Russian weapons coming up short when it counts is too general a statement.

There have been plenty of instances where Russian weaps were used to good effect.

The problem with getting 150 FC-1s vs getting 80 F-16s is that the 150 FC-1s are a bigger drag on the economy year to year than the 80 F-16s.

150 a/c take require more infrastructure, more spare parts, more pilots, more mechanics, more hangars, more maintainance depots, etc than 80 a/c. Plus if you throw in the fact that the F-16s will probably be better in MTBF department for most of its critical equipment, especially engine. It turns out that having 150 FC-1s will most likely cost you more in the long run than a smaller number of more capable F-16s. Also, figure in that the F-16 is one of the most ubiquitous a/c in the world with spares available in many places.

Poorer countries that are really trying to watch their expenditure are better off having a small, elite group of high end F-16s rather than a generous smattering of less capable planes. Eventually, the more numerous but less capable planes wind up eating a bigger hole in the budget than the small number of highly capable planes.

I would go with the F-16 Blk 52s because there is almost no performance risk while the other two are wildcards as far as how they will fare in the real world and not just in air shows, PR stunts, etc.

The saying is, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

Let’s take the UAE for instance. Would the UAE have as much a capability or intimitading power if it went for 80 FC-1s rather than F-16 Blk 60? Yeah, they paid out the waazoo for those planes but it instantly brough them a HUGE PROVEN capability and immediately made them a high tier AF. Can we say the same things if they had bought the FC-1 or even the Mig-29?

Also, Mig-29s have shown they are more impressive on paper than in combat or in day-to-day maintainence.

SOC, you know what I am getting at and that’s why you are so defensive 😀

All in good nature my friend.

Just want to point out that the capability to roll out 50 SHs exist now if the USN required it. That is, the infrastructure already existed to roll out large number of SHs and therefore, the if you do TOC calculations, it will come out to be a more cost effective platform than any of its contemporaries. I am 400% sure 😀

Btw, is any French or other EU assembly line expected to roll out 42 EFs or Rafs per year?

The Triple-7 was and is a very good product in its own light.

Boeing is a strategic US asset. Allowing it to fail is NOT an option. Like it or lump it.

Tomcats and Prowlers are maintainence intensive, have approaching the end of their lives, etc. The reengineered F/A-18E/F/Gs are and will have much better up times, less maintainence intensive, cheaper to fly, etc. Overall, they are a good buy for the USN. Also, there is the “there is no altenative” thing at work here as well. Nothing the US or the Euros have compares to the SB. Don’t tell me Raf cuz the USN requires more than nine aircraft.

Originally posted by GoldenDragon
So some creative Chinese guy used a Lavi schematic as a base, big deal 😀

Was that “creative Chinese guy” you? Out with it man 🙂
If it was, great job.

BTW, hows the J-10B 3D model coming along?

Why does the J-10 have a dorsal refueling input?