When did i say anything otherwise?

You only mentioned “support”, instead of naming it as program unit cost. 🙂

Sorry I should’ve said MiG 35. Its obviously not in the MKI’s class when it comes to range and payload and is far closer to the latest avatar of the fulcrum in these criteria. As far as the other parameters go, the 35 is quite competitive.

Range is definitely compromised compared to the MKI, but comparing their sizes and respective payloads, the Typhoon doesn’t fall too far behind in my opinion. It’s worse, but not “a lower class” kind of worse.

I’m actually a huge fan of the MiG-35 and it’s my secret favorite for the Indian 126 aircraft MMRCA tender. Seems like a very sensible update to the platform and I’m sure that as a 4+ generation incarnation it will offer very competitive performance and pricing.

According to Defence Industry Daily the Venezuelan Su-30MK2 are estimated to be priced at ~60m USD a piece, and they don’t have canards, TVC and the latest pieces of kit. Whether fly-away or unit procurement cost, it’s not that much cheaper than the Austrian Typhoon price.

The new Su-35BM will easily be more expensive than the Su-20MK2 though, so I expect some kind of parity with the Typhoon as far as price is concerned.

The 2006 GAO reports gives $32.1402 billion USD as procurement cost for 181 F-22s and $65.3969 billion USD as total program cost.

That works out to $177.6 million USD unit procurement and $361.3 million USD program unit cost.

According to the German Bundeshaushalt for 2004, the Typhoon’s program unit cost comes down to 118.3 million EUR per aircraft, with unit procurement cost at 85.7 million EUR. Adjusting for purchasing power parity with 2006 OECD data, to give the cost comparison any meaning at all in an international comparison, this translates into $137.7 million USD program unit cost and $99.8 million USD unit procurement cost.

This means:

The F-22’s program unit cost is 2.62 times the cost of the Typhoon.
The F-22’s unit procurement cost is 1.78 times the cost of the Typhoon.

Yes, the F-22 is still a tad more expensive.

sounds like you need to go back and read the article. The only person talking about using it on an aircraft is some university professor relating “Russia claims to have”. Nothing in the entire article about any program to attempt to try it with an aircraft in the US.

Ok, let’s do Reading Comprehension 101:

First,

I’ll leave all talk of plasma to the fanboys thanks.

Second,

An engineer with Research Support Instruments in Princeton, N.J., [John Kline] recently completed the first phase of work for a U.S. Air Force-sponsored project called Microwave Ionosphere Reconfiguration Ground-based Emitter, or Mirage.

The Navy chose not to continue with the plasma cannon concept, but RSI went on to receive an Air Force contract for Mirage.

It may be tricky to move the plasma to the open air. “During the Plasma Rapmparts program, we briefly experimented with open-air operation and saw that with sufficient power levels, you could get the plasmas ‘out of the oven,'” Kline says.

Other researchers share Kline’s optimism about plasmas. Richard Miles, a professor of aerospace engineering at Princeton University, who has worked with Kline, also points to the plasma ramparts research, noting that it demonstrated “an efficient way of making volumetric plasmas in air.” Miles also notes other possible applications for air plasmas, like providing stealth capability.

“If you look at a standard 1958 Buick with lots of chrome on it, you see there are certain places where the sunlight is very bright because of corners that reflect,” Miles says. Similarly, plasmas could be used on an aircraft’s reflecting corners to make them less visible, he explains; the Russians already claim to have done this.

Which prompts you to say,

sounds like you need to go back and read the article. The only person talking about using it on an aircraft is some university professor relating “Russia claims to have”.

on which I would point out

It may be tricky to move the plasma to the open air. “During the Plasma Rapmparts program, we briefly experimented with open-air operation and saw that with sufficient power levels, you could get the plasmas ‘out of the oven,'” Kline says.

Other researchers share Kline’s optimism about plasmas. Richard Miles, a professor of aerospace engineering at Princeton University, who has worked with Kline, also points to the plasma ramparts research, noting that it demonstrated “an efficient way of making volumetric plasmas in air.” Miles also notes other possible applications for air plasmas, like providing stealth capability.

“If you look at a standard 1958 Buick with lots of chrome on it, you see there are certain places where the sunlight is very bright because of corners that reflect,” Miles says. Similarly, plasmas could be used on an aircraft’s reflecting corners to make them less visible, he explains; the Russians already claim to have done this.

just in case you missed it the second time around as well.

The simple fact is that there is plasma research in the US and it’s nothing just for “fanboys”, like “all plasma talk” according to you.
Miles, professor for aerospace engineering at Princeton U, says that it could be used on aircraft corners to reduce radar returns. The author of the article adds that the Russians claim to have already done so. Pay attention and note the semicolon.

Yes, yes, those Princeton researchers, whose credentials sure pale in comparison to yours, must be fanboys and there is indeed no plasma research whatsoever in the US because all plasma talk is fanboy talk. :rolleyes:

Good luck in your 1-bit world.

I’ll leave all talk of plasma to the fanboys thanks.

You mean, to fanboys like the USN, the USAF, John Kline, Richard Miles and project MIRAGE?

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/dti0206/index.php?startpage=12

I’ve read the post, but I don’t see how this could be brought into the comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale. Surely the Rafale team was confronted to the same issues that the Typhoon team faced when they designed the planes’ FCS.

Nic

The point is that your posts sounded strongly like you disputed that there limits other than merely technical put onto the Typhoon, limits that were imposed upon it by testing/reviewing instances like QinetiQ (“ministry of silly Eurofighter limitation”).

I have no idea how their policies relate to the ones affecting the Rafale and wouldn’t want to claim anything either way for any of the programs, but the fact remains that there are limitations not completely based on the airframe’s capabilities.

Nicolas, please read the two posts by test pilots quoted here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1149874&postcount=285

And then, please, let’s return to a grown-up debate.

Reading AW’s Show News I’m always kind of surprised how much attention they give to jet trainers. Seems like this is some huge market the general public is usually unaware off.

And I wouldn’t mind having an M346 as private plane. 🙂