Maior

Yes, it does. I'm talking about full packages here not the airframe alone. Airframe cost is about 20% of total cost. The SHornet can have a price tag of $66 million (well, 55 was in late 1990s dollars. You need to add nearly 20 years of inflation to that price!). Then you have to add all the pods, external stores and maintenance which brings the price total to around 96% to that of an F-35. So, yeah, 96% of the price for 60% of the capabilities. regarding cost per hour, hard to say exact values due to differences in how they calculate the prices. Australia's SHornet operating costs are $24K an hour and Jane's estimate for the -35 in Australia is $21K. So, who's right?

regarding costs, full F.35 packages are coming along at $180~200M per aircraft. It compares very favourably with SHornets and even F-16s if you go bang for your buck. You need to remember that another bonus of the F-35 is that you don't need expensive external pods for extra weapons and improved SA. Add that to the piviously mentioned ability to work by itself and you get a very affordable plane. Even with all the cost slides. The Gripen (amazing as it is) won't probably come out that much cheaper when you take into account the extra systems you might need to acquire in order to perform the required missions. Singapore is thinking of buying the F-35B and South Korea is almost a done deal for the A model. The F-35 continues to rake up interested parties something that other platforms cannot do. Also, the Gripen has been loosing procurement competitions left right and center (India and Brazil immediately springs to mind). remember that the Rafale procurement by India was ailed by the Indian chief of staff as one of the milestones in the country's procurement history since the IAF feels that it got exactly what it wanted.

Well, I have to recheck. I remember reading something like that. If you don't have any info, I could be wrong. I'll take a look and see what I come up with.

Well, this airframe is supposedly, "new stealth" like the F-35. So, even though RAM is still applied, it's much less of a factor for RCS than it is in the case of the B-2 for example. RAM is already applied in the VVS for the Su-35 for example. Especially in things like compressor blades and other high reflective areas.

Well, be it as it may, their original naval procurement for the 2020 scenario was overambitious and got cut. It was inevitable. You may talk about what Russia needs but, what Russia wanted was quite different. The economy is not diversified enough to counter the fluctuations of natural resources prices. They had cuts since they couldn't afford it all. Russia has a lot of problems still and money is definitely one of them. Also, your carrier math is a bit off. there are more carriers than that. Smaller ones but still carriers. Also, if you go into LCS ships like the mistral class, you have some light carriers capable of some strike capabilities. With 200 meter decks, they can be converted to some strike roles. Also, the spanish have one of these lcs with a bigger ramped deck than their carrier counterpart. I'm still banking on part of the delays of the new carrier designs being related with technology transfer of the Mistral class ships. Also, cost. They were supposed to build new carriers for the 2020 window, now it's 2030 window. Let's see how things go.

Well, in the whole idea of a contested air space scenario, using reusable drones seems like a waste. More effective to use cheap low switchblade like drones who self destruct on impact. Due to all the problems you already mentioned. Russia poured quite a considerable amount of money namely, the french and Israeli contracts. $400M for Israel in a tech transfer contract for UAVs and microprocessors. Not to mention Russia's native programs. I heard from a defence specialist that Russian UAVs are in testing phase but at least a decade in the making. They have a lot of ground to recover. regarding the T-90MS, indeed you're right. It is a considerable step in the current T-90 capabilities. The inclusion of a remote controlled MG is one of the most sought after features in the design. Export costumers will be the target of this platform and India is considering upgrading their manufacturing plants to produce the T-90MS instead of the C. Apparently, the difference in tooling is not great and it keeps the frame updated and battle worthy even against the main opponents it could end up facing (Chinese models).

The Armata platform encountered some delays apparently but is still due in 2015 for some variants and 2017 for others iirc. Probably the platform will take this turret as a basis for the Armata MBT. I don't think this tank (T-90MS) will see service in Russia (India is considering it) unless the upgrade can be made pre-2015. That's two or three years to conduct a fleet-wide upgrade. Not much sense buying this platform if it is not going to be conformed to the Armata platform which will be the standard Russian platform for all manners of AFVs. The UAV launcher could be the barrel of the tank for small switchblade UAVs. Then again, Russia is lagging a lot on the UAV area. Also, it's better to have a predator drone or any other high endurance UAV, and just use the tank as the controlling platform directing hellfires where they see fit.

Yeah but it gives a great background to the old days. I was surprised to discover that in real numbers, due to the lower GDP and lower budget allocations to the defence sector, funding lowered 70% between 1990 and 1999. Just incredible. Nowadays, it's better but still they face problems. Especially in the navy. recently, they delayed their new destroyer project and decided on updating existing frigates and destroyers to compensate. Smart spending. But it begins to show that the Russian objectives lined up to 2020 were more than they can chew. New Aircraft carriers are no where to be seen. I believe their recent Mistral agreement with full tech transfer has something to do with it since it'll lower the costs of further platforms considerably. Just the amounts you spend on R&D usually mean a lot of the overall price (heck, look at the F-35). I think that corruption (even though it's being fought) and a lack of economic diversification (somewhat happening but not at the pace needed) can spell an early end to the Russian rearmament.

Hey guys, the current T-50 thread made me look further into the current state of Russian air force and I ran across this pretty nifty website: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/ruaf-3-7.htm Lot's of info here. Good readings. Also, good sensor information in this page: http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors.htm

well, my "line of investigation" was just to alert that the T-50 has been developing for longer than people think. For me the development of the proper aircraft began 11 years ago. And due to differences in how both projects were procured, I found amusing to use such an analogy. What I'm pointing out is that the development of a 5th gen aircraft and it's associated technology is not a five years project. The T.50 had more than double of that time and it still lacks it's proper engine and avionics making it presently a 4+ gen aircraft (legacy avionics) with stealth.

Well, given the software constraints, the manned asset will always be present. Smaller presence but present. There are things UAVs are not programmed to do. Imagina a simple F-16 turned into an UAV. When the aircraft enters a vertical spin, it keeps bobbing up and down and the fly by wire system tries to correct this worsening the stall. Now, a human pilot knows that to exit such stall, he has to turn Fly by wire off and then increase the momentum of the aircraft until he can regain control. If no human element was involved, the fly by wire system would continue to do it's job. Because it's what it was programmed to do otherwise, the F-16 wouldn't fly. well, the math is pretty self explanatory: Next advanced fighter competition: development began on the MiG 1.44 and Su-47 - 1983 Sukhoi awarded contract - early 2002 current year - 2013 2013-1983 = 30 years. Now the T-50 model has been in development since 2002 so that's 11 years for the specific model which I'm sure shares the same airframe with the Su-47. It was the next step. What serious drawbacks does the F-35 have? What major design flaws? All testing is proving more than satisfactory including pleasant discoveries like the supercruise ability. Also, in terms of product milestones the F-35 is miles ahead of the T-50. They already ended the LIRP phase of the production. They have airframes with over 3,000 flight hours in them a thing, let me remind you, the first two models of the T-50 couldn't achieve since they cracked way before that. Also, the F-35 is already ahead in avionics the only lacking feature being the advanced HMCS which literally allows you to see through the aircraft. Handy for dropping a couple of AIM-9s in a dogfight. the T-50 has a looong road ahead. It's not bias against the Russian engineers. It's just how these things go. Assuming the phase in which the F-35 is, the admission into service is in 2017. The T-50 is, best case scenario, 2019. That is a myth (as pointed out before) and is not true. Russian planners are betting that the T-50 which is mainly an air superiority design, will be able to tango effectively with the F-35 and that it's lower cost and simplicity mean that it'll be more cost effective than the Western models. It's a matter of cost-effectiveness. But I can assure you that Russian leadership appreciates that the other side has the technological edge over them. And nowadays, that means a lot. I mean, even in a "light" simulation like FC2 or 3, I love the Su-27 to death but the truth is, once you go to an F-15 you can never stop thinking "upgrade". It's just way easier and you have a lot more info available. Even comparing the F-15 flood mode for the AIM - 7 is leaps and bounds better than anything the Russians have for BVR. The West has more technology. The Russians have 20 years of lag in major experimental scientific knowledge. I mean, they're very good at theoretical science and that's most of the work. But the practical applications of some of their breakthroughs is still hard to achieve. Damn, sorry for the long wall of text. I just got a bit carried away. Again, this is just a heads up with some of the data available. If I'm proven wrong so be it, I'll admit it. But don't get your hopes too high on seeing the T-50 operational before 2020 based on what we publicly know.

I don't think we've seen the last of manned aircraft yet. Also, about the myth that the development is only 5 years, I don't think you have all the numbers. Russia has been trying with LO ever since the Su-47 and the MiG 1.44. As far as I know, Sukhoi was awarded the contract for the development of the next Russian fighter in 2002 based on the success of the Su-47. That's 11 years ago instead of five. Also, development of the Su-47 has been going on since 83. Take all that into account and you get 30 years development. The aircraft maiden flight was supposed to be in early 2007 and was postponed till early 2010. Three years late. Together with the latest delay it's 4 years delay so far. Out of decency I won't take into account the years lost when the SU tumbled and crashed. And FYI, five years to build and test a modern day fighter is impossible. Five years might take you out of the drawing board but that's it. So, as Invader Zim said, you get what you pay for. Now, I'm not against this or any project. This post is merely aimed at dispelling some myths regarding aircraft development and what each nation is doing. Also, the T-50 will enter service years latter than the F-35 and is way behind the F-35 in terms of testing. Also, not everything is a bed of roses in that project. Not a lot of info is available but so far, Engines and Avionics are problematic (to say the least). And a lot more delays will occur once they try to integrate all 21st century avionics in one package. We can easily mention years before the avionics are fully integrated which will leave Sukhoi with two options. Either produce Block 1 aircraft and upgrade them as solutions are found, or, hold to it for the years that will take to make a "out of the box" winner. Just my 2cts to keep this discussion on realistic terms.

Well, You certainly won't hear me bashing the T-50 or the Sukhoi engineers. I just point to the facts. Fact is that as Invader_ZIM pointed out, no combat avionics are fitted to the T-50 so far. Don't just hurry and bash other platforms.

Well, doesn't appear to be the case. Acceptance into service has just been delayed to late 2015 early 2016. http://lenta.ru/news/2013/03/28/pakfa/ Also, the F-35 as well as the T-50 will receive upgrades in their capabilities as time goes on. It'd be stupid not to do so. And please tell me what the F-35 won't do that it was supposed to.

Well, the road is long however, ED has to look seriously into the naval aspect of the game in order to make a decent warfare simulation. I for one would like a proper carrier group showdown in the black sea :D Kaktus, ESM tracking is used in air combat. Look for the Kolchuga system. This is an ELINT system designed to detect electric emissions. Really, you should give harpoon a try. It'll explain things way better than I can while writing. See some Harpoon 3 youtube videos. Search for the Harplonked user name.