Still amazed as to how such a display is possible in such a fast jet with no FBW. Anyone care to offer any explanations.

Hydraulics?

How was the flight program?

See for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7AN8lvqMoU

i dont know exactly how powerful the transmitting power of data link is what i know is aircraft can guide their missiles by datalinks all the way to target, if the data link is powerful enough for the receiver antenna on missiles to received and use the information, the RWR should be able to detect it too ( of course background noise could be a problem, but i guess they can get around that with better software to find some characteristics of data link that background noise doesn’t have) , i dont think they would spend money and time to make stealth datalinks if it doesn’t bring any benefits

The RWR systems nominally cover certain bands used by radars AFAIK so IMHO it’s not a given that they can receive datalink signals without modification (i.e. possible addition of various antennas to cover different datalink type frequencies which is not a simple task). When you have a datalink system installed, it has the required equipment set to receive and transmit such data and knows exactly which frequencies to listen to (e.g. if there is some frequency hopping method added, etc.), while the RWR system might not so it’s not as simple as “if datalink system can receive it, so can the RWR”.

And FYI ijozic if it was Tu-95MS that crashed (and not Tu-142) then that Tu-95MS is newever than many F-16 and F-15’s. Tu-95MS was produced from early 80’s to early 90’s and most of the MS’ that are operational are probably from late 80’s. They aren’t nearly as old as people like to think they are.

I was pointing out that during their flight operations time when the funds were rather scarce (as I presumed 90’s-early 2000’s were regarded by TR1), the whole fleet was much younger than it is now (i.e. by 15-20 years plus their age at the time) in the context of recent frequent accidents.

There was no type or age reference in my post, so I honestly have no idea what’s this point you’re trying to make over my post.

Top speed of mach 2.5 (about one mach faster than the F35), range on internal fuel of 2500nm (about twice that of the F35) etc. As n interceptor and striker I think is is fenomenal.

Interceptor? IIRC, those TF30 engines were more suitable lower altitudes and they were pretty lousy on higher altitudes (like the engines of the Tornado) which you’d expect from an interceptor. Granted, both the F-14A and Tornado F3 were still put into service as interceptors with those engines, but still..

Even if you were correct and weapons cost were included (which I doubt, personally)

This older Janes piece put the operating cost of the Super Hornet at $11,000 which is a 50% increase on the F-16’s $7000. The F-35 estimates are rather high, though.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2902637/posts

Everything is relative.. And MiG-29 is surely a costly bird to fly… but there are civilian folks who can afford to fly one.. even Su-27.. why don’t they fly F-16s, then? AMARC seems to be full of spare airframes.. My 0.02

I don’t understand this part as I thought AMARC planes and parts are not available to private operators? Besides, there’s the added ‘cool’ factor of having a famed Soviet fighter compared to widespread F-16’s.

Also, high launch speed is certainly a big advantage when the target is in front of the aircraft. If not, it can be a downside forcing the missile to trace a larger turning radius. Which is primarily why WVRAAMs (Mach 2.5-3) have lower peak velocities than BVRAAMs (Mach 4+).

And here I thought the peak speed is lower because of the smaller engine and less fuel and thus having the motor burning for less time. Quite the contrary, I’d expect the WVR missiles to normally reach the peak speed faster as they are launched from rails, smaller and the engines to be optimized for that.

I accept the politics, but they could have had Super Hornet if they needed to buy American.

Super Hornet? It’s not in the same class (e.g. it’s much bigger and has twin engines so higher operating cost) and I just don’t see the value which would justify the cost of upgrading to it from e.g. an F-16 MLU given that it’s also slower and has a shorter range. I’ll admit that I’m strongly biased against it, though.

Who other than the UK/Israel/US is actually going to need the stealth? Japan/South Korea might think that one day the Stealth will help them, but countries like Denmark, Holland, Norway, Belgium (are they buying I lose track?), Turkey etc are not your first day of war crowd and will just as likely hang stuff from the wings as need full up stealth.

I don’t think we can decide what their specific needs are. The upgrade program costs a lot and it’s probably supposed to last for another e.g. 30+ years like e.g. the F-16’s did.