totoroIt would all be a lot easier if ferry range was published for F35. Without it, most of these comparisons compare apples to oranges, as we’ve no comprehensive data. There were some instances of fuel burn published for F35, or one pilot report about how long it took them to cross xx km and they had “yy” of fuel left – so with all that the ferry range (internal fuel) for f35a should be around 3000-ish km, but it’s hard to get a very precise figure.
totoroCan that image with 760 nm range be traced to LM? I tried but couldn’t find anything online connecting it to actual verifiable LM source.
That being said, 760 nm radius could be in line with previously mentioned 600 nm requirement with 2 2000 lb jdams and two amraams. With 4 amraams, plane is some 8% lighter. That should definitely add some range. And depending on how much power/maneuvering one has requirement for, 760 nm is quite doable if air to air configuration means cruise all the way, very short supersonic dash, expending missiles with little maneuvering then cruise all the way home.
I’d expect ferry range to be around 3000 km, perhaps a tad over.
totoroHm, is it? For a piston engine trainer? Diamond dart 450 is a heavier trainer with a turboprop engine which is marketed at 3 million.
Actually, i have a hard time believing 300 mil rubles per plane is realistic for Yak152. Sounds too expensive. Maybe that contract was just for getting the project pushed to the prototype phase. (as a good deal of project was already worked upon for years)
totoroIt has a German engine, great idea these days…..
Also I am slightly disgusted at its look compared to classic radial Yaks and Sus.
I really thought yak152 and cj7 would share the engine. Or at least have same airframe design. Yet CJ6 went for radial engine and airfame designed for it while Yak152 went the other route…
totoroThat danish document showing the expected pricetags is basically proof of how politics are king in sales like this. First the key people are courted or perhaps bought. They are made to believe pricetags as shown in the document are true. Then those people “decide” which is better – based on false numbers.
I mean, seriously? 82 million dollars per procured f35a? By 2020? Very, very unilikey, given the current price drop curve which is pointing more towards the 90-95 million range. As we also know – those are prices US is paying for the flyaway plane. Without anything else.
Can Denmark really be expected to pay the same pricetag as US?
Furthermore, the report in the very same comparison graph says procurement per superhornet costs 122 million. Huh?? Even though US pays something like 60-ish million per their flyaway superhornet? Lets remember the f35a price was clearly flyaway too, so these prices must be apples to apples comparison. Either that or F35a flyaway price for denmark is in reality 40 million, half of what us will be paying. Right.
If these figures have been presented to danish key people as fact then it’s no wonder they selected f35a. they’ve been fooled like no other. Who knows what else has been fabricated for those people. And god knows how much power lockheed martin really has within us government when it clearly managed to shut up another powerful US firm, Boeing, from making a fuss about this.
totoroA little bit offtopic but still russian related:
When tactical missile corporation writes on its website for its air to air missile products about front hemisphere range – what variables are there at play? I assume it means the target is flying towards the missile launch platform. (otherwise why the two options – front and rear hemisphere?). But is there a standard set of variables for the target? Target going at such and such speed, flying at such altitude, flying straight or turning (if so how much?) Is there a source that provides exact figures for the target?
totoroSome 240 longbow radars were procured in the 90s. Under the assumption that recent Apache E remanufature program also just moidernized the radars (instead of adding new ones) that figure represents roughly one third of overall US apache fleet.
totoroAIM-120C-5 shall be a valid asset for the next two decades to come..
historical statstics of anti air missile kill percentages would point otherwise. without any modernization whatsoever, a missile that’s been 25-30 years in service should fare quite badly against a contemporary opponent’s systems. One shouldn’t really let their missiles fall behind more than 5-10 years behind the opponent, if there’s to be a fight to be won.
Against any future Libya-a-like opponent it may be okay, with enough numerical superiority.
totoroFlyaway cost of b-2 in todays dollars is some 1,1 billion. cost of b-2 with spares and support in todays dollars is 1,378 billion. Usually quated 1,6 billion figure is ALL of the programme, sans the initial development, divided by number of planes. (in then year dollars) And 2+ billion figure is whole of programme divided by number of planes in then year dollars.
current development contract is roughly half the value of what b-2 development cost in the end, in equal year dollars. LSRB may not be as much of a revolution as B2 was back in its day. So cost overruns may not be as great. Then again, it’s not a fixed sum contract to overruns are almost certain. So anything in between of 25-45 billion (of todays dollars) is plausible for development part.
Production contract is a fixed sum contract so 600 million per plane in todays dollars is more believable. Considering b2 flyaway price (per small number of planes made) and considering f22 and f35 flyaway costs. But since its flyaway cost, another 20ish percent needed to get the plane to actual service is probably a safe bet. So to develop and produce a 100 bombers (without supporting them through the decades) might realistically cost some 100-115 billion (in 2015 dollars).
It’s cheaper than what b-2 cost was (almost 60 billion for 20-21 planes in todays dollars) but still a very costly programme. There are hardly any alterntives, though.
totorowhich fighter types exactly? in 1990 the r-73 could be carried by su-27, mig-29 and 500-1000 of modernized mig-23mld. So total of roughly 2000 fighters was capable of carrying it, with usual loadout configuration of 2 per mig23, 4 per mig29 and 2/4 per flanker. Roughly some 7000 missiles would have been needed if half the mentioned fleet had the operational chance to use two full loads.
I’ve no numbers on r-73 production but if it was anything close to US production of sidewinder, it should’ve been at least 1500 per year, once full serial production was commenced.
totoroUsing su35 normal TOW that is calculated using half of possible fuel, it seems plausible pakfa weighs around 20-ish tons empty.
totoro1200 km combat radius is perfectly doable for j31 sized plane. If it carries just 3 aams and flies a cruise profile, high altitude escort mission without much combat maneuvering planned.
to compare, LM disclosed mission profile for norway’s f-35 where it carried 2 jsm and 2 amraams (a bit heavier load) doing ingress and egress at 0.9 mach (that’s a bit faster and less economical than cruise speed), doing a few circles of combat maneuvering (not defined precisely; during which two jsm are fired) which makes the plane drop from 30 k feet to 20 k feet, then the plane gets back to 25 k feet and starts its egress and cruises back at 30 k feet.
and combat radius of that mission was cited as 610 nm. that’s 1128 km. F-35 with 4 amraams cruising all the way could very possibly go over 1400 km of “combat” radius.
totoroIran’s gdp plummeted since latest round of sanctions in 2012 which curbed its oil exports. The whole idea of buying new planes is connected with lifting the whole sanctions, arms and free oil export. So if we are talking about buying new planes it will be definitely be with much more oil being exported and thus gdp going up again.
Iran’s military budget is, on paper, pretty good, but more than half goes to the revolutionary guard which has little to no air force assets. In my opinion, based on 15-ish billion budget for whole of military, there might be some 500-700 million dollars available for air force modernization starting from 2016 or so. Though if sanctions are lifted only in 2020 then all that’s moot.
I see no reason russia should withhold SM licence. It’s already been given to India, and that was a decade ago. SM itself isn’t a particularly modern plane. And mk2 is even less so. Now that pak-fa has been postponed there is a few years of free capacity at knaaz, and i guess mk2 might live a few more years, if that capacity isnt given to greater volume of su35 produced per year. but su30mk2 is really pushing it – that’s old tech compared to most of iran’s relevant neighbors. sure, compared to what they fly it’s a jump up – but overall it’s barely playing catch up.
totoroAlexander Mladenov wrote a very detailed and up to date report on current ruaf status in newest air forces monthly magazine. Insightful and recommended!
totoroKazakh air force is bound to get more, I agree. Actually, now that the ruble is so low, its perfect time for foreign buyers to buy russian hardware. if su35 doesnt sell within the next two years it may never sell. 😀 I exaggerate, of course.
I thought the article said the 70-75 plans for su30sm include the navy buys?
what is the deal with those su27 produced in 1996?? as far as i know last su27 were made in 1992. Unless these are some unfinished airframes similar to the previous sm3 purchase.
If su30sm replaces some of the su24 in their regiments there may be a smaller need for su34. If su30sm was good enough for the navy regiment to switch from su24 – it may also be good enough for the air force in some smaller quantities. After all, if there was indeed a final tally of 200+ su34 – there’d be really way too little room for pak-fa buys. (as su30sm would then replace exclusively figther regiments meaning pak-fa would have little left to replace)
Sign In
