no, its german.

Sorry but you have to produce some credible sources on that on.. 100$ a pop!!

Or i could save you the trouble and rais the BS flag.

i found $65 million but likely will be more expensive for exports
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090818/155845491.html

however growing expense of Flanker is not unusual. Russia is a richer developed country now.. its surpassed wealthy countries like Malaysia and Argentina in per capita income and is set to surpass Latvia. naturally wages will become higher.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=82323

but that was based on the old su-35, now more has been known and Su-35 further developed.

1: You come to the conclusion that Typhoon has an AESA but has AMRAMM instead of Meteor?

2: See 1.

3: Engine(s), airframe design, altitude, speed and weight amongst other aspects play their part.

4: See 3.

5: Has it’s usefulness, see RAF Typhoon vs F-22 article from The Aviantionist. TVC not essential when one has HEA.

6: Again, has it’s usefulness, but cheapness doesn’t always automatically mean you’re going to have an advantage. More costs can have an advantage of their own in the right areas.

what is the range of the aesa update for Typhoon compared to Su-35 pesa?
does Su-35 have something like DAS or SPECTRA?

1. Bigger, more powerful AESA radar
2. R77 vs AMRAAM
3. More fuel and endurance
4. Better supercruise
5. TVC

Skor should just get Su-35s.. Russia is willing to give free weapons in exchange for debt relief annd Skor operates some Russian gear already.

second the more and more Skor buys Russian weapons the less willing Russians will sell to Norks.

Hello All,

Just stripping out an interesting, though oft-revisited, topic from Tango’s News thread as a simple and very pertinent question was tabled by Wanshan that, I think, merits further ponderings…

Essentially it is…if the answer to the question of future US Naval air isnt behemoths like the Ford class what could it be?.

Bring_it_On added an, imo, excellent piece detailing the ‘what’ of what is required….

….what is open to musing is possibly the ‘how’ the elements discussed above could be delivered?.

Much of what is detailed above is contingent directly on ISTAR. Should that ISTAR be organic to the carrier though…or does it need to be deployable ahead of the CSG?.

Should more be made of SSGNs and VATOL UAV’s for strike effect and less reliance on carriers?. With studies like TERN and the UK UoR for an escort-based surveillance UAV capability will distributed-platform ISTAR generation diminish the historical reliance on a carrier as a group centrepiece?.

If a large-deck carrier deployed to theatre allows the opposition to focus their entry-denial systems on one target too easily is a solution based on multiple, smaller, carrier decks the answer?. If so how small is too small?. Is nuclear propulsion a given seeings that the USN has nuclear berths to support such vessels and the operational benefits are manifest?.

Appreciations for any views given.

you have an interesting brain.

how would F-35B or Sea Harriers factor into your suggestion since they could technically be operated on anything with a deck? a frigates helipad suddenly becomes a potential airport. but usually at the cost of the useful range of these type of planes?

how about using a Soviet type of carrier where the offensive power is more in its missiles than airplane?