They need miniaturized missiles for countering incoming all-aspect missiles in WVR combat.

The late-90s book The Future of War: Power, Technology, and American World Dominance in the 21st Century makes the argument that weapons systems follow a generalised trajectory from birth to senility. The system when initially introduced embodies ‘the relentless offensive’ to overturn the existing order of things, and reaches senility when the defensive measures required to keep the system alive overwhelm its offensive properties. The authors go on to make the case for the growing senility of the tank, the aircraft carrier, and the manned aircraft.

Reading of your miniature anti-missile missiles reminded me of this book for some reason. :rolleyes:

So much fail thinking in this thread, even at this late a date. EDIT: Err, not from Teer.

And yes I feel comfortable saying that given that I was one of the few to correctly predict the shortlist.

Acquiring 30 subs over the next 10 years doesnt mean they’ll have 92 (63 +30 = 92, not 100).

They will presumably have to decommision some of their older submarines in the same time period.

You misread. 30 submarines commissioned over the next decade and 100 submarines in service total by 2030. The latter figure is not derived from current fleet numbers + schedule through 2020, but incorporates units built post-2020 and units decommissioned as well.

100 units by 2030 doesn’t seem implausible when one considers that at least half (probably more) will be small/cheap SSKs for regional duties.

The range will be closer to Tu-160. and will use 4 engines derived from PAK-FA. development started in 2007.

I had assumed that PAK DA would likely use engines derived from PAK FA – nice to see confirmation at that point – and that’s one of the reasons (when coupled with likely high-end kinematic performance targets for PAK DA) that I suspect the aircraft will be closer in size to Tu-22M than Tu-160.

Lack of need for a Tu-160-size aircraft is another reason. Eurasia and its surrounding waters encompass Russia’s entire contemporary sphere of interest, and Russia’s own breadth allows for widely distributed basing. Extreme range isn’t needed.

The ‘regional bomber’ disappeared from America’s arsenal (much to Australia’s misfortune) following the end of the Cold War and the role for such an aircraft, there’s no reason to think that the ‘intercontinental bomber’ won’t similarly disappear from Russian arsenals when the time comes.

Sounds reasonable! and something that is practical and possible to do now and not a pipe dream that may or may not work after 30 years of R&D as is normally the case.

Except that India doesn’t need it now and can’t afford it now. Collaborating with Russia on PAK DA for introduction post-2025 makes a lot more sense than going it alone on Tu-22M4 for introduction in 2015 and retirement in 2030.

I wonder if India can afford to contain so many aircraft in the next seven or eight years time let alone twenty. They have a real danger of fracturing their force structure if they continue on this trend.

It’s not like they aren’t decommissioning platforms too. -23s and -25s have gone over the last decade, -21s over the next and -27s and Jags in the 2020s. The hold-up has been and will remain the pace of acquisition.

Just think, if only F-22 production had continued for another 100-150 units one could both scrap JSF and avoid all this hand-wringing nonsense as to what to fill the gap with: the answer would be “nothing, and with reduced TACAIR numbers support assets can be reduced too!” ‘Nonsense’ referring here to the F-15C/D stuff that is; the Es, sure. At least nobody is suggesting retaining the strategically irrelevant F-16 platform… yet.

I don’t think that NG will hand over their IP to Raytheon so they can make their radars better.

“Do we work for them or do they work for us?” :rolleyes: