How can you judge Rafale on its performance against pathetic Libyan Air Defenses ? Same applies for all recent conflicts involving western Aircraft.

I pray some country with S 300s / Buk M1 etc. goes to war with France/West, then we will see how good it is.

Be careful of what you pray for. One real problem with Russian designed weapons is they are designed for high attrition warfare and, as such place less emphasis on training! The only countries I can think of that used Soviet designed weapons the way the designers had intended, is the PRC supporting North Korea in that conflict with the West. The poor training by country after country reflects the lack of training as a high priority. Training cost real money and so far Russia (nor most of their clients) don’t have the resources to train properly. The PRC has more money to work with than in the past and now is improving their military but, has a long ways to go.
Russia has designed these SAM systems and while they can move quickly and efficiently but, whereas the air offensive strikes first at a time and place of their choosing… they will always have the advantage.

Re: Submarine anti-air

Russian submarines have carried MANPADS in the main mast since thr 80s. But they have to surface in order to fire them, with the obvious disadvantage.
In order to fire a SAM without surfacing it has to be an underwater-launched missile. The only such system in development is the German IDAS.

The set the USN was looking at was a MANPAD periscope type missile. But, first the sub would have raise its radar antenna to locate, make a couple of sweeps to establish a track before launching a missile.

Re: USS Nimitz

That is incorrect… the helmet for the F-35 cost $35,000.

Re: F-35B – If it get’s cancelled

Just to help reduce one fear for you Adrian there is no need to worry about an air launch SS-N-22. It never got built.

You are correct Jonsey unfortunately the potential for the missile is keeping Russia, China and India still working on the project, its not completely dead. I think I remember reading last year in Defense Information Daily E-mail news brief that India ‘did’ have one successful test flight last year. I don’t know the status on the MA-31 as a target missile?

The loss of the AWG/AIM54 combination from the outer air zone is no major issue seeings as the targets for those missiles were long gone before the capability was lost.

The F-14/AWG/AIM-54 outlived their threat! While there are a few countries have aircraft that could launch a cruise missile attack, none can do so with a mass attack.

I realize the F-35B cannot be canceled for not only the USMC needs it but the Royal Navy and, the Italian navy’s carrier Cavour (under construction) also need it. The Spanish and Australian Navies are looking at the F-35 also.
While the price of the F-35B is going up, many countries are still interested because of the very low maintenance expense.

Re: what aircraft can be considered over engineered?

To me, over engineering is putting features on a system of which are not used in operations. Back in the 1950s to 1970s the term most often used is “gold plating.” Some people considered the F-86’s ranging system as gold plated. The F-14’s swing wings, the F-15’s radar system as the systems were being designed. In operations and and in combat these systems proved to be essential.

F-4 was designed to intercept russian bombers stalking CVs, but most of its combat missions were in Vietnam dropping napalms and tangle with Mig-17s. now if we really designed a fighter-bomber that tailored to what it eventually did, then one would need much less of it and the requirement would drive less cost.

Yes I get tired of people such as Tom Christie, Pierre Sprey, Col. Everest Riccioni and, Harry Hillaker criticizing the F-4 for its dogfighting capability. It was not designed as a fighter but, a long range carrier borne interceptor. The fact that it handled the light weight MiGs as well as it did (when a well trained pilot was flying the plane) is a tribute to its design. The last I have heard both the Japan and the Turkish air forces still use the F-4. That is quite a statement, remember it is only 5½ years younger than the B-52!!!

Re: The U.S.S. Prius

Wanshan, I understand your point!

In ~1992, there was a report comparing USMC and US Army airlift needs. It compared similarly-equipped & manned combined infantry/armor units, and found that the US Army’s list of “required equipment” would use ~30% more airlift than the USMC’s list.

The USMC is far more self-contained, overall -its ground organization is closer to the Army’s airborne units than “mech” or “armor” units. The Marines come with self contained artillery, and air support.
I remember reading around 1994, a Russian Army evaluation of the USMC’s deployment during Operation Desert Shield. They were surprised and impressed at how fast all parts of the Marine Corp organization were completely setup and ready for combat.

Re: Reality of F-35 production cost

The -C is the most expensive airframe atm for two main reasons: it uses more materials – it is the largest and heaviest of the three, and it is the least produced model at this point. As more -C’s are produced, its cost will come down compared to the -B (and -A).

That is because it has to be stressed for carrier operations. Now, sea based aircraft need materials that can tolerate the high humidity and salty sea spray. I don’t know if the “A” variant would also be required to have this protection?
Frankly, I think the commonality of the three designs should have been frozen years ago and allow each variant to proceed on its own. Forcing changes on the “A” and “C” variants to accommodate the “B” variant has gone to far and has greatly increased the price of each variant.

The price curve flattens out at around 1600 units the steep part at the beginning and flattening out towards the 1600 target.

The total production will appear to flattened out until Russia, India and China start purchasing the Sukhoi T-50 in numbers! Then their distant allies start buying them -Libya, Argentina, etc. Then many countries that upgraded their F-16s and F/A-18s will want move up to an F-35 variant.

Yeah, you would be correct about the revealed ‘unit cost’ targets by TB last week.

I got this from the editorial of AW&ST 08/18/80, Pg #13
1) Airframe, engine and avionics production cost alone are defined
as “flyaway cost.”
2) Flyaway cost plus support and advance procurement cost equal
“weapon system cost.”
3) Weapon system cost plus initial spares add to “procurement cost.”
4) Procurement cost plus research, development, test and engineering
and military construction equal “program cost.” Total operating
cost added to total program cost becomes “life cycle cost.”
5) Program cost, with development costs loaded onto each unit, are
half again as large as the base production or flyaway cost.

The F-35 program is no F-4 Phantom II nor F-111A. The F-4 did not start out as the fighter to do all things well, of which it did not. Despite the F-4 not designed as a jack of all trades and the F-111A program basically failed in its aim to make one planes to do all, one more time in the 1980s this scenario was tried, again.
The F-35 program reminds me of the TFX program of the 1960s, later to become the F-111A but, not at all as envisioned by the original program efforts. The USAF and Navy had different contracts written so the USN was able to back without any financial penalties. The Texas lobby was real strong then and the House and Senate appropriated money for the first twenty-four F-111As, about ≈$250M! The USAF was stuck as the owner of the F-111A. If the USAF decided they didn’t want the F-111A, then Congress would subtract the appropriated funds from the following year’s budget plus the penalties that would have to be paid by the USAF to General Dynamics and their subcontractors! It was far cheaper for the USAF to be the owners of an aircraft they didn’t want than to decline it! When all the design fixes were complete, the USAF had a very good medium bomber great at low level penetration.