Originally Posted by aurcov
It’s not so much the weight, it’s the drag.

No it’s not.

In case you wonder how the drag imposed by external stores affects the aerodynamic qualities of a plane, look at the polar graph of the F 16.

Thats the programme cost, which includes the $3 billion that the UAE paid LM to develop the aircraft in the first place (total programme deal was $6.8 billion for 80 aircraft). The UAE’s aircraft can’t supercruise due to the CFTs installed however the airframe is capable of supercruise with the same engine installed and CFTs deleted.

Not only the blk. 60, but only the blk. 50 can supercruise at ~ 1.2M, but without anything except two Sidewinder at wingtips.

You need to differentiate between programme costs and unit flyaway costs. The F35 figures quoted are flyaway costs.

I did differentiate. 80 mil $ was unit program cost. According to press release, the flyaway price was ~ 50-55 mil. $ (http://img55.imageshack.us/i/f16f8of86gk.jpg/)

It’s the added weight that reduce maneuverability on a given a/c, and where you add it.
(ie stove it as close to center as possible to reduce negative effects.)

It’s not so much the weight, it’s the drag resulted from external stores.

And btw: is two bombs your idea of a “Fully Combat Loaded” ?

Yes two 2000 lb. bomb. And of course you can trade them for 8 SDB or 2 NSMs. Not to mention that in the non-stealth mode it can carry ~ 9 tons. Hang them under the grippen and it won’t be able to taxi…:p

and the price of the Typhoon and Rafale…………;)

That’s not the F 16 blk. 60 flyaway price (that would run around 55 mil.) This (80 mil.) is the complete package (unit program price), i.e. including spares, service, simultors, training… Not to mention that one of the most vital asset of the blk. 60, the EW suite “Falcon Edge” (that could be considered #1 among conventional fighters) was developed specifically for and UAE and payed by them. This alone added some 2 bn $ to the total program cost!

In case of both EF or Rafale, the unit cost (that inlcludes spares, service, training, infrastructure) is higher than 80 mil $.

Compare and contrast to F16 block 60s which are quite pricey at $25 million per copy… Supercruise, AESA radar and BVR equipped, good range and payload, manouvreable, excellent visibility etc..

The F 16 blk. 60 is ~ 80 mil $. While it has AESA, it doesn’t supercruise.

That is not true. Eritrea vs Ethiopia was by all means a very modern conflict with advanced tactics and reasonably sophisticated weapons used. IMHO, this conflict shows much more than a *conflict* where US fighters arrange a turkey shoot on Iraqi fighters escaping to Iran (where other than a BVR kill practically was not possible).

I agree that E-E was more balanced than 1991 or 1999 but hardly “modern”. IMO, the preeminence of WVR kills was forced by the limits of the planes and unreliability of BVR missiles available. In these conditions, WVR was almost mandatory.

BTW you might want to read “The last ace” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force) an interview with col. Rodriguez. You’ll find that in the first days of Gulf War, Iraqi AF wasn’t just a sparring partner.

I disagree. I personally think that a pilot engaged in an once-in-a-lifetime combat with enemy aircraft cares about everything but taxpayer cost related to his five minutes of glory. He simply uses the best weapon available in order to get his kill done and nothing else counts.

Of course that cost was the last concern. As I said in these conditions (pursuit, low altitude) a Sidewinder won’t score at, say, 5 Nmiles.

The graph is single biggest load of nonsense on this forum. A perfect example of twisting the data so that is serves someone’s purpose. Taking scores of hundreds of kills in 50-60s and comparing them to few isolated cases in 90s can mean two things:
1. the author was a complete idiot
2. the author was a well-thought guy having been paid a fair amount of money to make the graphs look according to someone’s wish. Let me think why – maybe to demonstate false need for spending four hundred thousand dollars on a single shot which could otherwise be made for a quarter of the cost and thus boosting revenue and profit?

– author only lists precentages without actual number of cases
– author draws smooth trends for scattered data
– author mysteriously does not list missed missiles according to standard procedure of firing two shots. The 100% figure is BS
– author does not take into account ERAF-ETAF conflict. Guess why? Because it does not fit his agenda
– author only lists missile types, not actual distance when fired. An AMRAAM fired from 5 miles range is accounted for a BVR kill in his table.

In one word.. BS.

The graph is from sistemasdearmas, a brazilain site. I find it (the site) quite informative.

-is true that the author put the percentage on the “y” axis; otherwise the few dozens of BVR kill would mean nothing vs. tens of thousands kills by cannon in WWI+WWII+Korea. However, the fact that there were no cannon kill in the last periosd and very few WVR, no matter what others say, indicates a trend;

-the graph does not indicate how many missiles were fired, only what type achieved the kill; BTW, multiple missile firing occur in the case of WVR IR missiles too; not to mention haw many rafales had a WWII pilot to fire in order to shot something down (:p);

-ET-ER conflict was a war between tho third world countries. It’s irelevant for what would happen in a “serious” conflict between modern AFs. I don’t think that any rational AF would draw any conclusion from this war: first, the informations are blurred: it “appears” that ET used Russian mecenaries and it “seems” that ER used Ukrainians… even so, the Su 27 and MiG 29 were vanilla with limited WVR capability; as about the Mig 21 and 23 … words goes that only 1/10 of the R 27 fired in this conflict did work, but is it safe to extend this ratio to missiles such AMRAAM, Derby, Mica? In other words, with old fighters with limited BVR capability, unknown GCI capability, no AWACS, no datalinks, WVR is almost mandatory. So, even if we consider these WVR kills valid, they were done by necessity not by choice;

-you are right that many Sparrows and AMRAAMS were fired from distances that would fell into WVR ranges, but if the pilot did select an AMRAAM instead a Sidewinder (3 times less expensive) was because a Sidewinder would miss: a 5 Nmiles shot with a Sidewinder towards a running fighter would hardly result in a kill; in fact, at low altitude, even an AMRAAM kill could be considered lucky in these conditions; however, newer AMRAAMS (C7 not to mention the D) or Meteor would extend the BVR limit.

I’m sorry but this graph is absolutely false, it doesn’t take in account the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, which saw a high proportion of WVR kills…

oh, please…Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict !

BTW, the graph correct by the time it was done…