Regardless of what you have “seen”, all the service and manufacturer has ever stated is “35,000lbs thrust class”. The rest is armchair speculation.
Russian Aerospace Forces to Receive 400 Planes, Helicopters Annually Until 2025
Russian Aerospace Forces will receive about 400 planes and helicopters per year in accordance with the new state armaments program for 2018-2025, Russian Aerospace Forces Commander Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said.
What consitutes the majority of the aircraft deliveries? BMPD has the number of combat aircraft delivered declining since 2014.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2358587.html
Posted in news:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-returns-mothballed-raptor-to-fleet-440178/
Interesting that they returned an EMD airframe to the OT fleet. There hasn’t been any write offs. Can’t be using it for software or weapons integration as it’s only being updated to block 20.
Da@n Russian hackers! First the US presidental election, now the Pak-Fa thread. Obviously joking. Did anyone contact the admin to see what happened to the thread?
They do, it’s called unit recurring flyaway (URF) and it’s been reported a million times. LRIP-10 was reported as 94 million.
And what of the PAUC equivalent for the Rafale? Go look it up, program cost divided by units. Then come back here and reflect on “hiding” costs.
Don’t claim hidden costs when there are extensive reports on the cost of weapon systems released by the DoD, instead you should be looking at your own nation’s opaque methodology. Glass houses…
don’t worry, in less than a couple of hours you’ll understand that you don’t understand.. or the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about… 😉
Or perhaps the DoD has several different ways of reporting costs which are incomprehensible to those who don’t spend time distigushing between them.
Not every nation reports costs like the French Senat which gives one figure for the Rafale program’s unit cost, without any breakdown of what is included. Of course, it is harder to hide the total program cost, which belies the rosy numbers trotted out by some.
Program acquisition cost is different from other costing methodologies. Can include Milcon, upgraded equipment, related to project. The more mature the program, the lower the procurement costs reflected in the program acquisition cost… usually. The SAR reports give unit costs in both program acquisition unit cost (roughly same as PAC + RDT&E/ units, but usually an estimate in TY dollars in SAR reports) and average procurement unit costs.
The program acquisition costs aren’t really an accurate reflection of unit costs per se. The SM-6 had an APUC of 4.9 million in TY (2015?) dollars on the latest selected acquisition report, so it’s costs are going down (as you would expect with production ramping up)
Paralay-
What are you trying to figure out? Ferry range? Not very useful.
The SFC of the F135 is largely conjecture, there are no hard numbers so it’s like throwing darts. The Combat radius for the USAF profile ar hard numbers. That is about as far as the conversation should go.
Haavarla, seriously.
No one is going over the range discussion again. Use your fingers to look up the latest range figures for the F-35A. Needless to say they are impressive. But you can stick to your Wikipedia data on Russian Su-27’s because that is more indicative of your level of understanding on realistic combat radius.
It may sound harsh, but you’ve managed to post, comment, and read posts on this thread for years and seemingly retain no data, no understanding, no clue. I would call it trolling , but trolls are usually clever.
Not going to touch the rest of this, but I do have one question:
If you are such a proponent of airframe performance, why exactly are you “all for” the F-35C? It has the worst airframe performance of the three variants.
Good interview indeed. I don’t think the F-104 had anymore accidents than other combat aircraft of era and generation. An aircraft I like a lot, along with many other Century series aircraft.
It would seem there were a combination of factors given for the F-104’s attrition rate in German service:
Lack of high performance lead in trainers, many pilots converted from F-84 to F-104.
Training was situated at Luke AFB, a far cry from flying in Europe.
Poorly trained Conscripts ground crew
The mission itself- Luftwaffe pilots were renowned/notorious for aggressive low level flying.
Could be a “pick any, all, or none”, German F-104 attrition rates weren’t outrageous compared to other first time operators of high performance late ’50’s era fighters as you and others have pointed out.
How did the condition of the 1.44 look like in person? Were there still engines fitted, or did they not let people walk behind it?
They are taking about computer busses. Probably refers to the next generation data busses they’ve been working on.
@FBW: That was a strong cohort of OT pilots from the raptor program. Alex Gerynkewich, who was also with Chip Burke on the F-22 OT has played a pivotal role in defining the Air Superiority 2030 study and starting the Penetrating Counter Air analysis of alternatives.
As the point men for operational testing of our last air superiority fighter they are not only an excellent choice, but likely have a unique perspective having been part of that transition.
Good to hear.