So how many trillions of dollars are moving through the Russian and Chinese economy?

Surely not debt money but real money and products are moving along those countries. u can see these countries importance Such Western allies as Turkey/SK/Taiwan/Japan/Australlia/France/German the countries which produce products or have natural resource to sell.

Required height?:rolleyes:
Every Flanker will always be flying higher and faster than any potential foe is it? No other plane can accelerate or climb? You’re still ignoring missile performance(AAM vs. large SAM) or AAM vs. AAM.

Flanker has large wing span it can carry heavier AAMs. Why do u think R-27EA and R-27ER, R-27EP weights. Almost three times AIM-120.

What are the numbers of Foxhounds/Flankers/Backfires/Fencers/A-50s vs.
F-15C,E/F-16C/F-18C,D,E,F/F-22/B-1B/B-2/E-3? How many tankers does the RuAF have(it’s great to have long legs, but it sucks to have to land to refuel). The B-1B/F-15E is a much more potent combination than the TU-22/SU-24 could ever hope to be.

There are 400 each of MIG-29/Su-27/Su-24/MIG-31. Pretty sufficient force when combined with Strategic and Naval Tu-22/Su-24/Bear/Blackjack/A-50. For Airrefuellers u also need friendly airbases. or do u think u can operate airrefueler from continental US or EU into Middleast? It does not make a difference. Airrefuller has to be parked closer to battlefied.

Because that’s not the case. Others could assume more risk too, but they choose not to.

How do u know others can do ? I have shown there is clearly private investors money involved if this thing crashes there money goes down the drain. About assuming risk it would be totally different kind of project if Sukhoi has to play around with Russian government money alone.

I know that the US defense budget is larger than Russia, China, and Western Europe. As far as unmatched intellectual capacity.:rolleyes: (industrial espionage perhaps).

So now u have figure out China defense budget inaddition to Russia:rolleyes:. Try to look at China railway capex budget alone. it is shocking by Western standards.

AAMs see things from the top if they’re launched at a lower flying aircraft. It also depends on what kind of motor they have, and how it’s optimized(long burn, very high accelleration, etc…)

Flanker has the acceleration and climb rates to reach required height. its AAM will always be on the top.

As are US radar ranges. US aircraft are also datalinked, and with more AWACS(as well as other airborne assets). You continue to use the protection of Russian airspace scenarios. What are the capabilities of these aircraft if forward deployed, and they meet each other? Which side do you think has greater expeditionary assets?

MIG-31/Su-27/Tu-22/Su-24/A-50 are far bigger in numbers with bigger radar power and ranges than US assets. US has overall more assets that it can deploy to single theatre but Russian assest have longer legs, speed with longer range weopons that compensate for it. It is just there doctorine is different. They dont believe in using short range fighters like F-16/F-18 instead that job is more for Tu-22/Su-24 both naval and airforce. with dual role of Su-27SM.

How much has the USAF spent compared to Russia? More than the entire Russian defense budget.

surely u know entire Russian budget:D. ur dealing with wealthiest country on world. with 10 years of continous surpluses that no other country on this scale has achieved untill point and that combine with very high intellectual capacity that is unmatched in the world. only $400m spent on developing MKI compared to that 5 times figure for F-16E. what they can do with $3b R&D other countries cant do it with $30b.

You said the AAM could see it’s target from launch to intercept. Long range SAMs are considerably larger than any AAM(even acounting for the launch speed and altitude), and their ranges will be longer.

AAM see things from top. SAM is from bottom it has to reach certain heights and speeds.

Flanker can see further than APG-63 (v) 2, 3, and 4, APG-77, etc…? What size target? If the Flanker gets in WVR you can rest assured it’ll be using A/B, and if it wants to launch at high Mach numbers, it’ll have to use A/B.
You’re still assuming the Flanker is flying over Russia, and with a large amount of fuel left. There are a lot of other scenarios that aren’t as favorable for the Flanker. The Flanker doesn’t have any AAMs for use against fighters that are so long ranged that a foe will run. You keep asserting that a missile that can engage an emitting AWACS at 400km, can also engage a fighter at ranges like that. It won’t even spot a Typhoon/Rafale until about 90km, much less a Raptor/Lightning. The Flanker on the other hand will stick out like a sore thumb emitting at that power level.

Flanker radar ranges are classified but rest assured it is among the best in the world. Flanker is datalinked with A-50/MIG-31. It has no problem of being at right place and right time.

was i talking about the USN? no, no i wasn’t

their situation is SLIGHTLY different than the UK’s

the USN has TEN active supercarriers with an ELEVENTH coming online next year and has need for planes NOW

the CVFs won’t be ready till 2014 assuming no delays (haha)

also they currently operate the type so buying a few more now won’t jeopardize their ability to switch to the F-35 later, unlike the RN

One hand ur claiming that without Stealth aircrafts are dead and other hand claiming USN can survive without stealth for entire decade. The only aircraft RN can afford for carriers is MIG-29K. It has the right size, weopons, range, french navigation and HMD. I am sure venture lik TNK-BP can be created for MIG-BAE to customize MIG-29K for RN.

yup, sometimes i do lose track of the train of thought :diablo:

anyways, F-35B has 14000 lbs of fuel, which is as much as the CTOL SuperHornet

Fact is Superhornet is alot cheaper (Already developed product) so greater quantities can be purchased and externally weopons carriage give it more flexibility for standoff strikes which is the only way of surviving against 4th and 5th generations airdefence systems. as ground systems have both optically guided and superior power than what is carried in airborne system not to mention networking with real cables. and much easier to upgrade year after year than tearing apart aircraft everyyear which can become hanger queen.

facts like not thinking the F-35B will be able to carry any strike weapons internally?

JSF will will be procured in limited quantities just like F-22 and with limited internal carriage it will have no effect on battfield as all its weopons will be intercepted. and in front of S-400 Stealth is irrelevant anyway (It is cleared for export so better prepare for S-500).
Alot of people have little understanding that Euros/British pound/Autrallian dollars had collapsed and countries have taken enormous amount of debt on there balance sheets. And there is no prospect of economic growth for years if not decades to come. People like Sarkozi/Gordon brown are running around the world with desparate cry of new financial order as they have been hit nothing less than financial nuke weopon. Russians have big smile on them.
JSF is wrong product at wrong time. JSF supporters must admit it and move on.

I stick to Russian sources about the AL-31/117S/41.
You have no idea, what a 14:1 TWR does mean.
Sticking to the most reliabe French standard.
The AL-31F has a 7:1 TWR.
The prototyp 117S has a 8:1 TWR.
The future AL-41F will have a 9:1 TWR and with a reduced life-time one of 10:1 at best.
“Overclocking” a fighter-engine on the bench-station is one thing, to operate it in a fighter is a different task. The 117S is just freed for prototyp use in the Su-35BM prototypes or Su-32. In the special regime it will produce 14,5 tons, when max AB is 14 tons of thrust. The Russians have lost a decade in engine-development in the 90s. 😉

AL-31F is 8: 1. RD-33MK is 9 :1. 117S is 10:1. Ever thought about Su-35 being lighter than earlier Flankers despite having 20% more fuel and weight of TVC. heavier engine & TVC would have put great stress on airframe
PAK-FA is 15:1 thats why they need new Supercomputer for it.

The first flight was carried out with the tracking: together with Su-35 into air it rose Su-30[MK]. This made possible to compare the characteristics of aircraft. When I carried out acceleration in the maximum nonafterburning regime, for the pilot of escort aircraft it was necessary to use an afterburner. However, in this case it sometimes lagged. Certainly, here is manifested dependence on the indices of the pick-up of power plant and on that how pilot governs RUD. Nevertheless in the flights it was noticeable that Su-35 it possesses large margin of thrust and larger acceleration shows
Which Su-35 will give for VVS of Russia? Will give it new qualities and possibilities? Will make it necessary its entering by the armament to change the practice of combat training?

– Concerning new qualities, I answer “yes”. New moment – use of the controlled thrust vector, which substantially increases safety of the execution of flights. Aircraft not “does fall down”, it is governed practically at any speeds. The aircraft of system do not possess such possibilities. And they do not obtain them during the modernization. The absence of thrust vector does not make possible for the modernized aircraft of system to be governed at the ultralow speeds in the manner that this it makes Su-35. I consider that this is the substantial argument in favor of the purchases of new fighters for VVS of Russia.

The increased thrust-weight ratio improves the characteristics of acceleration. The detachment of aircraft on the takeoff occurs earlier. Furthermore, due to the outstanding starting characteristics to pilot Su-35 more easily to leave from the enemy or to reduce to it distance. Add to this the increased flying range, and also the circumstance that airborne radar detects purposes at the long range, locks on at the large removal, making it possible to strike enemy on the distant boundaries. The list of merits Su-35 it is possible to continue even further.

It is important for the pilots that the new aircraft not only excellently maneuvers under conditions “super-maneuverability”, but also in the relatively simple flight conditions, with the output to the low speeds – 200 km/h and less. Usual pilot, with the classical understanding of flight, behavior Su-35 astonishes, in the pleasant sense of word “it shocks”.

I consider that from the point of view of piloting in combatant pilots in principle there must not appear problems with the retraining on Su-35. I will say according to my experience that when pilots, previously flown on MiG-29 and Su-27, begin to pilot the aircraft of the generation “4+”, they are strongly surprised what Su-35 can carry out during the maneuvering. New aircraft simply is by an order better Su-27 – aircraft, which obtained wide acknowledgement in the world for its splendid qualities.

I believe the Indian Air Force think very highly of the Mirage 2000! I wonder how they compare the Mirage 2000 vs the Su-30???

I updated the link. what french think of Su-30K. IAF has droped the plans of buying Qatari Mirages with all its weopons. and have yet to sign upgrade of M2K. The same reality will set on them after few exercises of F-18E/EF/Rafale against MKI.

The gave range of 15 to 18 mile for IR missile and doesnot want to disclose airrefueling range.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-40061.html
The Indian aircraft flew in two stages: a six-hour leg to Egypt with a stop near Alexandria, then a four-hour flight to this base near Marseille, southern France.

During the eight-day exercise, the two air forces would dogfight and fly mixed patrols as well as engage in increasingly complex operations, designed to show each other how to interact.

Simulated beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles were used during the dogfights. Wing Cmdr. KVR Raju said the Su-30 carries the A12, which uses an active radar and infrared seeker and has a range of 15 to 18 miles. The Mirage 2000 is armed with the Mica, which is also a BVR weapon.

In Garuda I, the Indian pilots used the semi-active R27ER missile, which requires the pilot to use the Su-30’s radar to illuminate the target throughout the engagement.

Other assets planned for use in the exercise included a Mirage 2000N, an E3-F airborne warning and control system aircraft and Tucano turboprops, to simulate transport aircraft.

Mohan declined to give the maximum range of the Su-30, with midair refueling from the Il-78

Not at all true there has been “no contact worth the name”. No formal exercises until recently, true, but there have been informal contacts, & training to use the Western aircraft India has bought will necessarily have generated considerable contact with the RAF, FAA & AdlA. Where did the first IAF Vampire, Ouragan, Sea Hawk, Hunter, Canberra, Mystere, Gnat, Jaguar, Sea Harrier & Mirage 2000 pilots train? Where did the first instructors for later IAF & IN pilots for these aircraft train?

72 IAF pilots have been trained on the Hawk at RAF Valley. Extrapolate that back for 60 years, & several aircraft types, & you realise that several hundred Indian combat pilots & instructors must have trained with the British (e.g. at the RAF Hunter Conversion Unit at Chivenor, which Bharat Rakshak has photos of Indian pilots at in 1957) & French since independence. In the process, they’ll have learned a great deal about British & French practices & tactics. There was also a fairly short-lived gunnery training in the USA in the early 1960s, in which 71 IAF pilots took part.

To quote the BAE press release at the end of the Hawk training programme –
“In total, 72 Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots were trained under the Hawk India Interim Flying Training (HIIFT) programme, each spending 11 months at RAF Valley before returning to India to join one of their front-line squadrons. During the intense training course, BAE Systems provided ground school training and synthetic training at its Hawk Synthetic Training Facility at RAF Valley, before the students were given advanced flight training by the RAF’s 208 Squadron followed by tactics and weapons training by 19 Squadron.” Nothing new. ACM S P Tyagi trained on the Jaguar with 41 squadron RAF in the late 1970s, for example. Air Marshal A. K. Nagalia is a graduate of the RAF Staff College. Etc, etc.

What this has to do with Su-30K, MIG-21Bison and MIG-29 tactics? IAF did send M2K to south africa and it crashed. M2K performance against French airforce were not that great. Hawk pilots have yet to influence IAF.

I think these exercise put nail in coffin of M2K5 and 126 MRCA.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-40061.html
Indian Su-30K fighters display new capabilities

GEORG MADER JDW Correspondent
Vienna

·India’s deployment of Su-30K fighters for a French exercise was the first outside India

·The Indian Su-30Ks took on French Mirage 2000C and 2000-5 fighters

·French pilots were impressed by the Su-30Ks’ capabilities

India’s pilots have demonstrated the power of their Sukhoi Su-30K aircraft in an exercise that saw ‘Flankers’ flying operationally on European soil, outside Russia, for the first time since the early 1990s.

The exercise provided fresh insight into the capability of the aircraft, its weapon load and the advanced abilities of Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots.

The positive experience follows on from the 2004 ‘Cope India’ exercise with the US when the Su-30s competed successfully against F-15C aircraft.

Six Su-30K aircraft took part in ‘Garuda II’ from 15 June to 1 July alongside French Air Force Mirage 2000s, operating from the 125th Air Force Base at Istres and in skies spanning Marseilles to Corsica.

French pilots involved in ‘Garuda II’ said the exercise demonstrates that India is one of the world’s leading air forces and that their pilots are “outstanding professionals with an amazing ability to adapt and [have] good knowledge of NATO procedures”.

It is the first time that the IAF has taken part in an exercise in Europe and, in exchange for a French deployment to India in 2003 for ‘Garuda I’, the first time it has taken six Sukhoi Su-30K fighters out of India.

The Indian aircraft deployed to Istres from their home base near Delhi via Jamnagar in India’s west.

Refuelling from two Ilyushin Il-78 tanker aircraft, the aircraft flew to Egypt’s Jiyanklis air base near Alexandria and then on to Istres.

An IAF spokesperson said: “We could have gone straight with several refuellings, but we did not want to tax the pilots too hard.”

A French officer added: “The Indians have put themselves visibly into the ‘club’ of the world-leading air arms with that remarkable deployment; the Chinese for example, still cannot do that.”

The Su-30Ks and various French Mirage-2000 aircraft performed mutual air defence missions from 17-28 June, that developed in complexity as the exercise progressed.

The fighters also refuelled from the opposite nation’s tankers. This demanded complex preparations because, despite both sides using the hose-and-drogue system, French and Russian jet engines do not use the same JP-fuel.

Initially the aircraft acted as ‘blue pairs’, doing cross- refuellings and mixed patrols with Mirage 2000Cs equipped with RDI pulse Doppler radars. This was followed by one against two and two against two engagements within visual range, simulating the use of Magic-2 and R-73 (AA-11 ‘Archer’) air-to-air missiles (AAMs).

After 24 June, the arrival of Mirage 2000-5s allowed simulated beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat with the French using MICA AAMs and the Indians using R-77 (RVV-AE or AA-12) AAMs. It was previously believed that only the Su-30MKI fitted with an N011M (Bars) radar could operate the R-77.

Indian exercise leaders referred to the aircraft as Su-30Ks, not Su-30MKs, but several times used the term ‘A-12’ for what they described as “a fully active BVR weapon”.

Official results from the exercise are not yet available.

French pilots used the exercise to assess the ‘threat-benchmark’ of the Su-30. One Mirage pilot said: “In close combat the Mirage [appears] more ‘nervous’ than the Sukhoi. A decision must be achieved in the first minute or the sheer power and the agility of the Su-30 will overwhelm you.” {Ed. A nice little insight}

The latest French frontline fighter, Rafale, was reportedly sought for ‘Garuda II’ but “it has not yet been operationalised in the French Air Force and was thus not available”, a source said.

‘Garuda II’ gave India another good chance of evaluating the Mirage 2000-5 and RDY radar combination, as the IAF will inherit 12 ex-Qatari Mirage 2000-5s and has an upcoming requirement for 126 fighters, which will include that type.

Demanding conditions during the exercise were reported by the Indian side because of “unfamiliar dense airspace with constant fresh restrictions – and the French language-melody on the radio