Pak-FA fighter?

Thank you.
Eugene

[Barry George]

Thanks for the link!
In short my answer is no. They are different artist conceptions based off of some of the advanced
LFS/LFI concepts for a light fighter. Interestingly all of them show wings similar to project
"integral" which has produced the shafagh light trainer/combat aircraft in Iran.

I beleive that this wingshape may offer improved subsonic and sustained high angle-of-attack
performance and is probably the most likely for the PAK-FA, following the standard Russian practice
of choosing the perfect wing and building the airplane around it.

It looks like the aircraft will be developed as a joint venture by several of the major firms.
Pictures of the Shafagh can be found at: www.aeronautics.ru

I would also not consider the designation or the performance figures as being serious.
-Jonas Weselake-George

EY > wrote in message ...
Hi all,

I found interesting pictures at http://warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280
Are they really show Sukhoi Pak-FA fighter?

Thank you.
Eugene

[forties]

Thank you. And does it means that russians will produce 2 types of
future a/c: MFI and LFI .. or they are still looking for the right
choice between two concepts to accept in in RAF then?

[Kevin Brooks]

"forties" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you. And does it means that russians will produce 2 types of
> future a/c: MFI and LFI .. or they are still looking for the right
> choice between two concepts to accept in in RAF then?

What the Russians are exhibiting interest in and what they can actually
produce are two different things. There is not really much likelihood of
their making any significant purchases of any new fighters for the
foreseeable future, based upon their financial problems (look where the new
Su-30's are going--not their own Air Force, for the most part). They are
having enough difficulty just getting enough money to give a portion of
their existing pilots sufficient flight hours to meet the most minimal of
proficiency standards, are tangling with trying to keep up their end of the
joint program with the Ukraine for the An-70 (which last I heard they are
again claiming they will buy...if they can scratch some funds together),
etc. Can't see any way they would be able to support development of two
major combat systems--the only way they will be able to develop *one* is to
get significant outside funding (i.e., India).

Brooks


>

[forties]

Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..

[Barry George]

Yes, I believe that it is likely that the PAK-FA will try to fill both roles.

Russia still has a requirement for a heavy interceptor and given the decisions so far it seems
likely funding will someday be reserved for it. It will be ten or twenty years before there is
enough funding for it and it will have to compete with S-400 family SAMS. Russia needs such
interceptors for defending such a large frontier but they cost money. The Mig-31 weighs as much as
four unloaded Mig-29s and the fuel bills for it are shocking.

It will have to have very long range and will most likely (I am guessing here) could take two forms
either that of a low speed, extremely high altitude missile platform or a more costly fighter with
sprint speeds in combat of over mach 3.5! It is slightly possible that such a project could be based
off of the medium and heavy bombers (think T-60 and T-4MS) which will replace the Su-24 and Su-34.

Run a search on the mig project 7.01 to see the next stage above MFI!
-Jonas Weselake-George

forties > wrote in message
oups.com...
Thank you. And does it means that russians will produce 2 types of
future a/c: MFI and LFI .. or they are still looking for the right
choice between two concepts to accept in in RAF then?

[Barry George]

Yes, It is a bit of a change. One can even imagine a joint development project using the Chinese
J-XX.
They will probably for reasons of pride produce several one off prototypes over the next twenty
years or so though.
-JWG
_________________________________________________

Kevin Brooks > wrote in message ...

"forties" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you. And does it means that russians will produce 2 types of
> future a/c: MFI and LFI .. or they are still looking for the right
> choice between two concepts to accept in in RAF then?

What the Russians are exhibiting interest in and what they can actually
produce are two different things. There is not really much likelihood of
their making any significant purchases of any new fighters for the
foreseeable future, based upon their financial problems (look where the new
Su-30's are going--not their own Air Force, for the most part). They are
having enough difficulty just getting enough money to give a portion of
their existing pilots sufficient flight hours to meet the most minimal of
proficiency standards, are tangling with trying to keep up their end of the
joint program with the Ukraine for the An-70 (which last I heard they are
again claiming they will buy...if they can scratch some funds together),
etc. Can't see any way they would be able to support development of two
major combat systems--the only way they will be able to develop *one* is to
get significant outside funding (i.e., India).

Brooks


>

[Kevin Brooks]

"forties" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..

What acquisitions? They have been buying danged little in the lines of new
equipment over the last ten years or so. In the aircraft sector, their
emphasis has been almost solely on export production; domestic work has
largely been limited to some upgrade work, and they have been having a hard
time paying for even *that*. A 2002 study indicated that Russia was putting
about 7.5% of the funds into aircraft development/production that they had
committed during the Soviet era--that level of funding is not going to
stretch very far.

Where is that second large (by their standards) aircraft carrier they built
going? India. Where are the Su-30's going? India, China, etc. So what are
these "military acquisitions" for domestic use that you speak of?

Brooks

>

[D]

----------
In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..
>
> What acquisitions? They have been buying danged little in the lines of new
> equipment over the last ten years or so. In the aircraft sector, their
> emphasis has been almost solely on export production; domestic work has
> largely been limited to some upgrade work, and they have been having a hard
> time paying for even *that*. A 2002 study indicated that Russia was putting
> about 7.5% of the funds into aircraft development/production that they had
> committed during the Soviet era--that level of funding is not going to
> stretch very far.
>
> Where is that second large (by their standards) aircraft carrier they built
> going? India. Where are the Su-30's going? India, China, etc. So what are
> these "military acquisitions" for domestic use that you speak of?

Before getting snarky, it helps to count to ten.

Notice that he said that they have enough money to _spend_ on acquisitions,
not that they are actually acquiring anything.




D

[Kevin Brooks]

"D" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> ----------
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
>>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..
>>
>> What acquisitions? They have been buying danged little in the lines of
>> new
>> equipment over the last ten years or so. In the aircraft sector, their
>> emphasis has been almost solely on export production; domestic work has
>> largely been limited to some upgrade work, and they have been having a
>> hard
>> time paying for even *that*. A 2002 study indicated that Russia was
>> putting
>> about 7.5% of the funds into aircraft development/production that they
>> had
>> committed during the Soviet era--that level of funding is not going to
>> stretch very far.
>>
>> Where is that second large (by their standards) aircraft carrier they
>> built
>> going? India. Where are the Su-30's going? India, China, etc. So what are
>> these "military acquisitions" for domestic use that you speak of?
>
> Before getting snarky, it helps to count to ten.
>
> Notice that he said that they have enough money to _spend_ on
> acquisitions,
> not that they are actually acquiring anything.

Well, Mr. Snarky, the fact is that they *don't* have the money to spend--or
have you missed their gyrations with executing more and more "barter"
exchanges of late?

Brooks

>
>
>
>
> D

[D]

----------
In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>>>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
>>>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..

> Well, Mr. Snarky, the fact is that they *don't* have the money to spend--or
> have you missed their gyrations with executing more and more "barter"
> exchanges of late?

Do you actually read newspapers?

As the original poster noted, higher oil prices have helped the Russians out
a lot, bringing in a lot more revenue than only a couple of years ago.

A big problem with the Russian economy is that people don't pay their taxes,
so the government has been cash poor. But they do have a major asset in oil
resources, and when oil prices go up, more money pours into the treasury.

So the original poster was right--their revenues have gone up because of
increased oil prices.




D

[Keith W]

"D" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> ----------
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
>>>>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..
>
>> Well, Mr. Snarky, the fact is that they *don't* have the money to
>> spend--or
>> have you missed their gyrations with executing more and more "barter"
>> exchanges of late?
>
> Do you actually read newspapers?
>
> As the original poster noted, higher oil prices have helped the Russians
> out
> a lot, bringing in a lot more revenue than only a couple of years ago.
>
> A big problem with the Russian economy is that people don't pay their
> taxes,
> so the government has been cash poor. But they do have a major asset in
> oil
> resources, and when oil prices go up, more money pours into the treasury.
>
> So the original poster was right--their revenues have gone up because of
> increased oil prices.
>

However the OP also claimed those revenues were available
for weapons purchases. This does not follow, in fact the total
funding for the Russian armed forces in 2004 was $14 billion.
Of that only $4 billion was earmarked for purchases and that
is for all 3 services.

Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
a lot of development.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> ----------
>> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to
>>>>>> high
>>>>>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..
>>
>>> Well, Mr. Snarky, the fact is that they *don't* have the money to
>>> spend--or
>>> have you missed their gyrations with executing more and more "barter"
>>> exchanges of late?
>>
>> Do you actually read newspapers?
>>
>> As the original poster noted, higher oil prices have helped the Russians
>> out
>> a lot, bringing in a lot more revenue than only a couple of years ago.
>>
>> A big problem with the Russian economy is that people don't pay their
>> taxes,
>> so the government has been cash poor. But they do have a major asset in
>> oil
>> resources, and when oil prices go up, more money pours into the treasury.
>>
>> So the original poster was right--their revenues have gone up because of
>> increased oil prices.
>>
>
> However the OP also claimed those revenues were available
> for weapons purchases. This does not follow, in fact the total
> funding for the Russian armed forces in 2004 was $14 billion.
> Of that only $4 billion was earmarked for purchases and that
> is for all 3 services.
>
> Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
> or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
> a lot of development.

To put it into perspective against the exported energy values, the estimated
total export volume for Russia in 2004 was about $182 billion (according to
a US DOE estimate), of which some 55% was credited to the energy sector. So
if the Russians put every penny they got from oil/gas/coal/electric exports
into their defense budget (a ludicrous assumption, as a good chunk of that
money is now going to a Russian hedge fund designed to allow it to survive
downward fluctuations in the oil price--apparently they have accrued some
$16 or $17 billion in that account since its inception in JAN 2004), it
would still be less than 25% of the US amount.

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russia.html

www.citibank.ru/russia/pdf/eng/bal_rus2004.pdf

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

[Barry George]

"A big problem with the Russian economy is that people don't pay their taxes,
so the government has been cash poor. But they do have a major asset in oil
resources, and when oil prices go up, more money pours into the treasury."

It is true, in the post Soviet era the new aristocracy is less answerable and responsible than
Tzarist times.
If the rich (and their bussiness community) could control themselves and pay their taxs Russia could
not only buy new weapons, it could have good health care!


D > wrote in message
ink.net...
----------
In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>>>> Well, what is really strange that Russia has enough money (due to high
>>>> oil prices) to spend on military acquisitions..

> Well, Mr. Snarky, the fact is that they *don't* have the money to spend--or
> have you missed their gyrations with executing more and more "barter"
> exchanges of late?

Do you actually read newspapers?

As the original poster noted, higher oil prices have helped the Russians out
a lot, bringing in a lot more revenue than only a couple of years ago.

A big problem with the Russian economy is that people don't pay their taxes,
so the government has been cash poor. But they do have a major asset in oil
resources, and when oil prices go up, more money pours into the treasury.

So the original poster was right--their revenues have gone up because of
increased oil prices.




D

[D]

----------
In article >, "Keith W"
> wrote:

> However the OP also claimed those revenues were available
> for weapons purchases. This does not follow, in fact the total
^^^^^^^^^

> Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
> or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
> a lot of development.
^^^^^^^^^^^

He was not discussing "development" but "acquisitions" (i.e. "purchases").
Their equipment is relatively cheap to buy compared to the US.

What we're discussing is theoretical, and in that regard the original poster
was right--the increase in Russian oil revenues _should_ make more money
available for buying weapons. But they are not really doing that.




D

[Keith W]

"D" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> ----------
> In article >, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>> However the OP also claimed those revenues were available
>> for weapons purchases. This does not follow, in fact the total
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
>> or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
>> a lot of development.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> He was not discussing "development" but "acquisitions" (i.e. "purchases").
> Their equipment is relatively cheap to buy compared to the US.
>

The subject line is the Sukhoi PAK-FA - a system IN DEVELOPMENT

Duh !

> What we're discussing is theoretical, and in that regard the original
> poster
> was right--the increase in Russian oil revenues _should_ make more money
> available for buying weapons. But they are not really doing that.
>

Only if the government had no other calls on the money, it does.
Quite correctly (IMHO) they have decided that paying the wages
of the people who work for them and getting the healthcare
system at least to a level where Russia no longer has
one of the worst mortality rates outside the third world are
rather more important than developing 5th gen fighters.

Keith

[Bob Urz]

Keith W wrote:
> "D" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>----------
>>In article >, "Keith W"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However the OP also claimed those revenues were available
>>>for weapons purchases. This does not follow, in fact the total
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>>Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
>>>or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
>>>a lot of development.
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>He was not discussing "development" but "acquisitions" (i.e. "purchases").
>>Their equipment is relatively cheap to buy compared to the US.
>>
>
>
> The subject line is the Sukhoi PAK-FA - a system IN DEVELOPMENT
>
> Duh !
>
>
>>What we're discussing is theoretical, and in that regard the original
>>poster
>>was right--the increase in Russian oil revenues _should_ make more money
>>available for buying weapons. But they are not really doing that.
>>
>
>
> Only if the government had no other calls on the money, it does.
> Quite correctly (IMHO) they have decided that paying the wages
> of the people who work for them and getting the healthcare
> system at least to a level where Russia no longer has
> one of the worst mortality rates outside the third world are
> rather more important than developing 5th gen fighters.
>
> Keith
>
>
But i wonder what a fully funded Sukhoi or Mig could produce?
They seem to have done a lot on table scraps.........

Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[forties]

1.
> But they are not really doing that.
And question is why?!

2.
> Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
> or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
> a lot of development.

You should see this page re Russian Economy
http://www.warfare.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57

3.
Do you have any information about Tu-202 stealth bomber?

[Kevin Brooks]

"forties" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 1.
>> But they are not really doing that.

> And question is why?!

Because they have much more pressing needs for every ruble in hard cash they
can get.

>
> 2.
>> Compared with the defence budgets of the USA ($417 billion),
>> or even the UK ($55 billion) this isnt going to buy
>> a lot of development.
>
> You should see this page re Russian Economy
> http://www.warfare.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57
>
> 3.
> Do you have any information about Tu-202 stealth bomber?

Another stillborn paper concept, from what I gather. The only projects the
Russians have made any progress on are the ones that offer significant
export potential (like the spirals for the MiG-29, Su-27, and Su-30) or the
ones that they can get foreign development capital to support. They are
scratching hard to try and meet their obligations for the An-70 project, and
are behind the power curve on that one already. The single project aimed at
production to meet significant domestic needs that they have pursued of late
appears to be their new trainer/lead-in-fighter-trainer project. As Keith
quite accurately pointed out, their defense budget just will not support any
major new combat aircraft development right now, with the exception of those
programs they may jointly pursue with India and/or China.

Brooks

>

[forties]

> Another stillborn paper concept, from what I gather.
Well, although sounds like Tu-202 is myth I knew ex-RAF persons who
said they have seen this a/c during test flights in mid of '90s..

>They are scratching hard to try and meet their obligations for the
An-70 project, and
> are behind the power curve on that one already.

Antonov Design Bureau (AN-70) is Ukrainian company. Russians just
finance it.. and sounds like they were not/are not actually interested
in this a/c..

>As Keith quite accurately pointed out, their defense budget just will
not support any
major new combat aircraft development right now, with the exception of
those
programs they may jointly pursue with India and/or China.

> Knowing Russian internal security policy I am sure they will not let
to transfer such advanced technologies to other country for any sort of
cooperation especially for the development of future main Russian
fighter. Looks like they just use India/China to get money and play
with them... Rough proove of my words is that for instance any hardware
(a/c, missiles etc) sold to outside countries is light version (reduced
accuracy, etc) of equipment used in Russia's Armed Forces..

[Nele VII]

Barry George wrote in message ...
>Yes, I believe that it is likely that the PAK-FA will try to fill both
roles.
>
>Russia still has a requirement for a heavy interceptor and given the
decisions so far it seems
>likely funding will someday be reserved for it. It will be ten or twenty
years before there is
>enough funding for it and it will have to compete with S-400 family SAMS.
Russia needs such
>interceptors for defending such a large frontier but they cost money. The
Mig-31 weighs as much as
>four unloaded Mig-29s and the fuel bills for it are shocking.

Soviet Fulcrum-A's or C's with their 1980-vintage equipment are more a match
to F-16A's (that's the SMT upgrade is for, but there is no money). About the
MiG-31 fuel bills-well, T-6 is not JP-7 (if it is T-6 at all), and MiG-31's
replaced Tu-128's, the lagest fighters/interceptors ever used in operational
service! Maintenance is the problem, not fuel. I haven't herd about the
latest BM conversions.

>
>It will have to have very long range and will most likely (I am guessing
here) could take two forms
>either that of a low speed, extremely high altitude missile platform or a
more costly fighter with
>sprint speeds in combat of over mach 3.5! It is slightly possible that such
a project could be based
>off of the medium and heavy bombers (think T-60 and T-4MS) which will
replace the Su-24 and Su-34.

Su-24/32FN are not medium nor heavy bombers (Tu-22M3/4 and Tu-160 are).
According to Samoilovytch, related drawings went to Tupolev that supposedly
trashed them, and MS projects never went further than the model phase
(Tu-160 is the resulting aircraft, although T-4MS allegedly got the
contest). T-4 (prototype) and T-4MS (proposal) are as much different as
XB-70 and B-1 (actually, MS is some combination of those).

>
>Run a search on the mig project 7.01 to see the next stage above MFI!
>-Jonas Weselake-George

Sukhoi already got MFI project go-ahead, and MIG is struggling. There is
nothing much wrong with MAPO-MIG, except that Sukhoi had Simonov-and he is
much better salesman than Belyakov. According to Samoilovytch, there was
some funny equipment that was designed by "Sukhoi" when Simonov came there!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Kevin Brooks]

"forties" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Another stillborn paper concept, from what I gather.
> Well, although sounds like Tu-202 is myth I knew ex-RAF persons who
> said they have seen this a/c during test flights in mid of '90s..

Lots of UFOs are seen also...doesn't mean they are from outer space, though.
:-)

>
>>They are scratching hard to try and meet their obligations for the
> An-70 project, and
>> are behind the power curve on that one already.
>
> Antonov Design Bureau (AN-70) is Ukrainian company. Russians just
> finance it.. and sounds like they were not/are not actually interested
> in this a/c..

Actually, that is a joint project (the D-27 engines originate with MMPP
Salut in Moscow, don't they?). The Russians bought into it up front, then
backed out, or appeared to, and now they say they are back onboard...but are
reportedly a bit slow in actually living up to their end of the financial
bargain. Why? Because they are cash-strapped, plain and simple.

>
>>As Keith quite accurately pointed out, their defense budget just will
> not support any
> major new combat aircraft development right now, with the exception of
> those
> programs they may jointly pursue with India and/or China.
>
>> Knowing Russian internal security policy I am sure they will not let
> to transfer such advanced technologies to other country for any sort of
> cooperation especially for the development of future main Russian
> fighter. Looks like they just use India/China to get money and play
> with them... Rough proove of my words is that for instance any hardware
> (a/c, missiles etc) sold to outside countries is light version (reduced
> accuracy, etc) of equipment used in Russia's Armed Forces..

Not anymore. The latest Su-30 variants they have sold to India and China are
better equipped than anything they are flying in the Russian forces. And I
don't buy them being so stupid as to try and rip-off development funding
from either of those nations, as that would result in the shut down of a
major source of cash inflow for their military industries. Ain't gonna
happen, because if they lose their exports, they shrivel and die, 'cause the
Russian Federation just does not have the funds to keep them afloat by
itself.

Brooks
>

[forties]

>Soviet Fulcrum-A's or C's with their 1980-vintage equipment are more a
match
>to F-16A's (that's the SMT upgrade is for, but there is no money).

And Fulcrums are superior than F-16* in all modifications by all
factors- be honest.

>About the
>MiG-31 fuel bills-well, T-6 is not JP-7 (if it is T-6 at all), and
MiG-31's
>replaced Tu-128's, the lagest fighters/interceptors ever used in
operational
>service!

Mig-31 replaced Mig-25.. Mig-31/Tu-128 replacement - is profanation..
like b-2 replaced b-29 largest US bomber..

>Maintenance is the problem, not fuel. I haven't herd about the
>latest BM conversions.

Maintanance of SR-71 is also a problem.. as well as for any a/c reaches
M3+. Agree?

-E

[Keith W]

"forties" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Soviet Fulcrum-A's or C's with their 1980-vintage equipment are more a
> match
>>to F-16A's (that's the SMT upgrade is for, but there is no money).
>
> And Fulcrums are superior than F-16* in all modifications by all
> factors- be honest.
>

The combat record suggests otherwise, as does the fact that
the Germans retired their Fulcrum's


>>About the
>>MiG-31 fuel bills-well, T-6 is not JP-7 (if it is T-6 at all), and
> MiG-31's
>>replaced Tu-128's, the lagest fighters/interceptors ever used in
> operational
>>service!
>
> Mig-31 replaced Mig-25.. Mig-31/Tu-128 replacement - is profanation..
> like b-2 replaced b-29 largest US bomber..
>
>>Maintenance is the problem, not fuel. I haven't herd about the
>>latest BM conversions.
>
> Maintanance of SR-71 is also a problem.. as well as for any a/c reaches
> M3+. Agree?
>

Maintenance of the SR-71 is no problem at all, the aircraft
went out of service years ago.

Keith

[Nele VII]

forties wrote in message om>...
>>Soviet Fulcrum-A's or C's with their 1980-vintage equipment are more a
>match
>>to F-16A's (that's the SMT upgrade is for, but there is no money).
>
>And Fulcrums are superior than F-16* in all modifications by all
>factors- be honest.
>

Wrong comparison. You cannot compare MiG-29-12B (first export) to latest block F-16. Malesian
"cabrolet" MiG-29, OTOH, can be compared in the fighter role. Malesians also have "Hornets", so
ask them what they prefer ;-) .

>>About the
>>MiG-31 fuel bills-well, T-6 is not JP-7 (if it is T-6 at all), and
>MiG-31's
>>replaced Tu-128's, the lagest fighters/interceptors ever used in
>operational
>>service!
>
>Mig-31 replaced Mig-25.. Mig-31/Tu-128 replacement - is profanation..
>like b-2 replaced b-29 largest US bomber..

MiG-31s replaced Tu-128 "ships" or "barraging fighters" in their units. Size did not matter
there, range and authonomy does (as well as requred Pk).

>
>>Maintenance is the problem, not fuel. I haven't herd about the
>>latest BM conversions.
>
>Maintanance of SR-71 is also a problem.. as well as for any a/c reaches
>M3+. Agree?
>
>-E
>

It is not M3+ for MiG-31, but M2.83. I suppose that maintaining MiG-31 resembles more that of
F-14, and it is hard to make it with the Siberian airstrip at sub-zero temperatures without
enough money!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[forties]

>Actually, that is a joint project (the D-27 engines originate with
MMPP
>Salut in Moscow, don't they?). The Russians bought into it up front,
then
>backed out, or appeared to, and now they say they are back
onboard...but are
>reportedly a bit slow in actually living up to their end of the
financial
>bargain. Why? Because they are cash-strapped, plain and simple.

There's very interesting interview with Commander of RAF (Jan 2005).
"Commander of RAF decided do not answer questions about AN-70 a/c"
Russians actually doesn't/never been interested in this a/c. Cash is
not a reason- they have cash enough for modernization of all military
forces. Not mythical money like US who is economical bankrupt but live
oil profits.

[Keith W]

"forties" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Actually, that is a joint project (the D-27 engines originate with
> MMPP
>>Salut in Moscow, don't they?). The Russians bought into it up front,
> then
>>backed out, or appeared to, and now they say they are back
> onboard...but are
>>reportedly a bit slow in actually living up to their end of the
> financial
>>bargain. Why? Because they are cash-strapped, plain and simple.
>
> There's very interesting interview with Commander of RAF (Jan 2005).
> "Commander of RAF decided do not answer questions about AN-70 a/c"

For the very good reason is that its not part of his command.

> Russians actually doesn't/never been interested in this a/c. Cash is
> not a reason- they have cash enough for modernization of all military
> forces.

Yet they havent done so.

>
> Not mythical money like US who is economical bankrupt but live
> oil profits.
>

Psst that would be Russia , the USA is a net importer of oil.

Keith