Not recently, but they’ve been getting plenty of experience in mass-scale mobilizations since GW1, GW2, Afghanistan, unlike Russia.

Japan is the only country that has a territorial dispute with Russia and has refused to sign a peace treaty.
Japan is significantly upgrading it’s amphibious assault capabilities and training for seizure of islands, etc. :stupid:
(the status of the Caspian Sea is unresolved but that is not about actual territory, i.e. land, and is not really a bilateral dispute but a more complex issue)
But the point of this exercise isn’t necessarily aimed at the actual region it’s happening in.
It’s demonstrating capability to draw mass troops from all over Russia on short notice to use in a specific theater.
Actual relevance would be much higher for South Caucasus or Central Asia…
Doing the exercise in Far East doesn’t directly provoke those neighbors (Turkey/Uzbekistan),
and with the pre-planned naval/air operations with Chinese involvement offers an additional opportunity to coordinate forces.

Russia has quite a few unresolved territorial boundary issues: from World Factbook:
ussia remains concerned about the smuggling of poppy derivatives from Afghanistan through Central Asian countries; China and Russia have demarcated the once disputed islands at the Amur and Ussuri confluence and in the Argun River in accordance with the 2004 Agreement, ending their centuries-long border disputes; the sovereignty dispute over the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and the Habomai group, known in Japan as the “Northern Territories” and in Russia as the “Southern Kurils,” occupied by the Soviet Union in 1945, now administered by Russia, and claimed by Japan, remains the primary sticking point to signing a peace treaty formally ending World War II hostilities; Russia’s military support and subsequent recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence in 2008 continue to sour relations with Georgia; Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Russia ratified Caspian seabed delimitation treaties based on equidistance, while Iran continues to insist on a one-fifth slice of the sea; Norway and Russia signed a comprehensive maritime boundary agreement in 2010; various groups in Finland advocate restoration of Karelia (Kareliya) and other areas ceded to the Soviet Union following World War II but the Finnish Government asserts no territorial demands; Russia and Estonia signed a technical border agreement in May 2005, but Russia recalled its signature in June 2005 after the Estonian parliament added to its domestic ratification act a historical preamble referencing the Soviet occupation and Estonia’s pre-war borders under the 1920 Treaty of Tartu; Russia contends that the preamble allows Estonia to make territorial claims on Russia in the future, while Estonian officials deny that the preamble has any legal impact on the treaty text; Russia demands better treatment of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia and Latvia; Lithuania and Russia committed to demarcating their boundary in 2006 in accordance with the land and maritime treaty ratified by Russia in May 2003 and by Lithuania in 1999; Lithuania operates a simplified transit regime for Russian nationals traveling from the Kaliningrad coastal exclave into Russia, while still conforming, as an EU member state with an EU external border, where strict Schengen border rules apply; preparations for the demarcation delimitation of land boundary with Ukraine have commenced; the dispute over the boundary between Russia and Ukraine through the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov remains unresolved despite a December 2003 framework agreement and on-going expert-level discussions; Kazakhstan and Russia boundary delimitation was ratified on November 2005 and field demarcation should commence in 2007; Russian Duma has not yet ratified 1990 Bering Sea Maritime Boundary Agreement with the US; Denmark (Greenland) and Norway have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf (CLCS) and Russia is collecting additional data to augment its 2001 CLCS submission

that said, Russia is doing a much better job at peacefully resolving territorial issues than some countries like China or India.

The A-10 and Su-25 frogfoot are great planes but I have three competing designs somewhere in my mind 😀 which I wish this esteemed forum to weigh on. The basic parameters are:

1. Has to be single engined as part of a wider military-industrial plan.
2. Rugged, STOL platform
3. Low cost, cheap, easy to mass produce.
4. Has to run either on diesel or gasoline

Design 1:

Engine facing backwards (like typical UAVs) with a single aero diesel engine (for why diesel see: http://www.deltahawkengines.com/diesel00.shtml (scroll down to ch6 advantages of diesel engines))

Design 2:

Simple monoplane design, twin prop, single engine with a single aero diesel engine. The single diesel engine mounted between the wings will drive a propeller on each wing.

Benefit of D1 is simplicity and efficiency. Drawback, propellers at the back do not help wash air over wings, which limits STOL capability. Disadvantage of D2 is loss of power in the gearing of two props by a single engine.

Twin prop single engine becomes viable at all only because of the high torque of diesel engines.

Which of these would you choose?

Or would you be better of going with a slower version of the harrier setup? Can a Turbofan be made to run on diesel or gasoline? I don’t think gasoline or diesel could be used on a proper turbo fan engine (this is an absolute hard limit in this case).

design 1?
design 2?

no problem says Happy Hassan! all will fall before me!

can you make a cheap light weight stealth fighter design for the UK since they don’t have one?

The ability to engage and defeat peer/near-peer threats is always the primary responsibility of a naval service. Chasing pirates around the Indian Ocean is an elective mission. The fleet must be tailored, fundamentally, to be able to fulfil its main responsibilities.

there was some chinabot here who was saying china needs carriers to stop pirates in the Indian Ocean.. kid was serious!

To be honest it was quite a funny joke on Y-20’s part in respect of JSR and his Mig-29 obsession.

The heat must be getting to us all.

EELightning doesn’t understand the concept of jokes, sarcasm, education, etc
thats why he always gets baited so easily

JSR is having a field day with him

Stop Trolling, Mr. Make up a New Name Every Month.

Make me
Mr. UK ultra nationalist

It just proves that EF in 2003 was very basic aircraft and everything needed to added.

Production will slow down and cost will increase is very obvious. it happens in every aircraft towards the tail end of production. See F-16 example.

so F-35B procurement budget will come from some where else. you didnot see IHS report that India budget will be larger than UK in couple of years. and that budget is already tiny.

Storm Shadow is old missile why you want to integrate that to aircraft that will serve for next 40 years?

why there is no requirement from begining? when you create such huge multinational programe. you want to make it as verstile as possible. Electronic warfare is most critical element of modern fighting.

see above you dont make an airplane for short term requirement. Naval Typhoon could gather alot more orders and engines with enhanced power could have surpassed F414 variant for Indian Naval LCA.

Its not big deal. considering light weight airframe with limited fuel capacity and not so so gigantic radar in nose. it is same old MIG-21 concept when radar and sensors will detect things at last moment and you need such takeoff.

why it has to wait for some other aircraft for Meteor to be operational?

his posts are mere conjectures. not anything to do with reality. no one can make claim like best M scan radar etc.

should the UK get the Fulcrum instead?