This is exactly why I stopped posting in Military.

I post a reference to a fairly news worthy item asking what more we know and I get someone quibbling about the names used by the news source then a squabble about the provenance of the airframes.

Come now, he was just making sure everything was all correct. Not that he is ever right but you got to love his arrogance.

Ah the joys of the ignore facility. See Pigeonracer, I can expect no snappy reply from him because I am on his list as well. Now it appears you are too. Lucky you!

Too bad about the aircrew. Condolences go out to the families.

$1.75bn is the cost of seven extra F-22 fighters.
Make it $250mil for a Raptor, sorry to ruin your bubble.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162106.stm

Hereby, your arguments are dismissed.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1437741
Page F-3, Item 3. FY2007 flyaway cost for 20 Raptors on a hot production line = 135.9 million each.

Imagine what the flyaway would be if the build rate where 48/yr on a hot production line.

You are clearly a troll Flex but the budget numbers do not lie.

In fact if you look closer at the budget, specifically page 1-15 (exhibit P-5, page 3 of 9) you will see that the actual fly away costs for 20 aircraft in each of those years is 2736.529, 2749.342, and 2927.768 million. Not much variance. In fact the flyaway cost never exceeds 146.3 million each. A far cry from the $180+ million being quoted by some of the trolls.

You got it wrong.

The new FCS software are controlling the TVC too on the Su-35 BM!

Just like u decribe, but its not just another controll surface!
Its ontop on everything else, get it?

Its like Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan describe here:

Capish?
Pls don’t do the “this is a probeganda crap..
All sources i have seen on that new FCS on the Su-35 BM are greatly improved!

Many people don’t take this improvment in..

Thanks

Here I thought this thread was about the Super Hornet.
So exactly how many of this latest Russian wonder fighter are in service today?

There are about 350 Supers in service today and they have a planned and funded development spiral to incorporate additional improvements as time goes by.

But just to address some of the comments here about the latest Russian super fighter that is in perpetual development. Somee comments from someone who has flown a Block I Super.

It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores. None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.

In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30. The analogue and early generation digital flight controls with hard-wired or hard-coded AoA limiters used in the Russian aircraft are a generation behind the Super Hornet and a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes.

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

Hmm..

With that in mind all data etc needs to be taken with a pinch of salt….
So where does that leave us?

Pretty much nowhere as unless one has direct operational experience of a type we are reliant on data/ second hand information that may or may not be exactly ‘truthful’…if we read some fo the first hand accounts of even GW1 we gain a view that much of the published performance of a/c and avionics is not retained during combat operations.

This leaves us with a dilemma.. which metric to actually use to do a comparison? The published data or the combat experience? Both are valid yet both may paint a very different picture.

Here is some real world data. Iranian F-14s, short on supplies and cut off from the vendor made short work of the lavished upon Iraqi air force that was chock full of Soviet and French junk.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

Note the frequency of AIM-54 kills.

From 1976 to 1988 Iranian F-14s dominated the air in the Persian gulf. They shot down everything from Mig-21s and Mig-25s to Mirage F-1s.

Zaslon development started in 1968. That’s same gen as AWG-9. Don’t kid yourself haha! 😀

The 6 missiles never found their targets either, nor was the F-14 truly ever intended to fire 6 missiles. Hell, the Phoenix didn’t hit squat in the 90s did it?

It could only guide 1 AIM-7, which means it’s highly inferior for the purposes of guiding SARH missiles.

And you are as usual totally missing the point on the target distance separation. Sure, the AWG-9 had SOME ability to engage spread out targets, but you do realize that the mechanical array was severely limited in its altitude dispersion engagement compared to a PESA array?

Sigh, buddy you really don’t have your facts straight. Why don’t you come back after you’ve done your research?

You really must try to use better sources than Wikipedia.

Development of the original Zaslon started in the mid to late 70s. That piece of junk had all sorts of issues with reliability. It was also such a badly designed radar that so much RF leaked from the side lobes that you where just as likely to fry your wing man’s electronics as you where detect an enemy. This radar was no match for the AW9-G much less the AWG-71. In fact it’s shortcomings against the AW9-Gis what caused the development of Zaslon M(?). A truly wonderful radar that can detect targets at around 200km and give itself away at around 400km. Real useful in combat.

Five of six missiles hit their targets and the 6th missile was a near miss and was dubbed a kill if an active warhead had been used.

It is a cited fact that the ability to transmit at different frequencies enabled the AW9-G to guide more than one SARH missile at a time. Again you confuse it with Russian junk.

Study geometry and RF propagation before you comment on target separation. Again the proof is in the pudding in the actual missile tests. The F-14, AW9-G, Phoenix combination successfully engaged six separate targets at various altitudes and bearings.

Too bad these little things like facts tend to ruin your argument.

Essentially yes.

The AWG-9 was limited severely in its ability to fire multiple Phoenixes when targets were at varying altitudes due to the fact that it was a mechanical array. The 6 Phoenix load was really marketing more than anything, Tomcats never operationally could carry more than 4. AFAIK, they couldn’t even land on the carrier with 6 Phoenixes.

The N007, being a PESA, and having a ton of raw power could focus at targets at fairly varying altitudes.

Simply put RF radiates in a cone shape with the pointed end facing the emitter. As distance increased RF dispersion increased. AW9-G had no problem engaging multiple targets at varying bearing and altitude. It has nothing top do with the type of array and everything to do with RF propagation.

The ability to engage six targets was an operational requirement of the Navy. It had nothing to do with Hughes or Grumman.

The F-14 could launch with six Phoenix but only land with four. The Navy was not going to risk having to jettison two million dollar missiles in peacetime.

Sorry about those pesky facts Echonine. I know they do not fit with your preferred view of the world but you know what they say. Reality bites.

Oh and before we go comparing Russian radars with AW9-G lets not forget that the AW9-G was developed in the late 60s and fielded in the early 70s. When you start comparing the Zaslon compare it to the APG-71.

You leave out the R-73E which was fielded earlier than the M, but later than the A (somewhere in the later 80s) and this missile was well capable of HOBS engagements up to +/- 60°. The R-73A was limited to +/-45° still noticeably more than any AIM-9 derivate at that time.

My understanding is that the M was the first model to combine HOBS with the helmet mounted sight. I am not arguing that the DOD was very surprised at the true effectiveness of the missile. We are comparing like with like. M model was the first to use the sight as well.

The Luftwaffe MiG-29s conducting DACT with F-16s after the fall of the Berlin Wall didn’t have R-73Ms, and they still proved the effectiveness of the system time and time again.

I could say so what. Obviously there is was more to the DACT than met the eye since F-16 sales took off and Mig-29 sales (comparatively) did not. But I won’t say that instead I will say what is your point in the contest of this thread? We are talking missiles and when they became IOC.

the C-5 isn’t (just) about oversized loads, it’s about quantity and distance

trying to transport everything that’s needed via C-17 is trying to run a fire hydrant through a straw

Lets go through the numbers from the Air Force fact file.

C-5 270,000lbs 2150 nm
C-17 169,000lbs 2400nm

50 C-5 total lift 6,750 tons
50 C-17 total lift 4,225 tons

2225 tons is not going to make that much of a difference in a general war, but regardless, 80 C-17s carry more tonnage farther than 50 C-5s. If I can get another 80 new C-17s in exchange for mothballing 50 thirty year old aircraft I would do it in a flash.

1. 50 C-5Ms are cheaper than 50 C-17s
2. 50 C-5Ms are more capable than 50 C-17s

The upgrade cost in excess of 72 million per unit. Is spending that much on a 30 year old plane worth it? Will it have the service life of the C-17. Don’t thinks so. Will it be cheaper to operate, don’t think so. Yeah they can carry more further but they are not as survivable and they cannot go where the C-17 can.

I am not saying the C-5 is no good. I think 50 or so C-5Ms is great. 80 more C-17s is great too.