As TR1 notes the Russian Navy seems to have been the services whipping boy in terms of acquisitions for some time. The new 885 hulls hit design freeze in the very early 90’s for a first of class laid down date in 93….Astute wasnt ordered until 97 and didnt hit the build hall until the start of 2001. Essentially the ‘new’ 885 is already a generation off the pace and, I understand, has a modernized version under development at present.

design freeze does not mean construction or material freeze nor latest manufacturing machiness freeze or software/electronics freeze. Since Russia has been exporting really advanced version of 636 in greater quantity. it is presumed that alot of internals of the nuclear subs are also updated. i am not even going to missile and weopon system updates.

PAKFA might be a 10 year newer design but it is from an aviation industry 20 years behind the west. So starting late does not translate to a better design.

do you know any thing about aviation industry and fighter design?. Advance aviation industry is not dysfunctional that you need to import fabricated parts from Japan or spread out around various countries. this enormous cost involved in banking sector.
Advance fighter design does not need tankers/fuel tanks to maximum extent and heavy EW pods on wingtips does not inhibit its performance. just look at Su-35 flights from Russia to Syria. The design need to be sleek enough to give maximum energy to missile and radar power in the class of AWACS and JSTAR. This how 21st century aircompaign is conducted at minimum cost and maximum efficiency.

Russian navy has demontrated to hit Middleast from Caspian. Any navy that can effectively strike Middleast from Black Sea/Caspian/Mediteranean is No 1 in my books. Japanese are learning that now.

well that’s my question, are UAVs more efficient and/or effective at delivering bombs than manned jet aircdraft or not?

MQ-9 is said to cost $3,624 per hour
although I don’t know if that price includes the satellite link, I’m guessing that a direct data link would be a lot cheaper
the MQ-9 flies at about 300 km/h at cruising speed, and has an endurance of 14 hours fully loaded (Wikipedia)
Khmeimim airbase is located at 150 km from Aleppo, meaning with an hour transit and an hour for fuel reserve it could loiter for about 12 hours with its 1,400 kg payload

I have no idea what the flight cost is for an Su-24, but it can fly a lot faster (800 km/h cruise speed?), carry a lot more (8,000 kg) and its been long been paid for (Russia would have to develop and buy new UAVs)
however I doubt it can loiter for more than a few hours on target

then there’s the Su-34
it has somewhat similar specifications to the Su-24, if faster and with more range
Russia is buying these brand new, said to cost $34 million
now assuming Russia can get capable UAVs at the usual lower cost than their Western equivalent, say $8 million for a Reaper
you can get 4 UAVs for the price of an Su-34
combined they can carry a respectable payload (6,000 kg) but they can be present at 4 different locations, and they can loiter for an extended amount of time

so certainly if you want to keep ordnance aimed at a certain point non stop, a UAV offers a capability that would require a multitude of manned jet aircraft
and in terms of cost per aircraft you can deploy 4 UAVs for a single Su-34. that’s 4 area’s you can cover non-stop
this is an important strategic, psychological and tactical aspect: it allows you to observe an opponent 24/7, a useful ability in a city fight like Aleppo or against ISIS (which are planting IEDs to slow down the Syrian advance into their territory); you can instantly engage an enemy if he tries to deploy or prepare an assault; and the enemy will get the feeling he’s being watched at all times, a scary idea that can really limit military operations

another aspect is availability, UAVs tend to be deployed in a lot higher ratio compared to the number kept in reserve
and a last aspect is the pilots: Russia lost a number over Georgia, and also that Su-24 pilot against Turkey
UAVs can be operated by much less experienced pilots, who cost less and won’t get killed

Dont forget Fighters are also carrying AAMs and Self protection pods in addition to bombs and have big radars to see further inside turkey and israel. If Russia would have primarily rely on weak UCAVs. that would have embolden these countries. UCAV engine cannot provide power supply to big radars.
You can also put fuel tanks like on Su-24/Su-25. for rapid respones there is always better to distribute attack choppers.

Unfortunately for you, the force structure their projecting is quite possible and very sustainable.
Hardly. These are not massive force structure increases but replacing in service equipment with modest and affordable upgrades.

Nothing they have projected is out of reach financially. If you consider the schedule all the commitments line up nicely to roll one into the next. Not only that but of the commitments only Future Frigate has come forward. The other fact is the Australian Defence Department is already underspending each year and has done so for at least the last four. Underspend combined with gradual increases in the Defence budget to the target of 2% of GDP will provide the necessary funding.

Australia end up alot worse than Canada. the trends are very similar.

Finally, what they have proposed are sound acquisitions. The RAAF has had a great last 10 years and their run will essentially finish in the early 2020s, at which point the Navy and Army will swing into acquisition mode and begin their force structure upgrades.

how exactly RAAF has great last 10 years? Australia has similar size budget as India but India inducting 300 heavy fighter and RAAF only 36. India has 4 engine AWACS.

is the Reaper low on payload?
I’ve seen plenty of jets flying missions over Libya and Syria with just one or two bombs
granted these usually flew from long distances, but I imagine pound/cost per flight hour the Reaper still beats anything manned, except maybe a B-52

over Syria one could also revert to direct control or using a relay aircraft to control UAVs, avoiding expensive satellite links
those Iranian drones are a good example, I doubt they have satellite links

the other thing is loiter time
unarmed UAVs are great for keeping an eye on the enemy, and manned jet aircraft are great for scooting over and bombing them
but when the enemy launches a sudden assault, or tries to move, there is simply nothing that beats a UAV overhead instantly responding

micro weapons are definitely needed, Hellfire missiles must be the biggest waste of money on ammunition ever. like shooting nukes to kill a fly
they are working on laser guided 70 mm missiles
what does Iran use on its UAVs? is that laser guided or TOW?

How many giant UCAVs you will need just to deal with recent road block. Just in that area Ruaf and Syrian airforce drop hundreds of big bombs. And these jets went very fast for loading and reloading. Big UCAV need big infrastructure and preparation and have very low payload. Better to invest in attack chopper that can fly low and has machines gun and rockets. Only thing is to have small UAVs in large number for observation.

my thinking is that the Turks must have a closer look at Saudis F-15s and there training. and came to conclusion that they are not of great use.

They have such low intillegence they couldnot see it. my prediction were right.

http://en.trend.az/world/turkey/2498585.html
Arab countries’ support for Turkey in Syria not guaranteed
Davutoglu said that none of the Arab countries supported the Syrian opposition the way Turkey did.

“If today, Assad’s army has no full control over Syria, it is only thanks to the support of Turkey,” said Davutoglu.
He went on to add that now for Turkey the security of its borders is most important, and every effort will be made to ensure it.