-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 19925)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 684 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 145600850745.jpg - (80.38KB , 800x531 , vlihkyvdr6xgalvv68cc.jpg )
19925 No. 19925 ID: 5875e2
where were you when PAK-FA was kill?

Expand all images
>> No. 19926 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145601698671.jpg - (1.96MB , 2560x1706 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 5th gen fighter 5.jpg )
This was a common criticism of the PAK-FA that it was just a 4th generation fighter gussied up to look stealthy, but not having the actual technical features of a 5th generation fighter.
>> No. 19927 ID: bbfe61
This whole idea of 5th gen fighters is flawed anyway, 5th gen fighters should be air superiority drones to protect the ground attack drones, all controlled by a high flying and fast command plane for line of sight communication.
>> No. 19928 ID: 89cde8
That's Jane's online news thingy... about as reliable as MSNBC for weapons and gear. A fucking disgrace tarnishing everyday more the reputation of respectable publishing house.

The PAK-FA is currently an airframe prototype with significant variance between the different ones currently flying and with placeholder engines, let alone other systems.

Fucking everyone knows that.

Except the one that written that article.

Or worse he knows it and it's just a hit piece shilling for Lockheed.

The sooner Jane's close that garbage of an outlet the better.
>> No. 19929 ID: d8acd0
File 145605139072.png - (428.53KB , 998x2745 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA stealth multi-role fighter d.png )
But two can play that game and claim that proponents of the PAK-FA are just tiresome Russian shills selling shitty Slavic souped-up Sukhois to suckers.
As to the truth of the matter, it's difficult to know.
Reading the comments in that article is good for a laugh, such as this one:
The Pak Fa is another fraud perpetrated by the Russian government trying to pass it on as a 5th generation fighter comparable to the F22. Thankfully countries such as India and Brazil the original targets of the fraud detected the fraud and did not invest money in it. As the Indian airforce noted upon a close up inspection of the prototype they were surprised to discover shoddy workmanship and poor stealth qualities particularly the engines being exposed as they are. The avionics and radar are essentially the same as in the SU35. The Pak Fa is not and never was a 5th generation fighter as the Russians deceitfully like to portray it for commercial purposes. To date no country has expressed serious interest in it.

And the replies to this were terrific!
>> No. 19930 ID: 385f49
File 145605401587.jpg - (51.27KB , 640x427 , 640px-MAKS_Airshow_2013_(Ramenskoye_Airport,_Russi.jpg )
>The presence of the US Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor at the 2016 Singapore Airshow, and statements from the company about future demand in Asia for more F-35 models to be procured have highlighted the interest in the region for fifth-generation combat aircraft.
Truth to be said, nobody really intended to sell current line of T-50 models to Asian markets because this fighter is created exclusively for Russian AF. Indians have a collaboration project with Sukhoi to develop the concept further, which means there will be another fighter that can be developed for Asian markets, while American companies are spewing this utter bullshit so they can convince governments to just throw money at them and hope for the best.

>What qualifies a fighter aircraft as being a next-generation design is more than just having a stealthy-looking shape, said Lockheed Martin representatives.
This pretty much summarizes it. If PAK-FA isn't a 5th gen fighter, so F-35 is not as well.
>> No. 19931 ID: d8acd0
File 145606113121.jpg - (219.65KB , 1800x1200 , Russian Su-30MKI (Flanker-H) multirole air superio.jpg )
From what I have read, the F-35 has turned out to be plagued with problems and is a grotesque failure, so ...yeah. But the only production 5th gen aircraft currently is the F-22.

A fifth-generation jet fighter is a jet fighter classification used around the world that encompasses the most advanced jet fighter generation as of 2016. Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth-generation jet fighter. The exact characteristics of fifth-generation jet fighters are controversial and vague, with Lockheed Martin defining them as having all-aspect stealth even when armed, low probability of intercept radar (LPIR), high-performance airframes, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the battlespace for situation awareness.

Currently, the only combat-ready fifth-generation fighter is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which entered service with the United States Air Force in 2005. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Sukhoi PAK FA, HAL AMCA, TAI TFX, Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 are currently under various stages of testing and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

- Russian Su-30MKI (Flanker-H) multirole air superiority fighter.
>> No. 19932 ID: 360765
File 145607531186.jpg - (22.47KB , 534x401 , 635693700675792987-photo-f35-burned-1.jpg )
>where were you when PAK-FA was kill?
I was too busy looking at F-35 kill.
>> No. 19933 ID: 360765
File 145607532125.jpg - (65.43KB , 960x638 , F-35-damaged-detail.jpg )
>> No. 19934 ID: 360765
File 145607534157.jpg - (18.28KB , 533x269 , image022.jpg )
And F-22.
>> No. 19935 ID: 360765
File 145607535541.jpg - (450.87KB , 1024x681 , F-22-crash-site.jpg )
>> No. 19936 ID: 89cde8
File 14561002795.jpg - (621.44KB , 1600x1645 , T-50 variants.jpg )

Sure except I can prove what I'm saying with one pic and they can't.

3 T-50.

3 different planes.

It's clearly a prototyping batch.
>> No. 19937 ID: cfaec1
T-50 is a high speed full sized fighter with ability to bomb, similar to what would happen if F-15C and E were one aircraft.
It has extremely long range because on just a pair of drop tanks its meant to take the fight from Russia to any prospective enemy in Europe or Asia.

Imagine it taking off from some tiny country like Singapore, it would never use more than 15% of internal fuel tanks for defensive duties, and it couldn't even reach combat altitude in the countrys airspace.

It would be a political liability for a small country, small countries need an interceptor more than a full sized fighter.

There are also other features on the T-50, such as reinforced landing gear for landing on rough runways, a parachute for short landing distance or on icy roads where brakes dont work. Many of the features would be useless in small countries, the T-50 would need a massive redesign to be useable in such a situation.

>What qualifies a fighter aircraft as being a next-generation design is more than just having a stealthy-looking shape, said Lockheed Martin representatives.
Both F-35 and F-22 added internal bays after the design was finalized, almost like an afterthought. T-50 had internal bays at the beginning, and was indeed designed around them. Neither F-35 nor F-22 had infrared means of enemy fighter acquisition at the start, and neither has L-band antennas crucial for BVR fighting.

Maybe this has something to do with them being started earlier and their development taking so long, but there are only so many modifications to an ineffective original design that can be made.

I think America should scrap both fighters and build a new one, it would probably save money.
>> No. 19938 ID: 89cde8
Also there is an engine war in Russia between Kuznetov and TsIAM.

TsIAM want to go ahead with hydrogen fueled ramjets which no fucking one knows how to integrate on fighters/bombers while Kuznetov wants to go with less powerful more reasonable hi-perf kerosene engine.

Then you add that the PAK-DA that is supposed to replace all the bombers (Tu22m, tu-160 tu-95) is meant to use a variant of the same engine (and more of them) to simplify logistics and cut maintenance costs. But that has been lowered in priority, since they're refurbishing and modernizing the Tu-160, it's dubious the first airframe of of the PAK-DA will fly before 2017 or 2018 even.

Oh and then there are the MiG-41 interceptors that are also in development...

People speculate that the MiG-41 will have TsIAM engines, the PAK-FA/DA will have Kuznetov.
>> No. 19940 ID: 385f49
>T-50 is a high speed full sized fighter with ability to bomb, similar to what would happen if F-15C and E were one aircraft.
Practically, 5th gen fighter always serves dual purpose because air superiority is more important than air support in most places. Or simply because they are too expensive to produce, so even most rich countries can't allow themselves to build two different planes to serve two different roles.

>TsIAM want to go ahead with hydrogen fueled ramjets which no fucking one knows how to integrate on fighters
I never heard of these, can you provide any links?

>Oh and then there are the MiG-41 interceptors that are also in development.
Interceptor is a completely different concept to fighter jet because it is not capable of highly manoeuvring engagements. So there is no competition really.
>> No. 19941 ID: 89cde8
There is very little written in English with actual technical data in it but a fairly old NASA report.


It's based on the same tech.


What's most likely happening is that they're modernizing the Tu-160 (they're the ones with a bigger bay) to carry scramjet cruise missiles and give them time to figure out if they need/how to make a bomber with the same tech for the PAK-DA.
>> No. 19943 ID: 89cde8
File 145622993915.jpg - (143.53KB , 853x1280 , 0_b4342_a2ad32d_XXXL.jpg )
That's even more obvious from below.

That's the 52
>> No. 19944 ID: 89cde8
File 145623001729.jpg - (562.96KB , 2688x1792 , VRJHsad.jpg )
That's the 55
>> No. 19945 ID: cfaec1

At top speed and max altitude, the thing could launch a rocket bearing a satellite into LEO without a problem.
>> No. 19946 ID: b86cd3
PAK-DA is dead bro. The Russians just cut funding for new strategic bombers because lol failed petrostate.

Something the US already did in 1985.
>> No. 19949 ID: 89cde8
>PAK-DA is dead bro.

No it's not.

And it's not a money thing either.

Despite what half the retards in the press say, the Russian State budget doesn't depends on oil, it works the same way the Norwegian one does, and not like the arabs ones.
-Oil profits exports taxes are locked into a fund, then re-injected over several years into the state budget.
-Meaning when crisis hit you can redo the budgets long before you actually run out of oil money.
-Also while Rubble devaluation create inflation, which is bad for the population, it's good for the State since the oil and gas they sell is in dollars...
-Even if the price is 70% lower than what it was since the Rubble value was lowered by 50%, they still get only 20% less money...
-Then you add the fact that during the days of the crimean crisis, foreign investment was pulled... That's a fancy way of saying the foreign owners of the shares in Russian enterprises (mostly resources ones since they're the ones with most value) flash sold most of their shares at bargain price which was promptly buy off by the aforementioned Russian oil fund and the array of Kremlin owned/controlled semi-public enterprises and banks, in what is probably the biggest case of insider trading in history. What does this all means? It means that before the crisis most profits made by Russian resources companies... went overseas (depends the sectors but it was as big as 60-70%), either to western investments funds or "expatriated oligarchs" which ""bought"" most of Russia resources companies during the 90's. Now all that money goes to either the Russian state or one of their controlled company too.
-Then you add the fact that Putin is an actual conservator, and always had an State budget with margins (the state collect more money than it need) and cleared all the foreign debt of Russia in his first mandate, meaning it was very healthy budget to begin with.

And that's why despite what half the press (and all of the general press) is screaming to the economical collapse for two years now (yeah) it's still hasn't happened.
And that's despite other factors, like the tremendous manufacturing crisis China goes trough (which is the main buyer of Russian resources).

Don't get me wrong the Russian economy isn't doing great by any sense of the term, but it's not doing anywhere half has bad as the press says it does or worse than most of the world does in a context of global economical crisis.

Anyway back to topic.

A recent sauce on the program.


So there's the thing, the Syrian war is still ongoing and the Russians realized that making a new generation of bombers is actually not easy... But they need bombers today and the Tu-95 aren't getting younger (the Russians consider them completely obsolete from a doctrinal point of view, even if they've been modernized with recent avionics).

And the US themselves have delayed their own programs, and are de facto not making anything that can actually intercept their supersonic ones (the aging park of F-22 and "about to be retired" F-15 are about the only thing that can actually catch a Tu-160 before it's close enough to unload it's payload of ballistic missiles) so it's not THAT urgent to make new ones.

So instead they're modernizing the Tu-160 to the M2 standards in a crash course program.
This imply:
- Restarting the Tu-160 production chain.
- Change all the engines to "NK-32 Tier 2" engines on existing ones.
- Buy up to 50 new ones (the USSR never made more than 35, only 12 actually serve in the Russian air force).

All of this is going on at the "ASAP" speed.

That way they can scrap most of the TU-95 (they will likely keep some in maritime duties given their endurance), and have a capable up to date bomber force of around 60 Tu-160M2, which will undoubtedly carry scramjet missiles soon.

While waiting for the next generation.

And all of that cost a SHITLOAD of money.

So it's not like it's a budget concern, it's more of "an ability to wage WW3 tomorrow" concern.
>> No. 19950 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145630957554.jpg - (174.15KB , 2200x1591 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 5th gen fighter 3.jpg )
One of the main exports in Russia is weapons, but their economy is significantly funded by petroleum exports (nobody's buying their cars). This is not the '40s with Soviet industrial production on par with the Western industrialized nations. The current economy of Russia is sad with Russia's nominal GDP of $1.178 trillion (2016) making them 15th in the world, GDP decrease of -3.7% (est. 2015), and inflation at 12.9% (2015). As was discussed here:
In 2014, Russia's military budget of 2.49 trillion rubles (worth approximately US$69.3 billion at 2014 exchange rates) was higher than any other European nation, and approximately 1/7th (14%) of the US military budget (around US$575 billion). Very significant, but way behind what we throw at the military. That money has to buy you something. Using espionage to steal weapons program secrets is cheaper than doing the research yourself, but you still must invest in developing your own programs and the Russians have been reportedly stymied by the lack of money to research and develop high-tech weapons programs. The Russians will continue to be a major competitor in the big-ticket arms trade and they will continue to make excellent weapons, but I keep on hearing their claims to technical excellence being on-par with state-of-the-art military tech being refuted.

As to the actual performance and capabilities of the PAK FA? Hard to determine, but the Russians are having a difficult time selling it.
>> No. 19951 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145630994248.jpg - (669.04KB , 2250x1500 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 MAKS Airshow 2013 1.jpg )
Russia’s Military Spending to Increase Modestly in 2016
Have economic sanctions and the wars in Ukraine and Syria impacted Russia’s ambitious military modernization plans?
November 10, 2015 http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/russias-military-spending-to-increase-modestly-in-2016/
Russia’s defense budget will increase by a modest 0.8 percent in 2016, according to information obtained by TASS.

A budget report released by the Defense Committee of the State Duma states that 3.145 trillion rubles ($49 billion) will be allocated for national defense in fiscal year 2016, with a total of 2.233 trillion rubles ($34.8 billion) earmarked for the Russian Armed Forces.

If approved, the defense 2016 defense budget will increase by just 25.5 billion rubles ($400 million), around 0.8 percent, over 2015. It will be the first time since 2011 that Russia’s military expenditure has not increased dramatically.

In 2015, Russia allocated 3.3 trillion rubles (US $52 billion) for defense. However, due to the deteriorating economic outlook, the defense budget had to be cut by five percent to around 3.1 trillion rubles. This nevertheless still constituted a 25.6 percent increase to 2014, according to IHS.

The 0.8 percent hike also appears to be in line with the Russian government’s three-year budget plan adopted in December 2014, which outlined a largely static 2015 defense budget, followed by a 4 percent increase in 2017.
>> No. 19952 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145631001260.jpg - (585.78KB , 2250x1500 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 MAKS Airshow 2013 4.jpg )
Back in 2010, President Vladimir Putin launched a massive 20 trillion rubles ($700 billion at the time) military modernization project aimed to replace 70 percent of Soviet-era military hardware by 2020, including 50 new warships for the navy, hundreds of new fighter jets and thousands of new vehicles for the ground forces.

The budget draft proposal obtained by TASS did not specify how much of the overall budget will be dedicated to the ongoing modernization programs of the Russian Armed Forces. However, in the past four years, around two-thirds of the total defense budget was dedicated to buying new military equipment. In 2015, around 2 trillion rubles were spent on military procurement.

“[I]n order to meet the targeted level of spending by 2020, further growth of over 10 percent a year in the level of funding for the annual State Defence Order (SDO) would be required from 2016 onwards,” according to IHS defense budget analyst Craig Caffrey.
>> No. 19953 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145631005032.jpg - (383.86KB , 2250x1461 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 MAKS Airshow 2013 2.jpg )
The Russian military already announced that it would not reduce personnel in 2016. Money for military salaries, in fact, will increase by 40 billion ($640 million). According to The Moscow Times, funds for investment infrastructure “for special and military purposes” will be cut by 48.85 billion rubles ($775 million). Ongoing operations in Ukraine and Syria will also not likely be affected by the static defense budget. (Russia’s deployment to Syria is slated to end in January 2016.)

Despite of the grim economic outlook, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to press ahead with his ambitious modernization program (See: “Putin to Press on With Russia’s Military Modernization”), although he did admit in April that certain delays in the modernization program can be expected.

As I reported before, (See: “Is the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Bankrupting Russia?”), Russia, in the long-run, cannot afford military expenditures as seen in 2014 and 2015:

The only way for Russia to currently finance its growing military expenditure is to tap into the country’s reserve fund – money the Kremlin put aside over the last few years when oil prices were high and meant to cushion the economy against shocks. With the help of the reserve fund – worth approximately six percent of the country’s total GDP – Russia could maintain a 3.7 percent [budget] deficit for less than two years(…).

In 2015, Russia’s GDP is projected to decrease by 4.6 percent, largely due to lower oil prices and Western sanctions. Given that Russia’s actual military expenditures in the first three months of 2015 exceeded nine percent of quarterly GDP (rather than the projected 4 to 5 percent), the day when Russia will have to admit that it cannot continue to afford the rapid modernization of its military’s equipment may sooner be upon us than expected.

Despite all of that, most analysts agree that modernization will continue albeit at a slower pace. “[W]hat we may see when the new 2016-2025 [modernization program] is released is that some funding is deferred and back-loaded into the 2020-2025 period,” said Craig Caffrey.
>> No. 19954 ID: 89cde8
Except most of this analysis is built upon the fallacy that Russia spending are in Dollars...

But unlike most countries Russia doesn't spend anything in dollar.

And especially nothing military related. They're the ones producing all their steel, alloys, oil, gas, tech. Meaning the Russian state pays ALL of it in rubble.

If something was costing the Russian MoD 35M rubble in 2014 (1 million USD), after inflation (IIRC the rate) it cost them around 40M rubble in 2016 (600k USD).

And since Russia has an export based economy, even if it doesn't work that as well as it used to, they're still have most of their economical "income" in dollars.

So even if the 2014 budget was 2.49 trillion rubles ($69.3 billion) and the 2016 budget is 3.145 trillion rubles ($49 billion).

They could in 2014 acquire 71 142 items costing 35M rubles.... And can in 2016 acquire 78 625 items costing 40M.

It's not a fucking diminution, even if it appears so once you convert it in dollars. Because the fucking RUSSIAN ministry of defense doesn't pay in dollars nor do Russian state companies bill them.

It's a fallacy written by people that don't understand how any of this works...

An even bigger fallacy is to say "1/7th (14%) of the US military budget (around US$575 billion). Very significant, but way behind what we throw at the military."

Because "$1M" value doesn't buy you the same thing in Russia that it does in the USA.

"$1M" in Russia is almost enough to buy you a new T-90... and one track of a M1A2 in the USA and a maybe a few shells.

The same thing applies for China.

Defense budget comparison are always done like this and it's FUCKING RETARDED, they should be done by volume of stuff the respective MoD are putting into service. And not by a reduction ad abstracto in US$.

And the same thing applies (to a far lesser extent, because the people doing the calculations are usually a little more serious) for GPD growth/shrink.
>> No. 19955 ID: 9723b1
>scrap most of the TU-95

>That money has to buy you something.
American mil-industrial complex is grossly inefficient and overspends a huge amount. All the people they're paying to build their planes have salaries in the six figures, whereas Russian engineers have salaries in four figures. Also Russian resources are there at hand, whereas America has to buy resources from Brazil, China and even Russia at markup.

To date America has spent 60 billion on the F-35 development while Russia has spent 8 billion on T-50 development, and the latter is clearly the better jet in every respect. If you do a bit of simple math that's 7.8 times cheaper, so when you say stuff like,
>and approximately 1/7th (14%) of the US military budget
You're actually saying the Russian military budget is going to produce MORE shit, by .8 times over.

>This is not the '40s with Soviet industrial production on par with the Western industrialized nations.
Russian product has exceeded all Former Soviet States long ago, all of them not just the Russian SSR.

>15th in the world
They used to be outside of the G-20 just a few years ago, they climbed into G-20 and went up 5 rungs and you're trying to paint this as a failure?

Bats, please, no bullshit.
>> No. 19956 ID: 1c5462
>Brazil, China and even Russia at markup.
This is true.

East Asia and South America are top for worlds producers of rare earths, which makes all modern technology possible. East Europe, East Asia and India are worlds cheapest producers of composites, and industrial carbon materials.
Russia and China themselves are worlds top producers of the finest quality silicates, which factors heavily into production of composites (above) and electronics. Also, Russia and China are worlds top producers of aluminium and titanium.

However I think America buys these things from other markets (ie Australia and Canada) which is why the prices are so expensive. If America bought these things from Russia and China the cost of fighter production would be much lower.
>> No. 19957 ID: 360765
Who cares if water doesn't come reliably?
>> No. 19958 ID: 385f49
>If America bought these things from Russia and China the cost of fighter production would be much lower.
For all I know, there were some serious debates about US military buying a cheap Chinese electronic several years ago. Knowing what NATO really is, it is not impossible that they're just have it all covered up so far. Although I have no doubt that really expensive electronics is far too complex and classified for open markets.

It's in Poland, my friend.
>> No. 19959 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145635772139.jpg - (394.80KB , 1062x1600 , Russian P WW2 Everything for the Front_ Everything.jpg )
>This is not the '40s with Soviet industrial production on par with the Western industrialized nations.
>Russian product has exceeded all Former Soviet States long ago, all of them not just the Russian SSR.
I was comparing industrial production compared with the other industrialized nations at the time, even though the German invasion tore around a third of the Soviet economy away. Comparisons of the warring economies can be found here:

By the time of the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the Germans occupied more than half of European Russia, about two million square kilometres. It was an area containing 40 per cent of the USSR’s population, about 80 million people. The occupied area covered 50 per cent of the USSR’s cultivated land, the production of 70 per cent of its pig iron, 60 per cent of its coal and steel and 40 per cent of its electricity. Still, by the end of 1942, the production of rifles had increased fourfold (to 6 million) compared to the previous year. Tank and artillery production increased fivefold to 24,500 and 287,000 per annum. The number of aeroplanes produced more than doubled from 8,200 to 21,700.

One of Stalin’s first instructions after Hitler invaded was the establishment of an evacuation committee that arranged the move of more than 1,500 large industries to the east. With them went hundreds of thousands of workers and thereby the single most significant wave of resettlement in Siberia. It is not for nothing that you find cities in Siberia of more than a million people. On top of this, 3,500 new industries were established, most of them related to wartime production. It is no wonder that by the time of the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets were able to field 90 fresh divisions, fully equipped with new weapons. Or indeed that after losing almost 5 million soldiers in the first months of Hitler’s invasion, they were able to field 11 million the following year. One million of those were women. http://stalinsmoustache.org/2012/05/13/stalins-economics-the-secret-to-soviet-success-in-world-war-ii/

- "Everything for the Front. Everything for Victory!" WWII USSR propaganda poster
>> No. 19960 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145635867928.jpg - (146.71KB , 786x552 , Russian P WW2 weapons factory 2.jpg )
Here's the gross domestic product of the main belligerent countries during WW2 in 1944. GDP provides insight into the relative strength of the belligerents in the run up to, and during the conflict. In billions of international dollars, at 1990 prices. Adjusted annually for changing compositions within each alliance.
British Empire: 746
French Empire: 143
USSR: 362
USA: 1499
Greater Germany: 466
Italy (Allied): 117
Japanese Empire: 189
Allied total: 2724
Axis Total: 798
Allied/Axis GDP ratio: 3.41
>> No. 19961 ID: 4aaaa0
File 145636044682.jpg - (1.44MB , 2200x1586 , Russian Sukhoi PAK FA and a friend.jpg )
>15th in the world
>They used to be outside of the G-20 just a few years ago, they climbed into G-20 and went up 5 rungs and you're trying to paint this as a failure?
Not at all. Russia has improved their economy tremendously from the catastrophe of the early '90s. As I cited before, between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. https://www.kpmg.com/NL/nl/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/High-Growth-Markets/Investing-in-Russia1.pdf

Russia is mainly dependent on petroleum exports (which can be a volatile market) and with the 2014 economic sanctions in response to Putin's interference with the Ukraine and the Crimea, the depreciation of the ruble, and Saudi Arabia over-producing and setting OPEC's oil prices low (to hurt their enemies in Russia and Iran, perhaps?), the Russian economy has been taking a downturn, perhaps knocked down to 19th place by the International Monetary Fund estimates in 2015.

But, even though the Russians are not the economic military powerhouse that they were in WW2, being a close runner to Germany and the UK, the Russians can still make impressive weapons. But in the ultra high-tech world of 5th generation fighters, Russia's claims are often rebuffed as fraudulent window-dressing. These problems with the Indians and Brazilians pulling out of their PAK-FA purchases will have to be well addressed by the Russians to show that their program is indeed worthy of being state-of-the-art 5th generation.
>> No. 19966 ID: 869c18
File 145643462381.jpg - (722.51KB , 1200x803 , Russian Su-35UB trainer & Su-47 at MAKS-2003 a.jpg )
Was wondering what ever happened to the Su-47 Berkut and MiG-1.44. Seems neither went beyond experimental aircraft and technology demonstrators.

- Sukhoi Su-35UB combat trainer and Su-47 experimental fighter flying together at MAKS-2003 airshow.
>> No. 19968 ID: 385f49
File 145643918117.jpg - (322.56KB , 1561x1600 , mig-29_35.jpg )
The line itself got discontinued, but the technologies migrated to a new planes, of course. That is the entire purpose of technology demonstrators.

Did not even get as far as the other idea. A big superpower like USSR may need several models of fighter planes to deal with different circumstances, but the smaller country can't allow itself to disperse so much effort on different models of planes. MiG currently is in a very disadvantageous position since they have lost their MiG-35 project to other competitors, and if the rumours are true, the development of hypersonic aircraft could revive their developments plans.

>Russia is mainly dependent on petroleum exports (which can be a volatile market)
A common misconception of Western experts is that Russia is only good for oil and gas exports. It is true that there is still a huge natural resources reserve and a big industry to process them, but it is not widely accepted by markets that it has also a serious industrial capabilities. In effect, that means, that even though the Cold War is over, nobody really threatens to destroy the world of capitalism and former communist countries are open for trade, the Iron Curtain is not lifted completely.

In such way, it was certainly very disappointing for (current) US government, when they tried their best to hit Russia with sanctions, but very soon they've discovered that there's not much possibilities left to exploit - since previous administrations have been always consistent with the policy of not letting Russia to develop economically and technologically. In effect, even though US did suppress the recovery after USSR dissolution, they've also limited their own capabilities to influence situation - that obviously makes them very nervous.
>> No. 19969 ID: 869c18
File 145645203582.png - (138.37KB , 854x667 , Russia_Export_Treemap.png )
More than 50% of Russia's exports are petroleum and gas.
The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in Russian global shipments during 2015. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from Russia. http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/
1. Gems, precious metals: US$7.4 billion (2.2% of total exports)
2. Machines, engines, pumps: $8.1 billion (2.4%)
3. Cereals: $5.5 billion (1.7%)
4. Aluminum: $6.9 billion (2.1%)
5. Wood: $6.2 billion (1.8%)
6. Fertilizers: $8.6 billion (2.6%)
7. Copper: $4.2 billion (1.2%)
8. Iron and steel: $14.9 billion (4.5%)
9. Oil: $168.7 billion (50.6%)
10. Inorganic chemicals: $3.7 billion (1.1%)
- Russia Export Treemap by Product (2012) from Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity
>> No. 19970 ID: 360765
>petroleum and gas
And coal.
And nuclear.
Because they're an energy producer.
Because their closest neighbors are energy starved, and will pay anything for it.
I'm sure if EU starts paying exorbitant amounts of money for dildos, Russian exports will become >50% dildos overnight.

An analogy for the simple minded: If a worst korean opens a store in the middle of Detroit, he's going to be selling things that niggers prefer to steal. This doesn't mean that the worst korean can only sell skittles and cough syrup, he could sell caviar if the market changed.

tl;dr the fact that they export mainly energy doesn't mean Russia can ONLY export energy, this presumes they act like uneducated orangutans around cars and jet engines when they are on parity or ahead of nearly every practical and theoretical field of STEM there is.
>> No. 19971 ID: 869c18
File 145646405811.jpg - (258.67KB , 1200x800 , Chinese Shenyang J-31 or FC-31 5th Generation Mult.jpg )
Wow, you make the worst arguments.
I never stated Russia can ONLY export energy, but their economy is significantly funded by petroleum and gas exports. I post data on what Russia's top ten exports are, showing oil is 50.6% of their exports and you respond with the fantasy that they could sell something else if nobody was buying their oil. Their top nine exports are there and they're minuscule compared to oil.

If China lost their electronics manufacturing, they would only lose less than a quarter of their exports because they have a more diverse export economy. The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in Chinese global shipments during 2014. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from China. http://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-exports/
Electronic equipment: US$570.9 billion (24.4% of total exports)
Machines, engines, pumps: $400.8 billion (17.1%)
Furniture, lighting, signs: $93.4 billion (4%)
Knit or crochet clothing: $92 billion (3.9%)
Clothing (not knit or crochet): $81.4 billion (3.5%)
Medical, technical equipment: $74 billion (3.2%)
Plastics: $66.8 billion (2.9%)
Vehicles: $64.2 billion (2.7%)
Gems, precious metals, coins: $63.2 billion (2.7%)
Iron or steel products: $60.6 billion (2.6%)
- Chinese Shenyang J-31 aka FC-31 for Fifth Generation Multi-Purpose Medium Fighter. Maybe they're bullshitting, too.
>> No. 19972 ID: 20f52b
>More than 50% of Russia's exports are petroleum and gas.
Which is only 9% of GDP. In reality, it is not that the economy at large is dependent on oil, it is a federal budget that is being formed from oil prices - more than 50% at that. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the government knows what it is doing, is it? It doesn't, really.
>> No. 19973 ID: d8acd0
File 145648650124.png - (647.18KB , 1599x767 , Chinese Chengdu J-20 a stealth fifth-generation fi.png )
Oh, well, never mind. Such a small section of the economy does not mean anything, right? And the Russian arms industry even less so. Only around 4.5% of Russia's exports. ...Actually that's a LOT. Russia is the second largest conventional arms exporter after the United States, with $13.5 to 15 billion worth of exports in 2012. Combined, the USA and Russia account for 58% of all major weapons exports. And Russia's arms exports, particularly their PAK-FA fighter, is germane to this discussion. Russia's foreign buyers are balking at the quality and capabilities of this plane. Do they have a point or are they trying to weasel a discount or get out of bad pledge? I don't know, myself.

By the way, oil rents (the difference between the value of crude oil production at world prices and total costs of production) made up 13.7% of the Russian economy in 2013. Saudi Arabia was 43.6%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PETR.RT.ZS

- Chinese Chengdu J-20, a stealth fifth-generation fighter prototype. Or so they claim.
>> No. 19974 ID: 360765
>i never stated russia can only export energy
You implied it in an effort to make Russia seem dependent on oil exports, that's your whole argument.

>their economy is significantly funded by petroleum and gas
Their exports in total make a tiny portion of their economy. Russian economy is internalized because of constant Western snubbing, sanctions and other shenanigangs since 1989.

Oil is the only thing Europe reliably wont sanction, and the only thing Europe is willing to pay for, therefore that's what Russia exports. Like I said, if dildos were sanction proof and desperately needed in Europe, Russia would export that.

Chinese exports are 25% of their economy, and their imports are 17% of their economy.
German exports are 30% of economy, and imports 40%.
American exports are 9%, imports 14%.
Russian exports are 15%, imports are 9%.

The first two are very globalized, and very vulnerable to sanctions and the ebbs and flows of the global economy. If Germany were to be cut off, they would instantly collapse worse than USSR did.

The second two are somewhat protected, if they were cut off their standard of life might go down, but they would still survive. The reason their standard of living would go down is because we're not including services, which America provides and receives from abroad in a greater portion.
>> No. 19978 ID: 79e10c
>In reality, it is not that the economy at large is dependent on oil, it is a federal budget that is being formed from oil prices - more than 50% at that. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the government knows what it is doing, is it? It doesn't, really.

50% is a lie from someone that either hasn't looked at Russia budget since Ieltsin time or the first Putin mandate. Or from retards mistaking export revenues for state revenues.

Since the very smart tax reform of 2001 and 2004 (which made people actually pay their taxes), at most it's 30% and it was for all hydrocarbon related products, not just oil.

Just for oil Russia produces around 11 000 000 barrels per day.

At $30 a barrel and $1 = 76 rub, that's 2280 rubles per barrel.

25 billions rubles.

9 trillions a year injected into the Russian economy...

At $30 the gov only get $3 that still makes 915 420 000 000, so around one trillion rub for the state budget.

For only the oil.

In 2010 the "all hydrocarbon" revenue line (oil + derivatives + gas) for the STATE budget was 2 348 300 000 000. It's not that big a dip (remember 1 trillion is only for the oil at the lowest point of the market).

BTW The non hydrocarbon revenue (regular taxes) was 5 741 600 000 000.

50% indeed... (well that's a third possibility: it's kind of half the revenue of regular taxes... but still not half the revenues of the state).

Also the Russian State had/has the lowest rate of indebtedness of the G20. It's not like they HAVE to balance their budget, as long as they stay with something reasonable (around 3% GPD) they can have a gap of 4 trillions and change rubles and still have good rating and prices on theirs debts (if their own banks can't lend them the money, which is disputable).

All of this is really were Putin shines, his budgetary management policies leaves a really good, solid and healthy state finances.
He took all the steps and reformed all the important parts and that very early on, and didn't as so many (retarded) commentators said just "ride out high oil prices", which allowed Russia to toughen out the first 2008 crisis, and now this one.

The only people surprised by this "resilience" are people that have no fucking clue of what has happened to Russia those last 15 years.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post