Really and when was the last time a Russian fighter squadron made a combat deployment around the world (and not to one of Moscow’s neighbouring puppet states)?

And as stated last time the Russian AF went to war in 2008, it used old fashioned tactics and didn’t display any of the advanced capabilities that even small NATO Western partners such as Dutch or Belgians have been displaying for decades now.

.

Again you dont understand anything and continously with misplaced assumption. Dutch/Belgian advanced capabilities takes time to show up. They cannot finish off Georgia size country with mountainous train in 3 days. This is such speed that no airforce can prepare for it unless there is intention before hand. There is lesson from that speed of operation
Salaries are increased by 2 times if not 3 times compared to 2008. Considering low taxes it is now more than almost all Nato salaries.
Trainining in mass formation has increased alot. see the recent exerices. Most of Nato exercise only few aircrafts are contributed by each country and i dont think it involve live firing of PGMs or deploying dedicated EW aircraft.

Of course USA cannot concentrate fighters in one theatre. But it’s larger fleet means it can match or overmatch China’s fleet whilst still leaving a sizeable reserve.

And the USA gets bolstered by whatever ally needs US help. And the North Asians offer sizeable capabilities and then the Australian lapdog throws in another reasonably modern fleet with force multipliers into the mix.

All your assumptions are entirely wrong. North Asians can offer nothing and same is Australlia. All these countries extremely dependend on Chinese trade. (opposite is also true). but other thing is 100% dependency on imported energy.
Fighters/Training/weopons/fuelparts/ manpower expensive. that need very well funcitioning economic system to sustain. sustainment means continous upgrades.(like Japanese F-15s with Old engines. Old engines cant provide the kind of power for new electronics/EW)
This is not possible in North Asia/Australia.

Apparently they’ve been retired – indeed I’ve seen a picture of a Su-27 being towed down a high way to a scrapper.

I dont think all of them scraped. UBK as are late 90s.

Let’s compare to USA:

China: 80-120 H-6 of which 15 are H-6K.

USA: 20 x B-2A, 66 x B-1B, 76 x B-52H.

China’s H-6s have one big disadvantage – they have to operate within range of high density fighter/air defence concentrations (i.e South China, East China, Philippine and Yellow Seas).

USAF bombers can operate from relatively safe bases ala Hawaii, Guam and Australia. B-2s can operate from continental USA.

Both have projects on the burner.

US has alot of commitements like baby sit EU and Middleast. and China lack of threat is not due to lack fighters. it is some totally different reasons.

All numbers on JH-7 that I’ve seen show about 200-270 J-10 and under 120 JH-7.

120 for JH-7 is too low.

Here’s a GaAs AESA that went largely unnoticed. This company also supply the T/R modules for the T-50’s N036:

1st pic is ‘NPP Istok’s’ array, 2nd their T/R module. The 3rd pic is Tomsk NIIPP’s (Томский НИИПП) GaN MMIC & LTCC substrate for Phazotron-NIIRs 3D radar (4th pic). Flight tests for the latter are planned to commence in 2014, and development of the array embedded in a polymer composite laminate will be undertaken 2014-15.

It is only now, after nearly a decade that sufficient funding became available for programme implementation, that the fruits of those investments are beginning to be glimpsed and, clearly, the Russians have come a long way from ‘Bars’, ‘Irbis-E’ and even ‘Zhuk-AE’.

I think Japanese are first claim in putting AESA in AAM. but no confirmation whether missile is operational.

$16b is radio electronics programe part of $24b overall investment after 2015.

http://www.ewdn.com/2012/11/02/russia-adopts-16-billion-ten-year-radio-electronics-program/

Sure, try targetting the F-35 or F-22 from 200-300 km’s out 🙂

I am pointing to your fallacy of designing a new system against legacy aircraft. legacy means obsolete. you dont design anything for them. when your contiously increasing ranges of each weopons. (increase range with lighter weight means more expensive weopon design) it means the sensors are able to utilize it.

http://www.janes.com/article/26451/maks-2013-russian-industry-unveils-new-sam-systems
At a press briefing KTRV General Director Boris Obnosov said the company is working on new air-launched weapons applications that will be revealed as new-generation weapon systems. “We have a policy of only displaying systems at MAKS and other shows that have completed all of their required operational testing and are in series production and/or are already in Russian service.”

Not sure this qualifies as news so much as a flight of imagination. It is difficult to imagine J-31 competing with F-35 for selection anywhere, let alone several anywheres…

you give forecasts untill 2050 everywhere. so think.

Its all about developing capability to better respond to your threat. The US does not need to develop a missile to shoot AWACS for obvious reasons. Regarding An anti radiation weaponry …The US has to develop capability with their stealth fleet in mind, which is going to number in the thousands once all the stealth fighters, stealth bombers, stealth UCAV’s are eventually factored in. Its horses for courses. The JDRADM would have been used in the Anti radiation role, but replacing the HARM is not very high in the priority for future weapons, compared to DEW’s etc. With regards to the stealth fleet more optimized to carry Bombs and other precission weapons – Its because the US does get involved with quite a bit of expeditionary warfare and as such the expectations as far as ability to maintain a threshold of capability is significant. How much inventory would you have to build up (and at what cost) if you replace JDAM’s (SEAD) with Mach 4, 100+nm missiles? Its a tradeoff and a mission requirement thing. Russia is preapring to fight its wars, while the US its own.

RVV-BD is not alone against AWACS. export version is limited to 200km and 8g. which is more than sufficient for most loaded strike fighters. long range sead missiles has its own advantage as your using less fuel to go near to the target. and turn around time is quicker as missile approaches faster to the target.

Russia considering sanctions on the US?

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/08/28/russia-mulls-ban-rd180-engine-exports/

Russia has more money than skilled labor to produce products. so it is more like using these people for domestic purpose rather than export.