^couldnt the Mi-28 be configured to fire the Vikhr too?

maybe they just meant 5.8 billion ==> $80 mil a plane which is a reasonable sum.

$800 mil is way too high even in the future upg, weapons and training scenario.

yeah I was thinking that.. they must have misplaced the decimal. At first I thought it was $80 mill and Sferrin miscaculated but it was 800.. waay too much.. even if their relationship is that good… there’s just much cheaper alternatives if that was the case.

$80 mill with training, spares and weapons is a moderate price. I believe around the same price as late variant F-16?

I would still prefer the Ka-52 , Its sleeker,stelthy, more agile a good one for the 21st Century.

The Mi-28N can probably take more hits and survive

the question is, how significant is the Hokum’s advantages? I mean it does look sleeker and maybe stealthier..but in the end it’s still a helicopter with large detectable rotors and faces the same vunerability other attack helicopters face.
I read that its dual rotor allows it to survive when it’s **** gets blown off.. but how often is that a cause of helicopter loss in combat? I’m not too sure.

after seeing the Apache’s performance in Iraq and Kosovo, it seems that it face a signifcant chance of being damaged/taken out.. and if that’s the case, I think I’d take the better armored Mi-28.. and most importantly that it’s cheaper (if GarryB is correct). Price is also an important factor when investing in an aircraft that has a higher rate of being damaged in a war zone.

They want something C:cool::cool:L that will kick the C:dev2::dev2:P out of an Iranian Flanker or an Israeli Eagle, The F-22 would be their preferred choice, but it is not for export sale, and if it was they would not be allowed to operate it were they liked. (Plus a good chance its because the British do a good line in bribes :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: ). I wonder how this will effect the RAF orders and the final rundown of the Jaguar Fleet?

they’d have some trouble taking out an Iranian Flanker because it doesn’t exist.

Sorry to tell you this, but this is more about Japan. Japan is making more unilateral moves to claim and occupy disputed territories it has with China and the two Koreas. China, on the other hand, is signing joint ventures with other countries on islands that are disputed. You don’t hear a peep from China about South Korea’s high-tech military buildup in recent years. Afterall the two have a mutual economic relationship.

I predict that with all the paranoid attention over China you guys have, South Korea will go unnoticed and become a more dynamic prosperous nation than Japan has ever been which will spur ultra-nationalism in Japan and cause a huge headache for the US. Now a strong South Korea against Japan is a good thing.

uh oh, some one brought out a nationalist

I think he’s talking percentages…as in what percentage do the other NATO nations contribute in terms of military forces in a military operation.

I wonder how much life the carrier has in it. If it has a good number of years left maybe France could take it instead of building a second deck?

Here’s a more amusing concept…sell it to Greece :diablo:

and get the Turks mad? 😛

besides, they got a jillion islands and half islands that could be turned into “carriers”.

Because there are not 111 An-124s. Because the US cannot be beholden to another nation or commercial interest to move the level of stores they require.

.

the most sensible thing said in regards to it. Airframe wise, most of the older ones only have a projected service life of 7,500 flight hours, although the newer ones have improved much.

are they going to resell the F1s elsewhere?