seahawkAh, always nice to see people recongnising stealth features by the look.
Look at the F-117 and at the B-2, now tell me which one is more stealthy when we forget the different airframe size ??
Is smooth stealth better then angular stealth ??
If I look at the current EF and compare it to the EPA all changes are directly pointing at some well thought out stealth meassures. And if you look into the intake …. (if you ever get to look into the intake)
The carnards are angeled because of stealth, but I guess explaining this will be a bit hard.
seahawkInteresting, a bit of a F-22 look-a-like.
And btw. even german Company was at that stage when it comes to developing a stelath fighter in the middle of the eighties. (They even had a 2/3 scale stealth modell.)
seahawkOriginally posted by Victor
The Indian Navy rejected the Raf due to the insanely high price of the bird. No way the IN can afford to pay $70 mil per plane.Hopefully, with the IAF buying more M2Ks, there will be some tech transfer and some of those techs will trickle into the 29K.
According to some french posters, Rafale is sold at 47 mill Euros – rougly 55 Mill $
seahawkYep and a former EF critiquw to be honest. But after talking to people that have tried the plane hands on and seeingthe reaction of people that first flew in the sim, it should be a very very good aircraft. The helmet with the integrated NVGs rocks and the Voice thingy is actually a bit like Star Wars.
glitter I can´t give you the link. And I can´t tell you where I first read that. I think it is also stated in the EF special with the new AFM though.
seahawk– TVC for EF is under development. over 300 horus have been spent on thest with a full 3D nozzle in Spain and Germany
– EF can supercruise at Mach 1.3 with 6 missiles (not a sea level though)
– I doubt Rafale can supercruise at Mach 2 (that would be Mach 0.4 faster then F-22)
– It is impossible to judge the stealth characteristics. EF stealth is more of the angular version like F-117 or the MBB stealth demonstrator. For the time those aircraft were developed this method was easier to calculate.
Rafale is more like the B2.
– the canards on the EF are not having a negative impact on vissibilty. All pilots I talked to confirmed this.
seahawkIs the Rafale tested for STOBAR ops ??
Apart from that and the higher price tag I would see Rafale as the much safer choice.
Being the only operator of carrier borne MiG-29 could proove difficult in the future.
seahawkSU-22 would be my guess
seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“And who is paying the integration and testing off all that stuff, as Russia obviously is not going to buy all this ??”It would be included in the cost of the aircraft of course. If Elta was doing the radar then they would absorb some of the cost in the interests of making their product more appealing to a wider range of customers.
Sure and that is the case with the radar, RWR, ECM, weapons …
It will still be cheaper then any western fighter of comparable quality, but the question is how much cheaper ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“This is possible for airforces like India or China, but fpr smaller customers this would become rather expensive.”Why? If the want something off the shelf that is available too.
There is not much on the shef that is tested and prooven to a level as say an F-16 MLU. And espcially not so far reaching and continious in improoving the airframe. BEst of all the development of the MLU is already paid.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Much more expensive then buying a used F-16 and putting it through the MLU and then buying the US weapons ready from stock.
Or buying a block 50 F-16 directly. ”Yes, of course integrating a radar will change the cost of a $20 million dollar plane to a $60 million dollar plane. The Makers of Radars and avionics like to make integration and purchases expensive and difficult… they don’t like selling stuff… it is bad for business.
Yes exactly it becomes expensive if you try to mix parts from different nations and different manufactures. As for a good combat aircraft you would want that the parts you buy do not only operate alone but also can communicate with the other parts. And that does mean integration tests – lots off.
Originally posted by GarryB
“And why buying two types if one is enough ??”How many cargo types does the US operate? Why would they need anything other than a C5? What is the point of spending money on a Hercules when a Galaxy can do its job too… it’ll cost more, but think of the savings in just having one type of cargo plane to buy, operate, maintain?
Ah the USAF conncetion again. Yes they are a typical air force. Indeed and such a likely export customer for the Russians.
Originally posted by GarryB
“The USAF and Russia are bad examples (like China or India) as they have the resources to operate many different types. Smaller airforces would not be able to do this. ”I never suggested every airforce needs to have a high low mix of fighters. 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. A country like South Korea might want a Mig-29 sized aircraft for defence, but a Flanker sized aircraft to threaten China. Obviously If the threat from China was Flankers then the reaction from SK to that threat couldn’t also be Flankers so they chose F-15s. The reality is that that is expensive sabre rattling and that in a real conflict more F-16s (ie Mig-29 sized) would have been more useful to them. (they already have F-16s in service afterall, but the point was clearly directed at china, not NK).
Ah ok now I understand so Flanker is only a longer ranged Fulcrum with no other andvantages that would warrant the purchase.
Originally posted by GarryB
“And then the Flanker looks much more promising then the Fulcrum, especially as it does not cost that much more. (if both have a comparable avionics fit) ”The F-15 is more capable than the F-16… expecially the very limited early model F-16s. Why would most of NATO buy F-16s when they could get more capable F-15s??
Because they wanted a plane to replace their F-104 is AG role and not an air superioty fighter ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“Early A and B modells have a very limited radar capability. Look-down-Shootdown is not very good, it has big problems in a tailchase, fights with ground clutter,… ”Every airborne radar has problems in tailchase engagements… especially in look down modes.?
Yes, certainly that is why all other aircraft carry long range IR missiles for exactly that scenario. In that scenario the APG-65 outclasses the Flucram A/B radarset.
Originally posted by GarryB
“And how tested are those phased arrays ??”The Russians have more experience in passive Phased arrays in fighter aircraft than the west does..?
And how many are operational ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“How much work has be done to integrate them with the airframe ?? Is the Israeli radar ready to be put into the MiG or does it mean there has to be testing and other changes ??
Who is going to pay that ??”Such flexibility never comes free, but some of the cost will no doubt be bourne by the radar manufacturer… Israeli manufacturers and even BAE are looking at the eastern Europe market and are integrating western equipment a their own cost to expand their markets. The Mil Std. databus in the SMT should make the integration as simple as it is for any Western aircraft to install any western radar…?
should make exactly but no one has tried yet.
Originally posted by GarryB
“150 MiGs is not much if you consider the number available to the Russains and I have not haerd of or seen many SMTs in frontline service.”And how many Russian PGMs have you seen in Russian service?…?
Some. But you are right buying more PGMs for other types would be a much better investment then buying SMTs.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Obviously upgrades of the SU types is more important as more work is done on them …”Don’t confuse international sales and appearances in aircraft magazines with operational use.?…?
LINKS LINKS LINKS – proove that the MIG-29 sees more opeational use then SU-27, SU-25 and SU-25.
Originally posted by GarryB
“So and why should the Russian airforce not decide to operate those themselves ?? Especially as they are focusing on the SU for the future. ”Because it is in their interests to have two healthy design bureaus to choose products from..?…?
That is why all bigger contracts went to SU in the last years. That is why they are developing the next generation aircraft.
Originally posted by GarryB
“But at the moment an export customer going for the SMT is taking a risk.”Why do you think that? Even if the Mig design bureau disappeared overnight the factories that actually make the spare parts would still be there. Most importantly if you buy more than a few dozen you can generally negotiate making your own parts and doing your own overhauls. For a third world country that means spending money on your own infrastructure and potentially getting the business of a few distant friendly neighbours if they choose smaller buys that do not warrant such extras. If they already have the Mig-29 thenthe SMT upgrades actually make the aircraft several times more capable and greatly reduce its operating costs and maintainence requirements. That latter point alone should make it worth while…?…?
Making your own spare parts for say 24 MiGs. Sure that will be economic. I do agree on the part about the upgrade of current MiGs. That is the best way to go to give them some more years.
Originally posted by GarryB
“First rate airforces are able to spent more money.”The USAF has on occasion cut spending in the wrong areas. Elp would be the expert here but has the USAF always cut costs wisely regarding maintaince and logistics? I know that in the last ten years a lot of construction work done by army units has been contracted out, so that now many engineering tasks can’t be performed by the US army… they need to hire contractors… the contracting companies with board members with Army ranks that end in (ret) who earn good money. In fact because it is military they can have closed bids by simply adding “classified” to the document. No other company can look at such documents… unless they also have board members with military ranks and (Retired) at the end of their names.
Yes, a “first rate” armed force is a model of purity and in a way innocence and the way everyone should do it. (which is ironic because the widespread corruption means everyone does do it that way…)…?…?
Ah interesting insight into the corruption in the US Army, yet it does not hide the fact that a large airforce (there are others then the US btw) can spent more money on new hardware.
Originally posted by GarryB
“That means they can pay for developments, weapon updates and new avionics integration. Third rate airforces with their usually small orders are mostly going for used and not updated MiG-29s that are sold very cheap. Not much to gain form that sales for MiG. ”So what are you saying? The Poor third rate airforces of the world should buy expensive aircraft and by therefore paying for the develpment of new aircraft they will suddenly become first rate airforces?
I´m saying those sales won´t bring in much money to work on modern projects. Is that this hard to understand ?? Or do you think Lockheed can develop F-35 from money made by selling AMRAC F-16 Block 15 ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“…the quality feel. And the image makes…”Thunk… the sound of the nail being hit on the head. Quality feel and Image. The two things the Russians don’t waste their time on and most real airforces don’t want to have to pay for. There is a reason Ferarri don’t make anything for the military.
Ah it is nice you noticed the irony .. :rolleyes:
seahawkP-3C – well might be a problem with them. The US P-3C fleet is suffering from stronger airfram corrosion the expected. Apparantely the US will have problems fielding enough P-3C until a replacement comes online. That is without a major structural upgrade. So I doubt Pakistan is getting any of the few remianing good airframes.
It could be one of those that are in dire need of upgrade work. Perhaps Pakistan can do this locally and would be just fine with the plabes, perhaps not.
seahawkGlitter , I beg to disagree, EF can supercruise with 4 AMRAAMS and 2 IRIS-T.
seahawkWell that would depend on if Greece attacks Turkey or Turkey attacks Greece. In the first case that would surely mean sanctions against greece, in the second case it would surely get all the help they need.
seahawkNo no, actually it will be 300+ Rafale and 200+ FRA-FA.
The successor of Rafale is close to prototype testing by Dassault. The first two examples are already on the production line at dreams de la mer. 😀
It will be a multi-omnirole hypercruise long range strategic tactical fighter. More stealthy then F-22 and 10 times more manouverable. Max speed will bwe Mach6 without afterburner. It will climb vertically form 0 to 85000 feet in 30 seconds because of the advanced anitgravity liftfan. Which also means that it is VSTOL.
Furthermore the main armament will be an highly classified laser system that can engage air ground and sea targets from 500+ km.
The radar will be a virtual dolby phassed active ceramic array.
😮
seahawkOriginally posted by GarryB
“But nearly as capable in AG compared to an F-16 or F-18. Especially if you look at available weapons that have been integrated into the plane already. ”Hi resolution ground mapping radar. IR, TV, LGB and probably soon GPS/Glonass/INS guided bombs and missiles. What type of weapon or equipment does these american fighters have that the Mig doesn’t or can’t have. (Just because the Russians don’t currently use something doesn’t mean an export customer can’t have it. Israeli missiles, ECM, avionics, sensors, French missiles, ECM. avionics, sensors if they want (and it is politically OK with those countries).
And who is paying the integration and testing off all that stuff, as Russia obviously is not going to buy all this ?? This is possible for airforces like India or China, but fpr smaller customers this would become rather expensive. Much more expensive then buying a used F-16 and putting it through the MLU and then buying the US weapons ready from stock.
Or buying a block 50 F-16 directly.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Export variants of the Flanker are very much multirole and even better tested then the SMT. So why buying the MiG then ?? ”The Americans couldn’t afford a large fleet of F-15s and F-14s so F-16s and F-18s were created to make up numbers. Not every country needs a Flanker sized aircraft with its range and payload.
Why spend the extra money if it is not necessary?
And why buying two types if one is enough ?? The USAF and Russia are bad examples (like China or India) as they have the resources to operate many different types. Smaller airforces would not be able to do this. And then the Flanker looks much more promising then the Fulcrum, especially as it does not cost that much more. (if both have a comparable avionics fit)
Originally posted by GarryB
“Depends on the modell – does it. The early modells had a crappy radar. The SMT might be different,”In what way crappy? During tests against an F-15 it was quite comparable in BVR combat when the F-15 was using Sparrows. At the time the F-15 was considered the best airsupriority fighter (the F-16 et al not having AMRAAM available in numbers yet).
Early A and B modells have a very limited radar capability. Look-down-Shootdown is not very good, it has big problems in a tailchase, fights with ground clutter,…
Originally posted by GarryB
“On the other hand the old APG-65 has been prooven to be very capable in such situations. ”In what situations?
– Look-down and Shoot-down
– ECM enviroment
– Over sea operations
– multimode and multirole capabilities
Originally posted by GarryB
The SMT project offers a range of radars including passive phased array radars and french and Israeli radars if you want them. Without knowing which the customer can or will pick how can you make estimates?
And how tested are those phased arrays ?? How much work has be done to integrate them with the airframe ?? Is the Israeli radar ready to be put into the MiG or does it mean there has to be testing and other changes ??
Who is going to pay that ??
Originally posted by GarryB
“First afaik no one really wants to replace the single engined types. In fact the russians are concentrating on the SU for all important missions.”Interesting. So the upgrade of 150 Mig-29s with air to ground PGM capability is not happening then? Please explain why there are no Flankers in service with PGM capabilty and how they are going to perform air to ground attacks?
150 MiGs is not much if you consider the number available to the Russains and I have not haerd of or seen many SMTs in frontline service.
Originally posted by GarryB
“The remaining MiG-29 are set to fullfill missions for which there is no pressing need.”hahahahahaha… here is a mission… it isn’t important… just get around to it when you can… ooh and we need some milk so could you stop by the local dairy on your way back. hahahahaha
Obviously upgrades of the SU types is more important as more work is done on them …
Originally posted by GarryB
“SU-27SM ?? So you are telling me that russian multirole Flankers are still more or less nonexistent ??”They are beign designed with an eye for export… ie Su-27SMK.
So and why should the Russian airforce not decide to operate those themselves ?? Especially as they are focusing on the SU for the future.
Originally posted by GarryB
“And that it will take so much time before they arrive that it is worth to operate an interim type ?”The whole idea of multirole was not intended for the Flanker and Fulcrum families. The next gen fighters were supposed to be multirole… because of their expected cost they needed to replace more than one aircraft in the fleet if they were going to be bought in the numbers required. Both Mig and Sukhoi on their own initiative added ideas and bits that they were working on for the MFI and LFI and later LFS projects (LFI was just a light fighter like the Mig-29A, but LFS is a multirole light fighter. MFI was a fighter/interceptor only…). The Su-27M first flew in 1988 and the Mig-29M flew about the same time… both were designed to be multirole. Few really appreciate what the colapse of the SU actually meant. It was like WWII again… all the industries were lost to the former republics and the wheel had to be reinvented again. Only a few major bureaus were lost… Antonov became Ukrainian, but a lot of parts makers and avionics companies were lost too and the Russians either had to form alliances (that started at the government level) or start again from scratch.
The lack of money didn’t help.
And what should a customer care about russian problems ?? Although I do understand the problems for the Russians and I´m not criticising their efforts to become a modern airforce. The Russian airforce is powerfull and doing odd with the limited resources it has. Even the design bureaus are the most creative in the world and given enough money they could outperform any competitor. But at the moment an export customer going for the SMT is taking a risk.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Not much then, they are mostly selling used Fulcrums for really low prices to third rate airforces.”What a snobby thing to say. Is money from first rate airforces worth more? I guess you, in your top model BMW, your gucci shoes and wallet, and rolex watch wouldn’t touch a Mig-29. Nor a T-34 I suppose either.
First rate airforces are able to spent more money. That means they can pay for developments, weapon updates and new avionics integration. Third rate airforces with their usually small orders are mostly going for used and not updated MiG-29s that are sold very cheap. Not much to gain form that sales for MiG.
And I persoanlly would go for european planes, as I love my Audi (BMW is so cheaply manufactured) for the quality feel. And the image makes me so much cooler then driving a Lada. 😀
And I don´t like Gucci shoes, they are so uncomfortable. I prefer BOSS, Prada or hand made from Italy.
Originally posted by GarryB
“Even the MiG-29K for India has not been finalized and if those planes have to make enough profit to pay the SMT development for Russia, well then poor Indians.”It has been agreed, just yet to be signed that is all. What business is it of India where MIG spend their profits? Imagine buying a Hornet instead and having to fund the F-22 and F-35?
Non contract means no money. And apart from the fact that the carrier won´t take the Hornet or the Rafale, I would dsay that buying this would be a much better idea in the long run. Both nations have more experience in building carrier borne aircraft and have a long service record for such planes. while MiG is new to the area.
seahawkIn Europe France will be the dominating power with 300+ Rafales and 2+1 carriers.
😀 😉
US will have barely 90 F-22 as it will proove to be inferior to Rafale. F-35 will not succeed and will be replaced by yet another F-16. 😉
seahawkNope flight hours counted is flight time. Might include taxing the aircraft, but surely not preflighting or mission planning.
Sign In
