Russian Fighter Aircraft Industrial Base: Parallels with the United States?

The Congressional Research Service, a department of the Library of Congress, conducts research and analysis for Congress on a broad range of national and international policy issues. Some of the CRS work is carried out specifically for individual members of Congress or their staff and is confidential. However, there is also much CRS compiled material which is considered public but is not formally published on the CRS website.

For that reason a number of other organisations try to keep track of these publications and make them publicly available via their own websites. Currently, ESO uses the following websites to track these reports and allow access to them in ESO:

EveryCRSReport.com
Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

In some cases hyperlinks allows you to access all versions of a report, including the latest. Note that many reports are periodically updated.There are many differences between the fighter aircraft industry in the United States and in Russia. The United States has traditionally produced its weaponry within a capitalist framework which allowed free enterprise and competition between companies in private industry. The former Soviet Union’s economy, and its fighter aircraft industry was based on a Marxist, command economy, where the central government dictated the type and number of aircraft produced and allocated resources for construction.

Once among the most glamorous components of the Soviet military industrial complex, the Russian military aircraft industry has been described by some analysts as being on the verge of collapse. Russia’s civilian aircraft industry has faced similar pressures, which does not bode well for the military aviation infrastructure. It may be difficult for fighter aircraft companies to find employment in Russia’s beleaguered civil aircraft sector.

The Russian government has attempted to reform its fighter aircraft industrial base and make it more efficient and competitive with western industry. It has initiated several reforms aimed at reducing the stratification and compartmentalization of industrial processes, as well as improving access to financial resources. These reforms have had mixed success. While Russia’s military aviation infrastructure has consolidated dramatically, the overall effectiveness of these reform efforts still remains to be seen.

Russia’s remaining fighter aircraft design and manufacturing enterprises, Sukhoi and Mikoyan, appear to be struggling to stay alive. Both companies have sought to make up for decreased domestic demand by increasing their export of fighter aircraft and by winning contracts in the civilian aviation sector. Success in both areas has been limited, and many analysts doubt that Russia can support more than one fighter aircraft company for much longer. The potential for a merger between the two companies has been discussed for some time. Each company has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it is unclear which would survive a merger.

As Russia reforms its fighter aircraft industrial base, there appear to be many parallels between their experience and what is happening in the United States in terms of declining domestic demand and pressure for consolidation. By examining the events in Russia’s military aviation industrial base, especially the experience of the Sukhoi and Mikoyan aircraft design bureaus, policy makers in the United States may gain insight into current and forthcoming domestic fighter aircraft industrial base issues.

EveryCRSReport.com https://www.everycrsreport.com/

Federation of American Scientists (FAS): Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports https://fas.org/sgp/crs/index.html

---