JSR,

The point of that post was actually to try and explode this myth that, in a very interconnected world, sovereign will exists seperate to fiscal reality. If anyone understood that point I thought it would be you having watched Russia’s abrupt fall from power with the crumbling oil prices!. Who listens to a poor man eh?.

I am not sure from where you get news and ideas. Russia application of military power
both in Syria and Ukraine ensure that Germanic wealth is spend on either refugees or supporting bankrupt countries and not on actual military procurement and R&d. It also ensured gold prices higher due to ECB printing of money and low interest rates that rattled sovereign wealth funds confidence in EU. I can go on and on. But it’s not topic of discussion.

[quote
Lets address your points though. Japan was rebuilt to service the US market and did so diligently….its ‘system’ is based on that artificial construct and is applicable nowhere else. South Korean and Taiwan you say employed ‘efficient utilitzation of labor’….if thats the new term for ‘total exploitation of a very low paid workforce’ it is an amusing one. As with Japan its not a model that fits into a 21st century western country. 19th century perhaps….!.[/quote]
Japan built to service US market?that’s why Japanese factories are spread out through the globe . It need very effective R&d and real managerial skills to work across so many countries across so many industries. Japanese universities does not attract global students nor wealthy people buy houses in Tokyo for living or vacation. They don’t need that bogus financial flows. There outward investments are record high and yen is still rising .

You say: with right futuristic products that has no substitute with real value how can any one deny market access?

….so all we have to do is build a better mousetrap and the world will flock to our door eh JSR?.

Why not just admit you cant compete? the whole system is built for failure. based on your logic why not enter into economic union with India and Brazil they have the biggest growing market based on people except open air toilet.

In simple answer no. Su-35 still flies with R-77s (or maybe R-77-1s at best), which may well be just a handful of prototypes just hung underwings for the show. Better AIM-120C/D variants are in operation in multiple western countries for more than 15 years.

Had PAK-FA first flew in 1990s (instead of 2010s), and Russians had their “LFI” program flying since 2000 (instead of… like never), we wouldn’t be seeing advanced variants like Su-35 pushed into service in 2010s.

In the end, Su-27Ss were top of the line *weapon system* back in 1990, much better than AIM-7M equipped F-15A/Cs flying back then IMHO. They are still good and potent, but Flankers were never a “unique” or “top of the line” ever since.

Su-27S/SM –> againist F-15Cs with AIM-120C-7s, and F-18Es with AIM-9Xs and AIM-120Ds, or Eurofighter with IRIS-T and AIM-120Ds…
Su-30SM –> againist F-15E with AIM-120Ds, better FLIR pods, and variety of PGMs…
Su-34 –> againist F-15E, this is probably the most comperable of all the variants: range+payload advantage goes to Su-34, overal flexibility (F-15E is even more potent A-A aircraft than F-15C) and munitions advantage goes to F-15E.
Su-35 –> againist F-15SA, comperable at best, inferior due to lack of PGMs and AIM-120D-like BVR missile.

Su-27/30/35 –> againist F-35/F-22? I haven’t the slighest doubt even baseline Su-27 can take on F-22 in a WVR combat, but their overall capabilities are beyond comparison.

This is how F-15SA look like? where are the integration of jamming pod integration?. where are the 33,000lbs engines that give decisive advantage in acceleration/altitude/powersupply to electronic warfare. F-15C is more comparable to MIG-29K class fighter. F-15C old airframes and engine can barely be competitive. not even Saudis want to upgrade and send them to exercises.
Su-35 is built on after experience in building 400 TVC equipped Su-30SM class fighters all with electronic scanning radar. R-77-1 is superior to Meteor as it is fired from platform that give decisive advantage. what PGM advantage? for standoff weopons you have all the Kh-31/Kh-58 versions. it just does not need in Syria.

First, historically (look at a world map), RuAF (that includes old Soviet VVS) are more constrained by the need to have longer range. Then there is the economic variable: large footprint (size mainly) requires an increase in manpower that lead directly to increased costs and less in what you can afford with your budget.
Notice that the general trend for late RuAF was to field bigger but less complex airframe in order to match their need while still baring cost to reach unaffordable levels.

Large foot print does not require greater cost. More powerful radar and more loitering time allows to hit target of opportunity at greater distance. Not to mention using larger plane as command and control plane for target designation.

JSR,

You’ll have to forgive me for this, but, with your narrowly-focused pro-Russia standpoint when it comes to discussing the future of the EU I doubt your motives. Your interest here is in seeing the EU disintegrate and, therefore, increase Russia’s much-diminished power in Europe isnt it?. Note to ‘Leavers’ this is the sort of person you are encouraging with your anti-EU message!. Beware the law of unintended consequence.

it is pure nonsense that Russia want EU to disintegrate. who will pay the bills of poorer EU members or Turkey who need to buy Russia gas?. Russia is firmly committed German led Italian/French backed EU. Just to elaborate more. Germany has labor agreement with Turks. there are 3.5M Turks in Germany already. now Turkey and certain extent Germany is importing millions of Arabs. ultimately Middleastern funds will follow them in much bigger way. London financial service hub will be at risk. that’s just one part of much bigger problems coming your way.

What you say about technology changing the manufacturing environment to some degree is accurate of course. The car manufacturers have, of course, already deployed this technology in the UK so it would be a relatively simple matter to move the equipment to another location. This only makes it more imperative though that no reason for the manufacturers to do that is put in front of them.

I only pointing out the fact why those car manufacturers were there and the changing robotics technology will make UK unimportant as manufacturing hub. diesels are phasing out. on electrics East Asian supply chain has bigger advantage. those things have nothing to do with Brexit.

John you need to open your eyes old boy.

Look at the markets today on the news that Remain has nudged ahead in the polls. Honestly ask yourself if we arent a gateway into Europe for Honda, Nissan, Toyota if they will keep their investment in UK PLC up?. The answer is no….its not speculation….its simple economic fact.

never thought about it I will find it here from naval and missile technology. These Honda/Toyota/Nissan came to UK because it was as populus as France/FRG without nationalistic industrial policy of France/FRG. I used the word population it mean access to skill labor and market. How is Honda can have access to skill labor in Germany when it had to compete with essentially government backed VW?
now things have changed. new robotics manufacturing enable them to built vehicles in Turkey and Eastern EU with software development spread around.

if you don’t pay funds to EU system and accept trade deficits (those trade deficits need to be financed by Middleastern money selling real estate and stocks) they will make your exports even more uncompetitive and open the doors for countries who want to stay or join.

it is not just internal fuel capacity advantage but aerodynamic efficiency of design that carrying 4 to 6 bombs, 2 AAM and 2 EW pods does not impact flight ranges and loitering time. on top of that long range radars help in observing mobile targets so that after each bombing run what kind of activity generates in strike area for second run.

it seems you have no understanding of clean sheet. Su-35S is complete clean sheet design. every thing from materials to flight controls to engines are designed from ground up. its not upgrade of existing airframe. Its flight qualities give it decisive advantage. do you thing they integrate every thing new without designing the airframe and stress testing?

So You really think simply using latest CAD-manufacturing techniques, and change certain materials + add a glass cockpit + new systems by retaining the exact same external lines will make it a new design ???

It seems as if I’m indeed have “NO understanding of what is consider new and old”.

But Yes, the J-20 looks like a Su-15 :highly_amused: … You are correct indeed.
Deino

why you think F-16A cost $5m and F-16E cost $100m. are they the same?. what is meaning of word design. is it only applied to looks and size.
I only said J-20 is Su-15 concept of long aircraft with short wings. did not say they look the same.