The No1 tank as rated by the Forecast International and other media shows its only as good as those Russian “tincans” when facing a real opponent and in similar combat situation. The so-called invincible Abrams was already humbled few times earlier. The French and Brits somehow managed to escape this situation coz there are not much buyer of their tanks. But its 101% guaranteed that their fate would not be much different than what we see with those of the Abrams and Leopard-2s.

Weren’t these two burned out Leo 2’s destroyed by the Turkish Air Force because they were immobilized and had to be left behind after an IS counter attack around the Al Bab hospital?

I have no data at hand reach but, yes, a Super Tomcat in 2017 would mean half the carrier force down (cost, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance… and obsolescence). The Tomcat was a complex airframe with systems performances reached only by pushing technologies of the time to their limits ( have a look at the flight manual).

What about the ASF-14? Not presenting it as a realistic option, but being a modern redesign from ground-up, it wouldn’t have been kept down by obsolete hard-to-maintain systems.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142

ijozic, which part of “fuel cost only” don’t you understand? It’s all very nice, but this has zero effect on the cost numbers provided..

Yeah, sorry, I missed that since your first post on the topic clearly stated: “Interestingly, the F-16C is more costly to operate than a MiG-29, as Polish AF have found out.” which is what I was responding to.

Is there a quoted value of how much a MiG-29 flight hour in fuel costs in the Polish Air Force?

Brainless repeating of the same old BS is getting tiresome… especially if it’s without a hinch of anything measurable.. cold numbers say the opposite.. I can’t say whether the F-16 gulps fuel faster than a MiG-29 or whether the F-34/JP-8 is so much more expensive than Jp54, but the fact is that, despite its two engines, the MiG-29 is still cheaper to fly..

There is one considerable difference here. Poland has a significant maintenance infrastructure (which also produces replacement parts) to support its ex-Soviet aircraft, they don’t get their parts from Russia, but from ex-Soviet republics which operated the type and still have some part stocks. Unlike for the F-16 where they have to buy them from the US, I presume. They also have a significant number of their own 29’s which are used solely for spare parts.

Also, the F-16 is also a much more advanced aircraft with more expensive equipment which is probably rather expensive to maintain. The MiG-29A is rather rudimentary in that regard. I mean, I’m sure they’d find the MiG-21 much cheaper to operate than the MiG-29, but they’re not considering to reintroduce the type. So, a more relevant comparison would involve the operating cost of e.g. a MiG-29M1/M2 rather than the 9.12A.

Thus, I presume the MiG-29 is only useful in the air policing role, rather than to waste hours on the F-16 for such menial tasks. But, if there was a need to send aircraft to be involved in a combat scenario, there’s no doubt which type would be sent, regardless of the price difference.

The public policy was Assad must go.

That was their official stance as a solution to the situation in Syria, but it says nothing on how far the Obama administration would actually go to achieve that (especially after the previous administration got burned in Iraq). Some sources indicate that CIA was later on (some time in 2013?) given the official permission to get involved on the notion of providing some means of control of to which groups the Suadi and Qatari weapon deliveries were going to.

It would be interesting to know more details on how much of the CIA activities in Syria are a result of the US administration’s supposed policy towards a forceful regime change there (which doesn’t seem likely given the less than half-hearted efforts involved) compared to perhaps partly their own initiatives as reactions to ongoing developments or supporting their vital allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia or Jordan) who have different interests and priorities than the US.

As for the rest of your post.. no comment.

Non sequitur.. there is nothing like “best interests of the people of Syria”.. Syrian people are not a homogenous entity sharing the same beliefs and values, it is a deeply divided society.. whatever you do, you can’t serve the best interest of them all.. But, as matter of fact, if international law still means something, then Assad is still the only president and Russians are still the only ones with an official mandate to operate in Syria.. American training and equipment or Saudi money do not make your bearded head-chopper any more “legit”, “approved” or “moderate” than a member of ISIS, for Syrian govt he is still simply a terrorist..

Well, so are the Taliban to the current Afghani regime, but that doesn’t stop Russia to deal with and potentially support them, supposedly as a partner against IS.

F/A-18 and Rafale are two-engined aircraft in same size class (slightly smaller, in fact)… I think original MiG-29 was disadvantaged by original requirements which resulted to poor endurance and to make it competive, they had to update the airframe so they could use integral tanks etc.

F/A-18 is a Navy plane so they preferred twin engines when possible, but IIRC the main reason why it had two engines is because it was a development of the YF-17 which started with two smaller turbojet engines rather than one large as the F-16. Not sure if Rafale had a suitable single engine as an option, but it was also planned as a carrier aircraft as well, so perhaps that played a role as well. In any case, it’s hard to directly compare designs going for different requirements.

I’m not saying that MiG’s choice was bad at a time since export considerations didn’t play a part at that time, and, yes, the requirements for being able to operate from unprepared airstrips additionally reduced the available space for fuel. But, in post-Cold War hindsight, the basic design has two engines for which it has too little fuel and only three hardpoints per wing which rather limits its useful weapon load except for its primary short range interception role. Compared to its US rival, the F-16, which carries the same or larger payload and has a somewhat longer range IIRC with a more compact airframe allowing for a single engine to suffice. I love the MiG-29’s looks, but it’s hard not to admire what the F-16 designers did. The MiG-29M would have been what the MiG-29A should have been in the first place (improved range and enlarged wing among many other things) if it wasn’t so tailor-suited to those rather narrow-minded requirements.

For USSR it might have been OK as it could afford many specialized types, but for other countries which couldn’t, it provided little to nothing in regards to multi-role capability and proved rather expensive to operate for what it offered (the problems with the spare part supply didn’t help much here). All that’s well known, I just wanted to clarify my earlier post.

What I’m still rather curious about is why Egypt went with the MiG-29M? Since they already have F-16’s, some Flanker variant would have offered them better power projecting capabilities (they are purchasing those Mistrals after all). Did they get a very good deal on it or what?

Double post.