i mean South Korea trust Russia infrastructure (No one stealing them) and financial system to store products this in addition to R&D.
prices are not much different than international level.
It is non-sense that current Economic structure is shaped by EU. In just one Month Turkey is practically largest trading partner of Russia in that part of world.
Well, I myself is not on EU's side. If Russians feel that they don't see EU-Russia relations as important or even beneficial their country, then all the power to them for cutting down ties.
operating 72 cargo flights related to S-400 delivery shows that they have surplus cargo capacity and willing to use it. Syria alone is 1000X of it every year. than add whole Africa. you are underestimating the amount of high quality manpower required to keep aviation products at high tempo operation. reliability and supply chain to make product that is remotely usable in 21st century need huge experience and time. 16 ton engine become 20 ton to make sure plane can keep flying on one engine.
I think we are talking about totally different things. But sure, Syria did provide a good opportunity for Russia to work out strategic air transportation. The talent pool Russia is creating with this is certainly worth the while.
do you count every part and design that Russia supplied to Boeing , Airbus and various engine manufacturers.
Again, we are talking about different things. Being a robust supplier of components, parts and designs is not the same as the provider of full final products.
For example, the Japanese semi-conductor industry was once a dominant and world leading all the way to final-product, their supply chain were pretty all domestic, except for the primary resources (petroleum and chemical ores). The US came in and basically destroyed it with a globalized distributed supply chain with pretty much 3 quarter of the industrialized world to finally subdued that robust Japanese industry. The US never gave Japan another chance, instead, they turn the Japanese into a upper stream component provider, forever locking Japan in this US dominated global supply chain.
This is what's going on with US led globalized aviation industry, that took part and design orders from Russia. Have you seen how much market Russian civilian final product (actual planes) lost to Boeing and Airbus.
they are gong to increase production capacity certainly not for global export level but end product is very competitive. there is no competitive analysis done in de-globalization era for aviation products.
Ukraine was primarily in helicopter and marine engines. so that took a decade or two to replace them. As mentioned Russia industrial policy is for different world than the world we have lived until now.
this company is from small town by global standards. so i am not sure why you think they are not investing to build products that take advantage of 5G connectivity.
Russia does not need European money it has plenty of money of its own and from Middleast. what it need from Europe is the competent and skilled people that have left Russian world since 1917 to move back to take jobs and built products outside EU system.
they started working on it with money since 2007. this fundamental conflict between Germanic world and Russian world. the rest are just side actors.
That is the trend of the future, and I'd love to see Russia make good stride in this direction.
USSR does not have strength when you look at quality of leadership they were producing and putting way more investments in Ukraine relative to other places. it is that unbalanced investment that more population of USSR end up near Ukraine rather than in Far East.
Yes, they do lack strategic foresight on this matter.
so you think only fighters and drone that fly at medium altitude are future proof?. there is no gun/rocket/ATGM developed yet that can reliablity take mobile targets from such altitude especially in simultaneous multi-shot engagement. infact with introduction of hypersonic missiles with Mach 10+ speeds, high performance radars and radar satellites. there is less difference between hitting bases far away from battlefield than near to battlefield. cheap widely disperse airbases with high tempo rate much effective than stealth fighters parked thousands kms away that need much more support infrastructure.
I don't know, I hope you are right. We will see.
I myself is big fan of a good CAS. I used to search extensively for good concept/fantasy design of "updated" A-10 and Su-25.
I am just not sure if that's where the future is heading, but your argument seems sound.
We shall see from this war.