Distiller: the problem with that is that Europe could reduce its energy dependence on Russia if needed. There are alternative measures that would reduce Europe’s need for Russian-sourced gas, notably nuclear, clean coal, and biofuels. Each of these only reduces energy needs a little, but together, they make a pretty big difference. It has to be remembered that Russia needs Europe to buy its energy – Europe doesn’t need to completely eliminate its need for Russian energy, it just needs to get it under control.

As for the nuclear vs conventional capabilities, it is quite clear that Russia will not be able to compete on conventional forces. It is all very well and good saying that Russia doesn’t need to, as it has nuclear weapons, but this cuts both ways. NATO is never going to invade Russia, and never has had any interest in doing so – to suggest otherwise stretches credibility too far. The real question is whether or not Russia wants to become a despotic regime, by sabre rattling over all issues. If it wants to, it has to understand that other nations will not be as happy to deal with it – you don’t win friends through threats. If Europe can shake its energy dependence on Russia, then Russia would no longer have so much political power, but would also have less economic power.

It should also be taken into account that any Russian moves to increase its nuclear force would not only be costly, but also probably be countered by other nations. If, on the other hand, Russia agrees to stick to the target of around 2000 warheads total, and ideally a limitation on yield (preferably to a max of, say, 200kT), then the world might become a bit more peaceful. IRBMs, on the other hand, will only destabilise things, and frankly, will probably end up hurting Russia in the end (by upsetting her customers). Eastern European nations can afford conventional forces sufficient to deter Russian conventional forces.

Let us just hope that some form of sense prevails, and that Russia realises two main things: Europe has no desire to invade Russia (which is frankly absurd); and that Russia needs European money. If Russia sabre rattles too much, it risks losing its biggest customers, and as such, a lot of its political clout.

ur mistaken. Sabre rattling against EU is in Russia interest. I can go even to say they will even want to have a short but destructive war because all the foreign capital and industries from EU willl fled to China or Russia in long term. where again Russia and its partners can sell its natural resources at higher price. In old times Money and investment couldnot be stored in communist East. Now it is no longer a problem. Russia can completely close the air corridor for EU airlines to Asia. ur not looking at bigger picture
there are now providing leadership to natural resource producing countries which also benefits because of Russia pricing strategy. EU has no where to go but accept what Russia dishes out to them.
this thing were unthinkable in past.
.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=103950&d=24&m=11&y=2007
On Thursday, while speaking to Arab ambassadors accredited to Russia, Sultan said Saudi Arabia would not differentiate between Russia and other countries such as the US, UK and France. “What concerns us the most is Arab interests before anything else,” he said and emphasized the importance of Arab unity. He also spoke about the growing Saudi-Russian relations. “Russia is with us, supporting our causes,

The Polisch eastern border is clearly within range of a Leopard II.

and after Polish border?. unless u have airsuperioty over the battlefield. even ragtag army with modern ATGM can hold up the armour and cuff of fuel supply lines.
and BMW/Volkswagen factories are also within the range of standoff Russian missiles. be it from air or ground. with all the consequences of joblossess and stock market collapse.

Nope your the big joke along with your weird love of Russia, something which is clearly a displacement for your realisation that your native Pakistan is a failed state in all but name, now take your rubbish and stop posting here.:mad:

what ever u think. EU trade and prosperity is depended on US providing protection. u cannot ignore this point. and Putin is exactly doing it to create a divide between EU and US so can pick a easy fight with EU.

That was my point, that you can’t just retrofit new engines and expect a larger payload capacity. Something internal will probably have to be different.

so how is IL-76MF different than MD except for engines.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/06/219101/oak-unveils-plans-for-aircraft-production-reorganisation-in.html
VASO is also retrofitting Ilyushin Il-76s with Aviadvigatel PS-90A76 engines, primarily for the Russian air force, and when that programme is completed it will switch to low-rate production of Ilyushin Il-112 tactical transports

IL-476 will represent newer technology. I wouldnot surprized that even newer version PS-90A2 and further PS-12 will go into IL-476.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/31/216410/russian-air-force-presents-il-76md-90-airlifter.html
A more advanced version of the aircraft is on the way. To be produced by VASO, the Il-476 – or “fourth-generation Il-76” – will feature PS-90A76s, a glass cockpit, and a further 13-17% improvement in fuel efficiency. Separately, an Il-76 is being used as a testbed for Kuznetsov NK-93 ducted fan engines

I may agree with all of the above, I’m not disputing that the PS-90 is such a bad engine, but you’re still not addressing the main starter question of this thread and the point that I made above… would the Il-76TD be any more cost effective than the C-130J or C-17 over the long term?

Perhaps for poorer countries, for whom the initial purchase price of the C-17 is too much, they should think about buying second hand MD-11Fs instead?

There is newer IL-96 with newer uprated engines. I bet u put those engines on IL-76 and it will lift 80 tons. the only thing is slow production rate.

http://www.atlant-soyuz.ru/eng/freight/park/il96-400t/
The frame of aircraft Il-96-400T is similar to the frame of aircraft Il-96T extended by 9 m., certificated in Russia in the Aviaregister of Interstate Aviation Committee and Federal Aviation Administration of the USA.

Modern aerodynamic configuration of the Il-96-400T, economical engines, high payload, advanced design of a frame in comparison with aircraft Il-96-300, modernized onboard complex of avionics and highly reliable functional systems of aircraft allow operation of the aircraft to its maximum which is well compared with the best foreign analogues.

Four turbojet engines PS-90A1 installed on the aircraft possess take-off thrust greater than PC-90A engines installed on Il-96-300, of 17.400 kf. Engines PS-90A1 are featured with low fuel consumption, and at the same time correspond to modern and perspective international requirements on noise level and issue of harmful substances to the atmosphere.

The practical flight range of aircraft Il-96-400T with maximal payload of 92 t is 5100 km, with payload 40 t is 13200 km, total amount of transported cargo is 776m. These parameters exceed transport opportunities of foreign analogue aircraft

Never said that the Il-76 was not doing sterling work for the various nations involved in the “War of Terror,” or that it wasn’t a robust aircraft – but it can only become cost effective when it is being operated and repaired by people who are on a fraction of the salary of most NATO and Western airmen.

fraction of salary? from where those figures come from? and anyway salaries are very small part of operating cost. almost 50% if fuel only.
ur not admiting that Western airplanes are so expensive that they themselves cannot afford it. Almost 80% of new Boeing/Airbus is sold in Asia/Middleast.

1. The $40 bn was the price of getting the Raptor from YF 22 up to the operational F22 in Dec. 2005. It has nothing to do with YF 23.
2. OK, let’s say $20 bn.
3. is there any trace of stealth in the fighters you mentioned?
4. Is this the total cost of the program (including logistic, spares, training, service, etc.) price, or just flyaway price?

MKI total development cost is $400m in 1996 dollars. (it was in Flightglobal and i posted in this forum) and add to that $1.6B for first 40 MKI that India paid. and Now cost of Fibre optics, LCD screens, processors, memory, computerized robots for industrial manufacturing is much cheaper and widely available than in late 80s and early 90s. and that improved capability is reflected in IL-76MF/IL-96-400/TU-204SM/SSJ.

The F 15 K total cost per plane is ~ $ 100 mil (total cost for 40 jets is $ 4 bn), including logistic, spares, training, two simulators, service, spare engines, spare radar sets… And remember, compared to the USAF “E” the K has PowerPC-based avionics, upgraded EW suite, the best IRST in service (an improved version nof the AAS 42 first introduced on F 14D) and GE 129 engines. Considering that the plane is new for ROKAF (so the the cost of the logistic tail must be important) I think that $ 100 mil per jet is a good deal.

F-15K is continuation of F-15E and later F-15S/I with minor avionics and engines from F-16 improvement. u have to understand that Russia was not buying stuff in bulk for its own forces in 90s so everything was bundled into export contract. so prices were high. they are selling now Su-30MK2 in 2006 at same price as Su-27SK sold to China in 1991.

They would have to spend ~ $ 40 billion (at the value of $ in the ’80s and ’90s, not at todays value) if they want a better plane…

do u think $40b is big amount in next 5 or 6 years considering Russia has over $100 b per year budget surplus. i am not counting even on Ruble appreciation . and they dont any obligation to devlope a second fighter like F-35. they can just make one Super Fighter.

You can already gauge what your mission requirements are based on the previous experience and scope of that mission. A short range point defence intercept for example do not need full fuel tanks on the Flanker.

Only an idiot like you would suppose that every Flanker is forced to fly with full internal fuel tanks.

And who actually goes into combat with 12 BVR missiles and a full internal fuel tank. You’re going to be pretty slow and draggy. Carrying lots of BVR missiles on the wing are for photo ops purposes only.

12 BVR are around 2000KG. which is considerable less draggy than 3 fuel tanks and 4 AAM for medium size fighter like J-10. and how u automatically assume u dont need full fuel and full load of missiles? do u know more than Sukhoi or u have real scenario analysis? A large airborne radar is useful for ground troops and cruise missile defence.

What do you know? Embarrass yourself. AIM-120C itself was introduced a decade ago, but it has undergone phase variations. Taiwan was actually the first to receive C5 that was within this decade.

so what is difference between 1996 AIM-120C and AIM-120C5 in terms of kinemetic performance that ur dissing R-27?