Then you should attempt to explain why it still fields a monster field army with twenty thousand tanks and as many self propelled and towed artillery pieces. They simple do not require a massive air force anymore as NATO will not be able to interdict their ground movements ( in a conventional war) in any meaningful way considering the vast amount of highly mobile surface to air weapons. That being said they still have a larger front line force than anyone their likely to come up against.
Keeping it short, it doesn´t…
MAD doesn’t exist, it’s something that was cooked up in “Think Tank” institutes to make the general public “think” nuke war would never happen, and Russia is well prepared to win a nuke war, and they have always believed (righty so) that nuke war is winable, shall I give sources?
http://media.canada.com/gallery/dose_10spoofs/070419top10_strangelove.jpg
I think it could be still it viable and feasible to re-release an improved next-generation Northrop/Grumman F-20A/B – maybe known as the ‘F-20C/D’ Tigershark +
The improvements to the F-20C/D would include:
– a 25% increased in a wing-area
– a new multi-mode radar
– Aim-120 Amraam and Aim-132 Asraam capability
– an upgraded GE F404 turbofanIt would be affordable to both buy and operate
It has already been designed and tested in the 1980’s (save the increased wing-area)Regards
Pioneer
After all those alterations the final product would NOT be “affordable” 😉
And it would get “smashed” in the International market by a certain Swedish car maker company 😀
OK, let’s stick with you figure; it means a 18 % reduction from FT assesment. But the price is flyaway price, or closer to flyaway price. Otherwise, the weapons, service and parts wouldn’t be evaluated separately.
No it´s not, and by a VEEEERY long shot. 😉
The Saudi Deal covers the construction of a factory in Saudi Arabia, the adaptation of two RSAF Air Bases, the training of almost one thousand Saudi technicians who are going to build the last 48 airframes “in situ”, the leasing of part of RAF station Coningsby for the RSAF Typhoon OCU in a period of five to ten years, the training of an indisclosed number of RSAF pilots and technicians for an indisclosed number of years, the logistical suport to “Depot level” for an indisclosed number of years, etc, etc, etc…
Right now, they are negotiating the Saudi contribution to the development of CEASAR, wich, in principle, will equip the last batch of 24 RSAF Typhoon´s.
The first Saudi proposal was that the money should come from the 4,4 Billion £ of the contract signed with BAE, something that the British and EUROFIGHTER GMBH weren´t too happy to ear 😀
If you want to have a good picture of the Saudi deal, Flight Global has some very good articles, Air Forces Monthly in the last two years has covered the deal in detail, combine those two sources with the oficial statements by RSAF, the British MOD, BAE´s and Eurofighter, and here you go, you are ready to be a much better “journo” than the one at FT, who has a fine habit of getting every single Typhoon number wrong for the past decade.
Cheers 🙂
ps- If you want something similar to what the USAF calls “Fly away cost” for Typhoon, the 2004 tranche 2 contract it´s probably the best “shot” that we have…
There is an interesting editorial in the new Aviation Week, saying it’s time for Europe to remember its a two way street.
Specifically it takes the governments to task for building the M-400 and its problem prone late engine when there were North American items available.[/I]
WHAT?!!
Someone at AW must be drinking something VERY alcoholic!
Europe, who has bought massive quantities of american Planes, Tanks, ships, systems, etc, when there were some very valid European products in the same class, must “remember its a two way street”!!!!!!!!!!!
Until now it has been a highway to Europe from the perspective of the American Arms Industry and a Mountain “Goat” trail in the oposite direction. Sweet Jesus, how many hundreds/thousands of Vipers and hornets have we bought?!
Don’t mix the LRIP with full-rate production prices. The first units are going to cost much more than full-rate production ones. Also where you red the $ 80 mil for EF? That’s not even the flyaway price (that excludes service, logistic tail, weapons, training).
I´m not confusing nothing, the estimated “Fly Away Costs ” for the entire 1763 F-35A fleet it´s the exact number that i´ve quoted, 83.131 millions US$. It´s NOT the LRIP F-35A “UFC”, this number his 141 million US$, this is the cost of the production of the fighter WITHOUT the development, training or logistical suport.
You can find the exact numbers in page 43 of the official 2009 USAF budget in here: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me…080204-081.pdf
The Tiffie 80,7 million US $ number his taken from the Tranche 2 production contract, that covered the construction of 236 T2 Typhoon´s for 13 Billion Euros and it´s (more or less, in the end i do agree with swerve) the equivalent to the USAF “Fly Away Cost”, you can find the number in here: http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article183.asp?srcx=dev1
I´m more than happy to be proven wrong, but i think the numbers i´ve provided are correct.
Cheers 🙂
Since when is the EF 2000 cheaper than the F 35 ???????
Since the USAF and the US Navy put the “Unit Cost” of the F-35A/B/C in their budget´s, to be precise in the 2007 budget…
Before that, the consortium partners were being fed “********” by Lock Mart, has late as 2006 the “Unit Fly Away Cost” of the F-35A was being quoted has “36 millions US$”, right now, in the 2009 USAF budget, the same cost his “83.131 millions US$” (the same cost, for a “Tiffie” T2 his 80,7 millions US$), but this is a “Best Case Scenario” (and a bloody optimistic one), for this to happen the USAF MUST receive the entire fleet of 1763 Units, that means a production run that finishes in 2043! That also means no more delay´s, no cuts to the numbers of Lightnings II acquired, no increases in materials and manpower costs, etc, etc, etc.
If you compare the “Fly Away Costs” for the F-35A presented in the USAF Budget of 2007 to the 2009 budget, in the 2007-2013 time-frame, its simply L(fr)ightning (II), in two years the costs almost doubled…
Now, what are the chances of cuts to the Pentagon Budget in the next few years? And what his the biggest acquisition program in the Pentagon?
(F-35A Acquisition 2009 Budget)http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf
(F-35A Acquisition 2007 Budget)
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070214-050.pdf
Cheers 🙂
ps- Right now the “B” and “C” versions are already on the “100 millions US$” UFC in the “Best Case Scenario”
when MIG & now Sokol factory is saying that there is 100% uniformity among K/M/35 so what is meant by that 100%? or should they say 200%? so either Scorpian is correct or MIG is correct.
And current EF will be unacceptable to IAF from what i see. It needs fully developed AESA with Air to ground missiles and needs its own missiles with full technology transfer like meteor. & it needs fully open avionics suit so other components like Israeli/Indian EW suit and weopons can be certified. than it needs licensing of engines.
EF is atleast 20 years away before it can be presented to IAF. I doubt Russians are not that stupid they will sign fixed price & without inflation indexed contracts.
I´m starting to understand Scorpion82…
So, a carrier capable machine (Fulcrum “K”) with all the structural changes that the function entails his 100% “uniform” with a land based prototype (Fulcrum “M2”) who happens to be 100% “uniform” with an aircraft (Mig-35) that only exists in a plastic model “form” with some VERY OBVIOUS (MAKS 2007) structural changes and new systems (like a AESA radar)!!!!!
If someone belonging to Mig or Sokol has been sending that kind of absurd press releases after MAKS2007, that guy must be smoking some strange stuff…
But not half as good has the one you are having for yourself! “EF is atleast 20 years away before it can be presented to IAF”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That´s 2028… WOW:rolleyes:
Star, you´re wrong, get over it.
Pretty inaccurate observation. Most of contracts are delayed because Russians have drop down in priority interest because those were signed during low cost times. when u signed it under market rates delivery is pretty fast. look at Venzuela.
i will give Dassualt minimum 10 years time to upgrade IAF M2K. And that does not include engine upgrade or payload increase through which MIG-29SMT has to go through. Most Western manufacturer hasnt haved faced that reality. In the long run it is just money losing proposition.
There´s no comparison between the Venezuelan SU-30MK2 deal and the Indian MIG-35. The Venezuelan´s bought an aircraft that was developed a decade ago and has been delivered in great quantities to China, on the other hand the Mig-35 that was proposed to the MRCA contest, with it´s way heavier “clean weight” and profound alterations in the airframe, it´s a vastly diferent bird to any and every “Fulcrum” variant that has taken to the sky´s until now, and that includes the “K”, the “SMT”, the “M”, whatever.
Scorpion82 his correct when he say´s that there is no Production Mig-35 right now, and Scooter his completly correct when he say´s that the Eurofighter Consortium would delay the deliveries to the the four partner´s IF the Indian contest was dependent of this (actually, the British MOD would make a huge party if they could postpone the Tiffie deliveries a pair of years).
Cheers 🙂
I believe Brazil just invited Boeing and the Super Hornet in……….Regardless, both are superior to the Flanker and Rafale.:diablo:
The exact oposite happened, Boeing delivered an unrequested proposal to the Brasilian Governement.
With the Lula Government sitting in Brasilia, it doesn´t have a chance. In Denmark and Norway, specially on this last country, nothing short of a miracle will make the Super Hornet gain the contracts. In India, well, it´s a very tough competition, and the RFP date it´s not closed, no one can say who his the favorite because several of participants didn´t delivered the proposal until now…
So, it´s highly doubtfull that the SH will ever be a export success.
I just googled DD(X) and got similar figures.
In my eyes this makes them very comparable with the F100 to be built at Adelaide for $8.8 billion (au), but the DD(x) would be like an Arliegh Burke compared to the F100 being a OHP, in capabilities. It might be in our favour to join the US program and buy two of them, with a option for a third. Two would have more capabilities than three F100.s. and we would probably get them sooner. Less manpower required also.
SWEEETTT JESUS
Buying two or three DDG-1000 for Australia?!!!!
Not a chance in hell. You´re mixing “unit costs” with “program costs”. One Single Zumwalt “Cruiser” would take away the entire RAN AWD budget… We are talking about a program who his in deep financial and technical troubles wich might end with just two ships being built from an original 26 units estimate.
Forget it. 😉
The Royal Australian Navy is to get three F100 AWD’s of Spanish/USA design. They are of 6’000 tonnes or thereabouts, but are to cost $8.8 billion dollars (au). I wonder how that cost would compare with the DD(X) from the US. Of 12’000 tons, it has two x 155mm guns, two helicopters, 20 x 4 PVLS,
etc., but only has a crew of 140, similar to the F100. It would be interesting to see what price the yanks have on them. Two of them would give us more firepower than 3 F100’s.
You could easily buy (and with money to spare) a 60000 ton CVF aircraft carrier with the costs of each one of those seven (two?) DDG-1000.
They are not on the same class of capabilities and cost…
=> «Partenaire de l’Armée de l’Air».:D
TMor, look in here:
http://www.eurofighter.ch/1024/fr/partner_air_forces/partner_air_forces.html
😀
I should hope so too. If the Grippen was enlarged to the size of the SH and given an extra engine it would probably outstrip the SH.
It´s called the Eurofighter Typhoon 😀
Cheers 🙂