FBWMIG-35 is fully certified production plane. and it will not come with obsolete weopons like AIM-9L/M/AIM-7 etc.
That is interesting, because the Russian Air force pushed back the production of their units until 2016, certified or not.
http://www.janes.com/article/26085/russia-delays-mig-35-buy-to-order-mig-29smt-instead
FBW– (minus) because it is not even Block 52. So I have correctly written Block 52-
But can you explain simple fact why is 1 F-16IQ better then 2 Mig-35. For this amount of money Iraq can get two Mig-35, with more engines, radar sets and better weaponry. In fact price per one F-16IQ equals almost 3 Mig-35, but let’s say that two are enough and the rest of money goes for training, fuel,. spare parts and weaponry.
Later as soon as I will have time I will show you that even 2 F-16IQ would hardly match one Mig-35 and not vice versa.
First off, the Mig-35 is not yet in production as Mig is still working on the design. So there is no price to compare to the F-16IQ. Second, as has been explained, if you cared to look up what the contract specified, 150 million is not the flyaway of the F-16. The original FMS request included:
“sale of (18) F-16IQ aircraft, (24) F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines, (36) LAU-129/A Common Rail Launchers, (24) APG-68(V)9 radar sets, (19) M61 20mm Vulcan Cannons, (200) AIM-9L/M-8/9 SIDEWINDER Missiles, (150) AIM-7M-F1/H SPARROW Missiles, (50) AGM-65D/G/H/K MAVERICK Air to Ground Missiles, (200) GBU-12 PAVEWAY II Laser Guided Bomb Units (500 pound), (50) GBU-10 PAVEWAY II Laser Guided Bomb Units (2000 pound), (50) GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bomb Units (2000 pound), (22) Advanced Countermeasures Electronic Systems (ACES) (ACES includes the ALQ-187 Electronic Warfare System and AN/ALR-93 Radar Warning Receiver), (20) AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems (without Mode IV), (20) Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), (Standard Positioning Service (SPS) commercial code only), (20) AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER or AN/AAQ-28 LITENING Targeting Pods, (4) F-9120 Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance Systems (AARS) or DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods (RECCE), (22) AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS); (20) Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs). Also included: site survey, support equipment, tanker support, ferry services, Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD), repair and return, modification kits, spares and repair parts, construction, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, ground based flight simulator, and other related elements of logistics support.”
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/iraq-f-16-aircraft-0
Consider the other FMS request for 18 additional F-16’s put in:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4482.html
That is a LOT of equipment for 2.3 billion.
As far as the political side of your argument, quite simply “no”, the U.S. and other western nations are not behind the ISIS. As someone in this thread said “follow the money”, and doing so leads right back to the Gulf. The proxies fighting it out are funded primarily by Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is not in the national self interest of ANY Western nation to see the region degrade into a religious civil war between the Sunni and Shia.
FBWcool F-22 vs. F-15 pictures vis The Aviationist website from “Cope Taufan 2014″
http://theaviationist.com/2014/06/18/close-aerial-combat-f15-f22/
FBWhttp://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is
Well, don’t shoot the messenger.
He didn’t design the f-16, nor is he an “expert” in anything beside self promotion. His opinion of the f-15 should tell you everything you need to know, Sprey is a fool. Nothing new about his diatribe on this latest video.
FBWThat’s what I mean. Low altitude has been binned as a tactic due to lessons learned – it’s not even safe against less-sophisticated ADS threats. I don’t think it needs CFTs to match the Tornado, they’ll just provide an added aerodynamic benefits (drag reduction) over carrying 2 1500L drop tanks. Recce – yes, that’s due. I think AREOS and DB110 are currently under consideration.
I’m sure 2 seat is already an option, unless it’s just for trainers???
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafconingsby/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=FC7305A4-1143-EC82-2E7E2861662D1D3D
CFT’s provide more than just drag reduction. In the case of the F-15E, or the proposed F-18E/F CFT, they have little impact on G-limit, maneuvering limits unlike drop tanks. Presumably, the typhoon’s CFT will provide the same advantage. Perhaps more importantly on a strike aircraft, they free up hardpoints for ordinance. Considering that drop tanks are usually attached to the hardpoints with the highest weight rating, that is important. Also, something that I personally found interesting, in the case of the Superhornet’s proposed CFT, they provide lift that offsets the weight increase.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-india-video-boeing-reveals-advanced-super-hornet-352926/
As far as low altitude being “binned” several posters have already commented about the usefulness of low altitude penetration. I’m sure every airforce who still trains for low level penetration would be surprised to hear that its no longer useful.
FBWGetting the AETD program past technology demonstrator to EMD stage is going to take some deft footwork by the pentagon with Sen.’s Lieberman and McCain dead set on opposing what they see as a “backdoor” second engine for the F-35. Back in 2012 the airforce stated, “This engine could be used in a whole host of platforms should it ever reach the point of being a development program. Right now it’s just a question of ensuring that we are ready to go, should we as an Air Force decide that we want to embrace this opportunity to really reduce the fuel consumption in future generations of strike aircraft, bomber aircraft [and] tactical aircraft.” http://aviationweek.com/awin/combat-engine-demo-plan-troubles-f135-supporters
Getting the engine into the F-35 may be tricky before the mid-2020’s due to political opposition. Now that the engine has passed the initial design review and is due for preliminary design review in 2015, perhaps the obvious benefits of reduced fuel consumption will be enough to overcome any reluctance to integrating the engine into the F-35 . One would hope that by the early 2020’s, the F/A-XX program is gearing up and will need a new engine based on the AETD. Either way, I agree that the LRS-B won’t be using any AETD based engine initially.
FBWEvery T-50 is avionics testbed. Rephrase your question.
T-50-5 was testing the AESA radar, no?
FBWwas T-50-5 the avionics testbed?
FBWYou penetrate ADSs with shed-loads of jamming, SEAD/DEAD and route planning, not by flying at low level with carrying 15,000lb of ordnance. Low-level flying is an old tactic that proved a failure in Desert Storm.
The lesson learned was that low-level flying was dangerous when the enemy knows your coming. In the case of the attacks on H-2/H-3, the Iraqi were intact and alert. The result was that the A-6 Intruders coming in at low level were exposed to severe AAA fire. The British tornado losses were not all flying low level strike missions. It would be a stretch to call low-level penetration of enemy airspace a failure. It is still the preferred method for a first strike mission to achieve the element of surprise. In a prolonged campaign, provided SEAD missions have impacted the deployment of radar guided SAM, then sure, medium to high level attacks above the AAA and IR SAM envelope would be preferable.
FBWgood grief…
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives titled “One Dead Pilot”:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1184545-one-dead-pilot-9-june-2014-byers-embargoed-2.html
edit… had the wrong link up for a bit.
FBWHa ha very funny FBW!
All of us who were saying through 2010 that the schedule (that still officially had USAF IOC in 2013 and Navy in 2015) was moonshine, that it would be the latter teens before anyone delivered an F-35A for less than an F-22, that land VLs would be restricted and that the operating cost goal was over-optimistic are just as embarrassed as all get out.
And one point (of many) about the sales brochure published by Breaking Defense: In what Block do we get all this fabulous cyber-stuff, tested, validated and ready for war?
PS Nice stuff Tu-22M. Been a while since I heard the expression “samverkan”.
The issue here is the disconnect between valid complaints about the program and the internet view of a modern combat aircraft. If the argument centers on the IOC slippage, cost over runs, concurrency/ software problems, they are all valid and a major concern. Where the criticism loses reality is when the arguments start centering on capability. Many critics may start with arguments over affordability, or developmental problems but the their real agenda is: “F-35 doesn’t look like x, doesn’t turn at x rate, can’t fly at mach 2 (despite the reality that most modern fighters rarely approach mach 2 in combat)”. The Australian Parliamentary hearing was telling, the Senators started with delivery and cost questions, yet quickly pulled out the APA playbook of the “Super Sukhoi dogfight threat”. The answers from the Airforce were candid and telling.
Despite your labeling me as a F-35 fan club member, I’m not an unabashed supporter. The development of the aircraft until the re-baseline was scandalous. The slippage with software integration should concern everyone whose nation is buying the aircraft. Operating costs?, projections are just that, I will wait until there are a significant number of aircraft in service before passing judgement on that. As for capability? Critics want to attack the aircraft for what it is not instead of recognizing the capabilities that the F-35 brings to the table. It does not seem that those in the military that are to operate the aircraft are the least concerned about the capabilities that the F-35 provides.
FBWThat’s the standard that F-35 fans apply to skeptics. So possibly, yes.
In 2010, that approach might have held some sway. Since then, we have seen F-35 “fans”, i.e. uniformed aviation officers embarrass “skeptics”, i.e. politicians and internet blogosphere experts in front of not one, but two parliamentary hearings in Australia. We have seen the Pierre Spreys and POGO’s of the world throughly discredited. I’m going to side with the man who may have made an error in describing the details of the F-117 shoot down, yet has stars on his shoulders. How does history view the critics of the: F-15, M-1, Los Angeles Class, M2 Bradley, all of which were pilloried because some could not understand their value and/or the superior tactical advantage they provided?
FBWMore on F-35/Growler from Gen. Mike Hostage.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/
FBWYes, you’re right. Thx for correcting me.
However if I took some shortcuts, something tells me that this is what we are going to experience. The E/F will need a serious upgrade of its capacities to survive an IADS as an attack plane with the technologies moving all around. Just today, DoD commits 9b$ to sustain the capacities of its most stealthiest plane, the B2.
Sooner or latter the E/F penetrating cap will be put in question in term of cost efficiency to keep both airframe in the fleet with a degraded cap (degraded means that it cost more to achieve similar objectives). The only way to address that is to introduce more 35 sooner. Hence my narrow vision ard the plane “quick and en masse ” availability on the international market.
Supers are going to have to serve a long time. There are two issues: first, the number of F-35c being procured will not be sufficient to sustain 9 wings into the 2020’s even with the marines adding some squadrons of C’s to the mix. Second, the legacy hornets will be leaving the fleet in increasing numbers in the coming years. The strike fighter shortfall is going to get worse in the near term. The navy will be looking to keep the Supers relevant at least into the 2030’s to avoid the numbers gap that is projected. The F/A-XX project probably will not gear up in time to prevent a SLEP of the Supers.
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/sas/stories/20140409-hornet.html
FBWASQ-239 seems to have interferometric ESM but AN/ALR-94 doesn’t. APG-81 has jamming capabilities but not advanced cyberwarfare capabilities to jam datalinks and ESM systems.
Funny that. The B-2 is being upgraded too. Looks like stealth has recognised its limitations.
Rafale AESA can’t jam AFAIK. Typhoon CAESAR can jam and more (i.e. spamming datalinks used to guide BVR missiles).
And where exactly did you get the industry data to draw these broad conclusions? Where is there a Typhoon equipped with CAESAR in operational service? Where is there a claim that the APG-81 does not have cyberwarfare abilities. I’ve linked to an article that claims that it does. Exactly what limitations does “stealth” have that you can draw conclusions based on a B-2 upgrade? Let alone the capabilities of the AN/ALR-94 ESM which is highly classified.
Sign In
