The worth of the rubel does show it. Despite what every country may claim about his economy. It is the value of the currency in the end.
At the moment it is ~ 35,5 Rubel per Euro.
Russia is still paying debts. Thanks to the high prices for oil/gas it can do that at a faster rate. Similar to China the free trade is limited to keep foreign contenders away.
Except the export joint Su-30MKI, none of that military projects is earning some money really. The small number of Tu-160 is being under reconstruction to get some operational use from that.
But as I claimed before, it will be intresting to learn at what level Russia will come out in the future. All has to be payed for by ~ 140 mio. Even to keep the Mexican level of personal income, they have to be payed accordingly. India is feeling the impact from that, when charged with further money to keep its contracts going.

Man no doubt Europe at this moment has the most powerful economy in the world, no doubt Russia`s HDI has fallen to levels way beyond what it had in former decades, however Russia has one great advantage, its rich in natural resources, Russia has a well trained population and more important it has kept it self independent.

Russia won`t become a poor nation, niether it will become another Soviet Union, the most likely development of its economy is a well developed nation in a time frame of 20 years from now.

For Europe, the Euro also has advantages and disadvantages, in the current levels of trade and international competition selling is as important as buying.

Let`s examplify with aircraft technology:

Europe`s Airbus builds jet airliners but the expensive Euro limits its capability to sell, it is either die or outsource, Russia can outsource for European companies quit easily and it also will help the Russian industry, Europe will in part loose and in part gain.

If Airbus does not outsource well Boeing will regain all the market once lost to its European Rival Airbus

Like Boeing and Japan, Boeing outsources to the Japanese that also build the MRJ, yes Boeing wins with the Boeing 777 and 787 but also looses because it strengthens the competition.

Bombardier is doing the same in Mexico, it builds fuselages in Mexico but it also is transfering technology and know how and closing jobs in Canada, in fact Mexico is now recreating and regaining an aircraft industry and now it can build UAVs and light propeller aircraft and this is the product Bombadier can not compete with Embraer in costs.

Russia is very powerful in such terms contrary to Mexico because Russia is a stablished industrial power while Mexico still is a relatively weak industrial power, for Russia outsourcing plays very well as well for China.
Russia has giants as Tupolev and Sukhoi and world leaders as Antonov and MiG while Mexico has still unknown companies such as Aeromarmi or Hydra technologies

So Sens, Europe at the end will finance Russia because outsourcing will mean jobs in Russia as well as cheaper products in Europe.

Now if you have seen how China has re-arm the PLA you will see that technology transfers play a big part of that so for Europe a very strong Euro is not very good too, in fact Russia can do as China is doing re-arm while it becomes an export power.

Oil and arms sales in fact are financing the PAK FA, the RRJ in part will be financed by Europe and at the end Russia will continue having industry

The technical gains and achivements were payed by the Easter Block of several hundred million people. The Russia of today is just ~140 mio. people left, which had to run the hugest country from their personal income. There is still some monementum left from former times and gains. We still have to learn on which level Russia will settle down in the future. There is no way to modernise or keep that going, what is left behind. The well educated people in Moscow will no longer live from some hundred rubels per month. The younger ones do demand a better income or will find something better outside Russia. The generation-change in Russia is still under the way.
The Russians had not started to clean-up their country or enviroment. The life-time exspectancy is still dropping to Third World level. That bill will be presented to China too.

Russia created its own technology, in fact the eastern bloc was only a way Russia could had a land empire in Europe, but technologically speaking Russia was and is an original nation capable of designing technology and science.

As russia`s economy improves its conventional military will improve and that is happening, Putin knows it and has decided to rearm Russia once more.

Russia has continue all the legacy of the former Soviet Union, the Su-30MKI, Su-35BM and MiG-29OBT show that and now even the Tu-160 and RRJ production show Russia still can continue building new designs.

The Russia won`t become a third world nation and already has achieve levels like Chile in PPP GDP and is ahed of Brazil and China in HDI, Russia will continue to improve and its economy is growing not shrinking and the incomes growing

Of course it’s an ICBM. Range is the one and only factor that qualifies a missile as “intercontinental”. The fact that it happens to be launched from a submarine is incidental. Kinda like saying Topal isn’t an ICBM because it’s launched from a truck. Oh, and nobody cares if the Brits didn’t design the D-5. They own ’em and that’s all that matters.

There is something you might not understand, financial power does not mean technical prowess, russian expertise in missile technology in many ways is independent of the Russian economy, and the Russian manned space program has shown still is ahead in many fields.

England as a single nation has become uncapable of doing many things and a decreasing population will also affect its technological capability.

In fact as this century advances England or France will become less important as single nations and will be replaced by newer economic entities in terms of economic blocks and new nations will emerge as economic and technological powers such as Mexico, Brazil, India, China, and many others

Sure. If you have 15 years to adapt.
In the meantime you can kiss your industry good buy.
But you don’t need a binary solution, just price hikes, some interruptions during critical peak demand times, a terror attack on a critical part of the delivery infrastructure …

Btw, Russian’s don’t think like that. They’d hurt themselves if they assume it will hurt the other more. And do not fear – the bigwigs in power would not be affected by any such move. And the people – who cares!

For the Russians the problem would not so much be no export business, but rather a severe production problem after a short time. Hydrocarbon based industry here works purely off Western technology and installations.

Russia will always loose against Europe under the current conditions, Europe can always buy oil from other sources, its mighty Euro can destroy economies just by simply indebting them, Russia can not wrestle Europe in peace time, in fact the US even is begining to falter and starts panting, its dollar power is shaking.

Russia only can wrestle Europe currently only with nukes, but for Russia it is better simply accomodate with the Europeans rather than wrestle them.
today`s Russia is not a major power in terms of economy, nations like Brazil or even Mexico have reached the economic maturity to start poising as future economic powers that can eclipse Russia`s performance.

EDITED waaaaay off-topic content

You entirely miss the point here. Of course it is not due to military needs. And Russia is not in a position to militarily threaten NATO, not with conventional arms. And that won’t happen in 10 years, either, even if the PAK-FA turns out to be the super-duper fighter every Flanker fanboy expects.

It is (like often) political messaging. And like often with Putin it is a mix of message directing inwards and outwards. It is not a sign of cooperation if you quit a conventional arms treaty.

I don’t see any direct threat towards Europe. Clearly Russia is a bit sorry for loosing all its influence in Eastern Europe, is trying hard to retain it on the Caucasus and Ukrain. Guess why every country west of Russia wanted to join NATO and EU. They want anything but being under Russian domination. Rather be ruled by Brussel bureaucrats than Russian imperialists.

But as I said, no arms race in sight. Given today’s balance of power, Europe can defend* against Russia without the help of USA, which it basically couldn’t after WW2. USA will shift its attention more to Middle East and Asia, anyways.

*defend in the sense of balancing power

Schorsch

Europe is an economic superpower, true, Russia can not compete with that, that is true, Europe is stronger in conventional weapons that is true, however Europe is not more powerful in nuclear power, in fact Europe does not even posses real bombers or ICBMs.

the only way we can say Russia is not
a threat to Europe is if Russia`s nukes become obsote or easy to destroy.

In 2007 in terms of real destructive power Europe is just ahead of China and by a bit, the real match for Russia is only the US in terms of real destructive power.

Europe is only an economic power but it is not a real superpower in nukes as the US is or the former USSR was.

Today`s Russia is a mix of capabilities

Economically speaking is more or less in the level of Brazil, a rich nation in natural resources with a good technological background.
Its economic level in per capita purchasing power is more or less like Mexico or Chile

Militarily speaking it is more or less a Superpower as the US in terms of nuclear weapons, and in conventional weapons is more or less in the level of France or England.

Its military industry is at the level of England or France.

Its space capability is second only to the US.

Its human development index is slightly ahead of Brazil.

Remote sensors provide information to the aircraft’s FCS, which is what actually cues and locks on the weapons, whether the radar is active or not.

You stated:

“the cueing and locking on is done by remote sensors”

Explain to all of us how a remote sensor interfaces directly with a BVR AAM to cue it and lock it onto a target, because that is what you stated, and that is not how it works, as I explained above. You are severely oversimplifying and as a result your statement that I quoted directly is false.

I am not saying that offboard sensors are not used. I am not saying that they are not valuable and becoming more prevalent and advanced. I am saying that they are not required, and I am saying that your remark, as you were directly quoted, is wrong.

Two Gripens are scrambled to intercept an intruder, they are vectored via data link by GCI units and AWACs to the target, both Gripens have their radars shut down. The AWACS uses satellite communications to have a wider scope of the battlefield

Then one of those two Gripens pilots turns on his radar and his wingman uses his radar to lock on and cue via data link, his wingman is using remote off board sensors, then when his wingman fires the air to air missile at the target, his radar will guide the AIM-120 at the target.

If you see the Gripen that fired the missile has used information gotten by remote sensors transmitted via data link in which AWACS, satellites, GCI units and his wing man`s radar are used to fire and shoot the intruder. that is what i meant.

Yes, they CAN use those systems. But you stated that they HAD to use such systems, which is still false, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Look at what you said:

“the cueing and locking on is done by remote sensors such as AWACS, GCI units or satellites.”

How do satellites cue and lock on BVR AAMs? You said it, I am in no way making things up here.

No i did not say that that is your interpretation.

A MiG-23P needs GCI units or other fighters such as the MiG-31s to be guided and later its own radar takes over.

The JA-37 is very similar it can shot down its radar for a while and almost do a silent interception.

The JAS-39 can shut down its radar and use another fighter`s radar to guide an AIM-120 via data link, in the case of the Gripen they do whole silent interceptions.

Satellites are used by AWACs, and for the navegation systems of fighters.

Now all this information that is conveyed to the fighters, is shared, transmitted or obtain by many means and satellites do form part of it as well as GCI units, AWACs and other fighters like MiG-31s, so SOC you have given different conclusions because you either are deducing someting different to the main idea of what i said or i was not specific enough to make you understand what i did mean.

The F-35 will have satellite communications and this implies they will transmit information pertaining the combat mission not what are the latest trends in fashion;)

And basicly this was originated by the fact Schorsch said that the F-5 was better suited than the MiG-23 for developing nations in the 1970s, i have read that the Russians said that the MiG-23 required a comprehensive GCI network so i said i agree the MiG-23 was a little complex in terms of the ground radar stations it needed to work well as a BVR fighter in the 1970s, and the Israelies were very successful trapping the MiG-23s in 1982 when they jammed and limited the information the MiG-23s could obtain from the GCI units.

Which has what to do with interfacing with and cueing/locking-on a BVR weapon, exactly?

Wow, that’s all well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with what you said before. You claimed that you cannot conduct a BVR intercept without the use of off-board sensors. You are wrong, and no amount of weblinks is going to change that. Yes, off-board sensors are an advantage and are often used, but they are NOT mandatory, as you asserted previously.

Designed and built by Israel Aircraft Industries and its subsidiary, Elta Systems, the Israeli AWACS carries a home-grown, conformal phased-array radar, and other equipment to capture and analyze enemy electronic transmissions. This electronic package fits underneath the Gulfstream fuselage and is designed to be aerodynamically neutral. It also has a communications system that can handle satellite signals as well as a wide array of other transmissions. There are six personnel on board to handle all this gear, plus

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=102&num=26121

Do not imply things i never said, AWACS are control systems and do use satellites, this gives better awareness to a fighter when it is fighting a BVR fight those are off board sensors not in board as you want to imply.

Satellites form a part of any fighter aircraft