JSRSaudis are not capable of screwing any one else beside themselves.
Lower Oil prices enriched China tremendously that now investing upfront money to diversify away from Arabs and play one against another.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/energy-kuwait-china-idUKL5N0QO1AC20140818
warsaw pact was useless alliance neither money nor technology. and certainly this small countries of warsaw influenced thinking behind MIG-21 type fighters. Now every thing is big and long range.
JSRIm not saying they havent had great past success. But the flanker design is old, and the flanker replacment has issues.
Its not even about money IMO. Russian industry has always had a rep for being rugged and innovative. You guys are now trying to argue that there isnt a market for a cheap Mig 29 replacement for ROGUE states. I honestly believe the Russians are as smart and innovative as the west. Its one of 3 things.1. Lack of incentives from mass consolidation
2. Lack of money
3. Loss of tech people.
Even Yak-130/Mi-38 chopper will sell for no less than $30m when you add electronics. so there is no chance of making cheaper fighter than that price considering labor cost has risen.
infact by investing in big platforms like Su-34/Su-35 Russia will have more effective ability to save rogues than distributing cheap MIG-21 copies. better sell water than cheap products.
JSRLexington Institute: F-35 Critics Need to Calm Down
The article highlights the critics’ lack of historical perspective of fast jet development programs.
historical perspective does not apply to F-35.
in fact, what the data shows is that the limited number of engines produced to date have not met their projected reliability levels. What GAO doesn’t bother to tell its readers is that this is par for the course in the development of any new jet engine. If you go back and look at the reliability figures for the F-100 engine that powers the F-15 or the F-110 engine on the F-16 at the same time in their development and testing processes, the results would look the same as they do for the F-135
F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18/A-10/AV-8 combined production reached nearly 400 planes per year excluding international production lines. they can afford to have unreliable engines. they survived 5 to 6 economic recessions.
F-35 still only 30 to 40 produced per year after 20 years into programme. and it will be all alone facing the cuts in post industrial era recessions.
JSRTo make up the numbers – MKI + Tejas. But for a limited order of 36-54 aircraft to serve as a spearhead, umm.. guess. 😀
(The PAK FA is an option but the definitive version that the IAF is interested in, will only be available by around 2022 IIRC.)
Well the prevailing concern has been to ensure that the aircraft remain serviceable in the event of a disruption in the supply chain (like the 1991 USSR collapse, or the current crisis in the Ukraine). Getting Russian consent shouldn’t be problem, for the near future at least. And in the very unlikely situation that relations breakdown to the point where they refuse a new contract, HAL could go ahead and build them anyway (like China).
I am still waiting for your $26m Tejas. that plane is empty shell with zero capability. 15% inflation rate and 2022 FOC for Tejas. the price goes up to $100m. the point is multi role Tejas isn’t cheaper than Rafale that with short range, and underpowered performance.
JSR28 aircraft. but still the price will be way above $3b once they sign it.
Kuwait is the least diversified and less technical in investments. it simply cant afford like the rest.
this kind of economics unheared.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/energy-kuwait-china-idUKL5N0QO1AC20140818
JSRits all approximation as no final aircraft tested and delivered. it is likely to go up in weight closer to F-16E.
Altitude is only 16km.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/the-fighter/Gripen_the_smart_fighter/
Gripen C has an overall maximum ferry range of approximately 3000 km. The ferry range is reached at high altitude when carrying the maximum allowed external fuel and no weapons attached. The ferry range for Gripen NG with large drop tanks (optional) is approximately 4000 km.
JSRYou seem delusional, Those new 1800kg droptanks are for 4000km transport and abit more then 1400kg of weaponry which is enough for alot of air to air missiles (meteor 185 kg), the new 40% larger tank inside gripen will make gripen go very far without cfts. Gripen demos testings show that the engine draws less fuel. Gripen NG will have a combat range of 1500km with 30 min on station. That is as good. Infact, very good. I can guarantee you Saab will make it happend. If this means changing the engine next year, they will. There is also talks right now that volvo aero wants in on the engine. We also do not know what the true stats of the f414g it might have more punch then we know.
This Grpen NG has weaker engine than F-16A and it weighs as heavy as F-16C. how exactly it can accelerate loaded with draggier fuel tanks and small size power supply to is AESA radar. it is practically useless fighter. Engine power, altitude and higher loaded top speed most important to deliver the longest range weopons.
JSR…and in a brief departure from our normally scheduled bickering about the relative merits of various eurocanards…
Pretty competitive pricing in this deal.
only $3b? considering F-18E declining production rates and Kuwait being the least competent among UAE/Saudi/Qatar. they will need a lot of support. look like $15b if there is agreement.
even the RAAF 24 planes deal was more $6b and that was 8 years ago at time of stable production rate.
JSRWow, you sure ? well i wouldn’t bet on that. Since you can with datalinks “call” on weapons from other weaponplatforms. You don’t need to carry much. The only things that is needed in future fighters are countermeasures and lighter rockets or sdb and they weigh nothing. Bigger bombs can be guided to hit the target with gps/military coordinates or whatever through the datalinks/fusion.
Also the fighters can double check what they are shooting at. (not shoot your own hostages)
The small polo will be able to hit like a truck.
Gripen NG is already overweight and that without CFTs. weopons/ electronic pods or fuel tanks. small fighter means shorter range and loiter time with lower altitude and speed.
by the time it enter service like 10 years or after. hypersonic missile will be inducted that will destroy it on the ground since it has short range it cant be parked outside missile envelops.
JSRStill the most aerodynamically advanced fighter created. So there is no reason to change that much on the platform, except for everything inside it. And smaller stuff outside antennas some stealth adjustments and pneumatic Weapon ejects pylons.
Its the fighteraircraft of the future. Bet on it.
aerodynamically advanced does not mean just turn rates. how many tonnes of electronic pods it can carry on wing tips? does it have 5 wet stations to launch over 300km standoff missiles.
in next 10 years the ranges of sensors and weopons will multiply. there is no point in small fighters.
JSRAlso if some one want planes quickly they have to pay higher price. there goes the quick delivery.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/uk-france-qatar-rafale-idUKKBN0NP0OC20150504
One official close to the talks said the flurry of sales meant that things now favoured the seller. “If they want the plane quickly, they will have to pay more for it,” he said
JSRIn LAAD 2015 (April 14-17th 2015 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Saab engineer told me that Gripen NG radar will become operational with only air-to-air modes in 2019, then other modes (air-surface, SAR, etc) will be added in the following years. So Gripen NG at all will need some years to be multirole.
So Gripen NG is like Eurofighter, Rafale, F-35, etc. There is no magic.
Actually its worse than EF/Rafale/F-35.
Gripen NG is not all new design. It is more like upgrading F-16C blocks. This Gripen NG will gain weight and with 30 year old engine that may become out of production due F-18E closing down.
JSRHellfire missiles have millimeter wave radar seekers. The firing procedure is literally pop up from cover, lock on target, fire, pop down under cover and these days they can fire from a defilade. SAMs would have a difficult engagement problem against a target that behaves that way. If you have better missiles than the Hellfire i.e. greater range electro optical seeker with fire and forget capability the engagement problem for a SAM only gets worse and the target is harder to defend since you can’t jam a camera very easily. Fighters are another story but as I said before attack helicopters depend on air cover and the ability of your fighters to engage them in a really effective way depends on you getting air superiority or better yet air supremacy and I don’t see either the NATO air forces nor the RUAF being a pushover when it comes to gaining air supremacy. Another thing is that against fighters, attack helicopters aren’t as defenceless as people think. I remember reading about the USAF trying their hand at simulated combat where they sent fighters down into the lower airspace layers to hunt down gun ships simulating Russian Mil-24/35s and being rather surprised at the exchange rates they got. It’s not only that the helicopters are actually quite able to defend themselves if they have enough of situational awareness, but also that that part of the battlefield airspace is crawling with SAMs and AAA and fighters, unlike AH-64s and Ka-52s, can’t just pop into a depressions in the terrain to hide. I’m not saying that attack helicopters are invulnerable but they aren’t the sitting ducks they sometimes look like when you use them in nests of insurgency like Iraq where the Americans were lucky that the insurgents do not seem to have had access to large quantities of state-of-the-art MANPADS never mind mobile tactical SAM systems or a BUK launcher like the Russian paratroopers and irregulars in the East-Ukraine have. I expect the Iraqis would have given their eye teeth and a few other things as well for a few hundred SA-24s.
Attack helicopeters also have short range when loaded with weopons. At most 200km radius in action before it need to come to base for resupply.
mobile rocket system will make out of action that base.
http://sputniknews.com/military/20121119/177581650.html
Russia Developing 200-km Range Rocket System
The army is gradually moving toward a new level of capability for deploying precision use of long-range rocket artillery, he said.“Massed use of high-precision weapons makes it possible to be certain of destroying high-value targets before they can be used on the battlefield by main-force groups. Fewer rounds need to be fired, simplifying logistics,” he added.
JSRsupport to Poland will not depend whether it is in NATO member at that time but rather how effective S400/S500 is imposing no flyzone inside Poland airspace.
Poland F-16s are getting older and less capable with time. the more expensive western weopons Poland buys the higher maintaince and salaries it will have to pay. ultimately it will not be able to effectively operate.
JSRthere are some supporters of buying KC-390 for IAF also. Every overprice and un suitable product India start negotiating endlessly. look at A-330MRT and now A330 AWACS. than trying to buy small number of Chinook/Apache for such large force. . now there will be 36 Rafale negotiation.
Sign In
