…aging population, unaffordable pension obligations, uncompetative industry, overbearing bureaucracy…

Schorsch, are you sure you are not describing the EU?

I did, but not on purpose. The problem applies for Western Europe, too, while that does not result in the same conclusions. Western Europe has mostly excellent infra structure, health care and pensions (which are or soon will become unaffordable). Western Europe is on a much higher level, and can share the burden of defence with other countries (so NATO has still a meaning).

But my “advice” to Russia: Spent the oil-billions on schools, highways, universities and similar stuff and let the MiG-31s and T-80 rust in the Tundra. There is just more return on investment for civil projects.

I have been wondering lately this thing…Why the west is the current dominator of the world? Why are all global powers came from Europe and not from Asia or Americas. Well US is in America but the sosiety there was placed by the western europeans. Why Europe, in spite Europe isent the craddle of human evolution has become so dominant one, Why European powers were the ones that ‘united’ the world and made the route for modern global world. Why not china for instance? Its culture is almoust as old as the Mesopotamian culture and it have longer history than any european power? Why didnt the South American Empires rise to domination, Why did handfull of europeans wipe down whole native population to obvilion?

Could it be racial issue? It seems radical to say but there are racial differences between Asians and Europeans. Well seriously i hope no one things so…Is it cultural thing, some ones have better way of creating civilization, What? I have my own theoryes but past has showed me that this could venture into intresting if I (and those others who migth know what Im thinking here) keep it att abay so the obinions could be exchanged. Ofcourse now countrybrashings and hate mongerings, Im not to afford to start any flamebait here and This isent mented to be one…

…But why the WASP has all the money, all the power?

USA and Europe can be treated as similar for this considerations. The Europeans showed the right mixture of aggressiveness, innovativeness, curiosity and lack of tolerance. Actually the dominance is a by-product of the competition in Europe.
Today Western superiority is partly due to our way of life, which is sometimes despite different claims adapted to some extent on the whole world. To live as Western you have perform western-like with doing business, education and democracy (in local variants). Otherwise you will be defeated (which translates to people moving from your country). Only a very small number of countries can afford to ignore this because they have some magnificent source of wealth.

The Europeans and the Americans were always very practically minded. They did not kill the Aztecs themself, they hired local people. We should be honest and see the huge drawbacks of this domination like colonisation and christianisation. On the other hand, I am happy to not live in a Asian-or Arab-dominated world.

I think some people just do not realise the situation the Russian economy is in. Actually the whole industry is still in a state of decline. Some sectors used their Soviet heritage and exported arms, because Russian arms have an unbeatable performance for that price. Therefore the had good deals with countries either not willing (money) or not able to (embargo) or tradionally linked to Russia.
Since the steep rise in energy prices Russia has money to spent. But don’t be fooled by this fact and don’t be to happy about any modifcations or big changes.

Russia still faces:
– a practically unmaintained infra-structure where no private investements are done
– a catastrophic social systems with millions of retirees impoverished
– a real problem in public healthcare with life expectancy falling beyond that of some development countris and concerning rates for HIV and other infections (TBC)
– no usable export industry except military and energy (while the latter just exports energy)
– a shrinkage in population with aging population, high drain of educated people.
– still low investments from foreign countries despite low labour costs

One should not misunderstand my message: There is nobody to blame in today’s Russia for that, the big mistakes were done in the past. But today it is necessary to enter a phase of sustainable development.

The military issues are secondary and Putin, although surely a friend of strong military (as all Russian leaders), has to set his priorities. Currently the military can not be funded with the money and the gaps are closed by soldiers planting crops instead of getting training.

So, if anything like an effective and affordable army is required I would not engage ‘GarryB’ as consultant, because this would certainly lead to a situation where all surplus money is eaten by useless projects (strategic bombers and submarines, main battle tanks, etc). Military investments are only useful where they either have a direct benefit for to fight real threats or where the investment does yield additional money through export. The ability to fight a US Carrier Battle Group with modified Tu-95 is just useless. Russia is not a world power any more, neither military (if nuclear strike is not considered) nor ecomically.

After all the military has to serve the country and not the country has to serve the military (sometimes mixed up in Russian’s past).

P.S.: Some of you have strange ideas of second world war. The Belgians did not allow the Germans to enter. There was just no point fighting much. Russian army was pretty pumped out in 1945, a continuation of the war against US/UK would have endangered all Russian achievements.

The I-21 may be lifted into the air as early as this year. In any case, the first flight will take place precisely in 2007, Mikhaylov reported. According to him, they already are “blasting” this airplane in a wind tunnel. Financing, as always, remains the main problem for the project’s realization.

Thank you, Austin, for this article. It has some elements that are very funny and prove the absence of any knowlegde or fact in the whole thing. The quoted statement for example: If I develop a 5th generation fighter (whatever that is) I will not put it in a wind tunnel and then a year later fly it.

Look how long other nations design on their fighters. The Russians have limited experience with automatic flight control and extremly unstable aircraft. The later Su-27 family conversions used this concept but were more test aircraft than anything else.

Don’t get me wrong: I would like to have reliable information from Russia, but these infos embarass the authors (which I think is not Austin).

If we are going to be Frank then lets also be honest. There are pro Russian people here and there are the rest. The Pro Russian people here can be defined as those who don’t think Russia is evil (and also don’t generally think that the West is somehow innately good). They are hardly a majority, especially when posters from all the forums are included. The remainder will always think that Russia is backward and evil and behind in every technology and any good equipment in Russia was a copy fo some western item… but it is inferior to the western equivelent (ie they can’t even copy properly) and excells in brute force.

I do not rate ‘good’ and ‘evil’. I am trying to make my opinion from the things I read and see (here and everywhere). And at the moment I don’t see any development in Russian Air Force, I further don’t believe they will upgrade their Air Force in large numbers. I further think that most aircraft will quietly put out of service in the coming years.

I think I wrote my previous point not well: The western military and press always displayed the Russian armed forces as a major thread, extremely powerful in weaponry and numbers. I think that this was right at a time, but that the degradation started in the 80s. So the majority of the army and air force is not of significance any more. There are some very powerful technologies, mostly started in development in the late 80s, which are supported by the Russian government. Not to defend agaibst virtual enemies like an US Navy CVBG, but to gain export deals which have financed the industry in the last 10 years mostly.

*I really wish Airbus would put a ‘Year-to-date Orders & Deliveries’ chart up on their website like Boeing: 2006 Orders & Deliveries

They do: use this one.
http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/#

It is very useful and has all orders and deliveries to date. Please tell me if Boeing has similar information available.

It is possible that the A340-200 and -300 will see cargo service early because they are not competitive enough. Lufthansa for example will decide about a successor for its 39-strong A340-200/-300 fleet in the coming years, maybe even catch launch customer benefits from Airbus by signing for the A350.

Hi there,

Apologises if a thread already exists on this subject (please feel free to merge if so!), however, I am wondering what people’s opinions are on the 737 and A320 series aircraft…which do you prefer to fly in and why?

The reason I ask is cos I am looking to set-up a low-cost airline, and was thinking about using a A320, with similar config to that of JetBlue Airways, but not sure what the competition from Boeing or other manufacturers was like, all I know is that the 737 NG aircraft are its nearest rival…

Anyway, if you have a comment/opinion, please feel free to add it here…

I would take the aircraft you can get. Don’t think about about the size of the fuselage. You will have to buy aircrafts second-hand or lease them under ridicoulus terms.
My personal advice: Better skip the idea of an airline. You don’t seem to have any knowledge of the issue.