FBW. And its not the Russians themselves who make the observation in the article, but Nato.
No it wasn’t. Go to the orginial article and point out where it states that NATO made any comparison about the Su-35
FBWRead what KGB wrote, read the article from which he got it. Re-read the Focus article. I’m not interested in your tirade against the F-35, or “you guys”, or the rest. Read what I said about the Su-35. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Su-35 vis a vis western aircraft. We can have that boring, unproductive arguement all day without resolution.
It have everything to do with unsubstantiated claims made by the OP of the article and the Russian version of the article itself. Yet you throw a tantrum. In trying to point out some extreme effort to discredit the Su-35 (which there wasn’t one in the first place), you exposed your usual (yes tiresome), lack of objectivity.
It has nothing to do with asking for a source, I posted the original source. What it says, and what KGB posted are two very different things. Had you actually read the posts, you would have understood the point. Again, not interested in your personal crusade against the F-35, this was specifically about using B.S. articles that claimed to be quoting an article from Focus magazine.
Last point, not to turn this into the usual F-35 vs. blah blah crap that EVERYONE is sick of reading on every thread, but let’s look at the opposite perspective. I could easily post an article where experts claim that the F-35 is superior to every possible enemy. Does that make it true? Don’t you think that there would be some qualifiers in that statement? That wouldn’t raise some questions in your mind?
FBW. I think it will be a bit of both. No doubt they want to strengthen the ties to the US on the other hand, perhaps they also consider strengthening the ties to Brazil, which is after all a BRICS country. Sweden and Brazil is probably willing to share more Tech than the US ever will.
BRICS means jack squat, the only nation pushing BRICS is Russia. Sweden and Brazil may be willing to share more, but the question is: what ToT can they share? Not Raven AESA (though Saab said they were willing to develop a GaN radar with India), not IRST tech (they don’t own it), not engine tech. Saab can transfer EW systems, manufacturing processes, mission software, etc.
True, they cannot share tech on the engine but that is irrelevant since the US will never share engine tech with India even if F-16 is chosen.
– Sure they will, only certain hot section/compressor technology is on the list of controlled technical data. If the restrictions were so onerous, they wouldn’t have ordered F414IN engines.
If it is a political decision favoring the US, why did they not go for the SH instead of the Rafale? Since MMRCA was cancelled they could in theory have done that. It would also have been a cheaper solution.
Would it? They didn’t ask for nor receive a bid to meet an order for SH. Saying it would have been cheaper is not a given.
FBWActually, the article says : Die Su-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus westlicher Produktion überlegen.
Yes, “according to experts”. Which leads to the question which experts? Which western aircraft? Superior at what? DCA? Interdiction? SEAD? It is a throwaway comment without context, and far different from what KGB quoted.
Mind you, I’m not looking to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the Su-35 vis a vis “Western types”. I’m sure the Su-35 meets the needs of the VKS very well. My point was specific to some news sources allegedly quoting the “Focus” article, but actually editorializing far beyond what the article actually says to the point of absurdity.
FBWAnd which countries, according to you, are not dwarf powers?
Lord of the Rings Dwarves (who were quite powerful)? Or sleepy, bashful, dopy, seven dwarves?
Can we get back on track here?
FBWat 83 million per pop, that only leaves us with the Gripen or lower versions of the f-16.
if the 2013 orders by the UAE for more Block 60s are anything to go buy, they are around the same price range as the Rafale.
Except it doesn’t. While 83 million a pop may buy the F-16, Gripen (both debatable). It does not buy the support, weapons, ToT, that India desires.
The UAE block 60 are specific to their needs. The India offering is not the block 60, they are based on the F-16V without the UAE proprietary equipment.
FBWKGB, did you actually read the article in Focus? http://m.focus.de/politik/ausland/nato-geheimpapier-russland-ist-nato-kraeften-in-syrien-ueberlegen_id_5336051.html
Don’t answer I know what you read “Russia-insider” or similar article about it. Please point out where “NATO experts believe the Su-35 is superior” in that article from focus. Does he state what experts? There was some serious editorializing going on in the Russian version.
FBWMsphere seriously, you are not this stupid. Do you have google earth? Open it and use the measuring device from NYS to Iran.
I will do it right now and give you the heading….
43.8 degrees (oops heading from NY to Iran) 318 degrees heading Iran to NY, and it passes right through central Poland. OK? let’s move on.
FBWUh? :confused: How long has it been since you have looked at the world’s map? Those trajectories would miss Central Europe by a long shot – they would pass over the Mediterranean and spanish Andalucia..
Wrong thread for any of this, you asked I told you. I am correct, trajectory for a hypothetical ICBM launched from Middle east would pass over Central Europe taking the shortest route to Washington, NYC, etc. Take a piece of string and wrap it over a globe then report back.
OK- Russia tac air troops? Whats going on in Syria with airstrikes now? (segue)
FBWFew things, if I may..
1. If 10 interceptors are not able to upset a nuclear deterrence predicated on hundreds of ICBMs, why install them, at all?.
Rogue state launch, there are shortest trajectories that a missile (let’s just randomly use Iran for example) would travel to hit Washington or NYC. Those trajectories would pass over Central Europe. Ironically, a Russian ICBM shortest trajectory would be polar (not over central Europe at all). Another factoid that the fearmongers ignored on that topic.
FBWSo what about Putins intensions here?
Putin would love to see his old nemesis NATO and US burn down. Nothing has really changed from Putin standpoint the last 15 years.
Simple physics; In order for Russia to rise, US and NATO must sink.
Patrick L Lawrence (or Patrick L Smith), from the article Paralay posted- Google both names and read about him……
In any case let’s just drop the political debate on this:
1. The views are so Balkanized, I doubt there is common ground to agree on. The sad part is that this NATO “enemy at the Gate” thing pushed in Russian media as far back as 2007 has many average Russians buying into the idea of the US as a mortal enemy. The row over the BMD site in Poland back in 2007 was typical. Exactly how would 10 interceptors upset a nuclear deterrence predicated on hundreds of ICBM/SLBM’s? Rhetoric, yet it played well with the public who didn’t stop and think, “Wait, 10 ground based interceptors would be worthless in protecting the US or Europe in the event of a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia”.
2. The truly sad part is that up until a year and a half ago the average U.S. citizen had a more favorable view of Putin than their own Congress. With both sides now ramping up the rhetoric, it is hard to wade through the bull**** .
The events in Syria reflect this. AP reporters showing the human cost of this civil war. It is irrelevant whether you watch CNN, RT, Reuters, CCTV, the political aspects and bias represented in ANY media shouldn’t hide the obvious. Regardless whether you blame “Gulf States”, “US- ISIS connections”, “Moderate Terrorist”, “Moderate opposition”, “Russian-Syrian war crimes”, or whatever, they are just labels. The suffering is real for the people living there.
It is a sad state of affairs, and I doubt Trump is going to be a boon to U.S.-Russian relations as many Russians are hoping.
My .02 cents on why we should probably get back to aviation issues.
FBWWell IAF su-30 was reported at 60% – a respectable figure all considered, compared to say, F- 22 which is also around 60%. Both F-22 and Su-30mki are complex expensive beasts.
F-22 availability rate was 69% 2014 and 63% last year, part of that is due to RAMMP. There are 9 F-22 undergoing RAMMP at any given time. While that is a small number, it is also 5% of the total fleet.
MKI availability was 55% in 2014 with a similar sized fleet, the difference in availability between the two types in 2014 would be equivalent to a squadron of 24 more aircraft.
Edit-Oops, “last year” should read 2015. It isn’t 2016 anymore…..
FBWEven two operators of the same aircraft have different availability rates and can experience differnent problems. The F/A-18’s have had a brutal year operationally, does that make them junk? No, it makes them old, with a shrinking supply of spares.
That said, time to stop blaming India every time reports come out that the MKI or Mig-29K are not meeting availability, or India reports engine issues. They’ve operated Mirage 2000’s, Jaguars, and the like without these leaks hitting the Indian news about shoddy workmanship, engine, FBW issues. It’s not like they pamper the western types in their inventory then break out the duct tape to repair their Migs.
FBWIf the MMRCA competition is any indicator, the decision will be irrevelant and I’ll be feeding the ducks outside my “adult recreation and living community” when the winner is announced.
FBWThe figure published by SAAB at the Gripen E rollout in May 2016 was 35,6 billion SEK for 60 aircrafts,
which is $65M at a 9,18 exchange rate.The quote for Denmark was 22B Dkr for 48 aircrafts or $64M per aircraft (580 MSek), including spares.
http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/har-ar-prislappen-pa-super-jas-6409662
It’s believeable. The above figure I gave included development cost for Swedish contract. The Danish one I am curious on:
That would essentially mean that Saab is not rolling dev costs into the package offered to Denmark, or the quote is a “flyaway” cost.
I also noticed that FMV has signed separate contracts for HMD, skyward IRST, Raven AESA. This may be similar to the flyaway of the Super Hornet that does not include government furnished equipment (like radar).
Sign In
