seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“so I would say the expected service life of those updated planes is surely lower then a for new built versions. ”For such upgrades and airframe overhaul to zero hours and new engines is standard… what is the point of just putting in new avionics if there are only 100 hours left in the airframe?
“So I would not be sure if those operators would still be interested in another upgrade in say 15 years. So I would not bet on more upgrades in 15 years. “
The US and Most of Europe will be moving to the JSF, I guess that means that the F-16 is a waste of time too as new weapons and equipment will no longer be developed for it and paid for by the US…
“I see 2 engines, comparable avionics, … Just being larger does not make it more expensive.”
Well ok, then it is adifferent situation if the airframe is put to as new standard.
And the F-16 is nearly always a waste of money and yes because of the reason I mentioned I would not buy an F-16 today. (nor an F-15 for that matter)
Originally posted by GarryB
Two sets of engines with rather different power levels… the larger power of the Su engines not giving superior speed or acceleration… just used to overcome the extra drag and weight of the aircraft. You get the extra range by taking more fuel with you. If you don’t need that extra range then you are adding drag for no reason and could reduce fuel consuption by reducing size and therefore also engine size. For the vast majority of its normal missions a Flanker is normally only carrying 1/3rd its fuel capacity… it is a bit like a Hercules transport carrying 1 or 2 replacement crewmen to a base… it can do it, but a light plane like a cessna would be better suited in many cases.
Yes, ok SU needs more fuel and has more range, often more then needed. But apart from that I see no big savings for the MiGs.
Or are the MiGs engine and airfram much cheaper to overhaul ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“
“Btw, I´m in favour of the SMT as a perfect solution for current MiG-29 operators, as it improoves the aircraft and reduces operating costs. I´m just doubting that buying new builts is a good idea.”Why is buying new such a bad idea? It is still a cheap and capable aircraft.
But getting upgraded used aircraft is cheaper. And as they are put to as new standard (as you siad before) then it is the better solution.
Btw are they still building new MiG-29 at the moment and who is getting them ?
seahawkGarry, you misunderstood me. I know that India or Chian have no part in the SMT upgrade. I was looking at a situation in say 15 years when my planes would be in need off an MLU.
If I would operate a SU-30 there is a very good chance that another operator is looking at the same problem or even has developed an MLU/SLEP for the aircraft. That could even have been done by the original maufacturer, but being paid for by another customer. I think there is a good chance that I can jump in on the programm and use it for my fleet.
The MiG-29 so far has not seen many takers in the SMT form Russia and Iran are looking certain. But they are upgrading older aircraft, so I would say the expected service life of those updated planes is surely lower then a for new built versions.
So I would not be sure if those operators would still be interested in another upgrade in say 15 years. So I would not bet on more upgrades in 15 years.
You don´t agree on the fact that the MiG-29 and the SU-27 should be comparable in the costs to keep them flying. If not explain to me where you are saving with the MiG ??
I see 2 engines, comparable avionics, … Just being larger does not make it more expensive.
Btw, I´m in favour of the SMT as a perfect solution for current MiG-29 operators, as it improoves the aircraft and reduces operating costs. I´m just doubting that buying new builts is a good idea.
seahawkI would look at an helicopter carrier. LHA or something. Use it as a carrier until the home built carriers arrive and you can use it as an amphib / helo carrier for the years after.
Perhaps the US has some used ships available.
seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“I can´t imagine the MiG-29 replacing the Jaguar in the deep strike role. ”The Land based SMT upgrade of the Mig-29 greatly increases its range. In fact the Mig-29K2 with three fuel tanks fitted (centreline and two underwing tanks) taking off from a carrier (Kuznetsov) has the same flight range as the Su-33… it just has fewer weapon pylons free. There is no range problem with the Upgraded Mig-29s.
If it really bothers you there is no reason why the Su-30MKIs or Rafales that replace the M2Ks couldn’t perform that strike role.
I was not thinking of range, but thinks like an FLIR and especially the current Jaguar upgrade makes it unlikely that the MiG-29 could replace the Jag.
seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“Integrating western stuf into the plane will be to costfull for the small number of airframes and setting up my on maintenance line (including) overhaul will also be to expensive, especially as there are no other users that might use my facilities.”If you can’t afford the western avionics then you can just buy the version with all Russian equipment. Setting up a maintainence line with overhaul capability is expensive… but it is also investing in your own country… creating jobs, creating skills in your country. A small unit of aircraft is unlikely to keep this unit completely occupied, you can use their skills for supporting other things, like truck engines or whatever. Do you really think that in 20 years time parts from a foreign country are going to be cheaper than the ones you make yourself? What about quality control. Some of Indias’ problems have come from sourcing cheap parts from eastern Europe… of dubious quality. Want to risk that?
On the positive side MIG is very unlikely to have to impose sanctions on you, and withhold aircraft you have actually paid for. Look at the Malaysian deal for aircrft a few years ago… they will even trade products instead of cash.
I really think asking the Indians to do their upgrade to my aircraft could be cheaper to developing my own upgrade. That surely depends on the size of my fllet and my local infratructure, but for a smaller country with only a small aviation industry it might be cheaper to buy something other operators have developed and tested already.
Originally posted by GarryB
“the support of the other users and the upgrades developed for them, in combination with the possibility to outsource depotlevel maintenance might make it a better choice. ”So how do you think that China and India fully integrating systems into their aircraft effects you? Because you get peace of mind that it can be done? You could pay them to integrate it for you.. would that be cheaper than having MIG and the relevant avionics company do it? Possibly, but not hugely different amounts… and what sort of guarantees and follow up support can you expect… especially if you don’t get exactly the same equipment that the Indians or Chinese get….
But perhaps I can use what they are doing to the aircraft. Perhaps they are working on a SLEP for the airframe and have it developed and tested. Might be a good thing to simply jump on the train.
I´m sure that would be cheaper then to have other firms develop such a programm for me.
Originally posted by GarryB
“only because I´m saying that I would not put much thrust into the SMT,”I think the MIG bureau is as trustable as Sukhoi. Even if MIG is absorbed into a big org (like most of the american companies are now boeing) I doubt they’d ignore something that made money.
I suggest you try to work out how many airforces actually have the mig-29 in service before you claim victory for the Flankers. Sure the Flankers are going to be used in greater numbers mostly because of the airforces that can afford Flankers can also afford a lot of them.“but I think a SU-30 would be the better buy in the long run, if I would buy russian. “
The larger the aircraft the more expensive it is to operate and maintain. Unless you actually need the range that the Flanker offers then you can save money by going smaller…..
Yes the MiG-29 is cheaper and might be a bit cheaper to operate. Not much though, as it has the same avionics and 2 engines just like the SU. And they are on a comparable techlevel.
I really think that appart from the purchase, there is that much off a difference.
Originally posted by GarryB
“How did I mix the F-16 in there. Over a 30 years service life it is always more expensive to be the sole operator of a small fleet of a single type of aircraft, then flying an aircraft that is seeing service with other operators around the world. That goes for western types also, look the F-111s in australian service.”First of all comparing a multirole aircraft like the SMT with a large single purpose strike aircraft like the F-111 is a little unfair. Second of all why do you think you are a single user? Is India, Russia, most of the former Soviet republics and many other countries giving up their Migs?…..
I just mentioned the F-111s because Australia is no the last operator of the type and they now learn how expensive this is. Uf I buy a new MiG-29 SMT today and have them delivered in 2006-2010 and I plan on a service life of say 30 years, how many MiG-29 operators will be around after 2020 ?? Russia is going to replace them with their future aircraft project, India is looking at the MCA, …
If I go SU-30 there will be large fleets left in India and China.
If I go F-16 there will be planes left in Greece, Israel, UAE and even in the US ANGs probably.
If I go M2k5 FAF and UAE for sure. India too if they go for more planes.
The big drawback of the MiG-29 is not that it is a bad design or plane, but it is not en vogue today.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Yet it is very expensive to have the abilitiy to do a completet overhaul of all parts of the aircraft. You need the workers, the machines, the training,. Not going to be a good deal for less then 50 aircraft”Where is that money being spent though? Would you prefer to be chained to accepting what the foreign sources are wanting to charge you (in US dollars of course) for 30 years? Apart from keeping your aircraft flying that does nothing for your country or your economy. Think the solution is to put up a tendor and take the lowest bidder? The black market in cheap spare parts is a huge industry… but how many aircraft are you prepared to lose to substandard parts? At least making your own you improve your own technology level… once your workers are trained in the large amount of spare time they have because of the small fleet they could be training other engineers and metal workers in your country… that has to be good for your economy too.?…..
Well if you do a service contract like Austria did, which will give them the same conditions like the EF partners will be getting for their overhauls, then that is the most cost effective solution.
Next best alternative would to do a long term contract with another operator of the type with a fixed price for the service life.
The tender option is, as you said, very risky.
Doing it yourself is good because you spent the money in your country. On the other hand it is very expensive. The small number of MiGs in geman service were 30% more expensive to operate then the old F-4Fs , simply because the fleet was so small.
Another problem is that the personal you train will demand a good payment. Otherwise they have a tendency to leave and go for civlian contracts or go to another country.
It could be worth the deal for some countries though …
Originally posted by GarryB
BTW I would also like to appologise for my tone. Recently I have been discussing things with less than mature posters and I am afraid looking over my last few posts here… especially to you Seahawk, I have been a bit rude, for what appears to just be a misunderstanding. I don’t expect you to suddenly think it is the best plane in the world, but the SMT is certainly not the aircraft the Mig-29A was. Even the Mig-29A wasn’t bad… it was just never used the way it was intended to be used.
No offense taken, my narrowminded coment was also far off. I want to apologize as well.
If you really ask me about the MiG-29A it is a good aircraft. It was perfect for the Soviet Union. It is extremly nimble, yet the workload is high and the radar and avionics leave a lot to be desired. The MiG-29 SMT is an different beast and I´m not doubting the capabilities, I´m just fearfull off the small popularity it is seeing at the moment and the consequens of being the only operator of the type for a long time.
Imo there are alternatives on the market that offer more long term security.
seahawkI can´t imagine the MiG-29 replacing the Jaguar in the deep strike role.
But apart from that it would be a good fleet you made up Garry.
seahawkOriginally posted by Distiller
Old F-16s are flown till they fall apart. In 20 years or so.
Is the JAS a good choice? I really don’t think so. But I’m not saying that MLUs are great planes, but they would have been perfectly sufficient. What I really think is, that these years — generally speaking — are not ideal for selecting “new” fighters. They should have been waiting until ’06 or ’07 to select a long-term solution instead of going for that interim Gripen now.
But the Grippen is a long term solution. After the elase they can simply buy the planes and be done. No need to go for the totally oversestimated F-35 Aardpiglet. A plane that has every potential to be the next step in the line of highly succesfull american projects like the F-111B.
And what do the Czechs need a stealthy A-7 Corsair for ??
seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“Narrowminded and stubborn comes to my mind to describe your way of discussion…. ”Stubborn? If you gave some good reasons to change my mind then if I didn’t you could call me stubborn. The fact that i don’t agree with you just because doesn’t make me stubborn or narrow minded.
“I see no sense in continuing the argument. You are twisting arguments as needed. “
I have been accused of that in the past, and all I can say is that if I am twisting your arguements all you have to do is state that at the time and restate what you actually meant in a clearer way.
The fact that you are saying this now just tells me that you needed some excuse to give up the discussion and something that made it look like a communication fault on my side seems popular. Of course if it really was a communication problem then it is more to do with your lack of clarity or bothering to correct me if I mistakenly misconstrue somethign you said.
Ok here is my argument in clear words. The MiG-29 SMT has very few operators worldwide. If I was a smaller country and would be looking at a smaller number (say below) airframes I would not consider this option. Integrating western stuf into the plane will be to costfull for the small number of airframes and setting up my on maintenance line (including) overhaul will also be to expensive, especially as there are no other users that might use my facilities.
In that case and over a 30 years operational life it could be cheaper to go SU-30 (many users, selling worldwide not that much more expensive), M2k5, Rafale, J-10, EF or Grippen, because although they cost more, the support of the other users and the upgrades developed for them, in combination with the possibility to outsource depotlevel maintenance might make it a better choice.
I also do agree on the fact that buying american is a risky thing, if you are not in bed with the US.
That really ****ed me, only because I´m saying that I would not put much thrust into the SMT, does not mean I´m saying buy american. I´m also not saying that russian hardware is inferior, but I think a SU-30 would be the better buy in the long run, if I would buy russian.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Btw I love the argument that nations that are not allowed to buy F-16s, should prefer the MiG – oh wonder.”Yes, that is in my Signature… “All airforces in the world must buy Mig-29s.” “If you have to buy something else it had better be Russian or else!!!”.
No, but in case a country can only be from certain countries for political reasons, then it is senseless to compare the differences between aircraft types.
Originally posted by GarryB
“I especially love the argument that Austria should do all the maintenance of say 24 MiGs themselves, as this would be cheaper to sent the planes to Russia.”Please quote me saying that.
Ok my fault I misunderstood your posts.
Originally posted by GarryB
“I´m saying that operating a small fleet of MiG-29 SMT with my own avionivs fit in 2015 could become very expensive at that time, as I might be the only operator of that plane worldwide. ”Of course not… everyone will have Mig-29s… look at the rule above. Besides with everyone dumping their F-16s to get JSFs for a while there will be large numbers of cheap F-16s… till numbers start to shrink and then disappear too.
How did I mix the F-16 in there. Over a 30 years service life it is always more expensive to be the sole operator of a small fleet of a single type of aircraft, then flying an aircraft that is seeing service with other operators around the world. That goes for western types also, look the F-111s in australian service.
Originally posted by GarryB
The funny thing about the extra expense of making your own parts and overhauling your own aircraft is that all that money is spent in your own country. Buy spare parts from other places and you tend to have to pay in US dollars and before they arrive you have to pay up. Assuming there is no embargo on you because you happen to have entered a war against someone the US likes more than you. (Being US made the US can block exports of the parts no matter who makes them…).
Yet it is very expensive to have the abilitiy to do a completet overhaul of all parts of the aircraft. You need the workers, the machines, the training,. Not going to be a good deal for less then 50 aircraft.,
For airfroces like India or Poland that would be no problem. So they should go or have gone MiG-29SMT, as the infrastructure to keep them flying is already in place. Especially Poland made a big mistake in buying the F-16, that will cost their economy a lot of money…
Originally posted by GarryB
“But Garry did.”Quote me.
As far as I can see the most I said was:
“As I said above somewhere, a large country (ie Brazil or Australia) might need a Flankers sized aircraft, but a small country like Austria wouldn’t need such a large aircraft.”
In other words a Country like Austria doesn’t need a flanker sized aircraft to defend itself. I guess in Seahawk land that means they must only buy mig-29s but the rest of us live here in the real world. The Gripen is NOT a Flanker sized aircraft. (And F-15 or an F-22 is, but a Gripen is NOT). Am I clear now?
Yes and no general objections.
Originally posted by GarryB
“In his posts, the MiG is always the better choice and that is what I call narrowminded.”And in all your posts everything is better than Soviet or Russian equipment. Does that make you narrow minded too?
The Mig-29M would have been a rather good choice for Austria. Considering its threats any modern fighter could do the job.
For the mission they want to do yes, when it comes to lifetime costs, I would have prefered Grippen.
seahawkWell I would avoid the US product for political reasons. You have seen it once what happens if the US does not like you. And that could happen again with the S-70.
NH-90 looks very promising. Being the new ASW helicopter for Germany, France and the Dutch and havong won the tender in Sweden and Norway it is surely looking promising. Only bad thing could be the price.
The Cougar is a french product and you have a good experience with the french equipment and they are relaible suppliers.
But the NH-90 also has a french involvement, so it should not do worse.
I would also consider a russian option. They have good and cheap ASW equipment.
seahawkOriginally posted by flex297
I never said MiG-29M would be better than EF Typhoon for Austria.Yes, you are not.
But Garry did. He said the MiG-29 would have been the best choice for Austria. And I say Grippen would have been perfect, EF is ok.
In his posts, the MiG is always the better choice and that is what I call narrowminded.
seahawkJust to make one thing clear. I´m not saying go buy american.
Being an idepndent country with an own forgein policy I would not consider this move, but before buying the MiG-29 SMT, I would rather buy another plane that is set to be used in larger numbers for the future.
I would rather get a smaller number of SU-30 the the MiG-29 SMT. Even if it costs more it has a much brighter future and is imo the best buy at the moment.
Or I would go for M2k5, Rafale, J-10 and to a lesser extent Grippen, EF ….
If I would be really cosy with the US, then I might would consider some F-16s …
seahawkWhat has that discussion to do with the state the plane is manufactured ??
I´m saying that operating a small fleet of MiG-29 SMT with my own avionivs fit in 2015 could become very expensive at that time, as I might be the only operator of that plane worldwide.
As I would have to pay for all MLUs myself, as I would might find it difficult to get the spares I need. Because I will have to pay for every weapons integration that I want during the service life and I won´t be able to jump on the train with other user who might have already paid for that service.
Because it is difficult to compare a prooven system (aircraft + weapons + avionics) to an unprooven mix of components if I select my own mix of western and Russian avionics ??
As I already said the SMT upgrade is great thing for current MiG-29 operators or even for operators of older MiG types that want to buy used MiGs and upgrade them.
But 24 new built MiG-29 SMT for Austria would have been a rather risky decision. Product support for a service life of 30 years could have become problematic.
Obviously you also have a sweet spot for Russian hardware.
And I´m not your buddy.
seahawkI see no sense in continuing the argument. You are twisting arguments as needed.
Narrowminded and stubborn comes to my mind to describe your way of discussion….
Btw I love the argument that nations that are not allowed to buy F-16s, should prefer the MiG – oh wonder. 😮 😮
I especially love the argument that Austria should do all the maintenance of say 24 MiGs themselves, as this would be cheaper to sent the planes to Russia.
seahawkHonestly who should have resisted the Grippen when you look at the conditions they were offered.
New builts and 150% offsets for the price pf used F-16s ??
seahawkOriginally posted by SOC
“The Indian Navy says it prefers the Rafale (Dassault Aviation of France) because it requires less reconfiguration than would be the case for the MiG-29K.”Less reconfiguration? That right there proves that the author may not know what he’s talking about. The -K model MiG-29 is a carrier based design, what are they going to have to reconfigure? The -K is also designed for STOBAR operations from vessels like the Gorshkov, and the Rafale-M is designed for catapult launch.
Maybe he is talking about avionics. Perhaps they want a lot of french stuff for their Migs and the Rafale is delivering that already.
Sign In
