dark light

Aurel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 939 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: only Fulcrum or Rafale for India? #2290409
    Aurel
    Participant

    When you are talking about 100+ fighters, and then some (India seems to love follow on orders) over decades of operational life, Operating costs play a very very important role…and then pull in the avionics and propulsion and you have a product that is overall easier and cheaper to maintain,operate..etc ..

    Lets just compare MiG-29 and Mirage 2000k already in Indian service.

    Mirage has better spare parts support but spares are very expansive. The MiG was initially a less pleasant experience for the IAF, but the issues have been solved by now. Either by better support contracts or tech transfer for local spare parts production. As result, spare parts are considerably cheaper and to a larger extend locally sourced.

    Mirage needs less mainenance hours per flight hour, but labour is cheap in India.

    Upgrades:
    -MiG: major upgrade including airframe restoration, new engines, electronics and weapons for 10 mill per airframe.
    -Mirage: airframe restoration and electronics upgrade at 40 mill per airframe.

    I think it is save to assume Rafale is more expansive to run than a Mirage.

    MiG is cheaper, Rafale more capable and adds one further type to the Indian aircraft zoo.

    Given the alternatives, I would just stick to MiG 29 and invest the saved cash into LCA/MCA.

    in reply to: Malaysian fighter competition #2296573
    Aurel
    Participant

    While I think barely used Gripen would be the best fit, the Malaysians think otherwise. At least they don’t want refurbished airframes:
    http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-lima-2013-font-ahmad-zahid-malaysia-not-getting-gripen-jets-on-lease-1.242409

    Gripen would be a wonderful addition to the Royal Malaysian Air Force. It got a bit top heavy with the second batch of Flankers now on order.
    Gripen to replace Fulcrums and RF-5’s in one go, and later the Hornets, too.

    in reply to: Malaysian fighter competition #2296895
    Aurel
    Participant

    why no MiG35??

    Because as most countries which operated MiG-29, they have no interst in buying another MiG product.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/malaysia-to-phase-out-troublesome-mig-29-fighters-327276/

    And news as these:
    http://www.indodaily.com/reports/The_Algeria_MiG_Row_And_Russian_Quality_Assurance_999.html
    fit in the picture, too.
    Same impression we gained here in Germany. Poor build quality, even poorer spare parts support. We had an -UB sitting two years in Manching waiting for the necessary spare parts from our Russian “service partner”.

    in reply to: Which attack helicopter for Iraq? #2298209
    Aurel
    Participant

    What is crappy about MiG-29M?

    Spare parts supply and abysmal built quality. Maybe built quality is better now that new builds come frome the new -K line. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

    Plus I see no reason why Iraq should go for MiG’s when they can have more F-16 or superior quality Russian aircraft.

    If further diversification is of any concern, I would rather get some Chinese or French aircraft.

    in reply to: Which attack helicopter for Iraq? #2298373
    Aurel
    Participant

    Flankers would be really nice. If a deal is signed fingers crossed you guys get Su-30/35 instead of crappy MiG-29.

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2307679
    Aurel
    Participant

    Ah the bear. I think this one is even more impressive:
    http://russianplanes.net/images/to98000/097680.jpg

    in reply to: Which attack helicopter for Iraq? #2319364
    Aurel
    Participant

    This is really crazy. I could understand if Iraq goes for a F-16/Su-30 mix.
    A light/medium + a heavy fighter. Add in some L-159 and Europe, Russia and the US are covered.
    Koreans build some really impressive ground kit these days. So why not show some “gratitute” by getting some of their combat vehicles ? Some Chinese ground kit, too.

    I’m not really sold on these appeasement politics. But at least one could go for some useful stuff.

    2 sqds F-16 (already on order)
    2 sqds L-159 (already on order)
    3 more sqds second hand F-16 from Europe.
    2 sqds Su-30MK

    Indicate some interest in Korean KFX as F-16 replacement. Or better yet, get involved in the programme.

    Add in some A-330 MRTT, Chinese and Russian Choppers, et voila, everybody happy and the airforce actually looks like a fighting force and not some aircraft collection.

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2246496
    Aurel
    Participant

    I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. A new fan usually means higher airflow requirenments and thus airframe modifications.
    Why not go directly with EPE and run it on peacetime settings ? IIRC both engine variants are ready for production while Gripen NG could get the necessary modifications before delivery to Swiss and Swedish airforce.

    in reply to: Iran to Unveil New Fighter Tomorrow – Qaher 313 ??? #2247223
    Aurel
    Participant

    This is just a pic to confuse the american shaitan. The real thing looks like this:

    http://www.rc-network.de/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=643013&d=1305046853

    :dev2:

    in reply to: Role of European Air Forces in an Asian Century #2253694
    Aurel
    Participant

    Well, if we include the middle east, I think European airforces will play a role in Asia.
    Much tallk about British and French increasing their engagement on the Arabian peninsula. Probably with permanent deployments to UAE or Oman.

    Right now NATO is highly reliant on US for many major functions – logistics, strategic transport, air to air refuelling, ISR, E3, ELINT, SEAD/DEAD and specialist ground attack (A-10A/C, AC-130, MQ-1).

    Most of these abilities are available or are about to get operational. Either on individual basis or as colaborative effort like NATO airlift.

    Just read today the Merkel government is getting serious about the purchase of UCAV’s. Let’s see if the Luftwaffe get’s what it wants. (Reaper).
    First Eurohawk is delivered (ELINT asset), first A-400M got it’s French roundels last week and so on…

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2259861
    Aurel
    Participant

    Somehow I’ve got the sneaking suspicion that after all this mess the marines will lose a bit political influence in Washington.
    The driving force behind the B-model and finally many of the compromises made in the -35 design were the Marines.
    Tbh I never understood why the navy’s army needs an own airforce. “Joint” has been the buzzword since the 90ies.
    Yet it seems to be unthinkable in the US that the aircraft providing cas for the marines has written “airforce” or “navy” on it.

    If we forget for one moment that the F-35 is ultimately the replacement for the F-14 (and the SHornet just an interim solution) the -C model is a quite good replacement for the A6.
    With a typical a2g load the C has actually a bit higher combat radius than the intruder.
    It needs less support aircraft and most of the maintenance issues can be avoided by sticking to subsonic flight.
    It has the option for supersonic dash speed, which is more than the A6 provided.

    Maybe Korea is a rolemodel for the future of the F-35. Korea wants 60 aircraft, LockMart offers 36 under the assumption these 36 aircraft do the job of 60 legacy aircraft.

    in reply to: Favorite aircraft #2260703
    Aurel
    Participant

    prop: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F4/R6 or late model Hawker Tempest MK II
    jet: Nothrop Grumman YF-23

    in reply to: Scenario: Re-arming Argentina #2266000
    Aurel
    Participant

    They don’t need an army to take the islands. What they need to do is become the most important trade partner of the islands.
    If the oil bonanza ever happens, flood the island with cheap labor from Argentina. Let them settle there, wait 2 generations. Mission accomplished.

    in reply to: what kind air force you build #2283786
    Aurel
    Participant

    if your country has to fight a military like the type Indonesia or Vietnam has?

    Well, between Indonesia and Vietnam there is Malaysia. I will use that as starting point.

    Present fighters:
    -18 Su S0 MKM
    -8 F/A 18D
    -12 R/F-5E
    -15 MiG-29 (10 more or less operational)
    -12 Hawk MK208

    Transport fleet, choppers and trainers are well sorted, with 4 Grizzlies and 12 Super Cougars on order.

    I would replace F/A-18, F-5 and MiG-29 with 30 JAS-39C and 6 JAS-39D. Rebuilt from Swedish stocks. Add in 4 R-99A, 2 R-99B and 4 P-99.

    I guess the Grizzlies come with refueling kits. If not I would order them.

    And since fighters are worthless without armament a weapons package consisting of Meteor, A-Darter, Iris-T, RBS-15F, GBU-12 and Litening III pods for starters.

    in reply to: Shenyang J-21/31/F-60/AMF thread part 1 #2307591
    Aurel
    Participant

    Hey, the Chinese fixed the F-35. They are better at this than LM. :p

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 939 total)