Baweja said that the first prototype of the FGFA was to fly next year with the ALF-31 FP engine. He said he would want an engine that had 15 to 20 per cent more growth than this engine in the final aircraft configuration. The FGFA is to enter squadron service by 2015 and will replace at least three classes of aircraft in the IAF.

Will the Indian version make it’s first flight next year, at the same time with Russian version?And will it enter service at the same time with the Russian version in 2015?It is unbelieveble!I think there is something wrong in this text.

To quote RSM55 a couple posts earlier-

“The Russian Air Force officially stated last week that there will be a 10 years gap between the entry into service of the Russian PAK FA and the that of the Indian version.”

Russia has built a superior economic system. it can afford to be confortational and still continue to do business with big corporates of West & East. It is the Political elite of West that are completely detached from economic realities of there own businesses & Russia want them to think that way. In two to three years that time will come for countries like China that i will refuse to sell goods for exchange of debt to West as Russian market trades is growing so fast.

I guess my question is what is with the desire to be confrontational? Perhaps they can “afford” to be, but they’d be far better off economically if they weren’t. As for the economic detachment- when you have certain elements in government mandating that financial institutions take bad loans that under a free market, would never be taken, that’s how messes are made. It’s not the fault of free markets, or capitalism. Conservatives saw what the potential mess was, and fought to get regulation that would prevent this sort of mess.

Why not? Off-course USA must fulfil certain preconditions in order to assure Russian national interest. Otherwise, let USA outspend herself. :rolleyes:

You mean such conditions as turning a blind eye to selling nuclear technology, and other advanced weaponry to Iran, along with other unsavory governments, ensuring future generations will have messes to clean up?

It does not assume they flew into the battle alongside the F-22s. They are shown staying well clear, the far side of Taiwan from the mainland, far behind the F-22s, & a good distance behind the AWACS. Look at the diagrams again, & read the captions. The tankers & AWACS are safe until the F-22s run out of missiles, & the Flankers are able to close within the range of what it calls “very long range AAMs”.

The tankers are assumed to be orbiting E of Taiwan until the F-22s run out of missiles & have to pull out. At that point the tankers run, but the Flankers pursue faster.

That also assumes that no friendlies are protecting the AWACS/Tankers, and that China has possession of very long range AAMs(which aren’t in production, or in anybody’s inventory currently).

Yeap, I think USA to become a junior partner of Russia will save a lot of dollars of the American taxpayer. In the other hand, budget surplus are so high in Russia that any controlled increase of the defence budget will in no way hurt her economy.

Junior partner?:cool:

Why not something more akin to the kinds of relationships we have with Western Europe, rather than wanting to be confrontational or hostile. That’s much better for business.

That there would only be 6 is perfectly reasonable. You have to factor in distance from Guam. Even with infinite tankers, transit time & crew endurance limits would limit numbers severely, & tankers aren’t infinite. Then there are aircraft down times to factor in. What’s the best ratio of flying to maintenance hours you could achieve, short-term, in combat?

Nearby CVBGs is another matter – but that is included in one variant.

True. But as the man said, “it’s a logistics & deployability exercise”. As I read it, the assumptions about the air-air battle were for the purposes of examining logistics & deployability requirements, & not necessarily intended to be realistic simulations of air combat. Therefore, I think any criticism of the briefing on the grounds that its assumptions about the air-air battle are wrong misses the point, as they’re pretty arbitrary (& it varies them), & the analysis of logistics (numbers of tankers needed, time in air, time on ground, transit time, etc) is the real point.

If the assumption is that China launches a surprise attack that catches Taiwan, the USA, and any other friendly nation off guard, it might be valid. If on the otherhand, there is a gradual escalation leading up to an attack, I’d be surprised if there weren’t considerably more assets available for defensive purposes.

It is only to deter US So that when Russia starts wars with smaller countries it does not interfere. Respect is earned through strong military. They have plenty of money.

It’s still cheaper to be a friend of the USA and Western Europe, than to have policies that are intended to be confrontational. Democracies tend not to war with one another.

Except the 1st generation stuff is power hungry, runs hot and has a higher failure rate. Other than that, it’s golden.

That and it is heavier, with fewer modules, which limits its capabilities.