What on earth does the government need that many Il-96s for?

It is not that many considering its only long range passenger plane made in Russia. there are version of Tu-204 10k range but they may not carry that much.

even Lovrov use IL-96.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/02/20/Lavrov-in-Baghdad-to-discuss-regional-issues-.html

All this talk about survivability but survivability to what end? This isn’t air policing or expeditionary operations against a mid/lower rung military.

survivability to infinity. In post 2020 era of F-35. real major powers will start deploying hypersonic/stealthy cruise missiles. Supercomputing/satellites will take big leap.

Since the aircraft operate dispersed they can’t be knocked out of the battle with a strike against the airbase? Okay.

Stealth aircraft are heavier so they have bigger engines / bigger noise. and much larger fuel depots and large maintaince personal. it all increase its visibility to both human and electronic.

But can it blunt an enemy air offensive. 30 years ago it was possible for fighters to go up in the air encounter a foe, maneuver till fuel ran low and return to base calling it a draw. But since the enemy op was checked the mission could be deemed a success. How likely is that situation today with the widespread employment of HMS, high off-boresight IIR seeking SRAAMs with LOAL capability, thrust vectoring and a laser fuzes?

30 years ago it was not possible either. just it did not happen so your presuming it is not possible.

And how do you hide in today’s net centric aerial battlefield? Let’s say the enemy inducts 2 AWACS and refueler into the theatre. 24 hour coverage. With escorts. How do you get close enough to take a shot at that? 30 years ago you could have used ground clutter for concealment. Not really feasible against today’s ground mapping AESAs, not to mention the range of your missile shots will be reduced to nothing.

so you want to use that limited quantity of fighters against AWACS. And leave everything else wide open and want to fight major power.
only quantitively/qualitatively large airforces can effectively fight against AWACS. The term quantity not only refer to number of platforms and but the number missiles.

Point is this notion of guerilla air warfare is a tough call in an environment that can be (near) saturated with hostile sensors. And if it’s the only option (presumably until allies arrive), the aircraft you want is the one that can remain (relatively) unseen.

that relatively unseen fighter costs are likely to be higher. so a lot less budget for navy and force protection of airbases. and without navy and ground troops. any specialized force of major power can invade through small boats/subs. as they are going to be fully protected by cruise missiles/TBM/cyber capabilities that can disrupt small air defence network.
Even Australia that is presumably buying 100 F-35 only upgrading two airbases at this point at huge cost with recent budgets cuts to decrease domestic scientists.
Bottom line is limited number of 5G or 4.5G does not make a difference.

Tejas yearly production can be increased?. what will happen to that Naval Tejas production as in 2018 the Aircraft carrier is coming along.

Saudi does not even have ambassoder in Iraq let alone any kind of business relationship. that is permanently over. the only question remain is how fast Iraq can increase Oil production to pay for weopons/training that are superior and more effective than Saudi.

infact wealthy Iraq will lead to breakup of Saudi as Shia parts of Saudi may want to join democratic Iraq. outside powers will want to make it Arab vs Arab fight.

Finally happy to live in France where most of our electricity is produced by nukes 😉

it does not matter. France and EU interconnected in banking/industries.

You will be, the AIM-9M and AIM-7F only have a certain shelf life. I have no doubt that AMRAAM and some form of advanced short range missile will be on the cards in the future. What Iraq is getting currently is adequate to maintain QRA.

I know this is a sore point for you Sheytanelkebir and I respect that your pride has been slightly put out by it but this is a good deal. The F-16 Block 52+ is a modern, reliable and affordable jet to run. It is in service with many countries and that will be the case for years to come.

How this is affordable?. $6b or so for 36 airplanes with slowest induction rate and outdated weopons. no force protection ability.

see helicopter syria strike example. can F-16EQ strike inside Saudi or Turkey. practically useless.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/iraq-security-forces-ambush-syria-fuel-convoy-2014427113049340239.html
Iraqi helicopters hit convoy in Syria

A true 4.5 g airframe? No demand for it in the services apart from 22 more Growlers which the navy seems to want. You have the International Hornet and the Silent eagle that boeing has been trying to prop up that are virtually ready. Heck the F-15’s have been flying with advanced avionics, EW suites and AESA radars for years. Customers have bought those, but the USAF has no need for them…. Lockheed has given up in any further significant development on the viper and is fully committed to the F-35 just like the DOD. There is no interest in any 4.5 gen fighter within the USAF, USMC or USN (on top of buying perhaps a few more Super Hornets especially growlers), and you really do not go out and BUY something that you do not have a need for. The US plans on replacing all the F-16/F-15 fleet with the F-22, F-35 and later on the future FX.

Advanced avionic does not make true 4.5g platform interms of performance/high powered engines/significant weight reduction. and airframe expired F-15C/F-16 will no longer competitive.

What about updated engines? The F-119 program was robust, the F135 is well funded. Look at the amount of money for R&D on the ADVENT ( GE and RR) , then there is the AETD to follow which begins shortly if not already underway (P&W , GE and RR). From the navy you have the VCAT program up and running. Where else is any other mythical propulsion demand that is being unmet? Propulsion R&D goals like all DOD goals are concerned with taking the technology to a certain maturity level. Your AETD and VCAT programs will do so for Variable cycle engines.

None of these engines due to there heavier weight can go into lighter 4.5G airframe.

Beyond that the DOD is not concerned with developing an engine that has no use (Thats not how it is done). The current fighter programs that do require a new engine are in the AOA stage (at least one is). The USN’s AOA on the F/A-XX will conclude perhaps in 2016 or 17. Then the Navy will release a RFI or something like that to OEM’s based on which they will lay out a roadmap for engine requirements. Once the AETD and VCAT programs mature the technology to a significant maturity level, the navy and the OEM’s can pick these requirements and craft an engine for the FA_XX. Same applies for the USAF F-x program, although its AOA is not expected to be complete for some time, as the F-22’s are not going to require replacement before the Super Hornets. Therefore, no propulsion need is going unmet because proper investments were made in the past to ensure that engine tech is up to the mark to support the programs that require it, same is looking to be the case for the FAXX/FX efforts with billions being spent NOW so that variable cycle engines are ready to go as soon as the services embark on a program that requires them.

your further going into future that is even more expensive operationally deployable. the more things get expensive the less it is available.

For what exactly? Jamming? You have the Next Generation Jammer in development. Radars? You have various radar programs in different shapes and sizes, from the ultra expensive AMDR to the tactical radars for the army, air force and the marine core (3dELRR and Gator)..Which other pods do the services need that are unmet?

All of them will be mostly used with medium size fighters like JSF/F-18.

There is no demand from the USAF or the USN for such a missile with such a range. The Navy is working on the aim-9x Block 3 while the Aim-120D acquisition program is under way. I am afraid the plans to develop the NGM have gone a bit hush hush lately so we do not know what the services want for the medium-long term. We have a road map which has been published before on this forum but not much is publicly known about the individual programs. Their is no opinion within defense circles that the USAF or the USN should embark on a missile development program based on requirements that do not exist, just because Russia may have such requirements for its national defense needs.

so there is no longer requirement of long range missiles. or it will become too expensive to develop now and small fighters will not be able to take in quantities and speed.

Every nation has its own strategy based on its own national defense. That others have a different strategy to the US DOD is hardly surprising.

that good that you admit it. and not repeating the 5G stuff across the board to all countries. in other countries 5G fighters are the least important relative to current procurement.

To them maybe (questionable at best)..The DOD has its own plans..BTW Kindly do share with me the amount of J20’s and J31’s china will eventually acquire (or intends on acquiring)

they may acquire at some point. but those J-20/J-31 are not impacting current procurement of J-10/J-11/JH-7 etc. 4.5G fighters are lot more important.

The F-35 is theoretical?

any thing that is more expensive and goes too far into future becomes theoretical.

So? What does that have to do with cruise missile stocks with the USAF/USN or USMC? Do the US go out and buy more cruise missiles because russia is buying more or do they go out and buy more if they actually have a need that is unmet? I am having some trouble in understanding your logic.

I merely pointing out that other thing are far more important to other air forces than concentrating on 5G fighter. Reread your previous statement when you automatically assuming that 5G fighter is the most important thing for all the countries. infact it is least important compared to developing even AWACS. see the various AWACS programs in China.

The world is not ending in 10 years. Nor is the technology that the forces currently have getting obsolete in the most extreme sense. The F-35 begins to IOC in 2015 and the Navy gets IOC in 2018/19. By 18.19 all block 3 capabilities would exist in close to 200 jets if not more. Secondly, the US has been acquiring fighters for years, from the 180 odd f-22’s to hundreds of Super Hornets for the Navy, in addition to constantly upgrading legacy gear other crafts, A lot of the F-16’s for example are getting a upgrade on their avionics including a brand new AESA radar… You buy aircraft to replace the ones retiring not because some other nation is buying crafts to replace its own fleet @ 100 per annum or a 1000 per annum…

Procurement of existing fighers is not at same speed compared to China/Russia. and you cannot really compare J-11B with F-18E. F-18E simply don’t have the speed/range of J-11B.

What? Where does the EU come into this? And where do tanks come into this picture? Are we on a F-35 thread? I don’t like the direction in which your argument is headed. What next, Russian tanks marching through europe?

Most of NATO members complaining about lack of tanks. obviously more money thrown into developing long term 5G figthers/NGB/UCLASS means more money is cut from operationally relevant ground force armour and mobile SAMs.