GoldenDragonI haven’t seen any FC-1 competition of sorts here in a long time quite honestly. Things here seem to be pretty smooth at the moment
There hasn’t been and it’s nuts to interject flames from other forums here. If Edisonone has a problem with another site he should talk to the webmaster at that site, not post it here.
GoldenDragonI know that Vietnam has some Su-27s and there were talks about Su-30s but did they really made any deal with Sukhoi? And more important can they keep them up in the air?
They have about a dozen Su-27s if memory serves me right. The last word on the Su-30 involving Vietnam I heard was in an Air International special edition on the Flanker. Vietnam was shown the MKK machines in Russia (501-504) and expressed interest.
Indonesia has Su-27SKs and Su-30MKKs now, so that’s more incentive for Vietnam. I think the Vietnamese Flanker contract is bound to happen.
I’m surprised they went directly to the Su-27s in the 1990s.
North Korea had Mig-29s and even Malaysia but Vietnam never went for them which always surprised me, Vympel.
GoldenDragonNow Vietnam would be an interesting air force to look at in the next decade.
You have a growing economy (the 2nd fastest expanding in Asia after China last year) and a very large inventory (for SE Asia) that’s getting really long in the tooth.
They have over 100 Mig-21 air frames that should be retiring.
I wonder what their idea of a cheap rank and file machine is? Or they’ll dispense with the low end entirely and go with an all Su-27/Su-30 force that’s much smaller? Because unlike China, they don’t have a home industry producing a low end product that could make up numbers.
Simply giving up 100+ airframes would leave a lot of pilots without mounts. It would seem like a precious resource to waste in an air force with probably the best record and tradition in the third world (no other had shot down more US aircraft.)
If they follow the RuAF makeup, they should replace the Mig-21s with Mig-29s and use the Flankers as their high end.
Or if they’re like China, they might be skipping the Mig-29 entirely for the Flanker.
GoldenDragonGood point, as the Chinese Military Forum (CMF) is full of crack pots. I browse it mainly for news and pics. I haven’t really spent that much time in the CDF.
Well then, GDL, if you could browse a forum for pictures and news then it’s a pretty good one don’t you think? 😉
It’s not a serious site but I enjoy it though I don’t post much there. Ever since they starting nuking any subject pertaining to the subcontinent (either praising or insulting), there hadn’t been any major flames at all except a few crackpot theorists for and against the US who tend to be funny than angry/flamy.
The pictures there are on a whole other order compared to most forums. Oodles and oodles of it (including many that are not military related :D)
I would never knock a fun site and CMF is Fun with a capital F.
On CDF. Whatever Edisonone/Haley’s feelings, it is the premiere military forum on the web as far as I’m concerned. It had one of the best picture collections salted away in well-defined and ordered threads before that catastrophic server problem (not CDF’s fault but the co-lo’s.) But that collection is being rebuilt.
As far as knowledge, you have some of the best people on military, politics and economics on the web, including the Colonel, Xinhui, DOR, Rick and others. Even though its focus is on Chinese items, the posting population is very ethnically mixed. Totenkoft and Xinhui deserve a lot of credit for that.
GoldenDragonAnd is the problem that they can’t maintain the planes or that they choose not to spend the money needed to maintain them?
That’s an easy one and it’s the point I was making, they choose not to because the costs/benefits weren’t worth it.
Look, if you have Mig-29s and Mig-21s, wouldn’t you want to maintain an obviously superior plane if it is worth it? The Mig-29 simply isn’t worth it to Hungary and Romania who’ve used them before and to Bangladesh who haven’t.
Now if Bangladesh is so destitute that it’s giving up fighters, I would take that example off the table. But it isn’t and is actually putting out a tender for new “modern” fighters.
I think joining NATO gives them more than enough capability to have no planes, but they can’t really get away with that so they go the next route and drop a more capable aircraft for a cheaper simpler one, with the intention that in the near future (5-10 years or so) when the benefits of being a western democracy adds money to their economy they can buy or even better be sold for one Euro someone elses castoff F-16s.
Dropping a more expensive plane for a cheaper one in a future buy makes sense. Dropping a more expensive plane that one ALREADY HAS makes no sense whatsoever unless the cost/benefit of maintaining it is not worth it.
Why pay even 1 Euro for castoff F-16s when you have the Mig-29s already? Unless of course, the Mig-29s are inferior or not worth it to keep around.
GoldenDragonI just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative.
Thanks Dong Dong! 😀
The main theme in the article is that SD-10’s development is finished and it is being aired in the open and is informative even though the article spent a lot of time covering basic bvr ideas and foreign stuff, especially the AIM-120 (surprisingly, much less on the R-77.)
A nice healthy respect for Western products like AIM-120C and Meteor. That tone is really no different than the FC-1 articles.
The FC-1 and SD-10 are really part of a single package for foreign sales which really has been a windfall on info.
On the second page, after the reporter asked the designer about the SD-10 and FC-1, he said the missile was developed both for home and export use. He also mentioned selling AAMs to “earn more AAMs” which is saying his group intend to make use of foreign sales to fund newer AAM development. The implied message is that future sales goes beyond just the FC-1 project, even though that is where the impetus came from.
GoldenDragonWell, the F-18 buy for Malaysia was 3 spare F414 engines for 18 twin-engined Hornets if I remember correctly.
So 3 for 36 engines or 1:12 ratio.
I’m giving the RD-93 a wide margin at 50:450 or 1:9 for a safe estimate.
GoldenDragonThanks, Phrozen.
Interesting in that it was reported earlier that the WS-13A was to be the Chinese produced RD-93 intended for Pakistan.
Either 500 figure quoted here is meant as kits for Chinese assembly or the Russians are selling directly to planes intended for Pakistan.
Also 500 is far larger than the PAF confirmed buy of 200 so it means a large order for PLAAF too. There is no combination of prospective buyers that would come up with 250 or so more (taking spares into account) if the PLAAF is not in the mix.
This is another bit of news pointing to a large production run.
GoldenDragonI don’t think anyone had claimed quantum photodetectors with an AAM yet even though it’s an obvious application for the tech.
QWIP articles I came across are mostly space and satellite related.
GoldenDragon‘knowledge related to airplanes design’
also, since when has the LA times become a reliable military publication? with all the right wing stuff they put out, you’d think china was secretly massing troops to invade the east coast or something. :rolleyes:
You mean the West Coast 🙂
A few years ago they began a campaign on a San Diego port berth that was considering a lease to COSCO, China’s shipping company. It’s a nice case study in paranoia.
They succeeded in locking the COSCO out and the company went to Seattle which is now the main port of entry for the booming China/US trade.
GoldenDragonErez, stop breaking our balls with your J-10/Lavi campaign.
The Israeli government had categorically denied any involvement in the J-10.
Now either it’s telling the truth or it’s lying because it is held hostage by the need for American handouts 😉
GoldenDragonGD, I understand your arguments because you are much less informed that I am. The whole matter with Romania was happening at the time we at Unveiled Secrets had been creating the MiG-29 multimedia CD and I had active contacts to many interesting folks involved into this. The Romanian decision to give up Fulcrums was based on unsuccessful MiG-29 Sniper project.
Flex, the Sniper program was well-publicized. AFM and Janes had written on it numerous times. Upgrades that are considered but not proceeded with isn’t a logical reason why a plane is dropped unless it is obsolete without the upgrade.
Now if you are saying that the Mig-29 without an upgrade is obsolete in comparsion to an upgraded Mig-21 Lancer then I would say you have an argument.
The Sniper project had one converted prototype, if what I read is correct, it didn’t ruin the entire fleet.
Just because Egypt or PAF couldn’t get the MLU didn’t mean they simply dropped the F-16. Even without the upgrade, it was far superior to the Mig-21s they had. The same logic should be applied to the Mig-29 in Romania service, don’t you think?
As an aside, I truly appreciate the details of the Sniper project 🙂 Is “Unveiled Secrets” by a publishing house in Europe or the US?
The Force got an air superiority fighter which they do not asked for at all.
But the BAF operates much inferior air superiority fighters in J-7s and the Mig-29s should have been a major step forward. I can’t believe the Bangladesh air force would not want that. The complaints about the Mig-29 from what I read is mainly about the initial cost and the maintenance hardships and costs that followed. The lack of A2G was just another question to ask as to why they were so expensive.
The above mentioned problems with Eastern Block countries and maintenance problems are also politically based. For the long time MAPO was unwilling to deliver spare parts without further options for additional MiG-29s. I know this from some people who are maintaining the 29 at LOT Trencin facility.
Wouldn’t this count as one of the problems in maintaining the Mig-29?
If you are asking for FADEC engines, phase array antennas, digital ECM, LCD layout etc. you get it but you have to count with consequences that you cannot let a school pupil do the keeping.
In a market economy, Flex, you design a Lexus for people who can afford and maintain it or a KIA for people who can afford and maintain that.
If the Mig-29 cannot be operated and maintained by anyone outside of large European countries (we already saw two instances where it couldn’t be in smaller Eastern European countries), then it’s usefulness is quite limited because richer nations with access to F-16s and F-18s would simply buy those.
Take Finland for example. This is a country with years of experience with Russian types. It hadn’t flown an American frontline fighter since the Brewster Buffalo (which BTW was a dead duck against the Japanese Imperial Navy but a massive success for the Finns against the Soviets), but flies an all Hornet force today. Why? Because it could afford a F-18 once the political need to keep the Russians happy was gone.
Yes, that is where we should start. I think this is one very objective argument.
Yes, Malaysia would be a good start. Maybe we could look at the flight hours and service rates of the Mig-29 and F-18 in the Malaysian air force for an equal accessment.
So far we were only comparing maintenance conditions in Bangladesh with Canada and Netherlands (sorry to say that, but such a comparison is a complete BS to me)..
Ah, but this is not true. We are also comparing Hungary and Romania to Canada and the Netherlands.
Again, the fact remains that the Canadas and Hollands of the world won’t be flying Migs.
Hungary and Romania are perhaps among most educated countries (continuing with your school pupil analogy) that would use the Mig-29. Actually, Hungarians and Romanians are just as well educated as West Europeans in general if I recall correctly, just not as rich.
GoldenDragonRomania has a much stonger force of MiG-21s than on MiG-29s and in order to keep the numbers and pilots MiG-29 is not the obvious choice. Bangladesh miht be a 100 million strong country but this says little about their technical skills.
Pakistan had a much stronger force in Mig-21s types too but it still kept its three dozen F-16s in spite of US embargo because of the obvious performance and capability of the Falcon.
Romania has around 20 Fulcrums, no embargo of any sort and a capable aircraft industry (it builds the Vulture/Orao). It would seem logical that Romania would have a far easier time keeping its Fulcrums flying if it so choose. The fact remains that Romania choses not too, in spite of the fact that it is the best performing type in its arsenal.
Now seriously, Flex, a nation of 100 million that is already putting forth a contract for new fighters is not capable of keeping 8 Fulcrums flying if it wanted too?
It chooses not to because of the costs involved. Those Mig-29s in Bangladesh are flyable and I believe they are still flown infrequently. They are just hoping for someone to buy the things off of them so they could get something else.
It is becoming a bit disturbing to me that the argument always end up about lack of technical skills or “peasants” (there ARE better terms, Vympel) whenever a nation is having problems with Russian aircraft. I’m seeing the same answers I already saw earlier from you guys in discussions on Migs in Arabic air forces. It’s always the people and not the plane.
Now, while one could say that Bangladesh is inexperienced with the Mig-29 and is trying to get rid of something before it is able to understand it, this can’t be said for Hungary and Romania.
These are both former East Bloc countries with long experience in flying the type. They are both giving them up because of maintenance problems. Are you telling me that Hungary can’t keep its Mig-29 pilots flying 180 hours because the Hungarian air force is full of peasants who can’t keep the Fulcrum in service?
Is the Gripen more “peasant” friendly?
The readiness of the worldwide MiG-29 fleet is surely worse than with F/A-18 or F-16A. The question is if the conditions Fulcrums (usually acting as a poor man’s fighter) are maintained at are comparable with the usually technically-skilled and economically wealthy US-fighters users, such as Finland, Switzerland, Benelux, Denmark or Canada.
Fair point, Flex. Except the Mig-29 IS a poor man’s fighter and it had better be maintainable under third-world conditions. The Canadas, Finlands, Switzerlands and Taiwans of the world will not be buying Mig-29s.
Granted, Malaysia operates both the F/A-18 and Mig-29 and has a spotless record for both.
GoldenDragonHi Golden Dragon,
Glad you mentioned that.
I was so amazed to read that bit about JG 74 and the language school.
In AFM it was also said that JG 74 would conduct its flying operations from Hopsten starting this month while the ground crews are in language school.As far as I know, JG 74 still conducts normal operations from Neuburg and will do so for the forseeable future.
Maybe next year or 2006 or beyond.
The bit about the language school seems also strange to me. They work on F-4 Phantoms: is a more profound knowledge of English required to work on Typhoons?Cheers, Transall.
Hey Transall, since the F-4 have been operated by Germany for so many years, could the Luftwaffe have already translated the handbook and all the technical marking on the aircraft?
Yes, it would seem strange, especially Germany being one of the principals in the development of the Typhoon.
GoldenDragongo4b17, LN Strike Eagle
Sign In
