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.

This video here explains a lot of the action. The tanks are called to direct their fire to places previously spotted. This is consistent with the videos of those single tanks who race towards a target, fires a round and leaves. Kinda like tank snipers. I'm always amazed by the recoil. So brute a force... Also, tanks are called to deal with snipers. Nice use of the BMPs too. One needs to remember a 30mm explosive shell is still a very potent weapon. It's explosive warhead is almost the size of a rifle grenade.

20 years ago? Man you're old! 20 years ago I was playing Red Alert and thought that was an awesome representation of warfare... I was oblivious that games like Harpoon existed. Had I known, I probably wouldn't give a damn. ^^ Harpoon was also my first contact with modern naval warfare. Harpoon 3 to be precise. You can also go for the opensource CGB 2 and, the soon to be released Command. Check them out. There's a Paradox title called Naval War: Arctic Circle but I advise against it since it is the proverbial "Rubbish". It's actually funny you mention harpoon since that's what I envisage for this series to become. Mass operations with hundreds of players and bots duking it out with one player controlling the missions as required (if wanted). You know, a modern day IL2. Focusing on the late 80s and early 90s is great ^^. For Kaktus, the hint I gave you "Waypoint", was a magazine published by players of Harpoon 3 together with a defence magazine. Read it. You'll enjoy it! http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=484

The auto translation is understandable in this video for the most part. He's just stating the obvious. Welded iron grating filled with bricks. Also, the glass of the ir search light seems busted. The bulb seems ok.

Lasers in Oceans is tricky business. Also, lasers have problems with information integrity. There's a reason why most data waves are in the microwave/RADAR wavelength. Remember, if you have a LASER comm, your sensor is picking up visible light as well and changing humidity in the near atmosphere can "corrupt" the beam. What is being used currently are quiet directional beams. They're also pretty hard to detect and if detected very hard to pinpoint them. UAVs normally receive them from Satellites to give you an example. Comms are more secure now than they ever were. Modern military comms are also with the use of directional beams. This means you can crack all the codes you like, if you don't have an asset parked between communicating vessels, you can't hear a thing. The advantages of this when coupled with spaceborne assets, are pretty obvious. Also, comms are not how they were. Nowadays, most "communications" are through datalink, sharing target information and increasing SA. It's not a voice comm so, even if you detect and break the code, the message can still make little sense. AESA RADARS are also able to share battlefield information at a faster rate and more securely than current datalink 16. That's why assets are now being developed as part of a complex grid that has to operate as one. The case study for this kind of assets is; dun dun dun! the F-35.

Well, not quite as you put it. Regarding RADAR detections: You can get an idea of the ship by analysing it's RCS and comparing it to known ships. That is not very precise however. You always get Helicopters on the air so you have some aid in helping ID detected contacts. Also, with modern UAVs and satellites, your SA improves a lot. Remember, a fibre glass UAV is cheap and very hard to detect. You can gather enough info with those assets. Regarding Chinese doctrine: The big fleets aren't done. A carrier task force is pretty big and usually the more numbers you get, the more protection you have available. and the harder it is for your sensors to be overloaded. Also, nowadays a big fleet can be operating hundreds of miles apart and still be effective. outnumbering carrier group wings isn't easy. Look at the American system with AEGIS equipped frigates, destroyers and cruisers? They all have long range AA systems and anti missile missiles, and CIWS for point defence. It's not easy. Going through one (for you to have a capability idea, one modern destroyer weights as much as a WWII light cruiser and you'd need the navies of all the world in WWII to match it's capabilities). Russian Udaloy destroyers and Kirov cruiser have S-300 AA missiles. Range 162nm. That's a lot of firepower. You usually have a frigate/corvette screen with heavier ships nearer to the center of the formation. Choppers in the air and, the US task forces can have 80~90 aircraft per carrier. Imagine going against a task force with four carriers. that's 320, 360 aircraft available. Also, the 60-90 period doesn't make much sense. Technology went leaps and bounds from there. The navy always had good performers. The F-4 was very good and the F-14 and 18 were great machines too. In the late 80s, early 90s, the F-14 was probably the best interceptor available in the World. The F-15 had a lot of press but the F-14 was at least as capable an aircraft. The F-18 with external fuel tanks has pretty long legs. And don't forget that even legacy models are still very smart. Your mention to what's being important is who detects who, you're exactly right. Be it in the air or in the sea, SA is always the deciding factor. Errors in judgement on this area are costly. Look at Pearl Harbour. Better yet, there was a NATO exercise some years ago and Portugal managed to sink one american carrier with an old diesel sub. How? the carrier crew thought the sub was a whale. Failures in SA are usually catastrophic. Your future fleet scenario is still a long way away. In 50 or 60 years, maybe and all ships will be autonomous. Near future, Navies will have big ships and smaller vessels. Remember, a small vessel carries less weapons and is more vulnerable. I also know quite a bit about modern naval engagements. It's usually not as glamorous as air engagements making it harder to find. It's around though. Follow the Waypoint (hint) to begin with your quest for knowledge... You need to remember, in most people minds, air combat resembles some sort of medieval joust with planes instead of horses. Naval engagements have always been much more abstract. An individual looking at a bluish screen assigning targets which appear on other ship's bluish screens and there is no "individual" prowess (you actually just see Vampire symbols flying around). Subs communicate through relay buoys that are attached by cable to the sub and contain an antenna that activates near the surface. On sub with sub, you have a noise database which the sonar compares it's return to and assigns a sub type to it. Also, they can communicate under water through morse code pinging with their sonars. Again, there is data available you just need to look for it. Naval war is always tricky since they rely so much on integration between different assets. Still doable given time :)

For the info on carriers, if you can't find it in Google, it's probably classified. But their stores are big. especially on American carriers. Also, there are supply convoys coming and going. Naval operations are very complex but the advanced RADARS from ships nowadays allow for very good SA. Also, if they get a reflected signal from a ship, if that ship has the RADARS switched off, it's hard to determine what ship it is. If RADARS are on, you can take an estimate based on the kind of emitter installed on that ship. It's not pin point accurate in info though since, for example, the targeting RADARS of the Udaloy class and the Udaloy two class have the same signature. Only one, is a much better weapon system than the other. Also, Fleets always have an air arm. Usually helos. If a carrier is available, then some jets. Satellite imagery is used all the time. If you look at the newest navy program, CEC, you'll see what I mean. This will be the most significant increase in naval operations in the mid term future. All sensors fused displaying the most detailed map of the AO ever. Pretty impressive. Naval doctrines vary from country to country. For example, Chinese naval doctrine consists on depleting the aerial defences of high tech navies (like the American, South Korean, Singapure and Japanese) using waves of low tech missiles. Since rearming the VLS tubes is not easily done, once these Self defence weapons have been spent, send in the second wave of high tech missiles to home in on the opposing fleet. That's why they built over 80 stealth missile ships. Small boats with 4 long range missiles with VLO characteristics. That's 320 missiles right there. high tech navies on the other hand, rely on advanced systems for maximum SA so that they are the first to spot and the first to shoot. Any carrier group is a scary target since you know, you'll always take losses. And I don't mean just the Americans. Heck even the Japanese helo carriers present a potent adversary since they can lauch several waves of attack helicopters with anti ship missiles. American carrier groups are just more dangerous than the rest ^^ That's why Soviet doctrine envisaged massed aircraft strike with cruise missiles so that the enemy defences were overwhelmed. They assumed losses would be very high. It was just worth it to blow an American carrier fleet since force projection would be greatly reduced.

You can actually see blackened T-72s. I saw a half an hour long video on the battle of Darayya and there was this interesting formation of three tanks and three BMPs. Probably extracting troops as they left soon afterwards. Such a formation is strong indeed. Very professional the Syrian army. Also, It's probably those larger 4 tank formations that support infantry since those are the only ones who seem to stay in the same place for longer periods. When it is just one or two tanks, they fire and leave. Probably on known rebel positions. As for most shots, well, the tanks do have a ton of sensors including IR. They probably have good SA when coupled with infantry fed target data. It's hard to see where this war is going although I must say that it appears 2013 began on Hassad's favour. I cannot stress enough on how similar to stalingrad Syria is. All that destroyed infrastructure is going to take ages to repair. Not to mention the amount of money that'll be spent on that. Whoever is the winner, won't get much of a prize left.

Well, actually, looking at the videos closely, you see only small groups of tanks conducting hit and run attacks. It looks like they're using tanks to soften the area before advancing with the infantry. Notice that the tanks fire one shot and then withdraw for most of the time. This also caused the Syrian rebels to disperse making a concentrated defence harder to achieve. Not impossible if they have a good reserve system. I like the improvised CQB armour they applied to the tanks. Most of the tanks used are T-62s it appears. EDIT: also, Syria brings pictures of Stalingrad back to mind. Amazing devastation... EDIT2: After some looking into, Syrian army tactics appear to be working. Interesting. These fast tank raids are turning out one of the best ways to use tanks in an urban environment. Interesting indeed.

No internal ECM suit no. Chaff and Flare are also on the boom as Viper showed.

1) The pod is the drag chute holder. 2) FC3 simulates the Su-27S and the aircraft can in no way mount the R-77. Only the most recent updates like the SM and SM2/3 can carry such missile. 3) Not that I know off. Looking forward to the training program as this is one of my favourite birds.