Soviet economics didn’t really matter in terms of defense, they spent whatever the hell they wanted without looking back. It cost them in the end, sure, but if they wanted 400 MiG-31s, they got 400 MiG-31s.

And if there was a need for F-14s to defend against Soviet bombers, then why wasn’t there a need for the MiG-31 to defend against the new US ALCMs? Remember, the S-300 SAM system initially was only command guided and had a rather short range when compared to the current SAGG-guided 48N6 missiles. They were in the middle of the Cold War and needed something to counter the ALCM and bomber threat effectively. A tactical fighter like the Su-27 would have been unsuited for the role as it was designed to operate in a GCI-heavy environment. GCI radars from that era would have had a tough time detecting or tracking the ALCMs, so a new weapon system was needed. Hence the MiG-31.

So why couldnt have they modified the Su-27 airframe for this job from the beggining? It could’ve been a single plane to escort bombers since ithad a long range and it could’ve too tackled otehr bombers and cruise missiles?

No they couldn’t have. Remember, the US intelligence agency had so overhyped the capabilities of the MiG-25 before Belenko’s present that they thought a whole new superfighter was needed. That requirement led to the F-15.

And why couldnt the f-14 settle that requirement?

I seriously do not like how USSR built 3 twin engined heavy interceptors. Ok somehow I understand the Mig-29 and Su-27 but what was the need for the Mig-31 when the Su-27 could’ve been modified with it’s radar and AAMs and other goodies, to become like the F-14 in the same way. A large fighter, capable of escorting bombers, less reliant on GCI and of course it could at the same time tackle bombers and cruise missiles. The Mig-29 could’ve been a little smaller and more affordable to be a suitable replacement for the Mig-21s and Mig-23s which were both single engined.

As for US, imho the F-15 shouldnt have been built when the F-14 was there, it could’ve tackled anything the Soviet union would’ve thrown at it. It would’ve saved hell of a lot of money and USAF would’ve gotten the Phoenix and not just be stuck with AIM-7s.

Yeah, I got your argument. So far, countries still seem to want large patrol aircraft for versatility. ASW, the capability of carrying large standoff weapons, huge payloads, long range. I don’t see why they wouldn’t use both. Top speed of a Mariner is 220kts versus 400kts+ for an Orion. Payload is 3800lbs vs. 20,000lbs, with the Orion able to deploy mines, torpedos, asw weapons, and anti-ship missiles. Probably a bunch of other stuff is carried for flexibility on a typical mission.

No doubt Mariner is a better system for certain tasks. Orion for others. It’s not really a question of whether a country will want one or the other.

As for the need for fighters, as I said: if you don’t feel comfortable leaving yourself open to enemy strike aircraft, you’ll want some long range fighters. The world changes, and you can’t count on rebuilding a modern air force overnight.

Yes, but they really dont need this capability, they dont need any ASW or Mining capabilities whatsoever.

Funny, I think we should ditch our Hercs and get more capable types that fly faster. Unpressurised and slow, our Hercs lack the capacity to move around our new LAVIIIs. Even though we always send them by sea… the same as the previous M113s we had I think having a transport aircraft that is higher flying and faster than a Herc that is able to carry our armoured vehicles would be a good thing. We have a trade deficit with the Russians I don’t know why we don’t just buy a couple of Russian transport aircraft like an Il-76 that has real transport capability as well as short takeoff capability… some PS-2A engined aircraft perhaps. Much faster and much better payload capacity. Regarding helos the Mi-17 series looks good and is a real seller. I don’t think we need a dedicated gunship as we rarely deploy enough troops to justify such a capability. Apaches would have cost more than our Skyhawks to own and operate…!!!

LAVIIIs? Whats that?

At least someone asked that question… the simple answer is that most of the time the Orions are called to a problem and boats are sent to solve the problem… our Skyhawks or Aermacchis have never been used to my knowedge for policing work… only for aishows and pretending to be anti ship missiles for New Zealand and Australian ships to practise defending against.

Thats a rather weak solution. What if an airliner is hijacked or something, whats gona stop it from flying in NZ’s airspace or whats gona force it to land and such, nothing will be able to intercept it, forget Orions

Our forces patrol most fo the southern pacific… you know the big ocean… we send ships to rescue targets in trouble and ships to enforce our fisheries area or for anti smuggling operations. Helicopters just wouldn’t cut it unless they came from a frigate.

Yes because of their range and such and speed. It’s mostly the range and endurance. Something a mariner with 2-4 hellfires will easily satisfy

MKI or MKM cost atleast $70M a piece versus this $35M Su-30MK2. And there is no other Strike fighter with Russia in this price range. Su-30SKM is there but that also share tech with -MK2 and cannot lift all the weopons with Maxim take off wt (33 Ton Maximum reported untill this point). So this is the only logical choice for long range strike.

Actually
1)the 70mn for MKI is for all the deals and such, but if you included all the same things that the MKI deal included such as all the infrastructure for local building and such, any plane would be much more expensive. As for MKM, yes that was a pretty high price that they paid for if you include all the extra expensive avionics they acquired from different countries.
2)Its Su-27SKM not Su-30SKM.

1)The USAF could’ve purchased the F-14 instead of building a whole new plane to tackle the Mig-25 when the F-14 was already there and capable of doing so, which it did during Iran-Iraq war. It would’ve saved a lot more money. The F-16 was a good LWF fighter and it could’ve been navalized, but the thing is that it just wouldn’t have been very possible and by the time all teh mods were made it would’ve provided little commonality with the USAF F-16s. So USN picking the YF-17 over the YF-16 was reasonable. If anything, USAF and USN could’ve actually together set up the LWF competition to pick a similar plane, kind of like how they are pressured to do so today. In any case, the USAF should’ve been pressured to go with the F-18 rather than the F-16 since USN would’ve had no choice to pick it, so why shouldnt have they too?

2)The Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-31, what do they all have to offer? They are ALL 2 engined interceptors, the Mig-29 and Su-27 designed to tackle the F-15 yet the Mig-31 cruise missiles and bombers. Why couldnt a Su-27 airframe couldn’t have been fitted with a Mig-31 type radar and such. Why did USSR need two different interceptors(Mig, Su) to tackle a same plane like the F-15? IMHO, the Mig-29 should’ve been a LWF fighter like the YF-16 or YF-17(which was actually much lighter before becoming the F-18, due to all the modificaitons)

Imho, USAF should’ve gone with the F-14 and USAF and USN should’ve together went for the LWF programme, not USAF picking it’s own fighter for it’s own needs than the USN taking it’s own different plane.

I am not sure about USSR, the Mig-31 was capable airframe, but the Su-27 could’ve been fitted with Zaslon and R-33 and not just that but also the R-27 and R-73 later on, it could’ve been able to tackle bomber and cruise missiles as well as F-15s. It would’ve been a highly specialized design like the Mig-31, but the SU-27 WAS SPECIALIZED was it not.

BTW SOC what do you think of this idea.

Take a large chassis like the MAZ-543M truck, which is used as a platform for various Russian Ballistic missiles, Smerch MLRS, S300/400 SAM series and etc and put something like TWO MSAM TELs of 12 9M96E missiles and place them on the MAZ-543M truck in the back. These would be placed vertically, would stay that way except when they would be reloading. Then you can place the radar system on the front of the truck, and higher then the TELs so it can comfortably look over it. So you have the radar system, TEL 1 and then TEL 2.

Now whats the advantage of this. You would have everytbing combined in a single vehicle AND on top of all the MAZ-543M chassis is rather large, there would be no need for deploying and the missiles could be fired vertically and the chassis would not have to deploy to fire them. This type of mobility would let it be used by the Army for tactical air defense and in support of armoured columns, and not only this but this type of mobility would ensure greater survivability against ARM type weapons, which would have a hard time targeting and chasing down a vehicle going down the road at some 60km/h and which can eventually turn off it’s radar and then once the threat of ARM is gone it could turn it back on in seconds without having to deploy.

Now I am sure, there would be problems with reloading of missiles and such, but these could be fixed I am sure easily.

Pointless Aircraft #2-the PLAAF’s JH-7. Why? The Su-30MKK is a more developed, more capable strike platform, while the JH-7 seems more suited to the PLANAF in the anti-shipping role. This seems to be a possible attempt to keep the lines open in hopes of receiving export orders. See? China really did learn something from the F-16

Its not the thing with Su-30MKK, the Chinese want their own domestic aircraft, but why the JH-7A when the J-10 could do the job as well, it could carry a vg payload, it’s range is decent and such, would’ve been a lot less cheaper.

What global hawk will give you is high altitude imagery over a 36 hour period. If you go with the Mariner, it’s true you get a weapons payload with the long endurance, but it’s a slow aircraft and won’t be able to carry the range of weapons of the full size patrol aircraft.

UAVs will have a big role in maritime patrol, but I doubt they’ll fully replace aircraft like the Orion. Size, I suspect, still matters in that role. Then again, at some point they might make a huge UAV that can carry a massive payload. I remember reading about an idea to adapt existing fighter aircraft (I think it was an F-16) to ground control for attack use in hi-threat operations. Don’t know if it is going anywhere though.

You wont need to carry many weapons at all. A Mariner on patrol with 2 Hellfires will do absolutely fine, it will be able to cover a lot of area, probably as much as the P-3 in same time if not more and on top of all it has longer endurance. It has a 49h endurance, and with 2 50 kg Hellfires, that wont go down much, probably around 40h at most I’d say. This is still a LOT compared to 12-15h endurance of the P-3. This is just if it needs to carry weapons, and most of the time if it’s on maritime patrol it will not even need weapons. Mariner’s cruise speed would be around 400km/h while that of P-3 will be some 550km/h, it’s not a great difference.

As for a small squadron of F-16s or whatever? I don’t see a need, I think Transport Helicopters will do fine and a squadron of PC-9Ms armed with a few Hellfires, Stingers and possibly NSMs will be fine for drug traficking and whatever it is needed for. If they plan to get involved in foreign peacekeeping and such, I don’t think theres a real big need for Attack Helicopters either when a normal transport like the small MD500 will do fine in the COIN role armed with rockets and machine guns. I highly doubt NZ will be facing armoured tank columns and such