JSRThat’s the third MiG-29KUB that has been lost in the last few years – and people are criticising the F-22’s crash rate?
They can send more as replacements untill they fully debug the plane and training complete.
One or two were part of development training. MiG29 is highly reliable plane despite most of them built at Soviet times. MIG will need a while to reach Sukhoi .
JSRFulcrum and Fencer, it still could be SyAAF..
Syaaf fulcrum recently will be flying higher as they know concentrate on air to air.
JSRIf I am a customer buying an F-35 today, I do not have to pay for the development again. As far as the rest of your argument, it’s already calculated into the Flyaway cost.
Your still not getting it. It’s the over expenditure on LO platforms that cost so much in development and delay that in fight against ISIS is now almost as costly as when bush was fighting ground war Irak . Its all bandages from using upgraded B52 to A10 ever thing else in between in low intensity war. F35 hasn’t proven cost effectiveness in theatre from weopons to pilot salaries.
JSRWhen you look at the entire cost of getting the mission done and compare the platforms of LO and non-LO, then balance that against the respective lifecycle costs of all the programs involved… LO is cheaper in the long run. The F-35’s CPFH is only 17% more than an F-16 but is exponentially more effective. The cost to upgrade (in dev and parts) is also less expensive for the F-35 vs current 4th gen assets.
don’t believe any numbers of F-35 unless All F-35 force can independently do operation in war zone for extended period of time.
this is no even high intensity fight . the cost I am referring until this point is in the making of F-35 from research to final assembly and all the complex management office to deal with so many suppliers. there is no guarantee this so called LO fighter can fight high end fighters. remember 4G fighters can also be equipped with much larger capacity standoff stealthy weopons at much safer distance that overhelm air defences.
key word is additional for known war.
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/11/white-house-116b-more-needed-isis-fight-afghanistan/133092/
The White House told Congress Thursday that it needs an additional $11.6 billion to pay for the campaign against Islamic State militants and the war in Afghanistan. The request raises the price tag for both wars to $85.3 billion in 2017
Inflation is a bitch. The F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-15E. Having a global supply chain means competition which drives prices down and allows access to markets with less expensive labor forces.
how you deal with inflation by building it at place there is less population intensity. it is not 1980s . They should move completely F-35 to northern colder climate states where no one else want to live.
JSRif Trump is really commited to America Great Again than there is no place for F-35/F-22. as this Great Again is based on squeezing allies through trade/burden sharing so that they will not have any money left for buying F-35. plus his a builder and lowering taxes.
JSRthe strange thing is how F-35 came to Trump attention as he already knew about it as I don’t think Obama/Clinton or any other candidate talk about it so ahead of time.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article88670947.html
Lockheed Martin talks F-35 with Trump transition team
The host asked Trump his thoughts on the fifth-generation fighter and the fact that it’s over budget. At the time, Trump responded that he didn’t like what he had been hearing in security briefings.
I do hear that it’s not very good,” he said. “I’m hearing that our existing planes are better. And one of the pilots came out of the plane, one of the test pilots, and said this isn’t as good as what we already have.”
JSRIt’s actually the opposite now.
In the early days of VLO, coatings had to be reapplied constantly as they were very fragile, peeled at high speed, etc. Now, they are tough, can survive years of use, and can even be used as a doormat without loosing it’s capabilities.
pay attention I mentioned life cycle cost of weopons and systems development around LO fighter. it include utilizing much higher labor from final assembly all the way to suppliers. even upgrading bases and all the R&D engineers to produce LO parts. this is the most inefficient way to fighting a war beside relying too much on drones.
Around 14000 workers work at LMT DFW for F-35 and they are barely producing 50 jets a year with all the oustource parts that need several times larger labor and than add few thousands to programe management of such complex programme.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article88670947.html
minimum pay earned by an assembler under the old contract was about $41,000 a year, with someone at the top of the scale earning about $73,000. The average pay for an assembler working now at the plant was $55,000.Everything they are giving us they are going to take it away in insurance,” Fuller said. “That is the main benefit of the company. They are selling each jet out there, at $100 million a copy, and every time we come to this point they take something. … Every time we come to this point, I lose.”
JSRActually the USAF was studying the effect of VHF/UHF radar systems on stealth shaping and detection in the mid-to late 80’s. There are references to those internal studies and literally nothing released from findings or recommendations. Yet the ATF project was continued, JSF followed, and LRS-B in the near future.
A betting man would infer that those studies concluded that LO techniques were still viable then, and are still viable now.
Those studies were done at time when building LO planes were considered much cheaper option. Life cycle Cost of LO platforms has exploded and it is now impacting overall capability of force structure.
I would think in 1980s now body was even thinking about the compact multi shot mobile sams. The sams of those era either dinosaur size or too short range.
JSRI have said the J-10 is to the Lavi what the Super Hornet is to YF-17. They are related but the J-10 is a different beast altogether than the very limited prototype that was the Lavi.
The Z-20 is a different story. I regard it as a modified S-70. It may not even be as capable as the standard Black Hawk. The fact is China doesn’t have unlimited funding to spending on new fighters, bombers, transports, submarines and ships. With the Z-20 they chose a low risk, low cost program to get a proven system operational. This program was not pursued as an opportunity to revolutionize China’s vertical aviation industry as there was little incentive to do so.
compared to Soviets China has unlimited resources to built aviation products. China has world largest diaspora. China can create huge debt. China 1.3b compared to 200m Soviets at time of Su-24. still the products coming out from china are uncompetitive at time of induction.
JSRThis thing looks draggy and heavy.
JSRRead statements of ex defense secretary Robert Gates about Libya and Europeans. very dim view of Euro military capability.
JSRoverall style, yes, it is influence by the s-70
but it is not the same helicopterdifference between z-20 and s-70 is greater than su-24 and f-111
Su-24 and F111 has 10 year difference and at that time Soviet engineers does not have supercomputers and advance manufacturing what Chinese have now. Su-24 is far cheaper and easier to maintain plane even for third world countries compared to F111. Look what Chinese are producing in comparison . with all the wasted resources.
JSRWow, Russia bringing so many support ships for its rusty, old battle group just to get 6 strike aircraft armed with dumb bombs to the region. The French have 4 times the capability in the region with 1/2 the number of vessels.
Those support ships maybe carrying cargo. French has only dropped 1400 bombs. Ruaf and Syaaf that it is supporting will be well over 100k. 4 bombs per sortie on 16k sorties is minimum for Ruaf.
JSRWhat you are offering are simply your opinions. Israel is a small country, and does not need 5-20 ton UAVs. The endurance/payload capability of its current fleet allows a single UAV operating base to provide the all-round coverage that the country needs for military purposes. So you are only guessing when you say that it is does not have the ability to develop and manufacture the largest sizes of air vehicle.
But all this is nor really related to the original claim you made, and which I answered, namely that UAVs did not have self-protection. The hardware shown at Farnborough shows that suitable EW hardware already exists.
5 to 20 ton not related to endurance and payload. I will let you imagine things. Small countries can be high tech in narrow field. Look at Swiss. A medium tech country cannot know what is high tech. You know aircraft has cannons that can hunt down ucav due to there low speeds and lack of coverage.
JSRThe Israelis obviously do not agree with you, given that they have gone to the time, trouble, and expense to develop and flight-test a self-protection system for UAVs, then to show it at Farnborough. They are not amateurs at UAV operation – I have visited their UV squadron. So I am confident that they know more about the subject than you (or I) do!
That is your opinion not a fact. Israel can’t make a high end UCAV. They are in the mid level of UCAV tech. Just wait for 5 to 20 ton UCAV from UAC than you will understand the higher end.
Sign In
