So, 70 + 50 = 120 bil while the total budget revenues are ~230 bil? 😀
Sure.;)

Why not?
70 or 120 bil per year (whatever the correct figure turns out to be) is not such an unrealistic figure.

With the estimated 2010 Russian GDP:

$ 120 bil. would be about 9.3% of GDP
$ 70 bil. would be about 5.4% of GDP
$ 50 bil. would be about 3.9% of GDP

A lot of countries have their defense spendings (as a percentage of GDP) higher than the above numbers.

In the future, the above percentages will decrease as Russian GDP is expected to grow over the years (expected growth for 2010 is between 4.2 to 4.7 %).

IMHO, the 70 bil annual defense budget is the correct one. But I would not be surprised to see Dionis’ 120 bil figure become reality if:
– The world state of affairs and geopolitics deteriorates
– The price of oil goes back to $140 per barrel (as in 2008)

While the Israelis hardly used the AIM-7 and even without it, the result wouldn’t have changed much. “BVR-weapons” are mostly “frontal-aspect” weapons, as soon as you have an all-aspect IR-AAM you rather stick to that. An AIM-7 maybe gives you a range advantage at low level, but again: visual identification was necessary most of the time.

That’s what I am trying to say. The Syrians had only “tail chase” AAMs while the Israelis used “all aspect” Sidewinders and Pythons. Big disadvantage for the Syrians.

As for the AIM-7, don’t agree 100% with you. The Israelis downed a few MiGs with that weapon (check acig and other tables). But surely they used it to gain tactical advantage by engaging the Syrians with that weapon before going in for the kill. That also put the Syrians at a disadvantage.

Also noteworthy is the very few gun-kills in those engagements. Pointing out that there were not that many very close range dogfights as some people believe. That fact that most battles ended in 1-2 minutes re-enforces that point.

That is not the Gorshkov.
It is a mock up of the frigates being built in Russia for the Indian Navy.

Something tells me that history would have been significantly different over the skies of Vietnam if they had both the Su-9 and Su-15 fighters to contend with. While the MiG’s were more maneuverable and better at being ‘fighters’, the Su-15 were meant for taking down incoming bombers, regardless if they were B-52’s or F-105’s. The Su-15’s missiles would have created problems for the American aircraft operating over NK territory, considering they could be fired head on. Even if they didn’t get a lot of aircraft kills they would have increased the mission kills by a significant amount.

Agreed.

One tactic was for the Fishbeds to make a quick dash towards bomb laden US aircraft forcing them to abort mission, jettision bombloads prematurely, take evasive measures etc. Air defense is about disrupting the enemy attack and making a mission kill. Any aircraft shot down in the process is just a bonus.

If the Vietnamese had the Su-15, they would have defended their airspace better. Compared to the MiGs they had, the Flagon was faster, had a better combat radius, more capable radar and pocessed radar guided missiles. It probably also had better overall visibility from the cockpit.

Later versions of the Su-15 had modified wings, better avionics and were also equipped with IR missiles.

The Flagon (particularly the later versions) were not as terrible in maneuvrability as some people here think. They were not a dogfighter for sure, but very suitable for the tactic used by the Vietnamese described above).

A lot of them are going to be going up against inferior aircraft as well. Most countries will not have 5th generation stealth aircraft by the time NATO/Israel/etc get their F-35’s. Tell me, what aircraft (if any) do you think Israel is going to fight when they get their F-35’s? MiG-29A’s? The F-35, even without the F-22, is overkill for the majority of the countries receiving them (and that’s a good thing).

If the US ever gets into a future aerial conflict, the F-22’s will be used, and whoever they are used against, it will be overkill (but that’s how the USAF operates anyways, so no problems here). Assuming the USAF didn’t have F-22’s, they could still use their legacy F-15’s/E-3’s (and other support aircraft) and win whatever aerial conflict that they wanted to.

The F-22’s are more of a deterrent. Nobody in their right mind is going to fight against them. The cheapest war is a war that never happens.

Poor arguments.

In your earlier post, you mentioned that F-22 will be always there to clear the skies for the F-35.
Now you are backtracking by saying that even if the Raptor is not available, there will be no difference. F-22 is overkill, F-35 is overkill even F-15 will be more than enough… hey, why don’t you go all the way and claim that the P-51 Mustang is sufficient :rolleyes:

Please spare me your patriotic verbal diarrhea that “We the US” will always win. I suggest you listen carefully to more knowledgable people who voice serious concerns about the F-35 capabilities against future threat and the insuficient amount of F-22s procured.

Anyways, this is the PAK FA thread, and all of this is off-topic. Let us refrain from polluting it further.

AMUR (Lada)

Let us put the 2 photos together:

First one was taken with the photocamera above wing level.

Second one was taken with the photocamera below the wing level.

In the first photo the LERX is a bit angled down. If it was in the horizontal position, we would see at least the same % of the supposedly “compressor face” as in the second photo….But wait, shouldn’t we see less! Basic physics – Optics – Line of sight !!!!!!!!

So, in this aircraft, it does not matter whether you look from above the wing ar from below the wing you will see the same amount of compressor face ?????????

Something fishy going on?

Oh, and who released both photos….I seeeeee, it is Sukhoi’s website.

But wait, wasn’t the person who released the first photo reprimended?

Odd, isn’t it?

I smell rat here. Photoshop on the first photo? or the second one? or both?

Let us wait for a new set of photos and hopefully we will see the truth behind all this.