Egyptian Air Force (EAF)

The thing is that the M2 and the M are the same... it is like saying it is the MiG-29M if it is carrying air to air weapons (being a fighter) and MiG-30M if it is carrying bombs and rocket pods and air to ground missiles (being a strike aircraft like Su-34, or a PVO interceptor management aircraft like an Su-30).

Seats can be added or removed to swap between the aircraft types.

Pause it at minute 2:47 and take a close look at the camo on those two MiG-29Ms banking and zipping by. Let me know what you think and why you suppose they're in that color when the rest of the fleet appears to be in that light & dark blueish/grey? Very interesting since that seemed to be the original color camo and they appeared to have changed it to the blue upon delivery. But this exercise was last year in Egypt and not back in 2016-2017 when they were delivering them.

Curious to hear what you think.

We didn't see the desert camo that much ,i guess it came in less numbers compared with the naval camo . This Mig is a good cheap choice to close the Mediterranean and Red sea which means we need enough numbers for both fronts .

GarryB wrote:The thing is that the M2 and the M are the same... it is like saying it is the MiG-29M if it is carrying air to air weapons (being a fighter) and MiG-30M if it is carrying bombs and rocket pods and air to ground missiles (being a strike aircraft like Su-34, or a PVO interceptor management aircraft like an Su-30).

It's just the designation between the single seat and the 2 seater, ma man! lol.  
That's the way MiG calls it and how it was introduced in the EAF, so gotta go with it.

GarryB wrote:Seats can be added or removed to swap between the aircraft types.

Are you sure about that?  Someone else mentioned the same thing on another forum.  I think he was just talking out of his rear end lmao and didn't really have solid information to support that claim.  I think he just assumed it.

Do you have a pic of that rear section without a seat?  I looked for one but couldn't find any.

I just don't see them doing that since it would mean they all have rear-seat avionics, screens and stick & throttles regardless if they're  2-seaters or not?  Why do all that and just leave out the seat?!  Doesn't make any sense and seems to be a complete waste of hardware.  Probably one of the reasons they made all the MiG-35s straight up 2-seaters to.  

I wish there was a pic of that cockpit rear without the seat so we can see more details.

New pic from March 22nd test flight.  

Are you sure about that? Someone else mentioned the same thing on another forum. I think he was just talking out of his rear end lmao and didn't really have solid information to support that claim. I think he just assumed it.

The airframe of the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB single and two seat, MiG-29M and MiG-29M2, and MiG-35D and MiG-35D and MiG-35 are the same.

The difference is the number of seats and the standard of equipment and the different wing and tailhook for the carrier model, but they have said the MiG-35 can use the folding wing and tail hook and operate from carriers or on land using arrester gear to operate from very short strips of pavement (say a damaged airstrip).

The single seat MiG-29M can have the extra fuel tank removed and a seat installed and presumably the cockpit instrumentation added for a second crewman to become a MiG-29M2, or vice versa to create a single seat aircraft from the twin seat.

The canopy does not change nor is there any structural changes needed.

I just don't see them doing that since it would mean they all have rear-seat avionics, screens and stick & throttles regardless if they're 2-seaters or not? Why do all that and just leave out the seat?! Doesn't make any sense and seems to be a complete waste of hardware. Probably one of the reasons they made all the MiG-35s straight up 2-seaters to.

The purpose was because the original two seat MiG-29UB had a ranging only radar in its nose and was largely useless for anything except training... in comparison the Su-27UB was fully functional and eventually became the Su-30 family of fighters.

They would likely have modular systems so rather than just remove the rear seat and put an extra fuel tank in there and a big cover, all the displays and controls would likely come out with the seat to be replaced by a bigger extra fuel tank.

It wont be something you can do on the front line, but you wont need to take it back too far up the support chain to swap them out.

New pic from March 22nd test flight.

Interesting they fit them with all those targeting pods... perhaps they have good field of view performance and are acting as cameras to monitor wing flex or other things.

ahmedfire wrote:We didn't see the desert camo that much ,i guess it came in less numbers compared with the naval camo . This Mig is a good cheap choice to close the Mediterranean and Red sea which means we need enough numbers for both fronts .

I've never seen the desert camo in Egypt, only the naval one (as it was labelled that when they first arrived.)  When you say "we didn't see it that much" are you saying that you actually saw it in that scheme?  Was it in a pic or newspaper or on TV or you saw them flying in person?  Just curious if there is a pic out there I missed.  That would be a shame on me! lol

GarryB wrote:The airframe of the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB single and two seat, MiG-29M and MiG-29M2, and MiG-35D and MiG-35D and MiG-35 are the same.

I am aware that the airframe as well as the canopy are the same on all those models and essentially one that's universal for all 2-seaters and single seaters.  

When you say "MiG-35D and MiG-35, are you saying the latter without a letter designation is a single seat?  I haven't seen that model in a single seat configuration yet, out of the few models they've showcased.  Any source I could read or pics you know of?  I thought they offering it as a 2-seater only?

GarryB wrote:The single seat MiG-29M can have the extra fuel tank removed and a seat installed and presumably the cockpit instrumentation added for a second crewman to become a MiG-29M2, or vice versa to create a single seat aircraft from the twin seat.

That just seems like it would be a tremendous amount of work to perform.

I don't mean to constantly doubt you about this, my friend.  I just don't see them making what seems like so much work as an option for that conversion.  I'm willing to bet they still stick to their ways of simplicity but in numbers.

Here's the best pic of the MiG-35 front and rear cockpits (which should be almost identical to the M/M2) and take a look at that rear seat setup!  That's some serious stuff.

GarryB wrote:They would likely have modular systems so rather than just remove the rear seat and put an extra fuel tank in there and a big cover, all the displays and controls would likely come out with the seat to be replaced by a bigger extra fuel tank.

Well, I'm glad the EAF bought the 2-seaters already and probably don't have the intention of making that modification at anytime.  I'm thinking any country buying this aircraft for $40 million a pop can afford to buy a couple of them in the 2-seat configuration and not worry about having to go through that mod to begin with.

Looking forward to the two parties settling on that large batch of MiG-35s.  The EAF is very keen on getting the K-77M missile (which if I understand the designation correctly, is the export version of the R-37L) to make up for not only the lack of AIM-120s in the EAF's western fighters (MICAs on the Rafales have a max range of 80km in only the IR version, but they're still very lethal at that range) but to counter the AIM-120 in enemy hands AS WELL, and particularly, with its eventual replacement in the AIM-260. Good to see them thinking ahead and playing their cards right.  

Even if for some reason the Meteor doesn't come with the new order of 30 Rafales as it is supposedly agreed on in the signed contract, which means it should unless the US pulls one of its last-minute threatening tricks again like they did with the SCALPs, they're still looking to acquire the veritable K-77m to boost the potency of the eventual, large contingent of Russian platforms in the EAF.

GarryB wrote:Interesting they fit them with all those targeting pods... perhaps they have good field of view performance and are acting as cameras to monitor wing flex or other things.

I didn't think of that, but it sounds like a much more plausible scenario than what I thought which was an easy way for them to test the pylons/wiring/connectivity.

I am aware that the airframe as well as the canopy are the same on all those models and essentially one that's universal for all 2-seaters and single seaters.

The obvious benefit being you can just make the airframe and the customer can decide what they want, so they want a carrier based aircraft you put on the wings that fold and the arrester hook etc etc... the decision of single seat or two seat can be made last and changed if required... probably not at field level and not in minutes either but the rear cockpit displays can fail and need replacing so they will be designed so you can remove screens or sections or the entire cockpit display, and the same could be said for the flight controls and the seat itself... with them all removed a fuel tank could be lowered into place and secured using the same securing points that hold in the seat and cockpit displays... the structural points for securing things will be the same for all of the aircraft types.

When you say "MiG-35D and MiG-35, are you saying the latter without a letter designation is a single seat?  I haven't seen that model in a single seat configuration yet, out of the few models they've showcased.  Any source I could read or pics you know of?  I thought they offering it as a 2-seater only?

Both OAK and their export agency talk about the single and two seat versions, namely MiG-35 and MiG-35D.

MiG-35/35D
Multifunctional frontline fighters
The best in its class

A cutting edge aircraft and a top element in MiG aircraft family. MiG-35 and MiG-35D aircraft are 4th++ generation fighters and are designed with a widespread use of 5th generation technologies.

The MiG-35/35D multifunctional frontline fighter/two-seat multifunctional frontline fighter are designed to engage various air targets, moving and fixed ground (surface) targets with the use of guided and unguided armament complex in favorable and adverse weather conditions, day and night.

In a two-seat configuration it can be operated both in combat and training modes.

The aircraft is a further development of the MiG-29M/M2.

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/fighters/mig-3535d/

MiG-35
The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.
Main highlights of the MiG-35/MiG-35D:
Integration of fifth-generation information-and-targeting systems in avionics equipment sets;
The capability of using advanced aircraft weapons from Russian and foreign manufacturers;
Increased combat survivability achieved through the implementation of on-board defense systems.
State-of-the art avionics combined with advanced weaponry make MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters suitable for a wide range of missions, including:
Air superiority in engagement with fourth- and fifth-generation fighters;
Interception of existing and emerging air-assault weapons;
Precision attacks on ground and surface targets without entering air defense areas, in daylight and at night, in any weather;
Aerial reconnaissance using electro-optical and radio equipment;
Participation in group actions and functioning as an air group airborne command post.

https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-35/

That just seems like it would be a tremendous amount of work to perform.

Being able to replace the ejection seat is perfectly normal and the ability to remove and replace parts of the cockpit display would be quite normal too.

Having them both fully modular and standardised would make production much easier and cheaper.

This is not something you would do on the front line... you would not choose how many seats to use fuelled up and armed on the runway, but equally you shouldn't have to send it back to the factory to swap them over... during routine overhauls and servicing... it would be like swapping out an engine, and probably not a regular occurance, but equally a useful thing to be able to do.

I have mentioned that for say the Indian Air Force they could buy 300 MiGs for the price of 40 odd Rafales... they could probably buy 250 MiG-29Ms and 50 MiG-35s and operate them for 5 years and decide which things in the MiG-29M are good enough, and also which things in the MiG-35 are worth the extra money and then after 5 years upgrade all 300 aircraft with all the stuff they think is worth the extra money.

Even the MiG-29M would be way better in the fighter role and the strike role than the MiG-21s and MiG-27s and Jaguars they would be replacing... and one of the best features of the MiG is low operating costs which is a bonus.

You end up with numbers and quality and you can't say 40 Rafales would be more useful than 300 MiG-29Ms let alone 300 MiG-35s... especially if they adopt the MiG-35 as their carrier based fighter which means they could buy another 150 to 200 of them for carrier use... they can afford them and having that number of modern capable fighters would be valuable even just for density of coverage.

Having half as many Flankers means worse performance because they both operate at very similar speeds but two MiGs offer better territory coverage than one Flanker.

Obviously the idea is to have both but Flankers are too expensive as your only fighter.

I don't mean to constantly doubt you about this, my friend.  I just don't see them making what seems like so much work as an option for that conversion.  I'm willing to bet they still stick to their ways of simplicity but in numbers.

You are missing the logistics advantages... you make one airframe, you make two wing types... one fixed and one folding with larger control surfaces and larger area for lower landing and takeoff speed on carriers. If you need MiG-35s or MiG-29Ms, then you can then work out what internal components you need.

They started with the single seat MiG-29 and MiG-29M and then added the MiG-29UB... the latter was different and had limited combat capacity... that was a mistake because some missions benefit from two crew and with a slight reduction in flight range you can have two crew for any mission.

You make one cockpit canopy, one airframe, the cockpit displays will be standardised front and back, the seats and controls the same.

Think of the problem for the Soviet Navy... they had the Sovremeny class destroyers that were optimised for anti ship use, and the Udaloy class anti sub destroyers... so they needed to decide how many of each they needed in each fleet and they were not really interchangable... that is what MiG faced.

What they will have are destroyers with modular weapons and all the sensors they can fit so instead of trying to figure out how many anti ship destroyers they need and how many anti sub destroyers they need they decide when they load the UKSK launch tubes and each ship can perform several missions at once... they can just produce as many destroyers as they need without worrying they might end up losing some ships and having one fleet vulnerable to subs or enemy ships because all of their Udaloys or Sovs are sunk or disabled.

Here's the best pic of the MiG-35 front and rear cockpits (which should be almost identical to the M/M2) and take a look at that rear seat setup!  That's some serious stuff.

But in the single seat model it would make more sense to take out the seat and the cockpit display because they are useless deadweight in a single seat fighter while the extra size and weight could be better used in a slightly bigger and heavier fuel tank that can now be secured in position using the bolt down locations that held the ejection seat and the cockpit displays... you don't want a fuel tank bouncing around behind you when you are pulling gs.

Well, I'm glad the EAF bought the 2-seaters already and probably don't have the intention of making that modification at anytime.  I'm thinking any country buying this aircraft for $40 million a pop can afford to buy a couple of them in the 2-seat configuration and not worry about having to go through that mod to begin with.

Well the point is that with experience you might find the two seaters offer better situational awareness and better combat performance... or the electronics might handle that and you only need two seaters to get new pilots up to speed faster... the point is that you could change them if you need to and that includes changing components... you might think some systems on the MiG-35 are not worth the higher cost, but other things might be worth it... for instance the AESA radar, or its electronic jamming suite might appeal and be worth the extra cost, or you might find that buying MiG-35s is cheaper than buying MiG-29Ms and then upgrading them to MiG-35.

It might be that some you want as fighters and some you will use as more of a light strike bomb truck type role, which means MiG-35 for the fighters and MiG-29M2 for the strike roles (note single seat MiG-35 and twin seat MiG-29M2).

They all use the same airframe so changing your order or requirements should be easy.

Note the Indians decided to go for an all two seat Flanker fleet, they chose the Su-30MKI over the single seat Su-35 which is not the same aircraft now that it was when they made their initial choice of course. Interestingly enough the Russian AF is upgrading its Su-30s with Su-35 components to unifiy the parts and engines and radar and equipment between the types which makes sense to reduce costs and improve the performance of the fleet... the Su-35 is clearly good enough.

The EAF is very keen on getting the K-77M missile (which if I understand the designation correctly, is the export version of the R-37L)

???

The K means it is not operational, it would be R-77M, which is an R-77 with an enlarged and more powerful rocket motor version of the R-77-1.

The R-37L does not exist... L generally means laser fused like the R-73L (R-73EL for export laser fused model), as you are talking about long range air to air missiles I assume you mean the R-37M, which is currently used on the MiG-31BM, the export version is called RVV-BD:

Note on the OAK website linked above it states:

In addition to the air-to-air and air-to-surface weaponry used in the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 fighters, MiG-35 / MiG-35D armaments include advanced airplane weapons that have never been offered for export before. Among them are long-range weapons allowing for the attacking of targets without entering air-defense zones.

But the RVV-BD is here:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/air-to-air_long-range_missile_rvv-bd.html

GarryB wrote:The R-37L does not exist...

  That was just a typo that I missed.  The L is diagonally above the M on the keyboard which I was supposed to press for R-37M not L lol.

IIRC, when they first showcased the original prototype, they showed it as both, the 35 & 35D.  But when they unveiled the newer version back in 2014 I think it was with the larger wings and the gigantor barn door flaps as well as the Krueger flaps on the LERX and they had it on stage and lights and stuff, they showcased MiG-35 #702 & #712, which was strictly the D model for both.  Maybe they decided to leave it at that because of the positive attributes you mentioned.  With all the different types of sensors and such, sharing the duties with a 2nd pilot seems to be bit of a better setup.

It all really depends on the workload and how the information is controlled and displayed.

All sensor data is processed to some degree... the pilot never sees the full raw data, because unless the radar is in ground mode they probably don't care about things on the ground for a few different missions.

Equally however if the RWR detect a ground vehicle scanning the sky for threats then that information needs to be displayed too, now in most situation you probably want the pilot to know it is there immediately as well as the rear guy who is supposed to look at the signal and determine if it is a threat or not.

In an old aircraft that is exactly what the rear guy would do, but in a modern aircraft with sensors of all types pointing everywhere and analysing the EM spectrum I would think it could quickly work out what the source is from its built in library and make suggestions to the pilot on how to react.

This means the pilot does not need to decide what the threat is, he just needs to decide what to do about it and pass the location of the threat to other platforms and HQs in the air and on the ground to make them aware of its presence.

In a tandem cockpit with two sets of eyes it can be helpful, but communication is not ideal with someone you can't see, and most DAS type systems should allow the location of any close in threats to be indicated to the pilot fairly quickly especially if a HMS is being incorporated, which they will be soon.

I think they have certainly got the right design idea, both from a production and logistics point of view as well as an operational point of view, but their naming convention is a problem because planes shouldn't be able to change designations at the overhaul level... certainly not change back and forth.

I've never seen the desert camo in Egypt, only the naval one (as it was labelled that when they first arrived.) When you say "we didn't see it that much" are you saying that you actually saw it in that scheme? Was it in a pic or newspaper or on TV or you saw them flying in person? Just curious if there is a pic out there I missed. That would be a shame on me! lol

Not inside Egypt , only that single photo in Russia

https://imgur.com/a/uSpprND

joker88 wrote:https://imgur.com/a/uSpprND

The pic is a bit hazy from the heat distortion of Egypt's hot temperature and also because it's taken from a fast-played video, but it almost looks like the fuel tanks are also painted in that pattern.  Would love to see a close-up of those two fighters.



This pattern is also more common in the EAF than the blue/grey.  Ka-52s, AW-149s & AW-189s, MiG-29M/M2, C-130, C295s and the AN-74s in the EAF. I even think the Rafales would look great in that scheme.  But I think they need to have that smoky grey for SPECTRA and other radar warning/evading reasons.  














When they were showcasing the model of the Ka-52 for Egypt, they showed that camo but added a 3rd color in that dark green.  I think that would be so much better than just the 2 sand colors.  Throw in that green also and it would look sick.



They didn't bother changing the camo on the 2 Mi-24 Hinds they presumably got from Libya and kept the colors that were already painted on it.  I think it looks pretty good.  Nice and subtle with some of that green to go with the Delta area as well as the cultivated areas in the desert.







Mi-8/17s, Apache, Gazelles, Sea Kings and Seasprites and the few Blackhawks for VIP and presidential use are the helos in the fleet that retained their single, original color and no camo.

New pic, and still waiting to see what the final decision is on this dilemma.

No decision now is a good thing because if they did give a decision now the amount of pressure from the entire west for Egypt to show its anti Russian posture would be enormous... it would be rather difficult and possibly costly for Egypt to accept the Su-35 now.

In a few months time on the sly they might have them delivered without too much fanfare... but the west will make offers that look appealing and threats that look painful... neither of which will be the reality of course.

GarryB wrote:No decision now is a good thing because if they did give a decision now the amount of pressure from the entire west for Egypt to show its anti Russian posture would be enormous... it would be rather difficult and possibly costly for Egypt to accept the Su-35 now.

It's really sad.  It feels like you were promised the most incredible gift and your parents told you they went and paid for it and are just waiting for it to be delivered.  Now you think about it day in and day out, 24/7/365 and you see progress pictures which make it look even more enticing because the colors and patterns are terrific and you're inching closer and closer by the day and then suddenly.............SHEZAAAAM!  The rug gets pulled out from under you and you faceplant the hardwood floor! lmao. Frigging sucks.

Beasts #10, #12 & #13.  The shape of the swan neck and the huge radome really make the look of this bird.

GarryB wrote:In a few months time on the sly they might have them delivered without too much fanfare... but the west will make offers that look appealing and threats that look painful... neither of which will be the reality of course.

That would be tough if they've already agreed on the F-15s.  The US has pretty much made it clear that it was one or the other and if the EAF tricks them, they'll have no choice but to punish Egypt whichever way they can, or else they'll look really bad.

The talk now is shifting to the Su-57 or even Su-75.  Reason being that since this is a different animal than the Su-35.  Knowing that Egypt asked for the F-35A (knowing quite well they would be refused) in order to give them a legitimate roadway to purchase one of the two Russian stealth aircraft.  In this case they can say "hey, we need a 5th generation aircraft and we asked you for the F-35 and you declined it, so now we wish to go with the Russian aircraft" and not sure the US can do much about it in that case.  It's kinda along the same lines as the MiG-35 request.

BTW, I think this is the first time I've seen the EAF's Ka-52 sporting the Vikhir missiles.  We've seen one or two with Atakas, but this is the first with Vikhirs.



I'd like to see one with the R-73/74 which would be very cool, but even better would be one carrying a Kh-35.  I also wonder what the heck happened to the Katran tender.  Last we heard they had signed a contract for 36 helicopters.  As a matter of fact, this pic appears to be the test bed for that contract with that Katran having the EOS-52 mounted on it and being tested in Syria. They don't have palm trees in Russia, do they?

It's really sad. It feels like you were promised the most incredible gift and your parents told you they went and paid for it and are just waiting for it to be delivered. Now you think about it day in and day out, 24/7/365 and you see progress pictures which make it look even more enticing because the colors and patterns are terrific and you're inching closer and closer by the day and then suddenly.............SHEZAAAAM! The rug gets pulled out from under you and you faceplant the hardwood floor! lmao. Frigging sucks.

Yeah, like they tell you they are getting you a bike for christmas and you look at the bikes your friends have and then when the day comes it is not a new bike but a painted old bike your brother had and didn't use... or you wanted a Playstation2 and ended up getting some cheap knockoff that does not play all the games that can be played on the real thing...

That would be tough if they've already agreed on the F-15s.

If they signed something the US would not be talking about 'good' chances of purchases, they would say they have a signed agreement...

The US has pretty much made it clear that it was one or the other and if the EAF tricks them, they'll have no choice but to punish Egypt whichever way they can, or else they'll look really bad.

The way shit is going if the US really tries to screw Egypt then perhaps a Russian base with tactical nuclear missiles might be a good counter to any action by the US... the US uses tactical nukes in Europe close to Russia... why not Russian tactical nukes near Israel... you know... just in case.

The talk now is shifting to the Su-57 or even Su-75.

But that is just the same problem... if the US is promising Egypt punishment if they buy Russian Su-35s then they wont do nothing over an Su-57 or Su-75 purchase... in fact they might do even more and go batshit crazy...

GarryB wrote:But that is just the same problem... if the US is promising Egypt punishment if they buy Russian Su-35s then they wont do nothing over an Su-57 or Su-75 purchase... in fact they might do even more and go batshit crazy...

The idea that makes it different is that it seemed important to the US to make up for the loss of the Su-35 by offering Egypt the F-15.  In the case of acquiring Russian stealth aircraft, the EAF asked for the F-35 (just like they had asked for the F-15 for decades) and were refused.  So they can tell them "hey, we need to keep up with the new generations of fighters and wish to enter the stealth aircraft field and we asked you for the F-35 but you refused, so we're going a different route.  The difference here is the US doesn't have an alternative to offer, so they seem to think it will acquiesce to Egypt's demands and let it go ahead with the Russian purchase.  

The UAE seems to be doing the same thing and there's talk about them funding the Su-75 Checkmate program after initially requesting the F-35 amongst many other platforms including a slew of MQ-9 Reapers etc. and the usual freakout from the Israelis took place and according to several news casts in the UAE, the US was forced to put serious restrictions on the F-35 for the Emiratis which, consequently, was not too happy with that and have since decided to pursue the Su-75 instead.  So far nothing from the US and Egypt seem to think the same process can be done for the EAF.

At the end of 2020, other transportation production index
Funds and fixtures indicate 111.9% as a result of an increase in
The production volume in shipbuilding is 1.3 times compared to 2019.
At the end of 2021, it is expected to grow by 4.8% compared to the previous
Produce
branch
public
PJSC "Irkut Company" "Aircraft "in Komsomolsk-on-
Examples of production work production
JSC "Khabarovsk Shipbuilding Plant" (hereinafter - JSC "KhSZ") with
Execution of works in the construction of tug boats and crab fishing vessels.
more
Center
behind
Check
Forecasts, other transportation production index
Marketing in 2024 will be 134.3% of the estimate in 2021 in
The basic scenario and 111.3% under the conservative.
Decline in indicators and growth within the governorate
Decreased production volume in shipbuilding
Due to the lack of prospective loading of KhSZ JSC, possible
Postponing the financing of the "Amur Shipbuilding Factory"
(hereinafter referred to as PJSC "AC3")
SSJ-100 aircraft center of the production branch of PJSC production company
Irkut plane "Irkut" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
Positive dynamics is provided by production growth
A branch of the SAOG company "Sukhoi" is a treasure for them.
WL.
Gagarin (hereinafter -
Branch "Kenaz") through the implementation of the implementation of the framework of state defense orders and
employment
scarlet work
Construction of military ships distribution of a new contract.
In 2021, the branch of KNAAZ continued to operate in it
Su-35C and Su-57 self-defense aircraft,
Construction of the Su-35 for a foreign customer, repair and
Equipment upgrade
An SSJ-100 aircraft for the Irkut production site in St.
Export sales, PJSC "ASZ" in connection with
manufacturing
Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
The contract was concluded in 2020 with the Russian Ministry of Defense for the supply
Su-35Cs will ensure the company's loading in the period until 2028.
B
purposes
stability
Finance
States
State shipbuilding industry, assistance in
Shipbuilding
resolution
A question
Country
the support

https://twitter.com/La_souris_DA/status/1521520028939657219?t=4sYcbGgK0JNNbjYRhXeayw&s=19

The idea that makes it different is that it seemed important to the US to make up for the loss of the Su-35 by offering Egypt the F-15. In the case of acquiring Russian stealth aircraft, the EAF asked for the F-35 (just like they had asked for the F-15 for decades) and were refused. So they can tell them "hey, we need to keep up with the new generations of fighters and wish to enter the stealth aircraft field and we asked you for the F-35 but you refused, so we're going a different route. The difference here is the US doesn't have an alternative to offer, so they seem to think it will acquiesce to Egypt's demands and let it go ahead with the Russian purchase.

I understand the logic and appreciate what you are saying, but this is the US and they don't make sense.

If being refused the F-35 allowed you to buy the Russian alternative then Turkey should be allowed to buy the S-400 because they asked for and were refused Patriot, but that was a different administration that refused and now that S-400 is signed and paid for and in service they want them to give up S-400 and buy Patriot like nothing happened...

You need to appreciate you are dealing with crazy and selfish.

This is nothing to do with you and everything to do with what they (that administration) want at that (specific) time... it might change the next day.

Egypt apparently in final stages of Eurofighter typhoon deal https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edicola/articoli/2022/06/03/lofferta-allegitto-per-24-eurofighter/6614162/?fbclid=IwAR32o_4Tpzt4Dh7PA4SoM7UXv1xKKHeV9YYHSyjHa-nG6sWf-1tDsynKbXo

And it also appears that the F-15 deal is on the verge of collapsing because the EAF is not happy with the US' offer, which entails 24 - 32 Advanced F-15s, but with an older AIM-120B, stripped advanced EW suite and an older much less capable one replacing it and all sorts of basing and ridiculous flight conditions imposed in the deal.

EAF Lieutenant General basically told the US reps that it was an insult that the US would offer such a horrible aircraft with all those ridiculous conditions and that the EAF's MiG-29M/M2s would be better aircraft than the proposed F-15s. So why even purchase them in that case when they could get not only the Su-35SE, but also many more MiG-29M/M2s or MiG-35s and have much better aircraft in both cases as well as no restrictions whatsoever.  Why the US wants a say in which bases the 2 squadrons of F-15s would be flying out of is beyond me.  Can't figure that out.

So it looks like the EAF will most likely tell the US to go kick rocks and pound sand at the same time and finish the Su-35SE deal and maybe start getting the completely finished ones delivered.

Plus on top of all these negotiations, the EAF quietly went out and struck a deal with Leonardo and Finmeccanica for 24 Eruofighter Typhoons along with 20 or 24 M-346 Arimacchi trainer aircraft that they've been negotiating on for the last 3 years.  This was part of the mega Italian offer for 6 Bergamini FREMMs, 24 EFTs, 24 M-346s, 20 Fallaj OPV offshore patrol corvettes and 1 spy satellite worth about 12 billion Euros.  All this under the nose of the Americans whom are probably shocked and pissed about this.  But their silly and insulting offer for the F-15s was apparently a "take it or leave it" according to Tactical Report.  If that's the case, the EAF will undoubtedly not accept it and why they announced this EFT deal with Leonardo right at the same time.  Times a changing it seems.

Plenty of issues. First is money. They don't have a large amount of cash, saudi money is in the mix everytime they buy something IMO.

Second is their dependance on US. They can't just tell them to **** off since they mostly operate US hardware that can't be replace just like that and they get money from them to buy US weapons which is still better than buying nothing. Getting US angered would make them loose easily 70% of their capabilities if not more with an embargo (in case of a war with Israel Egypt is going to loose for sure).

Third is the quantity of suppliers. Having too many of them cost more than having 1 or 2 and it is harder to integrate everything. But depending on only US is dangerous.

If the US really wants to mess with Egypt, they will stop the M-346 purchase. Since the engine has US parts in it.

I did tell you they would find some way to nerf the AMRAAM sale. Either by providing better missiles to Israel, or by selling you older ones. And so they did.

Look at what Turkey is doing. They are making their own F-16 upgrade package and missiles like the Gokdogan. I suspect they might end up selling their F-16 upgrade to other Muslim nations like Indonesia. Maybe Egypt also if it wasn't for the fact Egypt and Turkey have messed up relations.

Isos wrote:Plenty of issues. First is money. They don't have a large amount of cash, saudi money is in the mix everytime they buy something IMO.

Yeah I'm afraid that's not correct.  After Morsi nearly ruined the country, Egypt's foreign reserves were at their lowest and the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all pitched in to help strengthen the country's economic volaitilty until it could get back up on its own feet.  All that money was roughly around $12 billion which helped use as collateral for IMF loans.  At the same time, the military started spending on the modernization from its own funds.  All the news outlets automatically assumed the GCC money was for the weapons and sailed with it.  It's crazy how negatively presumptive these imbeciles are.  
Every one of these deals is financed through banks of the countries involved.  For example, all the Rafales and ships are financed through the French central bank as well as all the German frigates and submarines were through German financial institutions etc.  Egypt actually has quite a bit of money now with all the recent gas revenues, the improved Suez Canal revenues and the drastically improving economy in general because of all the project Sisi has implemented that have helped with export revenues and collateral.  Also, the military has its own billions it's been saving since early Mubarak days, approx. $35 billion set aside and never used until now. Most of that was used to build the new Mohammad Naguib state of the art mega military base as well as the new naval bases in Bernice and Marsa Matruh and Alexandria.

Russia is also building the new and largest nuclear reactor in Africa and the Middle East in EL Dabaa, near Marsa Matruh in northwest Egypt.  No GCC money in that at all.  China is investing in Egypt in return for helping build the new administrative capital.  All from Egyptian money and financial loans.  All these numbers add up to 30x more than what the GCC states have given Egypt back in 2013 and the latest $5 billion Red Sea investment project between Saudi and Egypt.

Saudi Arabia has assisted Egypt in economic measures, not for weapons purchases.  This was a common misconception that started with the first French Mistral purchase and has grown crazy legs ever since.  Every news outlet just assumes that Egypt is some poor bitch relying on GCC funding to buy weapons lol.  Things have changed quite a bit.

This Eurofighter deal is supposedly part of the mega deal which includes the 24 EFTs, 24 M-346 advanced trainers, 6 Berghamini FREMM frigates (of which 2 have already been delivered), 20 Fallaj OPV offshore patrol corvetttes and a military satellite for approximately 12 billion Euros.  They also added a separate contract for 23 AW-149 & AW-189 helicopters.  All with Egyptian money deposited (approximately 500 million to 1 billion euros) and the rest financed by the Italian central bank.

lancelot wrote:If the US really wants to mess with Egypt, they will stop the M-346 purchase. Since the engine has US parts in it.

They're complete Honeywell engines.  But I think there is some contractual agreement between Leonardo and the US to be able to export that aircraft without any ITAR conditions implemented.  We'll have to see how this evolves.

The Italian prime minister was supposed to let Sisi know if it's a go or not within a few days of the TR article.

Going out and making the EFT deal happen in the midst of the US trying to squinjeely the EAF on a sub-par F-15 deal (that Egypt was going to pay for, not use the aid money!) was nothing short of genius.  That's basically sticking it to the US since the EFT will have the vaunted Captor-E AESA radar and an advanced EW suite almost as equal to the Rafale's SPECTRA.  These are much better than the offered F-15s.  This deal also opens the door for new armament and additional meteor missiles on top of the ones that are supposedly in the new 30 Rafale contract.  So the AIM-120 seems to have a better backing thanks to the EAF negotiators who also claim that the original number from Leonardo for each EFT was 200 million Euros brought down to 125 million each in the final agreed negotiations.

My guess is that these will replace the ancient Mirage 2000s.

We'll have to see what happens with the Su-35SEs.  Let's hope they start delivering them and really send the message, no matter the consequences since they need to do this once and for all.

Some Su-35SE pics not seen before, mostly testing with the missile pods.









This is one of the better pics I've seen to date.

But their silly and insulting offer for the F-15s was apparently a "take it or leave it" according to Tactical Report.  If that's the case, the EAF will undoubtedly not accept it and why they announced this EFT deal with Leonardo right at the same time.  Times a changing it seems.

Because in the past the alternative was to go commie with the Soviets or China, which meant being cut out of the western world and it was the western world that was the future, while the second world would stagnate and suffer under western sanctions and isolation and containment.

You take our offer (which is a donation to our own MIC to keep factory lines running so we get cheaper planes ourselves) there is no other option for you.

Times have changed but they still think other countries should be grateful for crap offers... the F-5 was not a terrible aircraft but it was always supposed to be less capable than the F-16 to offer to countries that really needed a MiG-21 like aircraft.

They are in charge and you will get what you are given (even though you pay for it and it is never cheap) or we punish you... the same thing with Russia... you behave or we will cut ties with you... isolating you from the international community... except it isn't... it is isolating you from the west... less than 15% of the worlds population... the irony they don't understand is that the rest of the world are much better partners to trade with and offer the potential for you to make better profits and develop and grow than any agreement with the west.

Punishment from the west can turn into a good thing in opening you up to the rest of the world and actually being able to make your own decisions and get what you want and need.

Third is the quantity of suppliers. Having too many of them cost more than having 1 or 2 and it is harder to integrate everything. But depending on only US is dangerous.

The only way most countries can afford US stuff is US Aide which is US taxpayer money given directly to US arms companies...

If the US really wants to mess with Egypt, they will stop the M-346 purchase. Since the engine has US parts in it.

Sad about the current situation because if things were better Italy might consider a deal with Yak or the Ukraine because the Yak-130 uses Ukrainian engines... since replaced by completely Russian made versions of course, which could be used in aircraft sold to Egypt... but that is unlikely to happen in the current climate. Perhaps Egypt could cut the M-346 from the deal and look at MiG-AT or Yak-130 options instead... the MiG-AT might be the better choice... a less capable light fighter, but cheaper to operate as a trainer which may be all it is ever used for anyway.

Having multifunction capability is nice but if you never use it it is a waste... that is why the Russian AF never adopted the MiG-29SMT upgrade themselves till the Algerian deal, because they wanted short range fighters, they weren't interested in ground attack, which made it not cost effective... though in actual fact the reduced operating costs alone would have made it worth it but I suspect they didn't want to buy the expensive guided air to ground weapons... but since 2008 it seems they have anyway.