F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Almost every industry got hit because of the collapse. The differences lie in the degree of slow down.
You can design the best fighter in the world, but if you cant manufacture it....

The recent call for modernization is proof enough.
Well, you can remove Sukhoi from your list. They swallowed Billions from exports alone.

In the 20 years after the collapse, they introduced Su-30MKK, Su-30MKI, Su-34, and Su-35 for mass production while working on experimentals like Su-47 and Su-37.

The 2015 time table is high unlikely. PAKFA first flew in what 2010? They are not gonna get everything right in 5 years.
PAKFA has been built upon the experience gained through MiG MFI and Su-47. Avionics were already tested on Su-35. PAKFA is an extension of these programs in various ways.

The Russians keep saying they are on schedule anyway. Once Phase II starts this year, we will know better.

They have never stated that it will be on par with F-22 either.
That's only concerning stealth.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
Good. Then can you explain how you arrived at this point.

What are the different areas?



Every country has secrets. F-22 is not something your closest allies can afford. Most will be lucky to buy the significantly cheaper F-35.

Btw, there are no A2A drones at F-22s level. Come back to Earth.
Do you really belive the reason that the congress passed a law that the F22 can not be sold is because no one can afford it....? Does that make any sense to you or anyone here? Hey friend I got something I am not going to sell you because you cant afford it.

The T50 prototype flew in 2010 there are three prototypes with a fourth scheduled, I dont think the PAKFA prototype has even been builit at this point.

U2, B2, F117 A-12 / YF-12A / SR-71 F22, F35 a number of stealth designs, F22 and F35 are a composite of the technology learned in the experience building and operating those stealth or partial stealth planes listed above. Thirty years of development first combat missions now over 20 years ago. You dont just say one day I am going to build a stealth plane and go out and build one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#List_of_stealth_aircraft
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Do you really belive the reason that the congress passed a law that the F22 can not be sold is because no one can afford it....? Does that make any sense to you or anyone here? Hey friend I got something I am not going to sell you because you cant afford it.
Not really. Congress has voided the sale of many technologies and some of it don't even make sense. For eg: During Indian MRCA deal, the Americans offered the AESA. But the Europeans and Russians offered better configurations of their own radars. The Americans, or namely, Lockheed Martin and Boeing could not up the ante by offering the RACR and SABR which are the latest models. This is because Congress had banned the export of these radars. So, by the time the approvals came it was too late, because revision of bids was closed by then.

As of today, F-35 has not been cleared for sale to India. Lockheed martin received a RFI(Request for Information) from the Indian Navy for the F-35 and has not yet been replied to because of Congressional objections. Only Pentagon has "cleared" it by word of mouth.

So, as soon as a technology is made, there won't be a sale. The only reason F-22 won't be exported is because the production line is closed. In case the lines open again, stealth aircraft would have proliferated enough to allow F-22 exports. It is a wholly different matter that selling the F-22 at a higher price than the F-35 while it has lesser capable avionics will be cause for concern to many countries.

As soon as a new technology is made, nobody, including the Russians, will clear a sale so easily.

Brahmos 1 can be exported, but Brahmos 2 is not on the export list to anybody. Only India and Russia will use this missile. If enough numbers are made, the missile will be exported.

U2, B2, F117 A-12 / YF-12A / SR-71 F22, F35 a number of stealth designs, F22 and F35 are a composite of the technology learned in the experience building and operating those stealth or partial stealth planes listed above. Thirty years of development first combat missions now over 20 years ago. You dont just say one day I am going to build a stealth plane and go out and build one. Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes. The US is ahead, nobody here is denying it. But don't be quick to judge the Russians or Chinese will fail simply because of these reasons. Progress has never been stopped by anybody and never will be.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
The Brahmos 2 is at least five years away if ever, so lets wait and see on that one.......The F22 has never been for sale even befor production was finished and even though the sales could have kept the production lines open and saved tens of thousands of jobs. I would say like the S30 to the F15, the Russians are about 15 years behind the USA in advanced aircraft technology.

MQ-Mc" Unmanned Aerial System for dogfighting, sometime after 2020. The MQ-Mc will also handle "strategic attack," a.k.a nuke bombing. Less controversial is the conjectural MQ-L, a huge drone that could fill in for today's tankers and transports.

Some time in the 2020s about the time the PAK FA gets into production you are going to see small air superiority drones that can handle 50 Gs that are more stealthy then even the F22 engaged in air to air combat.
 
Last edited:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Each F-35 stealth jet that Japan buys from the United States in fiscal 2013 will be 50 percent more expensive than in the current year, according to Defense Ministry officials.

The ministry cited lower production efficiency for the price hike — which will see the acquisition cost soar to Â¥15.4 billion from Â¥10.2 billion per aircraft — and plans to buy two F-35s in the next fiscal year, the officials said Tuesday.

To this end, the ministry will seek ¥30.8 billion to cover the acquisition costs in the fiscal 2013 budget request it must submit by Friday, they added.

Japan plans to purchase a total of 42 F-35s and signed a contract to acquire the first four at a price of around ¥10.2 billion each in fiscal 2012. The four aircraft are scheduled for delivery by fiscal 2016. Last December, Japan announced it had selected the F-35 to replace the Air Self-Defense Force's aging fleet of F-4s and become its next-generation fighter jet.

U.S. stealth jets may cost 50% more | The Japan Times Online
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
~$200Billion for the first 2.

Well, this happens during the initial stages of the program.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
I see. When push comes to shove nationalism trumps any objective assessment.
I don't know how you assumed that. Would you like to see the video where the American pilot says the Flanker is better than the Eagle? I am sure you already did. It is a rather famous video.

His words were to the tune of the MKI being able to beat the F-15 every time. Good enough to base my opinion on that don't you think?

This is not my opinion after all. But the opinion of our own pilots and even the pilots of a different force.

Nationalism does not even come close.

I am pretty sure your govt chose the MKM over the Super Hornet after careful consideration, regardless of the fact that the SH's lesser cousin Hornet in already in service in the RMAF.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I am pretty sure your govt chose the MKM over the Super Hornet after careful consideration, regardless of the fact that the SH's lesser cousin Hornet in already in service in the RMAF.

The F15 was not in contention.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
Lets see the F15 was introduced in 1972, and the MKI in 2002,, thats 30 years differance, You all do realize that dont you. So in an exercise, the 2002 planes outnumbering the 1972 planes three to one won the exercise. Do I have that right?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The F15 was not in contention.
Boeing must have assumed the more advanced Super Hornet had a better chance because they answered the RFP with the SH instead of the F-15K.

RMAF also chose the best capable aircraft to counter Singapore's latest F-15s.

Well, you can say the choice was obvious.

Lets see the F15 was introduced in 1972, and the MKI in 2002,, thats 30 years differance, You all do realize that dont you. So in an exercise, the 2002 planes outnumbering the 1972 planes three to one won the exercise. Do I have that right?
It is not as simple as that. The F-15C saw upgrades the same time as the MKI.

The MKI's base is still the same old Su-30.

Also, in the 2004 exercise the aircraft used were not MKIs. Those were Su-30Ks, the most inferior version of the Flankers. You can just say those were base models. Only 2 Su-30Ks were used out of the 12 aircraft.

Like I said, there was nothing wrong with the rules of engagement. USAF simply lost to better tactics and they admitted the same.

Both of you can enjoy reading this article,

:: TEMPUR OFFICIAL WEBSITE - Russia’s Su-30MKM Proposal For Malaysia’s MRCA Need
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
From the article I posted, something that was known for a long time.

Having calculated the cost of life cycles of the Su-30MKM and F/A-18F, Western experts have come to the conclusion that the former is cheaper by about a third.
The MKI's lifecycle cost was stated to be $10000 for every flight hour, a few years ago.

The Russian officials mentioned that the life cycle costs for Su-35 is even lesser than MKI. PAKFA's is unknown, but Russian officials say it will be cheaper than the F-22. I guess that will be obvious.

Anyway, as of today the only American teen which works out cheaper than the MKI is the 6teen.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
So what you are saying a 30 year old F15 can be upgraded enough to take on a plane built 30 years later.

During Cope India 2004 the USAF F-15Cs were tasked with the defense of Gawalior AF Base. The Indian Air Forces aircraft were tasked with attacking Gawalior. Miarage 2000s, Su-30Ks, MiG-29 and MiG-21 Bis escorted the Indian strike force consisting of MiG-27s. For some reason, possibly security concerns raised by the Indians, the F-15Cs operated without an AWACS. That one factor probably leveled the playing field for the Americans

Forced to rely on Indian ground radars and / or their own airborne radars the F-15Cs must have felt crippled. Their misery was probably compounded by the fact that the attack force enjoyed overwhelming numerical superiority. The F-15C pilots would have been easily overwhelmed by multiple targets detected minutes before they came into visual range.

Yet another factor against them must have been the fact that the cream of the Indian Air Force mans Mirage, MiG-29 and Su-30 squadrons. These squadrons constitute our most valuable and limited assets. On the other hand the F-15C is the workhorse aircraft in the USAF.

Conclusion
I am inclined to believe that the playing field at Gawalior was tilted against the USAF pilots. If the US pilots did end up with adverse kill ratios it should surprise no one, least of all the USAF generals. However, it would present them with a wonderful opportunity to scare the US Congress into releasing additional funds for the F/A-22 Raptor. Priced at 187 million dollar a piece, the F/A-22 Raptor is a dream machine that, with its super maneuverability, stealth and radar jamming ability would have easily ruled the sky even in the playing field at Gawalior.

USAF pilots do not usually train to fight enemy pilots. Instead, they train to shoot them down much before the enemy aircraft can come in close enough to fight with them. Given the right circumstances USAF pilots do their jobs very well! So the question whether Indian fighter pilots are better than USAF fighter pilots is moot. They probably are if they get to fight them!. Like they did at Gawalior. But that was an exercise. In actual combat, however, they will probably be taken out long before they get to engage the USAF pilots.

Even if Indian pilots are better than USAF pilots, the USAF is better than the IAF. Indeed, the USAF could rule the Indian skies any time it chose to.

Are Indian Fighter Pilots better than US Fighter Pilots?
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
From the article I posted, something that was known for a long time.



The MKI's lifecycle cost was stated to be $10000 for every flight hour, a few years ago.

The Russian officials mentioned that the life cycle costs for Su-35 is even lesser than MKI. PAKFA's is unknown, but Russian officials say it will be cheaper than the F-22. I guess that will be obvious.

Anyway, as of today the only American teen which works out cheaper than the MKI is the 6teen.
I dont buy that number at all. The russian hardwares are notorius for cheap price but expensive repaires. Not to mention non existent after sale services.

Even without the repaires the price will be more than 10000 every flight hour...
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
I dont buy that number at all. The russian hardwares are notorius for cheap price but expensive repaires. Not to mention non existent after sale services.

Even without the repaires the price will be more than 10000 every flight hour...
This used to be the case.

Anyway the $10000 was an IAF released information.

The after sales service is pretty good for the MKI. IN has not complained as well for the Mig-29K. As a matter of fact PAF has good things to say about the RD-93 on JF-17. The AL-31FN on the J-10 has also been well received even though it's service life and MTBO numbers are half that of the MKI's AL-31FP.

The life of the MKI airframe is also 6000 hours. It is a very good figure. At the same time the Mig-29K's life has been increased to 4000 hours from 2500 hours. The service life and MTBO times of the RD-33 Series III is twice that of the RD-93.

While I am not saying there is a hard and fast rule that will keep the figure at $10000 permanently, it is nevertheless an excellent figure. If the west claims the life cycle costs are 1/3rd of the basic SH, then what's there to complain.

So what you are saying a 30 year old F15 can be upgraded enough to take on a plane built 30 years later.
Sure it can. They are from the same technology base.

For some reason, possibly security concerns raised by the Indians, the F-15Cs operated without an AWACS. That one factor probably leveled the playing field for the Americans
There were no AWACS on both sides. IAF got their first ever AWACS only in 2009.

Forced to rely on Indian ground radars and / or their own airborne radars the F-15Cs must have felt crippled.
Ground radars were not used either. No AWACS on both sides. As a matter of fact a transport aircraft called An-32 only simulated AWACS presence for the IAF. It did nothing beyond just flying around.

Their misery was probably compounded by the fact that the attack force enjoyed overwhelming numerical superiority. The F-15C pilots would have been easily overwhelmed by multiple targets detected minutes before they came into visual range.
It is usual for the defensive force. Even during real war scenarios. Also, the dog fights was not based on elimination like Red Flag. It was based on points. The F-15s after being shot down were still in contention to get more points. So, various different tactics can continuously be formulated during the time. That's why the victory conditions gave IAF 90% of the points. Or else it would have just been a win or lose scenario where the winner takes all.

Yet another factor against them must have been the fact that the cream of the Indian Air Force mans Mirage, MiG-29 and Su-30 squadrons. These squadrons constitute our most valuable and limited assets. On the other hand the F-15C is the workhorse aircraft in the USAF.
The F-15s came from Japan. The USAF had a healthy mix of experience and moderately experienced pilots. Experienced and inexperienced is not an excuse either. The training levels of the USAF pilots are better.

I am inclined to believe that the playing field at Gawalior was tilted against the USAF pilots.
Talk to USAF pilots, especially ones from Aggressor squadrons and they will tell you the numbers and rules are almost always tilted in the opponents favour. It wasn't much anyway.

If the US pilots did end up with adverse kill ratios it should surprise no one, least of all the USAF generals. However, it would present them with a wonderful opportunity to scare the US Congress into releasing additional funds for the F/A-22 Raptor.
People are not fools. Congressmen are anything but gullible. Such false tactics cannot be sold to them so easily. The Congressmen also have White House advisors who are experienced aviators and analysts who can remove the veil of deceit.

This tactic obviously did not work.

Robert Gates did not cancel the F-22 program on a whim.

USAF pilots do not usually train to fight enemy pilots. Instead, they train to shoot them down much before the enemy aircraft can come in close enough to fight with them. Given the right circumstances USAF pilots do their jobs very well! So the question whether Indian fighter pilots are better than USAF fighter pilots is moot. They probably are if they get to fight them!. Like they did at Gawalior. But that was an exercise. In actual combat, however, they will probably be taken out long before they get to engage the USAF pilots.
Sure. But it goes on to show that when facing a decent adversary, it won't go like how Israel or the US had overwhelming victories against lesser capable enemies.

IAF is nowhere as capable as the USAF. It will probably take us 15 years or even 20 years to match numbers alone. Technology, depends on our funding and political will.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
I read on some forum that Life of MKI airframe is only 3000 hours. Can't we get any reliable information on this?
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
I dont buy that number at all. The russian hardwares are notorius for cheap price but expensive repaires. Not to mention non existent after sale services.

Even without the repaires the price will be more than 10000 every flight hour...
What Is Worse Than Cheap Russian Crap
by James Dunnigan
March 27, 2012

Three years ago Myanmar bought 20 MiG-29 fighters from Russia, for $35 million each. China offered the similar FC-1 for less than half the price. Yet Myanmar chose the more expensive aircraft. What was odd about this was that both aircraft have questionable reputations.
This sale earned Russia some criticism because Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a military dictatorship with a very bad international reputation. But Russia is desperate to keep the MiG-29 from fading away. To that end, Russia also ordered 24 MiG-29Ks for its sole aircraft carrier, to replace the Su-33s that currently serve on the ship. However, most of the current news about the Mig-29 has been bad.

Malaysia, for example, admitted that it got rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft were too expensive to maintain. It costs about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them going. Most of the MiG-29s provided satisfactory service. Malaysia was a long time user of U.S. aircraft, so they were able to compare Russian and American warplanes. The Russian aircraft cost less than half as much as their American counterparts. The Malaysians find that an acceptable situation, even though they face better trained pilots flying F-16s in neighboring Singapore.

The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with about 900 of them exported. The 22 ton aircraft is roughly comparable to the F-16 but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Russia is making a lot of money upgrading MiG-29s. Not just adding new electronics but also making the airframe more robust. The MiG-29 was originally rated at 2,500 total flight hours. At that time (early 80s), Russia expected MiG-29s to fly about a hundred or so hours a year. India, for example, flew them at nearly twice that rate, as did Malaysia. So now Russia offers to spiff up the airframe so that the aircraft can fly up to 4,000 hours, with more life extension upgrades promised. This wasn't easy, as the MiG-29 has a history of unreliability and premature breakdowns (both mechanical and electronic).

Russia grounded its MiG-29s several times recently, in order to check for structural flaws. Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as much. While extending the life of the MiG-29 into the 2030s is theoretically possible, actually doing so will be a real breakthrough in Russian aircraft capabilities. The Indians took up the Russians on their upgrade offer. But the Malaysians are going to go with the more highly regarded Su-30. Algeria, and several other nations, have turned down the MiG-29, which has acquired the reputation of being second rate and a loser. Russia, however, wants to preserve MiG as a brand so it is not solely dependent on Sukhoi for its jet fighters. At this point it looks like an uphill fight. MiG and Sukhoi are now both divisions of a state owned military aircraft company (United Aircraft). Technically, the MiG division is bankrupt. Sukhoi is profitable
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top