SrbinYes, plus a lot of French avionics to support the French radar, and all of this would in turn be amazingly expensive. Just not worth it. Besides the Russian avionics, radar and weapons are not all that bad. I am not sure any French Fighter radar is better than the N011M/Zhuk-MSF in terms of performance.
As for overdesigned aircraft
-IMO the Su-39 did not need the Anti-Shipping or AA capability, but they were easily given this because the Kopyo was podded, and this give Su-39 good A2G capability, and at the same time also capability to carry BVRAAMs and AshMs and other stand off weapons like Kh-59M and maybe others.
-I dont think the F-16I or the F-16E/F were over designed either, the customers simply wanted this capability, therefore it was needed.
Now what was given something it really did not need?
-The TVC for the Flankers. The thing makes it more expensive, more expensive to operate and replace and on top of all offers very few advantages, and without it, the Flanker would still be very maneuverable. the TVC is an overkill to a very maneuverable plane already.
There are a lot more things, just that I cannot think of any now, g2g sleep.
SrbinNot just that, but also AWACS and GCI doing so possibly.
SrbinSrbin, please do not be so biased. Look at the real-world facts, not the wishes of you teenager soul!
As far as I know, Slovakia still has no firm contract for the upgrade (or some kind of life-extension programme only to bridge the gap until the new-gen fighter intro post 2010 may be, but if the Gripen proves sucessful they could introduce new gen fighters earlier), and this is to be done against Russian debts only, and Slovaks are not keen to invest ‘real money’ in the process (namely, this is the major stumbling black, preventing launch of the upgrade for more than 3 years).
Anyway, although it may seems smart at a first glance, MiG-29 upgrade in Eastern Europe, using RSK MiG as a main contractor is a dead-end street, becuase of the unreliability and financial trobules of the company (we, Bulgarians, were shamelesly fooled by RSK MIG as they proved totally unable to do the SLEP and a modest avionics upgrade, despite the availability of a budget in 2002).
So, the only working MiG-29 maintenance and small-scale upgrade scheme at present in East Europe is that in Poland, but there the local industry (WZL-3) is working pretty well on the ‘Fulcrum’, and the Russians are involved to somewhat very limited extent.
But thats the Slovakian plan, and eventually they WILL have to give it some sort of SLEP and/or MLU, because simply these aircraft will not be able to fly for another 10-15 years without a significant upgrade at least once.
I think it’s easy to admitt that many Russian defense companies have problems upgrading, supporting, etc foreign aircraft, India and China have had their share of problems with SUs but I have faith this will soon be fixed. MiG may get out of it’s financial troubles if it actually lands that Algerian and Venezuelan deals for sure.
Srbin
60% complete as it says, though this picture has not been updated in a while. We may even see this thing fly pretty soon, probably before the Fighter or the Aircraft Carrier Trainer(which will probably replace the Su-25s)
SrbinBut Garry, if they plan to actually be part of a peacekeeping force somewhere, brand new transports, helicopters will be needed in the future for this sort of job. IMO either the latest UH-1 such as the Y/Z or whatever to replace the older UH-1s or armed UH-60s with Hellfires and such. C-130s could be replaced by C-130Js or even A400Ms. IMO the C-130Js would be a better option, they may not be better, but they will be cheaper to buy, integrate and can be delivered a lot faster probably.
If they are going to be going to Iraq or something, where there is a problem of COIN, then maybe armed Super Tucano/PC-21s would be a pretty good choice for this job.
SrbinYou don’t need to look at 21st Century wafare to realise that attack helicopters is vulnerable to MANPADS, AAAs or SHORADS, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 80’s demonstrated this. So if I have to chose, I would defintely go for multirole fighters but not attack choppers.
Very true, they lost what, over 300 helicopters in all? Not only there, but there have been quite a lot of incidents where Helicopters were shot down easily by RPGs, MANPADS, AAA/SHORADS and such.
I just feel Attack Helicopters are too role limited, they are expensive to buy and maintain for the capability they offer.
SrbinActually, the Zond series, aka BPL project by Sukhoi are the same thing, Globalhawk lookalike. Yakovlev is working on it’s UCAV from the Yak-130 trainer. It looks totally different, it’s a flying wing. I highly doubt it will share anything else with the Yak-130 trainer except probably the landing gear and possibly the engine.
Russian AF has not planned anything regarding UCAVs in the future of their AF, but we’ll see how things go, and how the Yak UCAV will go.
SrbinI dont see what a big advantage it would offer over the Mig-29K, which had teh same radar I believe, plus probably better performance. I think the Mig-29K should’ve been chosen instead of the Su-33 just because it could operate a lot easier than the Su-33, and had a modern radar to fire ARH missiles, and other A2G weapons, while Su-33 was stuck to Air Superiority.
SrbinThe European countries agreed on a common specifications, even the Carrier variant for the French Navy, however what killed it is that the French wanted the biggest share of the Work and wanted to have lead the project. Other countries said no, and they kicked the French out and they went for it alone. As you can see, the Rafale and Typhoon are pretty much the same in terms of configuration and performance.
SrbinYou think the Russian’s are the only ones who know how to extend the airframe life of a MiG-21? Give me a break! Srbin, your bias is getting somewhat out of hand, and it’s only getting worse as the days go by.
Srbin;
The Israeli’s have refurbed several nations MiG-21s (Ethiopia for example) in the past 14 years and brought them back online….
And Romania refurbed Croatia’s….
Hell India was going to refurb Laos’s MiG-21s until they found out those could not be helped….
So MiG-21 users don’t have to totally rely on one nation to get help in keeping thier birds in the air…
Now where did he say that? He was saying that the Russian upgrade looked like it gave more capability as it added a BVR weapon, and that the Lancer upgrade didn’t advertise an extension of the service life. Reading comprehension is key when participating in an online forum.
Romania, and Israel or whoever may know how to actually overhaul an aircraft, but to extend the service life of the aircraft, I highly doubt anyone knows it as well as MiG does.
It’ll be expensive because they’ll have to factor in support equipment, maintenance, and things like that. The aircraft per-unit price is still not too bad, but when you factor everything else into the package the numbers seem to get inflated.
But they could’ve upgraded 12 of their 18 Mig-29s to SMT, which would extend it’s service life and such for next 10-15 years before it would be replaced, instead of getting a whole new fighter, which is expensive, plus it would require a WHOLE NEW infrastructure which is just expensive.
For those 900mn for next 5 years, they could’ve spent 50mn AT MOST upgrading some 12 Mig-29s to SMT, just upgrading, then lets say for next 10 years, if their Mig-29SMTs cost some $6000/h to operate,, 250h/year, 10 years, * 12=200mn at most. Now, all together 250mn for next 10 years. For Gripen, 900mn for the first 5 years, plus another 5 years(I am not sure what would be included in that deal, but lets assume that 900mn includes everything, the extra infrastructure, pilot training, spares and whatever), of course nowhere near as much at the beggining but of course it’s still a lot more expensive.
Slovakia did the smart thing by keeping and upgrading it’s Mig-29s. Of course, it’s transition to NATO will be slower, it’s not really a big deal. Besides SMT can be slightly modified, such as it’s communication and other equipment to be “up to NATO standard”.
SrbinPropeller driven trainers were not safe in 1969 to fly into areas that had real trash-fire defenses and I would venture they still are not. Yeah they can do the job on people with nothing better then rifle caliber GPMGs and pistols pointed in the air but once there are real defenses like radar assisted AAA and MANPADs they are not the best tool for the job. Defenses have only gotten better since 1969 such as improved man portable surface to air missiles. Add that to rather slow speeds, less defensive systems and a smaller payload then a real combat air plane…and you get something suited to bombing people running around with SMLEs and not tanks backed up with AAA defenses….
And of course helicopters seem to work so much better for expeditionary warfare and anti tank duties compared to propeller driven planes. Well not only can the helicopter make good use of terrain but they can operate many places such as off the deck of an amphi ship unlike a trainer. The damage suffered to Apaches in OIF was due to tactics used by the crews. The USMC moved while shooting and did much better in terms of getting shot to pieces with RPG-7s.
I am talking about operation of turbo props, JTs, and multirole fighters/strikers from MEDIUM altitude. You missed the point there.
as troung has pointed out, the failure of Apaches that fateful day in OIF was not due to the helicopters themselves, but due to tactics. also, Apaches were never designed for action in deserts, which are flat. any soldier on the ground has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the airspace for miles around him. and the Apache has nowhere to hide, except perhaps behind the occasional sand dune.
the true home of the Apache is in forested areas – the West German forest areas around the Fulda Gap especially. a look at Apache operations doctrine for West German operations is instructive. Most of the time the Apaches would be safely inside friendly territory far behind the FEBA – forward edge of battle area. They would shoot off their 8km-range Hellfires at incoming tanks from here – 8km away from the nearest enemy units and out of range of trashfire/AAA/MANPADS.
also the doctrine called for Apaches to stay extremely low, via either Contour or Nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flight regimes. in contour flying, the choppers flew just above the treetops, while NOE called for choppers to actually fly AROUND the trees. that low. As such they would have been hardly visible to the enemy, popping up only to acquire and fire Hellfires. In fact, the Longbow versions can acquire, sort and designate targets while still behind cover. When used ideally, the Apache is thus hardly exposed to enemy vision – let alone enemy fire – at all!
do note that no other aircraft – A-10, Su-39, F-16, even PC-21 – can do this.
of course, there must be trees to hide behind in the first place. that is why we in Singapore bought 20 Apaches. for operations in the malaysian jungle and palm/rubber plantations, which is the perfect environment for them.
the success of Apaches in the 1st Gulf War, and indeed the fact that 30 of 32 Apaches did get back despite getting horrifically shot up that day in OIF, shows the Apache is still an excellent design, despite being used in unsuitable environments. of course, IMO they could have cut their losses by going in at night – where enemies can’t see to point their trashfire and MANPADS while the Apaches can see with their thermal imagers and Longbow and own them.
Srbin’s points are very good ones indeed… but i’m just saying the attack helicopter isn’t obsolete like some people say. it still has its place.
IMO, I’d still give this job to something like medium altitude aircraft. IMO Attack helicopter’s advantages in dense forests and mountains and such as you described like that of Germany and Malaysia are not much of an advantage, considering a soldier carrying a MANPAD or RPG can sneak up anywhere undetected and actually fire it at the Attack Helicopter. Why do you think US didnt deploy Apaches in Kosovo back in 99? They obviously knew they would suffer quite some hefty losses, and on top of all their chances of finding scattered tanks were not any greater than that of a low flying A-10 or a high flying JSTARS, Fighter or UAV or whatever.
As for Iraq, the Apaches were used in a COIN type of mission, they suffered terribly from small arms fire, not from AAA or SHORADS or whatever. IMO if they actually faced a properly equipped enemy with something like good SHORADS and such, they wouldnt have survived for very long.
And if you want some Attack capabilities for your helicopters, many countries out there operate and continue to buy helicopters such as MD500, Mi-17, UH-60s and such, and they can all carry quite a few ATGMs. Hell the little MD500 which is the quietest helicopter out there, can carry up to 8 SPIKE-ERs and the UH-60 and Mi-17 probably more. Of course they cannot designate their targets as well as other Attack helicopters specially for that role, but the point is these helicopters are already in a lot of the airforces, why not just spend a few extra bucks and arm them if you really want a nice little attack helicopter capability.
But anyways, I would still prefer my AF’s AJTs/Turbo Props(both of these will be operated by any Airforce) or Fighters or whatever from a medium altitude striking armoured tank columns. They are always already there, and I wouldnt waste money on Attack Helicopters, just buy a fewer more AJTs/Fighters which can even perform even more roles. Give these something like FLIR, or UAV support or anything of that sort and let them shoot down.
I would not allow the AJTs/Fighters or especially the turbo props to go down low, but if my forces are really deadlocked and such, I wouldnt mind them going low once in a while.
Look at it this way. For a single 50 mn Apache, I could probably get instead a single F-16, and probably up to 3 L-159As or maybe up to like 10 Super Tucanos.
SrbinThe EF2000 never got delayed due to program or technical difficulties and such, it was the countries that kept changing the requirements and such.
SrbinI am sorry Garry, but I’d rather send a well armed PC-9M/-21/Super Tucano to combat than any other Attack Helicopter. An armed PC-21 can haul a bigger load, faster, across a greater range than any other Attack Helicopter, and the PC-21 can operate from any sort of unprepared airfield. With support from UAVs for target designation and such, armed PC-21s with PGMs like JDAM/SDB from medium altitude could be a pretty good aircraft. Not to mention a PC-21 would be much cheaper to purchase, operate and would give a MUCH better availability than any other Attack Helicopter out there. A PC-21 would at most cost 8mn, with all the goody modifications and such, at most 10mn. An AH-64D or Tiger Attack Helicopters would cost very well over 50mn, based on what various countries paid for.
SrbinBesides, the 900mn deal for 12 Gripens for 5 years is very expensive, they could easily buy those and not least them. Thats like 75mn/plane for 5 years lol.
SrbinI think its got to do with the fact that Romania hates Russia and they simply no longer want to have anything to do with Russia. It’s little too bad that their Mig-21s or Mig-29s could run for quite a while longer if they were upgraded in Russia, which would greatly extend the service life of the MiGs, unlike the Lancer which does nothing to the engine or the airframe, could give it a BVR capability unlike the Lancer which only gives it Python 4/5 capability yet -93 gives it R-73+R-77 capability, yet they chose to upgrade them in Israel. I somehow understand phasing out the Mig-29s was somewhat smart because there were very few of them, and Romania doesnt need any sort of big capability.
I really wonder why they are looking for a Mig-21/-29 replacement when the Mig-21 can actually fly for another 10 years probably, and there are already domestic overhail and maintenance facilities. Even if it couldnt, it’d be just smarter to keep the Mig-29s and upgrade them, like Slovakia is doing.
Sign In
