NATO is the world’s most powerful military alliance… and they won’t allow their airspace to be subject to the whims of a Russian dictator with a penchant for invading his neighbors. Russia is resurgent as a military power, but in all other senses is a fading shadow of its Cold War height. We are talking about a state with a hydrocarbon-export based economy, the sum total of which is smaller than that of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the UK, Canada and of course the US… alone.

Think about that for a moment and consider the implications. There are 7 NATO states with economies larger than Russia’s. (the US alone has an economy 16x as large)

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

NATO has its issues without a doubt, but if pressed it has a latent capacity vastly greater than Russia can muster.

Everyone has made some significant blunders on the foreign stage, certainly that includes the US. With that said you won’t find anyone in NATO invading their neighbors in order to carve out little demi-states or in order to annex territory outright.

Nobody is saying Russia has no right to develop or purchase weapons. Certainly one can question the wisdom of a poor state pouring so much of its resources into weapons… but they have the right.

Where things become dicey is when Russia seems to have it in mind to try to intimidate its neighbors by challenging their borders, establishing air defense systems that range well into their territory, etc. All that will achieve is to drive NATO to increase its own capabilities, and given economic and technological realities, NATO will inevitably overmatch Russia.

Typical western double speak in this whole post.

According to this guy, Russia is collapsing and about to take over Europe all at the same time.

If Russia was as weak as you think it is, why is NATO amassing so much military assets near Russia ? And breaking international law in the process ?
NATO is now in full contravention NATO Russia Founding Act of 1997. The NATO Russian Founding Act | https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_05/jm

With that said you won’t find anyone in NATO invading their neighbors in order to carve out little demi-states or in order to annex territory outright.

On the contrary. It was the US who invaded Ukraine via coup and we can see that in the Nuland recording. Putin was happy to make the lease payments on Crimea as he did for the last 15 years until he was called out of his boxseat in Sochi to deal with the US coup and attempted takeover of Russia’s equivalent of San Diego.

The only reason Crimea became part of Ukraine is because Khruschev traded it to the Ukrainian S.S.R. for politburo votes after Stalin died in 1953. He was trying to outmanuever Bulganin and Malenkov in the post-Stalin struggle for power in the Soviet government – and it bought him their votes for General Secretary of the Communist Party.

Are you saying that the US fully recognized the USSR’s annexation of Crimea from Russia in 1953 ?

Please never use either of these to cite examples. The center for research on globalization? Do you have any idea about he man behind this site? You be better off including information from “The Sun” a U.K. Tabloid that reports on alien abduction and the such.

Ok. I will find the BBC or Frace24 link that says the exact same thing.

Russia didn’t want this. But that’s the price for the US missile shield

Indeed, a MiG-21 is small and sleek, so is an F-5. It’s about shaping but there are some obvious shapes that won’t work, like a sphere on the front of your aircraft.

Obviously if it was as detrimental to stealth as you think it is, it would not be there

If your cutaway was accurate then PAK-FA radar would be far smaller than the one F-22, but too bad it isnt accurate at all
[IMtp://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=227IMG]

Whatever. People say it is accurate but who knows.

It doesn’t take very many pictures of both jets for me personally to conclude that the Pak Fa is a lower profile than the F 35. But I will get to the bottom of it.

I dont care which class you think they belong to, but regardless PAK-FA doesn’t have smaller profile

The F 35 has the same frontal profile as the Raptor. And the Pak Fa has a lower profile than the Raptor.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248438[/ATTACH]

I would put it a bit differently: This is why NATO is working on methods of countering not only the S-400, but other future SAM systems. The forward deployment of S-400 systems to locations where their coverage footprint extends deep into NATO airspace has probably acted as a ‘wake up call’ to the West. The S-400 and its successors will not be allowed to create no-go zones for NATO air operations.

It was only forward deployed because the US activated its missile shield system in Europe. Just like the coup in Ukraine, Russia reacts to Nato aggression. Not the other way around.

If the US did not stage the coup in Ukraine, Russia would be paying the lease on Crimea like it did for the last 20 years. If the US did not activate the missile shield in Europe, S 400’s would not be in Kalininegrad or forward deployed anywhere.

PAK-FA doesnt have a lower profiles , it is simply alot longer than F-35

The Pak Fa is only longer because it is a full size fighter. The F 35 is a 2nd tier class of fighter.