Such a vast opposition that “moderates”, average joe syrian armies are pretty much non-existant despite receiving money and weapons from the wests. The FSA is just a differen flavor of jihadist scum.
.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d agree that “moderate” Syrian rebels are as common as snowflakes in the sahara. But the fact remains that the vast majority of Syrians do not support the Assad regime, most would be “moderates” are people fleeing the country in droves.

Anyone see the actual leaked document on the J-31 performance specs?

http://idrw.org/shenyang-fc-31-fighter-performance-leaked-online/

There are bits and pieces in the above article:

example, in the absence of more data on the FC-31’s true empty weight, internal fuel capacity, and engine efficiency, some Chinese observers questioned claims that the “internal fuel combat radius” for a fighter of its size could be as much as 1,200 km

However, the reported maximum engine thrust figure of “88.29 kn” or 9 tons, does conform with statements made by Chinese officials to IHS Jane’s at the 2015 Paris Air Show that China was testing a new 9-ton medium thrust turbofan on the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation FC-1/JF-17 fighter

Well, Russians are going to bomb everyone aside from Kurds and Assad’s forces helping them regain momentum and territory.

USA and coalition is going to continue spending billions of $$ on bombing ISIS while they keep loosing key towns and territory to the same group. It must be real high moral in US Airforce after 12 months of most powerful airforce in the world actively bombing while not making any apparent effect. But, job is a job, so they go and do what they do.

Turkey is going to continue bombing Kurds and when they **** off international community bit too much, they’ll drop few bombs on ISIL positions as well to look better on news pages.

Assad’s butt is safe now as long as Hellducks are there.

So basically USA is super pissed more than ever, loosing territory in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. Not only that their strategy didn’t work so far while costing billions in the last 1 year alone, but Turkey is bombing Kurds they are supporting in exchange for use of their airbases. And now Russians are moving their rooks and bishops to bomb who ever the heck they want.

Russian presence there now weakens USA influence in this region drastically. That fact everyone understands in the world.

Not to play devils advocate here, well ok I am. But exactly how will a few hellducks assure Assad’s stability when there has been hundreds of aircraft from the US, several Gulf nations, etc. bombing ISIS and a few RuAF aircraft going to save the day for Assad? There is nothing about the US being super pissed. Moreover, there are no “safe” rebels. If there were, you can be assured there would have been a massive influx of arms to the region vis a vis: gulf state or US. In truth, Russia is protecting it’s interests in Syria. Some want to view this as sand in the eye of the US and proxies. That is the “Putin is great” diatribe.

In truth, Russia is going to protect it’s warm water port and prop up a puppet regime (which Assad is now, as he does not have support of the majority of Syrians) . The US will continue to bomb ISIS to protect Iraq ( for all that is worth, as Iraq gravitates toward Iran and Russia, alienating the Sunni tribes). Turkey will use the opportunity to weaken the PKK. And the Gulf states will fight their proxy war vis a vis Iran. No one wins, and the Syrian people lose. Spinning it any other way is painful.

I am on a phone, so this is going to be short, the idea that somehow the F-35A is “suited” to A’Stan is, and I am going to be blunt, bordering the outrageous.
The reason why aircraft’s like the B1B and the Strike Eagle have been very sucessfull there is precisely because they are bloody big “trucks with racks”, if stealth was needed (the only thing that makes the F-35A meaningfully diferent from half of the other flying kit out there), then B2’s would be swarming all over A’Stan.

You focus on the fact that it is an LO fighter, that point is irrelevant. It is an asset, what matters is how well it can perform a task. It has excellent sensors, good persistence, speed, excellent load carrying ability, basing flexibility.

Never said “ideal for Afghanistan” per se. It is ideal for the types of missions that NATO has engaged in, strike, area denial, ISR, not to mention with three versions the program is well suited to the types of expeditionary warfare that have been common as of late. Afghanistan is just one (with unique challenges- poor infrastructure, lack of good airfields, short windows of target opportunity). It is also an instructive example as you hear people on this forum, and some op-ed pieces about fast jets being overkill, and that COIN prop planes, ect. could meet challenges. The answer is yes, and no. Some assume the mission is “fly over said target, launch hellfire, or sdb on coordinates and fly home”. Would be nice, but it ain’t.

Oh, really? So take a typical NATO air force like Denmark or Belgium and count the number of hours/flights/missions spent on QRA, CAP and air defense and then compare to the hours/missions spent on Kosovo/A’Stan/Iraq campaigns. Then you will learn what the air forces are REALLY used for..

Please, I beg of you show me the combat hours of ANY European airforce flying air defense missions over the last 30 years. We are not talking QRA, or CAP. we are talking COMBAT MISSIONS.

According to Dassault, the Rafale program was in black numbers before the first orders came. The Rafale program was tallied at 43.5 bil EUR, the F-35 at $391 bil USD. The financial effect of 24 export Rafales on the overall program is comparable to almost 200 exported F-35s.

Msphere… utter crap. First off, a program cost of 43.5 billion Euros for 140 airframes so far. Who is in the black, Dassault? It’s easy to make money when you’re a government subsidy program. Fr. Government didn’t even want to buy 11 airframes a year (again not because of the capabilities of the Rafale, but the cost of maintaining the program) How many is France getting in 2016? 4, enough said.

Now do your own math.. A win from commercial side is not about revenues and winnings only, it’s also proportional to the money having been invested.

Very True. So far 45 billion USD for 140 Rafale. How many more are you expecting? 391 Billion for what? 3,000 F-35 on the low end? Your engaged in some funny math.

The future of European aerial combat shall be aimed at providing effective deterrence, in the first place. So the assets shall be primarily A-A.. WIth multirole capability, of course, those few interventions which can occur can be handled by stand-off munitions..

The F-35 order book is not doing quite well. Quite on the contrary. You might be tempted to compare absolute numbers with Rafale, Gripen and the likes but keep in mind that the infrastructure set for the F-35 set a much higher threshold for the program to be successful. 24+24+36 export Rafales sold is a glorious win as the program is already in black numbers, but even 250 export F-35s sold can still be a major defeat.. In the end, the future of the F-35 shall primarily depend on domestic orders but export-wise the poor PR has turned the thing from we-all-want-it to whothehell-will-buy-it.. If nothing else, the expectations had it that Eurocanards would not be selling, at all, now that the F-35 became available but the customers were not exactly lining up even at the times of weak dollar. Let alone now…

Your opinion of the “future of European aerial combat” is in direct contrast to what NATO has been saying, and what the role of airpower has been over the last 3 decades. Think that we can disregard you opinion as unsubstantiated, bias, and based on the fairy tale of what you think European nations should be concerned with.

As far as the Rafale being “in the black” as a program. That is laughable. It is an excellent aircraft, and France has taken a prudent approach with regular incremental upgrades. That said, it has a production run of roughly 140 at 11 units per year (yes it’s supposed to ramp up soon). For much of the last 5 years it has been a jobs program, the Fr. government buying the minimal number in order to keep it viable and the supply chain intact. Export orders to the tune of 48, and India is far from a sure thing. If that is a program you are comparing to the F-35 as a “win” from a commercial side, that is delusional.

Yes, I do.. Frankly speaking, the design of the F-35 proves complete ignorance of the LM towards the needs to Euro NATO users.
They will reward this ignorance by reduced procurement numbers.. There is no way around it..

Absurdist statement, even for you this is hyperbole. Frankly speaking, it appears you’ve no idea what the needs of NATO air forces are. NATO airforces are not structured for defending western Europe from the 3rd Shock Army and Soviet Frontal Aviation anymore. The types of missions that NATO has engaged in: Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, the F-35 is quite suited for. Now you and I may disagree on the efficacy or necessity of those interventions, but political considerations are a separate matter.

We’ve seen a strong dollar impact cost projections, final numbers ordered by European users are far into the future and hardly set in stone. F-35 order book is doing quite well, where exactly is the line queuing for any of the 3 European produced fighters.

You couple the ignorance shown on design driven by need, to ignorance on why air forces are shrinking in Europe. Personnel costs are squeezing defense budgets. Norway cannot even man the Fridtjof Nansen class frigates they procured. Netherlands is in a similar predicament. They operated 168 F-16’s, how many do they operate today?

It has nothing to do with the “Cost” of the F-35 that is shrinking Nato airforces. The trend started in 1990, moreover in terms of % GDP spent on defense, it has been falling for 20 years.