I’m always amused by reports that tell how the population figures will be like in 50 years time.

Umm, ok. Population is very susceptible to projection over those periods of time; what the population looks like 50 years from now is based in large part upon what it looks like today. Those below age 35 today are likely to still be alive 50 years from now (except for the men in Russia who will drink themselves into early graves of course) and most of their childbearing days are over too, so there’s hard data on the generation after that as well. The generation after that will be constrained by the performance of generations we do have data on. It’s only with the fourth generation and beyond that we’re reduced to piling speculation on speculation, and even then in an informed manner based upon observed long-term trends both national and global.

Population projections for Australia (est. population @ Nov 2011 of 22.7m) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, released to the public in 2008 based upon 2006 census data:

2026
Low: 25.9m
Baseline: 27.2m
High: 28.7m

2056
Low: 30.9m
Baseline: 35.5m
High: 42.5m

2106
Low: 33.7M
Baseline: 44.7m
High: 62.2m

Notice that the further afield one goes the larger the spread amongst the projection series, from 10.2% for 2026 to 31.8% for 2056 to 63.8% for 2106. It’s almost as if the statisticians know that they’re not magicians. :rolleyes:

unfortunately, the expansion phase of most post industrial age economies seem to be plagued by inequal growth and corruption.

That was the case pretty much everywhere. Recall ‘the Gilded Age’ of the United States. Indeed, the development of the welfare state was largely a response to the social pressures that were building in industrialised societies at the time, it was a pressure release valve that cut the legs out from underneath more radical political movements i.e. communism, anarchism, etc.

That’s something that those who seek to do away with the welfare state never quite seem to appreciate. It’s no coincidence that the ‘Occupy’ movement has sprung up at just this moment – when social inequality is higher than at any time since the roaring 20s. Most folks dismiss the movement as not to be taken seriously, and in the immediate sense they’re right, just as the first tremor along a fault line need not send folks screaming from their houses. But at the same time, one would be foolish not to heed the signs.

You can’t extrapolate growth figures like that over decades. Anything could happen to those rates over that length of time.

Sure you can. Obviously the further afield one goes the more uncertainty increases, which is why Goldman Sachs’ predictions have been refined several times since the late 90s when they first coined the term ‘BRICs’. And with the exception of Russia underperforming on occasion those revisions have always been in the direction of ‘damn, we didn’t expect things to move this quickly’. ‘Extrapolating’ in this case doesn’t mean assuming current growth conditions will continue forever. Goldman Sachs isn’t exactly new at this game, they’re one of the most prominent financial institutions in the world. If you look at that first link you’ll see that there’s quite a lot of depth there. Earlier analyses (those that made the initial cases/arguments for the BRICs+N11) tend to be more in-depth again, although obviously the actual data is less current.

Furthermore it’s not just GS. Everyone engaged in this kind of strategic forecasting is predicting the same thing, it’s only the finer details that differ. These are the same people that were forecasting the rise of China decades before the rest of the world caught onto it beyond making jokes about everything being ‘made in China’. The fact is the strength of a nation is built over time on a variety of factors that are largely susceptible to observation and analysis. In fact long-term forecasting (smoothing over temporary bumps in the road) is probably more accurate than short-term.

The only thing that is going to stop China ascending well beyond the United States is a full-scale nuclear war. Even the costs of a civil war would likely delay things only a decade or two, much as the American civil war was only a speedbump in that nation’s rise to power*. India is a little trickier, in that by the time it’s ready to make the ‘big two’ the ‘big three’ we’ll all be in the midst of the challenges posed by global and regional resource crises, effects of climate change, etc. The standard wisdom is that the more muscle (principally economic and military) one has the better one will fare under such circumstances and India will certainly be no lightweight in those respects, but its demands will be correspondingly great and it could be that India’s fortunes will be constrained at this juncture. With dire consequences for her thirsty millions, needless to say.

* Of course the fact that Europe imploded … and then again, was of no small assistance here.

Please don’t rate India as a future super-power. India has a long way to go and a lot of people to lift out of poverty as has Brazil, China is at-least on-track.

Alas having hundreds of millions of citizens living in grinding poverty does not disqualify one from being a superpower.

Actually I plan on doing a lot more reading in the coming months on the subject of Indian development and internal dynamics, albeit principally via what I understand to be a rather controversial source.

The US president does not make state visits to try to sell 3 dozen fighters.

Right. It was Ms. Clinton who visited earlier. 😉

And we all know that the three-dozen aircraft in question are merely the first batch of what will in the long run probably amount to 100-150 aircraft.

Nigeria is also becoming superpower by 2050.

Re: Brazil’s future status as the world’s 4th-largest economy behind China/US/India, see The Long-Term Outlook for the BRICS and N-11 Post Crisis (Goldman Sachs, 2009)

If you’re worried about the date here’s a recent minor update: The BRICS Remain in the Fast Lane (Goldman Sachs, June 2011).

China really isn’t on track. Their prosperity is creating a huge divide in wealth and living standards.

This is true And the Chinese government considers it to be (see the most recent 5yr plan) one of the nation’s most pressing issues. Contrast this to the United States where inequality grows wider every year and the response is to shrug and blame the poor for being poor. :rolleyes:

How would you justify your comments that it’s a big ship with few weapon systems and too many pointless gadgets?

• CAMM
• Harpoon
• Main gun
• CIWS
• ASuW equipment
• Large aviation facilities for helicopters and UAVs fixed and rotary
• Stern access to a mission bay
• Operations room similar to a T45

That’s a fair amount of capability for a frigate

It bloody well should be if it’s going to displace 5500 tons! :p

Actually India has asked a two seats variants of the T50, so I think they do see the advantages of two pilots for complex strike missions which is a good thing for Rafale.

+ 1

India of all nations does not have a problem with 2-seaters.

“There is a shared frustration in both the UAE and French leaderships at the apparent arrogance of Dassault,” the source said.

Like the French government can’t lean on Dassault if the latter is truly the case. :rolleyes:

Dassault should take the long view though and do their very best to notch one up on the board even if it means less profit than they would’ve liked.