Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 544

Thread: MiG-29 Fulcrum

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    @Vanir,
    the RuAF has put the ex Algerian MiG-29SMT/UBT into service and the IN just received its first MiG-29K/KUB a few weeks ago. They might not be mature yet, but they are certainly operational and subsequently no technology demonstrators.

    With regards to the content of titan and composites, the Su-27 uses titan and steel but not to such a large extend. Teens don't use a great content of composites either F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s make use of not more than single digit percentage of composites often less than 5%. The Super Hornet is an exception with 19% of composites. The sources about the PAK FA are varying here titan is said to make up 20% only, while composites are said to be used for 70% of the surface.

    I don't discuss here whether the MiG-29 is as good for export customers as western export fighters, but many of the major weaknesses have been eliminated on the newer variants such as the MiG-29K which is in service right now and so far the most developed and advanced variant in service.

    @MSphere,
    the MiG-35 couldn't have been in service years ago. The defining features of the MiG-35 are all avionics related and this aircraft is based on the MiG-29K/KUB designed for the IN, but with various avionics options. The same is true for the MiG-29M which was offered with most of the stuff fitted to the MiG-29SMT2 or K. There was an offer in late 2002 from the Russians to Austria for the MiG-29M which was rejected and which was much based on the old MiG-29M airframe.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    @MSphere,
    the MiG-35 couldn't have been in service years ago. The defining features of the MiG-35 are all avionics related and this aircraft is based on the MiG-29K/KUB designed for the IN, but with various avionics options. The same is true for the MiG-29M which was offered with most of the stuff fitted to the MiG-29SMT2 or K. There was an offer in late 2002 from the Russians to Austria for the MiG-29M which was rejected and which was much based on the old MiG-29M airframe.
    It would, just not in the form as we know it today, but much closer to MiG-29M2 (with Zhuk-ME or maybe MFE PESA). Malaysia was a possible territory once but they opted for the MKM instead.

    The MiG-35 is not based on MiG-29K/KUB, that's completely wrong. It is based on MiG-29M2.. The first MiG-35 prototype was directly rebuilt from MiG-29M2 MRCA (154) which was nothing else than a rebuilt MiG-29M prototype from early 90s. The lineage is clear and there are no K/KUB involved there.

    Carrierborne variants have separate lineage, although the first MiG-29Ks (single-seaters) shared the lightweight lithium airframe concept with deleted overwing louvres with the MiG-29M and later MiG-29K/KUB inherited the twin-canopy solution from MiG-29M2. So they look very similar, but they are different aircraft.

    Austrians received several offers. They even tested a MiG-29SMT2 prototype in Zeltweg.. IIRC, the offer for bulk aircraft was around $15mil a piece. Even with the well-known Fulcrum issues regarding shorter service life, it was a good bang for the buck, I'd say.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russi...17)/0141233/L/
    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russi...17)/0141229/L/
    Last edited by MSphere; 10th June 2010 at 10:45.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    It would, just not in the form as we know it today, but much closer to MiG-29M2 (with Zhuk-ME or maybe MFE PESA). Malaysia was a possible territory once but they opted for the MKM instead.
    That's like saying the Blk 60 F-16 could've been available years earlier, except that it wouldn't have had many of the features that it does.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    They also had a quite expensive support package because they needed to re-train the personnel for different standards. That's well known...
    Pilot training+instructor training was like 360 mil. I don't know about ground staff.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    But still - $42mil for a bulk F-16C without anything is damn much. On top of that, add additional almost $15mil interest rate. That's makes the purchase a daylight robbery.
    First: Israeli paid almost the same price. Plus Block 52+ differs from 'standard' F-16C. In that price you have nice equipment like AIDEWS, JHCMS and so on.
    Second thing is that the interest rate was 0%, so I don't know where are you getting those numbers from. Total program cost was 3523 mil.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Plus despite the claims of "combat proven" stuff it seems that the readiness rate of their Vipers is pretty poor. Quite frankly, probably the most incompetent deal I have seen recently.
    Well, that's incorrect - the Vipers are operational and they took part in numerous excercises.

    India paid 35 mil for the MKI, but then they had to buy a targeting pod, ECM, replace RWR...
    So, I'd say - 42mil for a Viper Block 52+ is not a bad deal.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    It would, just not in the form as we know it today, but much closer to MiG-29M2 (with Zhuk-ME or maybe MFE PESA). Malaysia was a possible territory once but they opted for the MKM instead.

    The MiG-35 is not based on MiG-29K/KUB, that's completely wrong. It is based on MiG-29M2.. The first MiG-35 prototype was directly rebuilt from MiG-29M2 MRCA (154) which was nothing else than a rebuilt MiG-29M prototype from early 90s. The lineage is clear and there are no K/KUB involved there.

    Carrierborne variants have separate lineage, although the first MiG-29Ks (single-seaters) shared the lightweight lithium airframe concept with deleted overwing louvres with the MiG-29M and later MiG-29K/KUB inherited the twin-canopy solution from MiG-29M2. So they look very similar, but they are different aircraft.

    Austrians received several offers, the last one was for MiG-29SMT-IIs. They even tested the prototype (917) in Zeltweg, some pics were posted on airliners.com.. IIRC, the offer for bulk aircraft was around $15mil a piece which sounds pretty unbelievable to me. Even with the well-known Fulcrum issues regarding shorter service life, it was a good bang for the buck, I'd say.
    While it is true that the first MiG-35 demonstrator was converted from the MiG-29M2, which was based on the 4th MiG-29M prototype (Bo.No. 154) it was just a demonstrator for the avionics. A new built aircraft was simply not available at that time and the MiG-29M2 was a logical choice for a first demonstrator.
    Yet RAC MiG decided in 2002 to develop a unified family of single and twin engined land- and carrier based aircraft. This came after the evaluation of the MiG-29M2 showed that its new canopy wouldn't affect the performance of the aircraft. As Indian was supposed to order the K it was ultimately decided to base the entire family on the KUB.
    The M was to be based on the K, but India requested a different avionics fit with more advanced sensors such as an AESA radar this led to the MiG-35.
    If you take a look in the recent RuAF news thread you'll see that recent MiG-35 prototypes (961 & 967) are converted from previous MiG-29K/KUB.

    There wouldn't have been a MiG-35 in the form as it is now, so what's the argument about another M based Fulcrum being possible earlier, while it would have nothing to do with the MiG-35 in its current form now?

    Btw. The MiG-29M/M2 was offered for more than 30 mln $ to Austria.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    Pilot training+instructor training was like 360 mil. I don't know about ground staff.
    OK, could be..

    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    First: Israeli paid almost the same price. Plus Block 52+ differs from 'standard' F-16C. In that price you have nice equipment like AIDEWS, JHCMS and so on.
    Morocco paid $7mil per airframe less. Just because they opted for Rafale and LM did everything to get em back. On the contrary, Poles agreed with the first BS price they were offered - their own fault. That is why I consider them totally incompetent.

    BTW, that nice equipment you mention is calculated separately. Poland ordered 48 JHCMS sets and they were not included in the aircraft flyaway price.
    What's AIDEWS? You mean ECM pods?

    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    Second thing is that the interest rate was 0%, so I don't know where are you getting those numbers from. Total program cost was 3523 mil.
    Nothing like 0% interest rate, where do you get it from?

    Poland received $3.8 billion loan from the US govt for the purchase, with repayment spread over 15 years. The total cost of the program including loan service is $4.7 billion..

    http://www.f-16.net/news_article698.html

    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    Well, that's incorrect - the Vipers are operational and they took part in numerous excercises.
    No one said they were not operational. Just their readiness rate is ridiculous - even worse than with Su-22s. Some issues have probably been already addressed but I would not dare to call Poland a happy F-16 user.
    http://www.f-16.net/news_article3294.html
    http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/ar...po_drugim.html

    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    India paid 35 mil for the MKI, but then they had to buy a targeting pod, ECM, replace RWR...
    So, I'd say - 42mil for a Viper Block 52+ is not a bad deal.
    Poles had to buy all those things, as well..
    MKI has Tarang RWR included in the price, AFAIK. At least I am not aware of any separate deal covering this..

    42mil for a Viper Block 52+ without anything is a VERY bad deal, IMHO. A straight rip off..
    Last edited by MSphere; 10th June 2010 at 13:15.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    That's like saying the Blk 60 F-16 could've been available years earlier, except that it wouldn't have had many of the features that it does.
    Sure.. If UAE has opted for a new F-16 version just five years earlier than they did, the Block 60 would not have APG-80 today but some hypothetical APG-68(V)12.

    It is a question of money, not capability. If today Egypt said they wanted a new MiG-35 and financed the whole program, you would be having series 35s with AESA radar of whatever type you choose in 3-4 years.

    No rich vendor = no new version.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    While it is true that the first MiG-35 demonstrator was converted from the MiG-29M2, which was based on the 4th MiG-29M prototype (Bo.No. 154) it was just a demonstrator for the avionics. A new built aircraft was simply not available at that time and the MiG-29M2 was a logical choice for a first demonstrator.
    Yet RAC MiG decided in 2002 to develop a unified family of single and twin engined land- and carrier based aircraft. This came after the evaluation of the MiG-29M2 showed that its new canopy wouldn't affect the performance of the aircraft. As Indian was supposed to order the K it was ultimately decided to base the entire family on the KUB.
    The M was to be based on the K, but India requested a different avionics fit with more advanced sensors such as an AESA radar this led to the MiG-35.
    If you take a look in the recent RuAF news thread you'll see that recent MiG-35 prototypes (961 & 967) are converted from previous MiG-29K/KUB.
    I am not 100% of that yet. 961 and 967 use K airframes but it still could mean that they simply use airframes that are available at the moment. The K is in series production, therefore it's easier to build another K than to build another M2.

    The features that make the K suitable for carriers are expensive - I wonder whether Russians will be willing to pay that unnecessarily. But maybe economy in scale prevails in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    There wouldn't have been a MiG-35 in the form as it is now, so what's the argument about another M based Fulcrum being possible earlier, while it would have nothing to do with the MiG-35 in its current form now?
    See my response to wrightwing..

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Btw. The MiG-29M/M2 was offered for more than 30 mln $ to Austria.
    Interesting.. Got a quote? Are you sure it's for bulk aircraft? I know that M series costs more but the difference looks pretty large.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    MSphere,
    what kind of nonsense are you talking about here? We talk about aircraft which exist and not the what if, what could have been etc.
    You could as well argue what the Russians could have done with the budget of the US in the meantime...

    Edit:
    There were a couple of articles from Piotr Butowski etc. which talked about the development history of the new generation Fulcrums. The land based models lack the tail hook, upbeefed landing gear and afaik folding mechanism and larger inner flaperons. The rest of the structure is said to be identical, including the enlarged wings.
    Last edited by Scorpion82; 10th June 2010 at 13:41.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post

    Nothing like 0% interest rate, where do you get it from?
    Polish MOD documents.

    3523 mln $, 0% interest rate. Do you have a better source?

    [QUOTE=MSphere;1593222]No one said they were not operational. Just their readiness rate is ridiculous - even worse than with Su-22s. Some issues have probably been already addressed but I would not dare to call Poland a happy F-16 user.
    http://www.f-16.net/news_article3294.html
    http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/ar...po_drugim.html
    That's very, very old and obsolete news.



    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    42mil for a Viper Block 52+ without anything is a VERY bad deal, IMHO. A straight rip off..
    You mean that: APG-68(v)9, AIDEWS, ALE-50, JHMCS, CFTs, Sniper XR is nothing?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    163
    In my rush I forget to specify composite/honeycomb as opposed to stressed alloys.
    Still, for the F-15 a titanium ribbed al-alloy torque box, al-honeycomb wing tips, flaps and ailerons, titanium airbrake panel, graphite/epoxy skin with honeycomb sections.
    F-16 is an alloys fuselage/wing with al-honeycomb leading edge flaps and components, meagre titanium reinforcement, fin is epoxy skinned, tailerons are epoxy/resin skinned with al-honeycomb leading edge, ventral fins al-honeycomb and stressed skin.
    Hornet is mostly epoxy/resin skinned al-honeycomb and alloys throughout with a titanium engine firewall.

    The Tomcat is stressed alloy skinned over titanium sparring/components and most closely resembles Flanker structure of the US contemporaries. Flanker is specified by Sukhoi OKB as all metal with no composites at all, and it doesn't use honeycomb. Actually a Janes writeup has it as semi-monocoque with mostly titanium components, citing Sukhoi as a source.

    The Fulcrum is like a cross between the Foxbat/Foxhound and an F-16, having the simple steel fuselage box with other components of various alloys, composites and a novel carbonfibre honeycomb vertical tails. It's like a lovechild.
    Last edited by vanir; 10th June 2010 at 14:11.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    @Vanir,
    this is from an article about the F-15 family I have saved on my HD.

    The aircraft has an all-metal semi-monocoque fuselage of 58 feet 3 inch in length. The fuselage is of conventional semi-monocoque construction, and has a central pod and lateral twin-boom configuration. The F-15 airframe contains 25.8 percent titanium by weight, most of it concentrated around the engines and in the inboard sections of the wings. The three main wing spars and the bulkheads connecting them and the frames of the engine pods are of titanium. Aft of the forward main wing spar, the fuselage skin is also of titanium. The cantilever booms outboard of each engine which carry the twin fins and horizontal stabilators are made of titanium, as are the stabilator attachments and the spars of the fins. There is a titanium firewall between the two engines to prevent a fire in one engine from spreading to the other.
    The heart of the aircraft structure is a set of four carry-through frames which run across the central fuselage, each with holes cut into them to allow the engine air intake ducts to pass through. At each end, they form the main attachment points for the wings, the three aft frames being attached to the three wing spars, and the forward point attaching to a leading-edge member. Machined titanium frames in the rear fuselage maintain structural integrity and provide the main mountings for the engine installation....
    ...The tail unit of the F-15A is an all-metal structure consisting of twin fins and rudders made of boron composite skin over honeycomb material.
    This document http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubF...8SM1%29-01.pdf claims 2% composites only for the F-15E, 49% aluminium, 32% titanium and 17% of other materials.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Sure.. If UAE has opted for a new F-16 version just five years earlier than they did, the Block 60 would not have APG-80 today but some hypothetical APG-68(V)12.

    It is a question of money, not capability. If today Egypt said they wanted a new MiG-35 and financed the whole program, you would be having series 35s with AESA radar of whatever type you choose in 3-4 years.

    No rich vendor = no new version.
    What you'd have is an entirely different aircraft with the same name though. The Russians could've skipped -29 and gone straight to -35 when the first Fulcrums came out, but it wouldn't be the same aircraft. Even the systems that are on the demonstrator model aren't in production status yet, much less having anything comparable years ago.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    @Haarvala,
    the F-16 is a FBW aircraft in any variant, the MiG-29 is not. A good enough trained pilot who knows his aircraft might actually benefit from the AoA override in the Fulcrum in comparison to an F-16 wihtout such ability, though the older analogue FBW allowed to exceed the softlimit in some situation what is even less the case in the newer models (blk 40+).

    Fine.
    But i was pointing out what someone claimed, that the Mig-29 was hard to handle/operate for the reason it did not have a modern FCS(Fly-By-Wire) and additional system.

    This is simply not true, if a Bulgarian Mig-29 pilot could give a experienced USAF pilot in a F-16C Block 30, a run for the money.. how could he do that if the Mig-29 handeling was under par vs the F-16C block 30?


    Beside, the USAF pilot clearly stated the Block 30 was his favorite for this exercise.. Not the Block 40+


    Thanks
    Last edited by haavarla; 10th June 2010 at 19:53.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    It's about precise control and workload. The MiG-29 is certainly not "hard" to fly as such, but more challenging to fly than the F-16 for example. An experienced Fulcrum jockey should have no trouble to fly the aircraft to its limits and make use of its performance potential. A beginner might have a harder time and in total the MiG-29 requires more active flying which requires attention and subsequently substracts from the pilots situational awareness. It might not be relevant in all situations and its impact is possibly relative small, but it adds up with other weaknesses such as the less capable radar, the more difficult control of the systems due absence of real HOTAS controls and limited data presentation due the dated cockpit layout. It's not like the MiG-29 is so difficult to handle that it is hopefully outperformed. In dogfight situations this more difficult handling may have a smaller impact as the pilot has to permanently control the aircraft anyway. In formation flying, aerial refueling and other situations it's certainly more recognisable.

    In short words:
    More active steering+aero limits awareness & monitoring = more difficult to handle

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    Polish MOD documents.
    3523 mln $, 0% interest rate. Do you have a better source?
    Better source than what? You haven't posted any source yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    That's very, very old and obsolete news.
    2007-2009 is not "very very old and obsolete" but "fairly recent" news.

    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    You mean that: APG-68(v)9, AIDEWS, ALE-50, JHMCS, CFTs, Sniper XR is nothing?
    With the exception of APG-68(V)9, these things are not included in the $42mil price tag. So yes, it's nothing.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    What you'd have is an entirely different aircraft with the same name though. The Russians could've skipped -29 and gone straight to -35 when the first Fulcrums came out, but it wouldn't be the same aircraft. Even the systems that are on the demonstrator model aren't in production status yet, much less having anything comparable years ago.
    They did with the MiG-29M which was called MiG-33.

    Of course the systems are not in production status yet ! The order from RusAF came fairly recently, how could they be?. If the same orders came 7 years ago, many of the future blings on the MiG-35 would be available now. The only thing I am not sure of is AESA as Russians only mastered GaAs T/R modules fairly recently. This technology requires consisted funding available, something unheard of in Russia in the past two decades.
    Last edited by MSphere; 11th June 2010 at 09:09.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    By production status, I meant with regards to maturity, not that anyone was ordering them.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    MSphere,
    what kind of nonsense are you talking about here? We talk about aircraft which exist and not the what if, what could have been etc.
    What nonsense? I am putting things into the right perspective. If you say something, then say the complete information, just just the cropped out part that suits you. It's OK to say that F-16E is more advanced than 29SMT but without mentioning that it costs more than twice as much and that it only exists because of rich vendors from UAE who paid all this expensive theater the information is misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    You could as well argue what the Russians could have done with the budget of the US in the meantime...
    A much more interesting debate would be what Americans could have done with Russian budget, if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    There were a couple of articles from Piotr Butowski etc. which talked about the development history of the new generation Fulcrums. The land based models lack the tail hook, upbeefed landing gear and afaik folding mechanism and larger inner flaperons. The rest of the structure is said to be identical, including the enlarged wings.
    Yes, I know that. The 961 and 967 are exactly like you described. The only question remains whether they represent the future series version or Russians just stick to what is available now.

    If Mr.Butowski has this confirmed, then I got no reason for not believing him but I haven't read his articles yet.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Better source than what? You haven't posted any source yet.
    Here:
    http://www.mon.gov.pl/pl/strona/170/...77/#polski-f16

    There is everything. Total program cost, interest rate and so on...

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    By production status, I meant with regards to maturity, not that anyone was ordering them.
    Russian AF has ordered a bunch of them at recent MAKS. Although I'd think that it's more a gesture to demonstrate Russian support for the 35 in terms of aiding chances to win the Indian MRCA deal than anything else.

    Regarding maturity, recent Polish experience with F-16 has not exactly persuaded me that older design automatically means mature or proven.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by exec View Post
    Here:
    http://www.mon.gov.pl/pl/strona/170/...77/#polski-f16

    There is everything. Total program cost, interest rate and so on...
    Thanks. Could you point me at the part with 0% interest rate? I find it almost impossible to find it in the Polish text.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    163
    Scorpion the Eagle's titanium section of fuselage skin is the dark metal you can see around the engines underside which is not painted. The rest is mostly graphite/epoxy with some al-honeycomb sections. Aside from this stipulation the description doesn't depart from mine, though is certainly more detailed.

    My point about the Flanker is that it is described by Sukhoi OKB as all-metal with no composites used. So firstly the skin has to be stressed metal, like a Tomcat and not like an Eagle.
    Secondly I do not know of any Russian manufacture of aluminium honeycomb in aircraft production. Aluminium honeycomb is an advanced engineering procedure the US developed at ridiculous expense from the Valkyrie project (it was the only useful thing gained from it). It is extremely difficult to manufacture.
    The Russians make a novel graphite-honeycomb, but I can't find any example of aluminium honeycomb used by MiG or Sukhoi in aircraft construction, at all.
    Given the size of the Flanker, this means titanium is the only other construction material that could give its relatively light weight, solid aircraft alloys would make it several tons heavier. It is mandatory that titanium must be a major structural component, simply due to a sheer absence of any alternative material given there are no composites or non-metal structure used.
    Finally it is stated by Sukhoi OKB that the Flanker "has a high titanium content"

    If you could find any relation of structural materials by weight for the Flanker I'd be interested, as I can't find anything that specific.

    Similarly if you can find any example of Sukhoi producing aluminium-honeycomb I'd be equally interested, since that offers the only titanium alternative that doesn't contradict Sukhoi claims, which would keep the weight of the Flanker what it is (damn light).

    Consider the point, the Flanker is a fair bit bigger than an Eagle and just over three tons heavier and doesn't have any composites and doesn't have aluminium-honeycomb. It should be more like 8 tons heavier...unless titanium.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Regarding maturity, recent Polish experience with F-16 has not exactly persuaded me that older design automatically means mature or proven.
    I was referring to the avionics, not the airframe. A rich nation ordering them sooner wouldn't have changed the fact that the technology wasn't yet available.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    What nonsense? I am putting things into the right perspective. If you say something, then say the complete information, just just the cropped out part that suits you. It's OK to say that F-16E is more advanced than 29SMT but without mentioning that it costs more than twice as much and that it only exists because of rich vendors from UAE who paid all this expensive theater the information is misleading.
    I didn't compare anything else than the time frames when those airframes were available. I personally stick with the given facts, rather than creating what if scenarios as they have no relevance in the real world, especially not if we talk about the past which has gone.

    A much more interesting debate would be what Americans could have done with Russian budget, if you ask me.
    If labour costs would have been similar to that of Russia maybe, but as said I'm not really interested in the what ifs at all.

    Yes, I know that. The 961 and 967 are exactly like you described. The only question remains whether they represent the future series version or Russians just stick to what is available now.
    There were a couple of articles released over the years in issues of AFM, AI or CA etc. You can also take a look at the manufacturers site, which should shed some light for you on the topic:
    http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/index_mil_e.html

    Why speculating if the facts are in front of us

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    @Vanir

    The other document doesn't fit your description of composite content for the Eagle, maybe they just didn't define graphite/epoxy as composites there?
    And for that matter I haven't argued about the Su-27 baseline model featuring any composites at all, I just raised doubts with regards to your claim that 65% of the Su-27s structure would be based on titanium. Aluminium-lithium is extensively used as well afaik. But I have no exact split for the different materials either.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    I was referring to the avionics, not the airframe. A rich nation ordering them sooner wouldn't have changed the fact that the technology wasn't yet available.
    UAE hasn't just placed an order and waited up until LM develops what they asked for. On the contrary, Emirs have paid the development from their own pockets. A big difference..

    At the times UAE have placed the order, the APG-80, too, was not available. It's Emiri money that made the APG-80 happen. It's a tribute to F-16 and Mirage 2000 that UAE found it worthy to pay for newer versions - but let's be serious, every other major aerospace company could have achieved the same or similar under that circumstances.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    I didn't compare anything else than the time frames when those airframes were available. I personally stick with the given facts, rather than creating what if scenarios as they have no relevance in the real world, especially not if we talk about the past which has gone.
    The fact that Russia was disintegrated and broke for the last 20 years is not a what if scenario. Putting basic MiG-29 Fulcrums from mid 80s as comparison base to most modern variants of US fighters reveals intention to bend the reality towards favoring certain designs over others. I don't like that attitude and never did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    If labour costs would have been similar to that of Russia maybe, but as said I'm not really interested in the what ifs at all.
    Aerospace is a very investment-intensive industrial sector where labor cost plays rather minor role. In agriculture you can replace a high tech tractor by two dozens of cheap peasants - in aerospace you cannot replace a radar by 20 workers screaming peep-peep in unison.. No money - no funny.. A Japanese computer controlled six-axis CNC or 50x CATIA licenses cost exactly as much in Russia as they do in the US (maybe even more due to limited market).

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    There were a couple of articles released over the years in issues of AFM, AI or CA etc. You can also take a look at the manufacturers site, which should shed some light for you on the topic:
    http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/index_mil_e.html

    Why speculating if the facts are in front of us
    Thanks, looks like you were right. I stand corrected here...

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    555
    Clearly most of you have never spent a day in any manufacturing environment period. Aluminum-honeycombs are supposed to impress us as some form of high tech? The original patents for aluminum-honeycombs for aerospace applications date to 1938!!! The Russians have only had 72 years to figure it out. Titanium may be expensive to use in the US but for Russia that's actually the cheapest option seeing as how they are only like the worlds #1 or #2 titanium producer. You'd have to find a good reason for them to NOT use titanium.

    Your cardboard pallets all have honeycomb structures. I would bloody hope the Russians can make a cardboard box.
    Last edited by soyuz1917; 11th June 2010 at 14:18.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    The fact that Russia was disintegrated and broke for the last 20 years is not a what if scenario.
    That not, but your "If someone has ordered an advanced Fulcrum variant earlier..." is a what if scenario and as said a couple of times (I had to repeat myself) it's not of interest for me, because it simply didn't happen. It's fair to discuss the reason why something isn't achieved, but it won't change the facts.

    Putting basic MiG-29 Fulcrums from mid 80s as comparison base to most modern variants of US fighters reveals intention to bend the reality towards favoring certain designs over others. I don't like that attitude and never did.
    Neither do I, but comparing a yet non operational MiG-35 with existing F-16 blk 60 isn't a much better move. It's just the other way round. Some people compare todays F-16 with yesterdays MiG-29, while others compare tomorrows MiG-29 with todays F-16. It's neither fair in anyway and complaining about one way while going it your same into the other direction is somewhat dishonest. But it is valid to point out that the majority of MiG-29s in service are fact those examples from the 1980s.

    Aerospace is a very investment-intensive industrial sector where labor cost plays rather minor role. In agriculture you can replace a high tech tractor by two dozens of cheap peasants - in aerospace you cannot replace a radar by 20 workers screaming peep-peep in unison.. No money - no funny.. A Japanese computer controlled six-axis CNC or 50x CATIA licenses cost exactly as much in Russia as they do in the US (maybe even more due to limited market).
    Yes but the overall production and development cost in Russia are lower than in the west and that makes out the waste difference. Anyway it's once again the what if brabbling which I'm no fan of, especially when it's simply not given.


    Thanks, looks like you were right. I stand corrected here... [/QUOTE]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES