Cheetah D 2-seater with the second Advanced Combat Wing (ACW) model.

Note the extended and drooped leading edge, slot, and the wing sweep angle change.

Cheetah C cockpit.

South Africa should get C-2s instead. at least that’s being purchased by some one.

There are actually a few candidates out there that would fit the bill with regard to the payload requirements and range requirements as set out.

Off the top of my head these would be the C-17 (not going to happen – too expensive to buy and operate), the A-400M, An-70, and the Kawasaki C-2.

The A-400M is what was selected, even though the An-70 and C-2 are perfectly capable.

The C-2s projected cost is approaching that of the A-400M though.

But again, the aquisition budget is there, for the expensive A-400M no less.

The operational budget needs to be increased though, clearly.

I don’t see any technical reasons why the PAK-FA couldn’t reach an altitude of 25 000m in a zoom climb profile, and a speed of 2600km/h if it put its hair back.

Obviously, not being privy to the test programme would mean it’s difficult to ascertain whether it’s done that sort of thing yet.

Anyway, rhetoric aside, this was interesting from the article.

Instead, the Argentine aircraft maker will turn to a Russian ejection-seat to supply the Pampa IIIs for the Argentine Air Force.

If one looks at the more recent purchases that the various Argentine military aviation branches have made, China and Russia feature quite prominently, whereas in years gone by, they didn’t feature at all.

Perhaps a pointer for the future that they won’t simply buy western every time as in the past?

So I was correct, they get around half the hours a western fighter pilot gets (in a bad year)
And it’s not really OT either because another poster suggested Russia send a fighter squadron to defend Syria so I explained why that wouldn’t be a credible deterence.

No, you are not correct.

The RAF flew 200 hours per annum on their fast jet fleet in 2010.
This has since dropped, with jet pilots funded for 180 hours after 2010 as far as I can tell, although it may well be less by now in 2013 with global defence cuts.
Germany and France fly less, with French pilots being funded for around 150 hours.

So, no.

Not “around half the hours a western fighter pilot gets (in a bad year)” as you said.

I understand posters try to score points, but please let us stick to facts.

PS. I’ve struggled to get reliable 2012 stats and projected 2013 stats, so if any posters have that info, it would be appreciated in the interests of honesty and accuracy.

I don’t object to you saying that at all. It was a far superior response to the childish ad hominem attacks thrown at me by others in this thread so I appreciate it.

And speaking of deciding not to answer; you never got back to me on my question regarding ‘even-handedness’ earlier in this thread … ( Post number 78)

My response on this thread and others speaks for itself.

In other threads, which I know you read, you will see me ask people from both sides to chill out a little.

Of course you are entitled to view Russia as some sort of despotic monster, but the truth is that they are not really different to other countries, including the UK, when it comes to their interests.

Putin in fact has within the last two weeks just returned from BRICS 20 in South Africa.

I felt your opinion that “Russia is already pretty much isolated” and “Russia is not a country with many allies as it is, let alone friends” was a strange one to take and flies in the face of obvious evidence.

Just on the 2% “average” for GDP. It’s not that simple. You not only have different government spending requirements but also different tax regimes.

So military spending may be 2% of GDP in two countries, yet 20% of government expenditure in one country and only 10% in another.

The 2% is something invented by NATO and in reality shouldn’t be used. What should be used is funding based on operational requirements. For a country like Israel 2% is probably inadequate, yet for say Belgium it’s overkill.

I’m aware of that.

South Africa’s defence expenditure as a % of government expenditure is also low.

Lower than Switzerland, Nigeria, Kenya, Australia, Japan, Canada, Norway, Brazil, Ireland, Germany, UK …..etc.
In some cases, it is half as much.

As a tax burden % of GDP, it is also low.

Lower than Argentina for example, and most, if not all the countries alreadt mentioned. It spends approaching only half as much as a percentage of many, if not most Western European nations.

There are challenges such as housing (once you stop the illegal tide from across the borders making the list never ending) and job creation that need to be adressed, but SA spend well below average, or even what is expected of it, by any standard of measurement.