Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

76 till 2027. It's very low. And they still produce the su-30 which is their budget fighter. They don't have the money to buy only su-57.

Their first batch order was for 76 aircraft... that shows a lot of confidence.

The first batch order for MiG-35s was for 6 or maybe 12 aircraft.

In both cases they don't know how the aircraft will perform and how much it will cost operationally so a small first batch and get some service experience.

If they like it they can order more... they could order more Su-57s before the 2027 finish of the first batch if they think it is worth having more.

They are buying MiG-35s and Su-30s and Su-35s and Su-34s all at once and can order more if they want more.

Compare that with the situation for the US... they can have more F-35s or spend a fortune and put F-15s back into production...

The budget fighter should be a single engine jet and mig had plenty of time to design it.

The Russian AF didn't want their single engined fighter they designed together with the MiG-29 in the 1980s, and we don't know what they want now.

A plane they actually build and sold to even russian traditional clients that bought it over their sukhois.

Whose design is older and less stealthy than the MiG design you are dismissing as obsolete.

There is no chance they will just pull out an ancient design and start working on it for a new role but the MiG-1.42/1.44 project was for the role the Su-57 is performing so there is no value in dusting that off and updating it now.

But even for it the aesa radar doesn't seem ready even if it was proposed in 2008.

MiG don't make Radar and neither to Sukhoi.

Nope. They made nothing. The mig-35 is just a mig-29M and they are the only 2 products available.

MiG made the MiG-AT and now the MiG-UTS, and it also makes the MiG-31BM, and also the MiG-29M and MiG-35 and MiG-29K.

What with the almost 1000 f-35 produced ? Or the 200 f-22 ?

Many of those F-35s are not part of the American air force, and they are talking about retiring the F-22s to save money because the F-35s cost too much to operate.

The new f-15 are missile trucks to counter the thousands of chinese j-10, j-11 and j-16.

So radar Christmas trees then...

Indians left because they wanted all the techno to be transfered to them for the 6 billion they would incest. The contract was to just help them develop their own su-57 with their own local technology which wasn't ready for a 5th generation aircraft.

The Su-30MKI tripled in price with the addition of French and Israeli components, which is what I was talking about.

There were no French or Israeli components in the Su-57, but the Indians wanted Russia to make two seat models and increase the stealth to ridiculous levels for the tiny 6 billion they were investing, and expected to get full technology transfer.

That was not going to happen.

Their was no israeli or french involvement.

There was a risk that India might ask France or Israel to join the programme and contribute components which would compromise the technology.

They are making nothing. Sukhoi will be making the big and the small with actually 1 engine because that's enough.

The Checkmate is bigger than a MiG-35.

You said just above it is a twin engine. Now it's a single engine.

If you were paying attention MiG displayed two models at the last MAKS airshow... one small single engined 5th gen stealth fighter and one larger twin engined fighter for carrier operations or for the airforce if they wanted twin engines again. There was also a model of a single engined drone too.

Who cares about the toys they present at airshows ?

Pretend to be as dumb as you please. MiG doesn't make toys.

If they were live contracts I was surprised they were even allowed to show those models.

Sukhoi presented a real prototype which actually happens when before you build the aircraft. Mig still can't mresent a fonctionning mig-35 let alone a new jet.

Sukhoi needed to show the Checkmate because it needs foreign funding to get made.

The navy will accept nothing. They don't have carriers and it's not for the rusty K they will buy new jets. They will keep the 6 mig-29K on it until it sinks.

You are entitled to your opinion, but they are retaining and improving their sole remaining aircraft carrier and moving forward with other ship designs. If they don't want any future carrier aircraft why keep the ones they have.... billions of rubles could be saved by scrapping it all 10 years ago... including cruisers which are worthless if you don't have carriers.

Reality is they fall from the sky even with two engines. So they will reconsidere their position. 1 engine is 5 million dollars. If you save 5 million per aircraft, plus all the hardware you take off for that extra engine, it is very attractive.

The F-5 is a twin engined cheap light fighter. They tried to improve it by replacing the two small cheap engines with a bigger engine with twice the power... the single engine cost more than the two smaller engines... that is to buy and to operate.... the single engine cost more to run.

The F-20 was a failure. The F-5 is still in use.

In this one I basically agree with you. The Russian Air Force's idea not to want single engine fighters is just plain bullshit. The MiG-15 and MiG-21 were single engine too and back then the engines were way less reliable. With the huge numbers of F-35 in service it makes zero sense to stick to a twin engine setup. Won't be economically effective to make a proper counterforce otherwise.

But that is the issue... you seem to think all engines are equal and the same price. The whole basis of the MiG-29 and MiG-35 is that their engines are rather cheaper than the engines of the Flanker series.... getting 8 to 9 tons of thrust from an engine compared with the 16 to 18 tons the same aircraft would need from the same engine when only one engine is being fitted to it means that single engined fighter is going to have a very expensive engine.

The whole point of the MiG-35 is that its engines are cheap and maintenance is cheaper than the Flankers engines. That is what makes them affordable.

The point too is that a low fighter should never be expected to replace the high fighter... the point is to have both... if you could make a low fighter as powerful and capable as the high fighter then you are breaking the laws of physics.

Ironically if the Russian MIC started making Su-35s for the USAF it would be quarter the price of an F-16 or F-35 and would be a low fighter because its operational costs would be affordable too... they would order and operate 10,000.

The new MiG single engined 5th gen fighter looks like a Stealthy LIFT... small and light leads to cheap, and MiG know how to make cheap light single engined fighters... MiG-21, MiG-23 etc etc.

Side view:



below the above single engined fighter model and drone and twin models



And for those not paying attention the single engined fighter MiG developed previously that was rejected in favour of the MiG-29 design:

Why do you guys assume MiG has been doing nothing all this time, and equally that Klimov has been doing nothing as well?

Klimov has been very busy but will also have been working on new engines for new MiGs, and its sales to China and Pakistan of its RD-33 variant engines for their aircraft should have provided funds for development and research.

I expect the market for such an engine as the Klimov RD-33 and its derivatives to basically evaporate over the next 5 years unless MiG manages to sell the MiG-35 more. The Chinese are going to put the FC-31 into service eventually and they won't be using imported engines in the series production of it that is for sure. They have their own engine the WS-19. And you can pretty much bet it will also be sold to Pakistan.

So ask yourself why they used the RD-33 with the gearbox moved and called RD-93 but is not used in any Chinese aircraft that they operate today, when the rather more powerful AL-31 that is used in the Flankers they operate is in use and is also being cloned?

Even in its base model the Al-31 has about 12 tons thrust compared with 8 tons for the RD-33 engine... surely if you are making a single engined light fighter the Al-31 which you use in aircraft you fly yourself and are making a clone of its engine makes more sense.

The difference is costs to buy and cost to operate, where the RD-33 wins hands down, so if you are making a small light fighter with one engine you make it even lighter and go for the cheaper 8 ton thrust engine.

China might be copying it... can they make a good copy?

They didn't make a good copy of the German naval engines the Russians bought from them for their Corvettes.

Klimov have been quite busy. They have been developing helicopter engines VK-650, VK-1600, and VK-2500M. Also the turboprop variants of the TV7-117 engine. In fact they are so busy that they had to move some projects which were meant for them, like VK-800, to someone else. Salyut, who manufacture the RD-33, are developing improvements for the Al-222 and the new SM-100 engines.

So they are going to give up all future development of new engines... if they are not looking at improving designs in terms of metalurgy and materials and digital engine management systems what sort of future will they have?

They have passed on engine projects to other companies... so what?

What I sometimes wonder is why doesn't Russia use more common components between military and civilian engines.

Because military engines didn't need thousands of hours of operational potential and high fuel burn rates were fine if they could get the plane flying supersonic for long periods of time.

They have developed a new family of engines called the PD series which are going to be used on aircraft both civilian and military... the prop engines of the Bear were used on the Bear based airliner and also the An-22 military transport, and the line between transport for military and civil use is blurred already.

New PD engines will be used on both, but proper jet engines for their military planes really don't make sense for civilian planes till civilian planes start needing to get supersonic.

For example the Pratt & Whitney civilian engines as used in the A220 are based on the same engine core as the one in the engine of the F-35.

And what a stupid ridiculous engine that is... 30 million dollars for an engine for an aircraft that can't even reach mach 2.

Even the Chinese put two smaller engines in it and made it much better looking in terms of aerodynamics.

You would think they could make a military engine with the cores of the PD-8 and PD-14.

They already have proper military engine lineages for that... why change if the difference in performance is not noticeable.

There is a lot of waste, duplication of work, and yet a lack of some engine categories simultaneously.

The gaps can be explained by the fact that the gaps were filled by a country that has turned west.... it has gone woke and gone broke... it was not a failure of the Russian engine makers... if anything it was the fault of the Russian civilian airlines who chose French and American engines instead of Russian engines.

- They are flight testing a MiG-31 aircraft with fly by wire. I wouldn't be surprised to see yet another modernization program for the MiG-31.

They are also still upgrading old MiGs to BM or K condition and maintaining the fleet, plus testing new missiles that look like satellite launchers and anti satellite weapons, and all this talk about new versions of metals that are much more heat resistant suggests they will be working with new types of Aluminium alloys that could replace steel in the hot parts of the airframe which will dramatically reduce weight too.

The current manual flight control systems probably mean more stresses to the airframe and engines than necessary during operation.

Replacing hydraulic systems and actuators with FBW systems and electric actuators would massively reduce weight and also reduce the amount of flammable materials on board and reduce the risk regarding battle damage... and reduce maintenance costs... especially in very cold or very hot places.

The MiG-35 is being tested in the Ukrainian theater of operations. I expect increased orders for it to be made eventually. It is the only thing they can manufacture which can plug the gap left by the Su-25 losses quickly with a more modern aircraft which can operate at larger standoff distances from air defenses.

I have pointed out that the risk to the Su-25 is so high they no longer fly in and fire directly at targets in the line of sight with cannon and rockets and bombs... now they seem to loft rockets from a distance presumably based on coordinates given to them without line of sight... if they are going to do this at standoff ranges then it probably makes more sense to use glide bomb kits from a greater altitude and greater distance in a MiG-35, which could scan the terrain with a modern AESA radar and provide a detailed live view of the battlefield to troops on the ground in real time with perhaps friendly forces looking at that view and pointing out enemy positions and transmitting that back up to the MiG to engage with glide bombs or weapons like the 40km range Kh-38 or Grom or Grom two glide bombs, or just dumb bombs with glide kits.

Glide kits for cluster bombs would give a similar effect to a lofted rocket attack, but could be launched from much further away.

The F-20 failed in the market because back then the F-5s still had a bit of life left in them. This killed the low end of that market. And Reagan basically lifted the ban on export sales of the F-16. A much better fighter for a fraction more of the price. The F-20 was just too little too late. You could say that the Gripen is a more modern iteration of the concept which has had moderate success.

But you are all saying single engined fighters are much cheaper and more affordable than twin engined fighters so even the operators of F-5s should have swapped them for F-20s to save money and halve their engine support costs... except that isn't true. The costs of the F-20 were no half that of the F-5 because its engine costs were actually higher and its performance was better but not enough to warrant the extra costs.

Mig-AT was never bought. Failure.

The Yak-130 was too expensive and never replaced the L39s completely... the MiG-AT was not as good as the Yak-130 at the high end, but was much cheaper and would have completely replaced the L39.

It was rejected, but it was no failure.

Mig-31 production line is closed for years now. They just upgrade some.

They are upgrading most of them... they put the engines back into production and are upgrading older models to BM standard or K standard.

Mig-29M, Mig-35, Mig-29k are just relikt from the past based on a fighter that was a target for nato missiles for years. They need to move one from it.

That is funny because Su-27s and Su-24s and Su-25s are getting shot down in the Ukraine conflict just as often as the MiG-29s are.

The MiG-29 was never meant to be an air dominance fighter, it was supposed to be a capable but cheap numbers plane which is exactly what it is... and what many countries actually need. An Su-27 costs more to buy and more to operate and most things that will shoot down a MiG-29 will also take down an Su-27 too.

Mig-41 Unseen yet.

Yeah, they don't need to do any work on it till it enters serial production...

That is how things work.

Even the turks, south koreans, japanese are creating their own 5th gen fighters.

Yup... and how are they going?

They are being made in frustration at the limited alternatives available to them from the US.... I wont say west because only the US has 5th gen fighters for sale and they said no to Turkey already... which was probably a lucky escape for Turkey to be honest.

I notice you didn't mention the new super 5th gen super fighter from France or even just the EU, because it is a paper project too.

If they did make any there is a good chance the US would demand they send it to Kiev and offer to give them F-35s instead... it worked with oil and gas...

It actually doubled. And not just because of israeli or french component but because they pay to build it 2 times. First for the components and parts to russian firms and then for the shipping and assembly by indian firms.

Tripled. Support costs from France and Israel were enormous... and their munitions were horrifically expensive too, though they claimed to have amazing performance. A view shattered when they had to use some and the performance did not seem to be worth the price at all.

The Yak-130 is way better. The RuAF made the right choice. Also imagine they had bought the MiG-AT and now they had to to replace all those French SNECMA engines.

I disagree. The Yak-130 was sold on the basis that while it was a large fraction of the cost of a light fighter (ie MiG-29), the payoff was that it could be used instead of a light fighter so while as a trainer it was expensive, as a light fighter it would be cheap and you could buy it in enormous numbers and save lots of money because it was fully combat capable and could replace the Su-25 in the light strike role and the MiG-29 in the short range interceptor role and be cheaper than either.

The problem was that it was not a good light fighter... lack of radar makes it very limiting as the Russian Air Force found to its cost with the MiG-29UBT which only had a ranging radar and was not considered an operational aircraft because of that. Add a radar and self defence avionics and it cost more than a MiG-29 or Su-25 which defeated the entire purpose.

It didn't even end up replacing all the L39s which were better for basic training and cheaper to operate too.

MiG could easily have replaced the French elements... the first flights were in the mid 1990s but the Yak didn't enter production and use till the 2010s, and the Yak had a Ukrainian engine that also had to be replaced which limited its introduction and production rate too.

From what I have read the second prototype of the MIG-AT had Russian avionics.

Part of the agreement was that Russia could locally produce and improve the French engine... which likely would have happened by 2014.

The engine is also used in the Alpha jet...

At least the Ukrainian Al-222 used the Soviet materials technology base. So it was much easier to reverse engineer. If this aircraft was made today they could use the Al-55 engine in it. Because now it is available. But they would still need to improve the electronics in it.

If the Russian AF had seen through the bullshit and chosen the MiG-AT they could easily have converted it to the Ukrainian engine the Yak used

The MiG-31BM has proven itself more than worthy in Ukraine. It has managed to shoot down aircraft in BVR mode with zero combat losses. Over a hundred of these aircraft are available after they were upgraded.

They put the engine back into production to take more out of storage and into service in the BM and K versions.

Those MiG-29 aircraft which were shot down are basically early versions of the MiG-29. The MiG-29M is a vast improvement to the airframe's capabilities increasing range and loiter time and the MiG-35 electronics upgrade makes it even better.

MiG have been upgrading the design since it entered service but most seem to think a MiG-35 is a Serbian MiG-29 with its radar not working and no ground support against HATO with AWACS and JSTARS and hundreds of western planes...

None is produced. Nor ordered.

A single engined version of the MiG-AT is being ordered because the Yak-130 is not good enough.

Their requirements changed near the end and started requiring the capacity to carry a 3 ton payload and essentially be an Su-25 and MiG-29 replacement... which it clearly never has. The shift in those requirements made the Yak-130 the best choice, but without those requirements the MiG-AT would have made more sense and would have replaced the L39 completely already.

They are going to end up needing three aircraft to replace the L39 and Yak-52, one of which is rather expensive.

Both the MiG-AT and Yak-130 have flybywire systems and can simulate the flight performance of advanced 4g fighters.

Competitors are fielding 5th gen fighter all over the world. Mig-35 is outdated right now and it still doesn't have its aesa radar which is the only difference from mig-29M. Mig-31 isn't produced anymore.

They will fit an AESA radar when it is ready. When carrying R-37M missiles it will take out F-16s before the F-16s will even know the MiG is there.

They produced a lot of MiG-31s and many are in storage. Work on its replacement is ongoing and it has proved itself in the Ukraine conflict.

As BRICS expands I think improved trade with countries around the world will lead to more export orders and MiG-35s offer an aircraft that is affordable to buy and operate in significant numbers... the core issue with AESA radars is production... it simply does not make sense to make AESA radar for 6 fighters... they have a few thousand elements per radar and if you are only making 6 radars those radars are going to be horribly expensive.

Of course they are making AESA radars for ships and helicopters and SAMs and even for air to air missiles and as element production increases the costs will come down and performance will go up... eventually it will become cost effective, but honestly people keep saying they don't have AESA radars fitted... but if that was the case then why didn't they make 24 of them because without the AESA radar they would be much cheaper.

I suspect part of the reason they only made 6 is because their AESA radars are new and expensive and are probably having teething troubles... which happened to every other country who introduced new AESA radars for their aircraft.

Actually their surface ships (corvettes, frigates, and small destroyers) used to use French licensed diesel engines. It is the diesel submarines which used the German diesel engines. There are also claims their Type 99 tank used a German diesel engine. Which is why they never exported it.

Was not an attack on China... if good diesel engines were easy to make then everyone would make their own.

You also see Chinese trucks selling well in Russia. So their engines can't be that bad.

Was not trying to suggest the Chinese are idiots, was pointing out that engines are hard to get right and at the best of times are expensive if they are not licence produced, so if you were making a single engined fighter it would make more sense to use an engine that you are actually using already rather than an engine you are not. China doesn't operate the MiG-29, but it operates the Flanker series and is in the process of making their own engines for that. It would make more sense to make a new single engined fighter of your own design using the more powerful Flanker engine you are using than an engine of an aircraft you are not using... unless that engine was expensive to buy and expensive to maintain.

The Yak-130 has been a huge export success for Russia. They already exported it to seven countries. No wonder. It is the most advanced trainer aircraft you can currently buy. Well the Yak-130 and its twin brothers the Aermacchi M-346 (exported to nine countries) and the Hongdu L-15 (used in China).

And if they had chosen the MiG-AT then those seven countries might have bought that instead and saved a lot of money with its lower operational costs.

A lot of countries are switching from a three aircraft trainer model to a two aircraft trainer model. Where the pilots first start training on a turboprop and then move directly to a high end trainer like the Yak-130.

The Russians don't seem to be doing that though. They have Yak-52 propeller driven aircraft and then L39s and then Yak-130s... they are in the process of replacing the Yak-52s with Yak-152s as soon as the new engines are sorted out, and the MiG-UTS seems to be the single engined jet replacing the L39s.

They are selling a new mig-29M but there is no big difference with the mig-29M from the 90s.

Which just shows how little you know about them. The first MiG-29M from 1988 is a single seat aircraft, while the current MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 has a two seat canopy and can be a single seat or twin seat aircraft.

Mig-35 is supposed to be a mig-29M with an aesa radar which is not ready yet.

Again, your ignorance explains your contempt for the aircraft and the company, but you are wrong.

The MiG-29M has different internal systems to the MiG-35.

In 20 years they just ckzabed a little bit the design with new screens. That's pathetic.

Your ignorance is the equivalent of someone saying the latest F-16 just looks like an F-16A so they are obsolete.

Amusing you think the difference between a modern fighter and an obsolete one is an AESA radar... you do understand fitting such a radar when it is ready could be very easily done during an overhaul and transform an obsolete fleet of 300 MiG-35s into a state of the art one in your opinion for the cost of perhaps two Rafale fighters.

When you create a plane and it is not sold, it is a failure.

A commercial failure that had nothing to do with the aircraft as designed... it was what they asked for, and when it came time for testing Yak started pushing that their more expensive aircraft could also be used as a light fighter as well... which after years of testing turned out to be bullshit... but they didn't know till they tested and so of course they won the competition for the LIFT, but now MiG is being asked to fix their fuckup because the Yak that was supposed to replace MiG-29s and Su-25s can't even replace L39s.

Actually they are remonving most of them from service. Last time I checked they wanted to keep 90 in service out of the 300 or so they had.

The aerospace defence forces might want 90 aircraft but that would be in addition to the 36 odd MiG-31Ks the Navy have for sinking US ships.

They put the engines back into production so they can take aircraft out of storage and put them back into use if needed.

The current experience with the conflict in the Ukraine might lead to more being taken out of storage.

Su-30 is also a practice target for Patriot. Just another hint they need more 5th gen fighter with smaller rcs than dinosoruses.

You do understand that Russian ARMs outrange Patriot by a wide margin and Patriots only chance of success is a surprise attack... and RCS really does not come in to it or the MiG-31 would be getting shot down all the time because those huge ramp air intakes are used on the Tu-22M3 and increased the radar cross section of that aircraft by 25%.

Very well. They are developping their own industries and taking bites on russian market with their stuff. Meanwhile Mig is working on a mig-29 for 40 years.

MiG has shown models of a single engined 5th gen light fighter, a twin engined light 5th gen fighter for carrier and land based use if the Air Force wants twin jets, and an unmanned single engined drone... in addition to MiG-35s and MiG-31s and MiG-29Ks in service and a new MiG-UTS trainer for service too... and so your French company is making Rafales and what else?

It is easy to claim it is the best aircraft ever when they are practically not used in any real high risk theater of operation.
Too bad that France has not donated any Rafale to Ukraine. It would have been interesting to see this aircraft being used against Russia.
It is just the best MMA fighter ever, but that wants only to fight against old men in wheelchairs or toddlers.

Exactly... if the west really wants Kiev to negotiate from a position of power then sending them some Rafales that will wipe out the Russian Air Force and decimate their ground forces would be an obvious choice would it not?

Except it is never mentioned... nor is the F-35.

they did not lose an aircraft because lack od fuel like the Mig-29k in the med near Syria.

They have lost Rafales... in fact if you look at wiki a Rafale has crashed at sea after running out of fuel on November 28 2010.... the MiG-29K was lost because the arrester cables were snapping because the arrester gear was not working properly and it tried too many times to land. By the time they realised it wasn't the cables but was the arrester gear it did not have enough fuel to make it to a land base and had to ditch in the sea.

Not a fault of the aircraft or the pilot.

Furthermore french industry and political representatives are better at corrupting foreign officials and getting contracts by the antirussian elites in India or other nations.

Indeed... a heady mixture of bribes and threats to get deals signed is an area of French expertise.

I think more Flankers were shot down by Ukraine before they got the Patriot than afterwards.

I suspect after proper investigation that most of the Russian air loses were own goals and that the Orcs were actually pretty ordinary with Soviet and Western gear.

Mig 35 doesn't exist yet.

In service and being testing in the Ukraine conflict and were tested in Syria too. More than we can say for the new 5th gen French stealth fighter...

Su-30 is a joke. Su-35 operates in Ukraibe the same way and is way more survivable.

They are upgrading the Su-30 with the engines and radar and avionics of the Su-35, so essentially it will be a two seat Su-35 able to carry all the same weapons and with the same sensors and equipment... but with an extra crewman.

Rafales are at least updated. Their pesa radar was very limited and pretty bad but the aesa is a monster.

Maybe your lack of experience with PESA radars was your problem... MiG have had PESAs in service since the early 1980s.

Patriot anhilated 5 jets in one ambush. Those su-30 seem to be not even aware they are locked on. They have two pilots with 1 dedicated to combat weapon, yet the single pilot in the su-35 does much better. Total waste of money.

Would think we would be hearing rather more about that if it was true... Kh-31s seem to be able to deal with Patriots just fine and most Russian fighters are seen carrying at least one Kh-31.

The MiG-35 exists. Like half a dozen of them exist. And if it proves effective in Ukraine they will order more.

They are a cheap light numbers aircraft, but they are also funding MiG to make a new single engined light 5th gen fighter... MiG in its wisdom and after experience of the past appear to be making two light 5th gen fighters... we have seen both models for the Air Force and the Navy so they have both bases covered in case one or the other or both want a single engined fighter or a twin engined fighter... they will have both... but they wont know the operational and purchase costs or their performance till they get them into service and experience with MiG-35s will give them a good base line for performance and operational costs... if the single engined new fighter is cheaper and more capable then it would make sense to put that into serial production. The MiG-35 might be good enough and cheaper so it gets the nod for mass production, or the new twin jet fighter might work out being the best choice for a carrier based fighter or for carrier use and ground use and be mass produced.

The point is that whatever they move forward with with either have an AESA radar or a new photon based radar array when they eventually get them into serial production.

Before we saw the Su-57 being tested on a runway the only thing we had was a photo from a TV interview of a model sitting on an officials desk.

You are demanding I give you proof regarding MiG projects for future Russian Air Force fighter designs or you wont believe.

Fine.

Don't believe, your opinion is not required, and honestly if I had secret evidence and information I would not share it here, I only post public domain information and the models MiG showed at the last MAKS are public domain information.

Everyone is claiming Checkmate will be the next Russian light 5th gen fighter despite Sukhoi saying it is not a Russian Air Force Funded project... so which project do you think they might be funding instead?

Or do you think they are so rich they don't need a light fighter that operates at reduced costs so larger numbers of them can be put into service.

Of course the irony is that their air defence network is so damn good they could probably get away with fewer fighters and interceptors simply because AWACS and SAMs are going to hammer the shit out of HATO air power and their cruise missiles are going to destroy them on the ground... is Russia mass producing missiles and buying long range Iskander type missiles from North Korea to push Ukraine or are they expecting to use them somewhere else?

Just saw an article about a French writer and historian whose new book talks about how evil the US is and how it has damaged Europe and that Europes real future is with Russia with cheap energy and materials... but I think that ship has sailed too... Europe talks about morals and being civilised and the most civilised and ethic country in Europe is not even considered part of Europe... Turkey has remained neutral in this war between the US and Russia, and its blocking of UK anti mine cutters is further evidence of this.

Europe has a lot to learn from Turkey, it has forgotten what diplomacy is and has adopted the US, get leverage and bully them to do what you want... except their levers are imaginary, or self defeating.