Scorpion82@MSpehere,
it’s apples and oranges to compare aircraft of different times and it makes much more sense to compare what is available at one time. When the F-16 blk 60 was contracted for development the MiG-35 was not even on the drawing boards. The F-16 blk 60 may be operated by the UAE only, but with 80 airframes being delivered there’re more blk 60 in service than advanced Fulcrum variants (MiG-29SMT & K/KUB) in total. The MiG-35 won’t be available for another 3 years or more, if it ever enters service. If the F-16 doesn’t evolve past the blk 60 while the MiG-35 enters service you have a point, until then you have to live with the fact that the F-16 blk 60 is in service, while the MiG-35 isn’t. And btw the blk 50 of today is not the same as the blk 50 1991.
Scorpion82The SAP-14 to be exactly.
Scorpion82@Haarvala,
the F-16 is a FBW aircraft in any variant, the MiG-29 is not. A good enough trained pilot who knows his aircraft might actually benefit from the AoA override in the Fulcrum in comparison to an F-16 wihtout such ability, though the older analogue FBW allowed to exceed the softlimit in some situation what is even less the case in the newer models (blk 40+).
Scorpion82@Austin,
difficult to fly might be an unlucky expression. More difficult to fly than contemporary western fighters would be a more appropriate expression. I can well imagine that the MiG-29 is fun to fly, but if a pilot compares its handling characteristics he does so in comparison to what he is used to. That a MiG-29 might be more of a pleasure to fly than a MiG-21 or -23 is quite likely, but in comparison to contemporary western fighters it is more challenging/difficult to fly as western pilots found out and many German MiG-29 pilots had some experience on US teens due exchange tours and there were also Americans for example who have flown the MiG-29 at Laage on exchange tours, which often last a few years.
Wrightwing puts forward a valid point, if everything would be fine and just a different approach being taken, why do the Russians try to mimic western standards these days?
@Vanir,
I don’t think that the MiG-29s would have operated only in a Flanker clean area, the PVO had quite a lot Su-27P in the defensive role as well. Russian fighters at that time were mainly made of aluminium alloys and not so much from titan afaik, I don’t think the 65% titan figure is correct neither for the Su-27 nor the MiG-29.
The points you put forward with regards to the MiG-29s strength and weaknesses are in many ways valid. But the MiG isn’t at the same state like than. Of course it is true, like exec and swerve pointed out that most of the Fulcrums out there are still vanilla variants suffering from those major weaknesses, but newer variants are available and in service meanwhile and I think it’s worth looking at what has been changed and re-evaluate the validity of the claims about this aircraft. In many ways the Russians appear to have learned from the west and try to fix the obvious shortcomings on their designs, the west does the same by (re)introducing IRSTs, HMS/D and HOBS AAM.
One thing that you note with regards to the Russian engines is that they gained much less thrust in comparison to their American counterparts, but they are closing up in terms of durability. Compare the Al-31F1 with the AL-41F1S for example the engines service life has increased from 100 h to 4000 h. The RD-33MK offers just about 8% more thrust but a significantly longer life time than the earlier version. The F100 gained some 20% more thrust in the mean time, its service life didn’t increased by the same pace however. This shows that the Russians have recognised the advantages of longevity, though they are still not on par with the west in that area.
Scorpion82Testing of new options for the Su-34 will be completed in 2010
State testing of new modifications to the Su-34 will be completed before the end of 2010, ITAR-TASS quoted a source in the military-industrial complex. Testing of new options for the aircraft are held in the State flight test center in the Russian Air Force Ahtubinsk. As expected, some modifications may be allowed for mass production in 2011.
These are new types of missiles, air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles.Their trials will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2010.More details about the enlargement of the range of weapons Su-34 has not yet been disclosed. In addition, the already tested the upgraded high-turbojet bypass AL-31FM1. According to the results of tests the engine was allowed for mass production.Another improvement bomber may become a gas turbine auxiliary power unit TA14-130-35, which will enable the launch engine Su-34 on the ground without the use of ground equipment.According to preliminary estimates, this plant will increase the autonomy of frontline bombers and expand the list of airports where they are based.As expected, all the Su-34, issued in 2011 will be equipped with an auxiliary power unit.
Su-34 in the long term should form the basis of frontline bombers.To date, the Russian Defense Ministry has ordered 32 Su-34, which produces the Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association named after Chkalov.From 2007 till 2009 the Russian Air Force had ordered four bombers.
Su-34 can reach speeds of up to 1,9 thousand kilometers per hour, and to fly a distance of four kilometers. The bomber is armed with 30-millimeter cannon and has 12 points of suspension of a hinged arms total weight of up to eight tons.
Appears to be a somewhat sluggish translation of a Russian article…
Are there any Russian combat aircraft with APUs in service at all? Or are all of those operated to day dependent on external supplies?
Scorpion82I don’t know what handling qualities you’re talking about. the IAF conducted DACT between MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s and the MiG-29s basically trumped them in pretty much every way maneuverability and performance wise despite being a non-FBW fighter facing off against a FBW controlled fighter. I can post an article by Air Marshal Harish Masand who was CO of the MiG-29 squadron that participated in the DACT.
You speak about flight performance here, I spoke about handling which you mentioned in your previous post.
The mechanical FCS of the older Fulcrums meant that the aircraft was more difficult to fly. While its excellent aerodynamics at that time made it difficult to depart the aircraft, the MiG pilot must be more careful when flying his aircraft to its limits. FBW systems also provide more precise control and auto trimming, which isn’t the case for the MiG-29s mechanical FCS. This increases the pilots workload and subsequently substracts from his SA. That the MiG-29 performs well is out of question.
Scorpion82Su-30MKK is a Chinese variant. What has that got to do with the Kremlin’s budget ? Anyway, MiG has a large (nearly $1 billion) order for the upgrade to 65 IAF MiG-29s to the SMT level, so an IAF customised SMT based upgrade will enter service.
Russia has ordered 4 Su-30M2 as part of the 2.5 bln $ package contracted in August 2009. While the M2 hasn’t been specified it’s reasonable to assume that it is basically a Su-30MK2 which is on its side a slightly modified Su-30MKK.
I wouldn’t really describe the IAFs MiG-20UPG as SMT like, it’s different in many ways.
If those issues would be taken care of, you have a potent fighter because the MiG-29’s airframe, handling and maneuverability are never its weak points.
The handling qualities of the original MiG-29 were bad in comparison to FBW equipped western fighters, but these issues are settled now with digital FBW being integrated into the latest variants.
Scorpion82A new Eurofighter World issue is available here:
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf
Not much news. But a 5th generation view from Eurofighter.
Scorpion82lets look at its equivalent
* 1 Apil 1965: Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Kestrel FGA1 (XS696) caught fire on take-off at RAF West Raynham.[1]* 21 September 1967: Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Kestrel FGA1 (XS693) was abandoned 2 miles fom Boscombe Down.[1]
* 27 January 1969: RAF GR3 (XV743) was abandoned over Dunsfold Aerodrome.[2]
* 4 June 1969: Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) T2 (XW174) abandoned after loss of power near Boscombe Down.[2]
Lol, you can’t do anything else than these apples and orange comparisons to make your favourite pet toy look better, can you?
Scorpion82With regards to the Rafale, from french sources.
Total programme costs are 40.7 bln €. This is for R & D, industrialisation, simulators, spares and other support and the production of 286 aircraft. This cost is for the time frame from 1989 to 2021 and includes the VAT.
Substracting the VAT the cost is 34 bln €, but that’s not what the tax payer has to pay, because 25% of the R & D was paid by the manufacturer himself. With an R & D of supposely 9.8 bln €, the manufacturer paid about 2.5 bln € himself. In other words the Rafale programme costs the french tax payer some 31.5 bln € over timeframe of ~30 years.
Courtesy goes to TMor who has figured it out by mailing Dassault for a more detailed explaination and using the latest public figures from the French government.
Edit:
BTW production of batch 4 should be finished by 2015 not 2020.
Scorpion82A rather boring demo in total, but some nice negative g passages and sustained turns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbNpgwM8Eq8
Scorpion82UK havent got their test craft yet,
usa havent crashed any yet, which is unusual for a new design
they did a vertical landing and such but its early days
The F-22 and Gripen apart other new generation programmes didn’t suffer from crashs either in such a time frame.
Scorpion82Total number of fighters ordered: 180
Total program cost 39.6 bln EUR (1,46 EURUSD) = 57.8 bln $
UPC = 321 mln $Unit cost per aircraft (excluding development):
Rafale C – 64 mln EUR (93 mln $)
Rafale M – 70 mln EUR (102 mln $)
That is the expected cost with the total production run. How many F-35 have been ordered 50 or so? Ok now lets take the expected 300+ bln $ total programme cost and divide it through 50, you get the clue why this view is wrong.
Scorpion82According what the french guys have researched the currently expected total programme cost is close to 40 bln €, with a planned production run of at least 286 airframes (180 of which are contracted now). Do the math and you get the clue.
Scorpion82@Jackjack,
I don’t know from where you get your numbers, but a Rafale costs ~130 mln € in unit programme cost. Far away from your 300 mln figure, whether € or $ you are way off and obviously pull that crap out of your rear.
Sign In
