Scorpion82@Hyperion & Sens,
could we please stick back to topic, I notice that a lot of threads become Turkey vs Greece here or at least something like that. I don’t think it’s really the right place to discuss these issues here.
Scorpion82My car example is fine.
The west blabs on an on about how multirole their aircraft are, but in reality they are not.
A good example is the F-15 and F-16 fiasco. The purpose of the F-16 was to be a cheaper simpler replacement for the larger heavier more complex fighter (F-15). The late model F-16s are actually just as expensive as the F-15s were. On paper both are fighters and the F-16 is also a light bomber. In practise the F-15 was used as the fighter where it was available and the F-16s were largely used as bomb trucks. In other words the multirole jack of all trades stopped being multirole when a better platform was available (ie F-15).
Going back to the Russian AF model, I think making the Su-35 the JSF equivelent makes little sense. Why spend that much money on a light bomber?
The role of mud mover obviously belongs to the Su-25, but there is a need for faster higher flying strike aircraft that can look after themselves… ie 2 LGBs or TV or satellite guided bombs and some ARMs and AAMs for self defence. A bit of a waste to use Su-34s or Su-35s in that role when they should be looking after deep strike targets and enemy interceptors respectively.
Yu obviously misunderstood the concept of the high/low mix. And BTW there is also a difference between capable of and capable of but not used. The F-16 in US service performs the AA role as well to complement the F-15 and that’s what it was designed for. Complement the F-15 AA and replace older types like F-4 or F-5 in AA/AG. BTW have you ever heared about “adapting an existing design to new requirements”?
Scorpion82So it seems they are even looking into no T3…
To me it seems that the UK DoD is in deep trouble; they had to reduce the number of type 45 frigates from 12 to six, and several other programs are being slashed; At the same time they have decided to purchase two expensive carriers which seems to imply that they will be getting the F-35…therefore I would not be surprised if they try to reduce the number of Typhoon. Iraq and Afghanistan is also very expensive, and it does not help that the UK economy is rather weak at the moment… http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/03/afx5180611.html
L
That’s no real news. The UK defence budget is indeed somewhat overstretched. We can only wait and see how this developes. Italy has also requested options to reduce its tranche 3 buy by 50%. Just Spain and Germany seem to be fully commited, though there were some reports from Germany that the opposition requested a reduction of the tranche 3 buy as well.
Scorpion82There is nothing nonsensical about this star’s response. BVR missile carriers like he described were seriously considered in their concept phase. Technically it’s nothing you could not do (well, you’d need to reduce the number of missiles to 30-40)
Well I refer to the “its 5th generation because of that” nonsense;)
Scorpion82Provided u can maitain such force. Ideally Tu-160 with 20,000 T/R AESA in nose and 100 BVR missile will be ideal but still it wont have acceleration, turning circle and wide deployment of MIG-31. MIG-31 is perfect example of efficiency/capability.
Star, from time to time it’s really funny to read your crazy nonsense, but the annoying part about that is that you are serious about that crap.
Scorpion82You are American, aren’t you? 😀
No he is as European as we two;)
Scorpion82The current delivery rate is under 1.3 per month. It’s extremely low, TOO low. Since Dassault has long said they could increase the production rate up to 3 Rafale a month, though i don’t know the conditions, i guess they still can increase the rate a bit, without additional delays for France…
The problem is that 2010 is the year when AESA will start production (deliveries in 2011). It may be a bit late…
I know m8, but when the decision is made by 2009 the contracted manufacturer will just have about 1,5 years at best and that is the problem. Starting with long lead items etc. production of a single new airframe could well take some more time.
Scorpion82Well MIG-31 has longest range radar, longest range BVR missile, highest sustain speed, highest speed range with height. We havent figured out the upgraded engines and lighter avionics on MIG-31BM. So the rightly claim that it is 5th generaton class.
Pilot is describing first flight Su-35. I am sure EF does not went supersonic in first flight without afterburners. and he is describing overall consensuse of Sukhoi specialist that F-18E is closest competitor (may be overall Strike potential/Radar performance).
Looool let me guess put a long range missile and radar on the MiG-25 or SR-71 and you would consider them 5th generation fighters as well:rolleyes:
Where is the damn ROFL smiley here?
Scorpion82Saab has given a fixed price offer on 48 Gripen NG to Norway, NOK23 billion (approx USD$4.52 billion), i.e. US$94.17 million pr. plane. Sounds expensive, however AFAIK this includes spare parts, training, and 20-year support (no weapons though…). Saab claims their price will be half of F-35, when all costs are included (life-cycle costs).
L.
I know the document and charakteristics. But thanks for the price information, this sounds indeed like system price. Someone else above mentioned the Gripen NG is offered to the same price as the C/D and that’s something I have hard times to believe for the reasons mentioned above.
Scorpion82All we have to go by is the SAAB offers to Norway and Denmark. And those were not more expensive then the C/Ds that were sold before IIRC.
IIRC (again) SAAB even promised the Gripen to be at half the price of the F-35. A pretty bold statement and I don´t think SAAB wants to sell aircrafts and loosing money on every sale. That would be a pretty strange way to conduct business, it´s not like the company is a local grocery store in Zimbabwe.
Well it’s somewhat naive to believe that the Gripen NG with all the new stuff in it is going to be sold at the same price as the C/D. Much also depends on what is included into the offer. It might easily be that they offer the C/D and NG for the same price, but for the NG not all the stuff (weapons, spares etc.) are included. That’s just a guess, but as said it’s more than unlikely that they can reasonabley offer the NG for the same price. LM for example won’t sell the F-16 blk 60 to the same price as a blk 40.
Scorpion82According to 2 new newspaper articles of the today’s press,
According to the 1st article:
1) HAF has put a new requirement in the already existing requirement list, that may be of critical importance for the winner of the tendrer. That the aircraft must start deliveries by November 2010, at the latest.
That’s somewhat unrealistic. Greece has not even selected, let alone contracted a manufacturer. Typical timeframe from order to delivery is 3-4 years. NO manufacturer will be able to meet this timeline except existing customers are willed to divert aircraft and accept delays. In the case of Eurofighter this becomes increasingly difficult. The Gripen is not produced in large numbers anymore and I dobut that other export customers are willed to accept delays. I think the Rafale might be in a better position here, though it’s also not that easy for the french forces to accept slower deliveries for a period of time. Has the HAF a plan how long deliveries should run?
2) It was given order to the Trainning Center For Air Combat Tactics of HAF, to study and prepare within 1 month, a report on how can the Eurofighter confront the F-35. The artcile says, that logically thinking, such reports for the other competing aircrafts will follow.
* An observation. The fact that they start with EF, confirms once more, that the EF is favourite.
Well if they are really interested in an air superiority fighter Typhoon would be a logical choice, though the Rafale would be a viable option either.
According to the 2nd article:
A note on operational costs as reported by the newspaper:
– Eurofighter: Price 85 million euros. Cost of use: 25000-30000/hour of flight.
– Rafale: 70 million euros. Cost of use: 20000-25000/hour of flight.
– Gripen: 50 million euros. Cost of use: 5000/hour of flight.
IMHO, the prices are prolly wrong (too low), even for fly-away prices. The difference in the cost per flight hour of the Gripen compared to the other 2 is impressive.
I don’t think the prices are to low, but it also depends on what is included into the price. Much more unsure are the operating costs. I don’t see where they base there figures on for operating costs. Basically operating costs differ depending on the customer and the usage of the aircraft.
Scorpion82I suspect that the niche for Gripen could become bigger than many seem to assume. With the Gripen NG (offered to Norway, Denmark, India, Brazil etc) the gap to Eurofighter/Typhoon is considerably reduced… Range will be roughly the same as Rafale/Typhoon, payload is less but still “acceptable” (6t, 10 pylons), avionics and networking will be quite sophisticated, IRST and AESA will be available, and the significantly lower price makes it possible for cash-strapped countries (which happen to be most countries these days!) to get the number of aircraft they actually want. Of course Saab first have to succeed in selling it — however I think that if they do get an early “first customer” they may become surprisingly successful — although for only a very short period, until F-35 becomes available to non-partners…
What is very interesting for me is, that most people seem to assume that the Gripen NG will not be more expensive than the current C/Ds. Honestly I have serious doubts about that. Currently there is no customer for the NG and the question is how much of the Gripen NGs technology will be incorporated into C/Ds via retrofit? It could end up as an island solution which is going to be very costly especially in terms of maintaince and support. The effective range has yet to be proven for the NG as well.
Scorpion82Well atleast Su-35 Pilot does not consider EF performance in same category as F-22/MIG-31. In first flight it went supersonic without afterburner.
Well when it comes to supersonic cruise performance he is right. But the MiG-31 is also not in the same class as the F-22. That’s very much apples and oranges. The question for the Su-35 is mainly in which configuration can it supercruise, how fast and for what period of time. The achieved mach 1.1 (I know they had to cancel further acceleration) in a clean configuration is not what I would call impressive or operationally useful.
BTW what do you expect from a manufacturers pilot to say about the competition?
Scorpion82LOL that’s exactly the first thing that popped into my mind…
The only reference I can recall is there was a comment of ‘there’s a lot of residual thrust at idle..’ and no I can’t remember where I read that either:o or if it was ever fixed.
Cheers
It was a problem with the prototypes back in the 90s, I suppose they have fixed it for production aircraft. Wolfgang Schirdewahn, ex EADS Eurofighter project pilot reported it at least in an interview.
Scorpion82The things on the picture in question might also be heat sensors? Or conformal antennas.
Sign In
