Actually it’s more like $4.5 billion per plane. What’s the matter with you, haven’t kept up on your POGO dues? What they should have really demonstrated was the Exploding Crowd Killer® manuever the Flanker is so famous for. 😀 😀

Never heard of POGO before and do not care what they are saying, but I had laugh attack when I saw those guys with silver overals removing the canopy several hours. Actually, what you need for similar “emergency procedure” is to hit the Mig canopy with an axe. The tension in the plexi structure makes the rest exploding outwards from the pilot with no harmful debris on the other side.

Martinez

To Jolly Rogers

The Su-25K does have a similar maintenance schedule as any other soviet aircraft of 80`s era. The robust airframe built to resist heavy damage, less sophisticated electronic equipment and operational utilization of the Frogfoot itself makes an assumption that the maintenance performed on the plane does not need to be very extensive. As for instance some checks including visual inspection of the aircraft skin(joints) might be crucial for the mig-29, but totaly irrelevant for the Su-25.
The aircraft Su-25K underwent prescheduled depot maintenance each 100 and 200 flight hours. The prescheduled jobs(type1 and type2) were executed on the airframe and engines, weaponry, electric and spec. equipment and the radio equipment. Both jobs took approximately 3-4 days considering a day shift of 8hrs. In those last years of the Frogfoot in the AF the time in depot maintenance was affected by other limiting factors, such as shortage of spares and funds, less people working on it, etc….so it happened often that the plane got stuck in the depot for a month.
After each 50 flight hours and every 60 day operation cycle the “periodic inspections” were carried out. These were executed in the aircraft shelters/stands one day before the flight day taking about one to three hours. Other maintenance checks/inspections to ensure day-to-day operation are shortly categorized here.
link

The maintenance nightmare of the MiG-29 is well-known but does this apply to the FrogFoot?
Anyone?

Seeing that you have got experience of both the Mig-29 and the US hardware, would you please write some facts proving the Mig-29 maintenance is a nightmare. Thanks

The main purpose of my suggesting is the reduction in operational costs. The saving over 10 years or so would be quite significant. The fact that it adds a range of weapons like the extended range R-27s, as well as the IR guided versions as well as R-77s means that it improves performance to parity with NATO aircraft, and superiority in some areas.
.

You lower the operational costs considerably by switching to on-condition maintenance and using advanced diagnostic systems. Russians promised significant reduction of costs per flight hour. I recall these numbers, before/after upgrade 12000USD/6500USD. Whether these numbers are correct I do not know, bcs it depends on things you count in and they are specific, so do not apply them for other countries. You`re not strongly dependent upon weapon system upgrade, even if the new radar/avionics package might save the operational costs too. I agree that they improve performance giving them parity, but do they need to be equal or superior to the NATO? Anyway, it`s all about money, I do not have any problem if they go for SMT. Be on ILA in Berlin, Russian RSK will introduce the modernization applied on our Mig-29.

How many pictures of Operational Russian aircraft have you seen where they carry real missiles of any kind?.

..a good point, I haven`t seen any too. It is not wise to judge it according to photos posted on internet or in public books.

It is not like you having them flying around Serbia 24/7 looking for targets.

Of course no one wants this, but you have to keep them ready for 24/7. It means that they are loaded with real missiles and you can`t use them for anything else. In NATINEADS our Migs are taking-off almost every day.

We say Kapedani is an idiot..

…. once being upset at someone in a discussion, you warned me about unseemly conduct. Just for evidence I`m glad to see that you`re a human too. 😉 I feel that Kapedani used deliberately some of my sentences to make his own profit out of it. He acts like a stubborn journalist. 😀

Or they could buy more Mig-29 airframes from Russia or former eastern european countries to make the Mig-29s a viable force.

these are also my words…..

my opinion on Serbia`s Migs…

If they decide to continue operating the type Mig-29, they need to think of ways how to obtain (buy) another e.g. 10-15 Mig-29 airframes (do not need to be new ones, those for 1EUR are the best… 😀 in fact airframes with 1000hours can be prolonged to 4000h) . Operating only five Mig-29 is totaly nonsense.PERIOD. Coming from experiences in the airforce (similar in size to Serbian one), you need two machines for airpatroling ready for 24/7. Now, being in NATINEADS they wants from us to have 2+2 for that role. For training you need another two machines at least!. What if one/two machines are withdrawn from flight line to depot for maintenance works, what if a machine fall out due to a malfunction which is pretty common. The repair takes time and you`ll be short on aircrafts, either doing the training not properly or hazarding with pilot lives and country safety. Not to mention, the less aircrafts you have, the less spares you can afford. If you do not have spares, you start cannibalizing other planes which partly solves the spare problems, but then you end in a vicious circle. Then you can spend money on upgrades, firstly the important things such as, comm, navs, avionics, diagnostic software and transfer to on-condition maintenance. Does Serbia need the SMT variant immediately? If you want use the them for airpatroling mostly, why the hell you need ZHUK radar and other goddies for precise bombing. The weapon system of baseline Mig-29 is well suited for that role.
In think investing into Migs-21 wouldn`t be a good idea. The airframe offers less space for upgrades, has zero potencial to grow and you do not have enough money to feed any pet in your garden like India for example. Remaining flightworthy Fishbeds could take over the air patrol role, then retirement in 2010 because of ended airframe resurs. The rest of fishbeds could serve for spare parts. You have time to build the airforce from the scratch.

At last I cannot imagine that there is someone in Serbian government who wants to buy US aircrafts. Geeez, I hate them now, what would I do if they strike my country, kill my people and destroy the whole industry. Should I help them to earn money, how ironic is this? 😡

your relative from north.. 🙂
Martinez

there are two pictures both depicting the same airplane in the same situation taken from two guys from two different standpoints … and its posted at Airliners.net !

hmmm, and what`s wrong with that, what`s your point?

PS: And please don’t think that I’m the one who photosoped them ! 😀

have I overestimated you so? 😀

You’re right. They weren’s so much wars as they were exercises in the systematic destruction of Soviet-made military equipment.

SOC, I`m sure that you`re smart enough to figure out how I think about those things. I do not mind about destruction of Soviet-made military equipment at all. Please do not expect from anyone to share your opinion.
…and you right, your country didn`t take part in a war yet.

I got a proposal, let us take latest MiG-29SMT-2 and compare it to early F-16A Block 10 and mentally masturbate about how the mighty Fulcrum rulez… Do you join me?

That`s not really necessary….just compare the ability to operate from grass or unpaved strips during a war. They were laughing when they heard about F-16,F-15 inability to land or take-off from the grass. Damn, what kind of combat aircraft is that? 😀 But what really drives me mad is when some stupid “wessie” starts to masturbate on the F-15,F-16 combat records in past “wars”, WHAT WARS? :dev2:

This is a photo I took of 595 at MAKS 2003 – at that show it had a SINGLE Salyut AL-31F with TVC…… 😮
I think it goes like this…..

MAKS 2003, bort 595 in LII/Gromov colours in the static display has a single TVC engine.

At some point it is fitted (AFAIK) with TWO TVC engines – this is how it appears at MAKS 2005 – in the flying display.

In the meantime – another machine in ex-Test Pilots colours (Red/White/Blue) bort unknown(?) appears at MAKS 2005 in the static display – again with a single TVC engine.

What is going on ??

Ken

Ken, these are stills from video I made on the MAKS2003. Next to the Su-27LL No.595 there was a large screen with a nice SALYUT presentation running on it. Did you remember it?… 🙂 I would say the No.595 has been equipped with TVC nozzles on both engines already before the MAKS2003.
However, I`d suppose that the TVC nozzle fitted on the port side only (No.595 on MAKS03, No.598 on Maks05) has to be a kind of mock-up TVC nozzle driven by an external power supply, just for the airshow. Note the shiny metal on the TVC nozzle petals, I think these petals have never seen a thousand degree hot exhaust gases. Compare the left TVC nozzle with the right one. The starboard engine nozzle has always been oxidized and burned dark.
Anyway, did the 595 use the TVC during the display? How it looked like when compared to the Su-30MKI?
thanks
Martinez
P.S. on the video they showed the right engine asembly into the No.595, and some scenes from the day and night TVC tests.