SrbinPretty sure it would be much better the MiG-21 style turbojets.
The RD-33 has been refined throughout the years, like the AL-31F, so later productions lots should be more reliable and economical than the first. We don’t know what other improvements Klimov made into the engine, other than move the gearbox to the bottom. No doubt the FC-1 will also use a FADEC (the Chinese has been displaying their own in air shows) so that helps. Still 2300kg ain’t that much (just slightly more fuel than the Gripen or the F-CK-1).
Definitely. I wonder how fuel efficient the RD-33 version that will be fitted on FC-1 be compared to the Swedish variant of F404 on the Gripen.
I like the F-16 Block 52plus. Block 60 on the other hand, is too gold plated—if I get to the same price level as a Block 60 I should be considering a bigger and more powerful jet.
I have some misgivings on the Gripen. Legs are too short for one, and you’re spending big bucks on a plane with a low power to weight ratio comparative to an F-16. The Gripen’s networking advantage is useless for most countries without the matching infrastructure.
Mirage 2000-5 appears to be easier to handle due to its lower wing loading. It also appears to have lower maintenance. However, the Mirages are getting too pricey. I don’t like the sixties style aerodynamic design either. An M2000 might be very good in instantaneous turns, but subsequently afterwards might bleed too much energy in sustained turns. Against an opponent with better energy retention, an M2000 needs to get its kill within the first few turns of combat or it becomes a sitting duck as combat is prolonged.
Among the misgivings I have on the F-16 might be an intentionally degraded radar for export and political conditions on the use of AMRAAM. It has also mutated into something its creators originally never had in mind.
I guess that leaves you to the Mig-29SMT/M ehh crobato?
As for Gripen, actually the Gripen’s operating costs are smaller than that of latest M2Ks and F-16blk50, Gripen is said to have $2000/h, while M2K and F-16blk50 are probably around $4000-$5000. Mig-29SMT is said to be around $5500 but I am not sure about that. The Gripen is not much more than the F-16blk50 sells for, and if not less than the M2K.
I would like to do an analysis of their costs at the end of their service lives
Lets say you run the planes for 30 years, 300h every year.
Gripen: purchasing cost on average of 60mn+9000h through service life*$2000=78mn
Mig-29M: purchasing cost on average of 30mn+9000h*$5500=79.5mn
Now there are a few things also to take into consideration. Mig-29M’s engines will probably need replacement once throughout the airframe’s life. Mig-29Ms will need overhaul much more frequently than Gripen, but Russian overhauls are probably cheaper than Swedish ones. Operating costs are not everything I believe, and the maintenance of 2 engines of the Mig-29 compared to 1 of Gripen will add up a little more onto it’s costs. Future upgrades to the planes will also add up, and Russian upgrades are probably much more guaranteed to be the same. These will not be substaintally bigger but when you look at it, at the end of the day they will be similar in costs.
As for your M2K comment crobato, I would not be super worried about the M2K at WVR especially when it will be probably hard for enemy to survive it at BVR.
SrbinSorry don’t have much info yet. We can expect more once the product is better groomed for the market.
If it has a radar, it will probably a KLJ type similar to the ones used in the PLAAF now on the J-8II, J-10 and J-G (and most probably for the FC-1 as well) since the radar commonality would be most directly useful for training.
Despite that, I don’t think FTC-2000 will be much better than J-7G, why? It shares the same engine I believe or at least similar. It’s draggier as it seems and slower. It’s number of hardpoints is very low and I doubt it’s payload is anymore than 1500-2000kgs which is pretty low as compared to Yak-130 which can lift as much as 3000kgs and not to mention has more hardpoints on it(I think 8-9 for production types).
SrbinBTW overscan, how are the latest RD-33 variants, theres the RD-43 or the RD-333 or whatever, too many of them that I dont know anything about.
Srbinidiot, from where the GB Tridents missiles come from ?
You can expect US to give away anything to GB pretty much but do you really expect anyone to give away their nukes so easily? French may have assissted the Iraqis and whoever else in their Nuke programmes but they did not give anyone their Nukes.
Hell US even offered GB the F-117 to which they refused.
SrbinIt looks like a nice site but the image gallery sucks because I cannot save the other pics on teh pages, only the first ones on the list. Some extremely nice pics though.
SrbinSure (remember it’s Sure not Shure) the Gripen is nice if your country is the size of Switzerland, has barely any hostile air threats, friendly with western nations and the money. Other wise you need alot of bases to get that leg-less Gripen anywhere, not to mention Swedish export policies and the fact that it’s much more costlier than other fighters of it’s class and costlier than some versions of new F-16s! and people thought i was crazy..
True, the Gripen is only better for much smaller nations but even then the Gripen has a lot of foreign parts in it, and not to mention many of the weapons it carries are also foreign.
SrbinIt’s a duplication of what the FTC-2000/JL-9 does. I think the FTC-2000 is a more elegant solution compared to the F-7MF/J-7FS proposals. Still too early to consider the FTC-2000 for strike use, but CAS and light strike should not be bad for it. I would not want to put a Kh-35 or C-803 on a MiG-21 style airframe however.
Doesn’t the FTC-2000 already have a radar installed and is planned?
Also Crobato, do you have any really good info on the FTC-2000 like it’s costs and exact specifications because there is NOT much info.
Srbinit’s not tomorrow that you will see France sell its ASMP nuclear missiles
it’s a nuke, when do you see ANYONE selling Nukes? stupid comment
Its actually slightly more fuel efficient than the F-18’s F404. It isn’t as fuel efficient as the F100 because its bypass ratio is less. Funnily enough, John Boyd ran a pile of studies that determined the ideal engine for the F-15’s AA mission to be 20:1 compression ratio, and 0.5 bypass ratio. Thats pretty much exactly what the Russians went for in the RD-33 and AL-31F. The F-15 ended up with the F100 which has a higher bypass ratio than is ideal for an air superiority fighter. The upside is, slightly better fuel economy.
As I understand the Mig-29A’s fuel capacity was lower than that of F-16 or F-18 right? The Mig-29A from the outset was designed as a smaller and shorter ranged Su-27, am I wrong?
I just love American aircraft like F-18 and F-16 but i just don’t like American policies, anyone who is not very close to them or aligned with them will not get weapons like AIM-120, countries like Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt and a few others, despite being long time buyers of American equipment. Not only that but they also want to keep weapons like AIM-120 on American soil and in any case of war they would be then transported to that country, which if you ask me is bunch of crap. Even when you have their weapons, they are easily subject to embargoes and such.
As for Mig-29M/SMT, it’s performance is as good as that of the F-16 or M2K and it’s a much better AA machine. It’s also much cheaper and I just love it’s selection of weapons, something like Yakhont-M, R-37 and many others.
SrbinGee, you are pretty harsh for a teenager! At least he has a website with the info in tables. I smell sour grapes………
It’s true, look at that list for yourself and you’ll see.
Anyone have any other prices to contribute to the list?
SrbinSrbin,
It’s a nice thought that the newer MiG-29’s have Hornet and/or Falcon range, but that’s simply not the case. Maybe on a good day it would have classic Hornet range, but that’s pushing it. The RD-33 is simply not a very fuel efficient engine, and when you have two of them with the airframe the size of the Fulcrum you just don’t get the range advantage.The Fulcrum is still fairly short legged despite the increases in range over earlier models.
Actually those are the earlier RD-33s which are fuel guzzlers, break down fast and are expensive to operate, however the later RD-33 versions are much better. Whether you like it or NOT thats the range for hte Mig-29M.
There are no proofs of downed Syrian MiGs so far.. I havbe not seen any pictures of wreckages yet..
MiG-29s victories:
2x Ce-337 Skymasters of Brothers in Rescue
4x Moldavian MiG-29Ss
1x Russian Yak-40 (fratricide kill)
1x Ethiopian MiG-23BN
3x Ethiopian MiG-21bis plus one damagedThere also were some R-27 kills among these…
BTW, ETAF Su-27Ss scored against six Eritrean MiG-29As and one MiG-29UB. Another MiG-29A has been damaged.
I don’t know about the Moldovan cases but… Eritrean Mig-29s did not shoot down anything AFAIR, and only 4 Eritrean Mig-29s were shot down by Su-27s NOT 6.
SrbinBack in 1996 I flew in a backseat of a G-4 Galeb and a J-22 Orao from the Airforce of Republika Srpska(Republic of Serbs AF, Bosnia) and since then I’ve been wanting to be a pilot. It was a while ago and I hardly remember it. And recently I have flown on a Cessna 172 and this another bird which I forget it’s name, but it sure could hit 300mph and we were pulling some 3-4Gs on it( that was crazy :P). I am only 17 though.
EDIT: Those are the birds I have flown, as for flying in well tehres a lot of different types.
SrbinNo political strings? not quite.. You buy French, the French (or Dassault) will squeeze you out of your money, just ask the Peruvians. Every little thing that breaks has to be sent back to France, and often the French offer little lee-way on local repairs, etc. Further more French parts are expensive, the aircraft, the electronics, and the weapons. If you ask me, the risk coming from buying French is equal to that of the Americans, perhaps thats why you see those who use French aircraft tend to also have an American or Russian equivelant. Perhaps to play both sides safe mate.
the MiG-29M? I’ve doubtful that an aircraft that was incredibly low on gas could add THAT much more to fix it’s problems. Two engines cost more to operate and suck more gas than a single engined aircraft. Not only that my sexy friend, it hasn’t spent as much time integrating it’s weapons and avionics as either the Super F-16 or the Flying Taco, the Mirage 2K.
Maybe so, but at least the French are willing to sell anything they posses, any of their weapons unlike the Americans.
Actually, the Mig-29M has GREATLY increased internal fuel capacity, some 44% larger fuel capacity than that of the earlier Mig-29B. It can also be increased even more by redesigning the dorsal spine like that of the Mig-29S/SMT. It’s range is just as long as that of the F-16C or F-18C. Also, despite being twin engined and little more to operate than the single engined F-16 or M2K, in the longer run the Mig-29 will be cheaper because of it’s lower purchasing costs. Also the upgrades for Russian aircraft would be much cheaper than that of Western aircraft, just ask the Peruvians or anyoen else(the French asked them for someting like 9mn for each aircraft to upgrade their M2Ks)
SrbinI think aircraft like the M2K is better than the F-16. Sure the F-16 has better A2G weapons(both Mig-29SMT/M & latest M2Ks lack JDAM type weapon), though the M2K-5 which is very well comperable to F-16blk50 has similar price and capabilities, it’s biggest advantage lies over it’s politics where the M2K really has no political strings attached. I don’t think the export M2Ks are downgraded either and the French are willing to sell anything to anyone as long as they got the money, where the Americans are really reluctant to give away weapons like JDAM, JSOW and especially the JDAM.
So really, for me it’s a comperison of the latest and best M2Ks & Mig-29s. Here the Mig-29 for me is a much better AA machine, is cheaper(in the longer run too), here there are especially no political strings attached and of course I Just like the better selection of Mig-29M/SMT’s weapons(France has nothing to match Yakhont-M AshM and ASM as well as weapons like R-37M which can be integrated on customer’s request)
SrbinYep, as Arthur has said that FFP (firm fixed price) of around $6.7 million is what the US Army pay Sikorsky for each basic UH-60L, without engines. No spares, no engineering support etc. is included. The GE engines are around $500K each, and the Army buys those in vast quantities and also “recapitalizes” them, uprating them in the process.
The figures quoted come from the MYP contract, which is constantly updated as “option” orders are exercised, reducing per-unit costs.
To confirm that price as being correct, figures from a completely different source give the actual flyway unit cost of UH-60Ls delivered in FY2000 as $7.4 million per chopper: this was because engines from the still-born EH-60L programme were used and had been previously funded.
Alterations don’t come cheap though: an HH-60L medevac conversion adds $4.4 million to the basic price. The MH-60S for the Navy work out at just under $10 million, without engines.
All FMS customers pay around the same rate (Colombia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Thailand being recent examples) but some others, such as Austria, opt to buy via direct commercial sale via the manufacturer.
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Well, it’s still considerably alot more than the latest Mi-17s which sell on average of some 4.3mn, and thats with all the goodies too.
Also, later on I have a big update comming on a lot of prices.
SrbinThey have not put the value on it. It involves components made in India, Germany and Malaysia.
But you just told me that the total cost was 1.4!
Excellent effort. Create a pdf with the relevant tables.
wayy too early
According to HAL’s own figures the local production of Sukhoi-30MKI fighters runs to Rs 22,000 crore (Rs 220 billion). This includes both infrastructure and production costs. The per unit price then comes to something like Rs 1.57 billion (US$ 34.9 million) for 140 aircraft to be delivered at the rate of 17 aircraft per year.
You might also want to note that the cost of Jaguars from the Public Accounts Committe of the Indian Parliament.
As stated in the IAFperspective plan the cost of aquisition of 37 Jaguars (17 two seaters + 20 single seaters) is 2,879 crore (Rs 28.79 billion). This gives us a unit price of Rs 778 million (US$ 17.2 million approximately).The Forecast International report seems rather incredible and provides no facts to substantiate its assertions, especially since the Su-30 program is not an indegenous program.
So when HAL starts delivering their own Su-30MKIs we’ll see what the real cost is, and I suspect somewhere around 30mn.
[quote]
In the table in front were listed the prices of the Ka-28 ASW helo and the Ka-31 AEW helo – $8 and 23 mln respectively – so may question is – from where this info was soursed and is it reliable enough?
[/quote
Every source I have been to points out that it was 92mn for 4 Ka-31s. Now I forget what it was for Ka-28 but you can dig it up.
US Army UH-60L Black Hawks (as of July 2004):
UH-60L Unit Price: $5,285,463.00
Advance Procurement: $1,418,636.00
Actually where did you get this from? AFAIR latest Blackhawks sell well over 10mn.
Not sure how reliable this site is, as it has been disputed before, but it seems to have a pretty good collection of types and prices…
outdated, inaccurate, badly put together and etc.
Sign In
