"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[Groove]

He means what he says, and he's right, too.

 

No he is not. Either we talk this professionally or im bailing out of this discussion :pilotfly:

[nscode]

"Zero foreign debt" means anything to you?

[Groove]

"Zero foreign debt" means anything to you?

 

:pilotfly:

[nscode]

An eye for an eye

A tooth for a tooth

Run run run but you sure can't hide ;)

[AlphaOneSix]

"Zero foreign debt" means anything to you?

 

Yeah (I'll bite), it means one of two things:

 

1) No foreign country has enough confidence in your country to risk investing in its future (a bad thing).

 

2) No foreign country is allowed to invest in your country due to your country's government regulations (a bad thing).

[Wilde]

a16, both statements are untrue. In fact private Russian industry has a total debt of some 500 billion dollars to foreign investors. Yet, in total Russia's balance is still positive, because Russia's foreign currency reserves are bigger than that and the state doesn't have any debts of significant proportions.

 

But seriously, this thread is way off topic now. It started with criticism about the JSF and whether it is justified or not.

[nscode]

It started with talk about a simulation of JSF against a future Russian airplane. Some people believe that it's unrealistic that Russia is going to develop such a craft due to economic reasons and some disagree. So no, this is not off topic that much.

[Wilde]

Well, i don't see a point in discussing this economical stuff. Obviously the company running the simulation in the first place seems to believe these planes will make it into service by then. Otherwise their simulation would have been kinda pointless, don't you think?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You mean "is" and not "was", right ?

Percentagewise, Russian military budget has grown dramatically in the past several years. Russia does not project its power through global dominance, therefore, it does not need as much money for operational needs.

 

While $50 billion dollars a year (with tendency to grow) might not be enough, it is good chunk of money to maintain scientific and production capabilities of all major military industries.

 

And, then there is a "little bit" of money coming from the weapons sale to foreign customers too.

[RedTiger]

Yeah (I'll bite), it means one of two things:

 

1) No foreign country has enough confidence in your country to risk investing in its future (a bad thing).

 

2) No foreign country is allowed to invest in your country due to your country's government regulations (a bad thing).

 

Lets see how many people attempt to address/refute this. Do other countries besides the US have such a thing as a "credit score"? This is rather basic and really on a personal level but if not, here's a simple explanation; having NO debt is a bad thing. No debt = no credit. And no credit basically means exactly what AlphaOneSix said, no confidence in lending anything to you. You WANT that confidence. You're going to be very limited in what you can accomplish without it.

 

OTOH, if its due to regulations, thats also bad. However thats a conscience decision made by the government and one would hope they're weighing the advantages vs. the disadvantages.

 

EDIT: Ok, we have one brave soul, didn't see you ther Wilde! :)

Edited September 29, 2008 by RedTiger

[mvsgas]

Percentagewise, Russian military budget has grown dramatically in the past several years. Russia does not project its power through global dominance, therefore, it does not need as much money for operational needs.

 

While $50 billion dollars a year (with tendency to grow) might not be enough, it is good chunk of money to maintain scientific and production capabilities of all major military industries.

 

And, then there is a "little bit" of money coming from the weapons sale to foreign customers too.

I do think that that is enough for R&D when you consider the upkeep and maintenance cost of parts, labor fuel cost etc. You have to spend money on airfield maintenance, pay they guys that work on the aircraft and the field plus the 100 other different jobs to help does guys directly involve with the aircraft maintenance ( cooks, nurses, docs, accountants, etc) Fuel alone most be crazy. Look at the SU-27, if only using 50% of its fuel load, that is about 10,000 pounds right? Average gallons would be 1492 gallons (if they fuel is about 6.7 pounds) http://www.airlines.org/economics/energy/MonthlyJetFuel.htmThat is like 5$ ( is that like 124.3 rubles) a gallon that is 7460 (185502.922 Ruble right?) a flight per aircraft. If they completely fill them up that would double obviously. That is one aircraft one flight. You add the cost of oil, tires, greases and I do not believe that leaves to much left for R&D.

[nscode]

They'll charge you about 14000$ for 30 min of Flanker flight, and I don't think they would get out of bed for anything less than 50% profit, so I think you're about right with the cost.

[mikoyan]

Russia is one of the fastest growing economies right now, they have lots of natural gas and oil. they are going to become the third biggest car market in Europe, so.... why do you people keep saying that russia doesn't or will not be able to compete with other countries. they haven't recover totally but they are coming back. Also they are showing the US that they are still there, remember the tu-160 going to Venezuela and the most recent naval exercises.

Also the way economy is going in the US it is going to be difficult to justify those big military programs.

 

But going back to the subject of the tread, the problem is that some of the countries involved in the joint-strike fighter want a fighter that can give them total air dominance. but the problem is that the f-35 is a a multifunction fighter so there are big compromises in some areas. It will not be an f-22 and that is the problem. It will be very capable, but several Asian nations are going to have airplanes that can be difficult to overcome unharmed. China for example is working on their own raptor fighter. Don't dismiss them because they have "copied" some designs in the past, coping save money and time don't forget that. Another problem with the f-35 is that is is very expensive; It is not like the f-16 which was an affordable solution for small countries, so being that expensive does not justify the big investment if you are still are not going to be assured that you got the upper hand. In my opinion .

Edited September 30, 2008 by mikoyan

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I do think that that is enough for R&D when you consider the upkeep and maintenance cost of parts, labor fuel cost etc...

There is never enough money. However, Russian economy is rapidly developing. Russia has unmatched human and real estate (land) potential. Military budget is dramatically increased in the last several years. And arms manufactureres preserved manufacturing and scientific resources. Sukhoi never stopped designing and selling airplanes.

 

So, we will see some interesting military hrdware comming from Russia in the future.

[mvsgas]

I think my post migth be mis understood. I do not know how much spend money any country might have, I am just saying that 50 billion with any large army/airforce/navy can only go so far. I do not know economics of any country just saying that it takes a lot of money to maintain a large military. I do not know which economy is larger or better.

[Teknetinium]

I dont think Im missing much, Im talking about hard facts and existing hardware. Russia has for sail and sold several planes that are better than their own, so whats your point for telling me this?

 

Im am not concerned what russia could have this or that if it doesnt get past paper and then blown over proportions by airshow fans.

 

Cheers.

 

All F-22 and F-35 that u buy are not worth anything if the country dont have its own space program, when shit hit the fan.

My point is that U should not compere equipment Russia use u should compare to what they produce.,

Sorry for politics, but I dont see Georgia or Iraq using any F-35/Su-30s.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Teknetinium

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Maybe, F-35 should be compared to Su-34? Although, currently, there is no airplane in the world (that I know of), of the same class that can match Su-34 capabilities. And Russia is working to equip one squad with Su-34's.

[p_o_d_2_2]

Isn't the Su-34 the equivalent to the F-15E?

[Bimbac]

It is, but with much more advanced capabilities, including range and weapons inventory, which means more mission types, like long-range SEAD.

[Pilotasso]

All F-22 and F-35 that u buy are not worth anything if the country dont have its own space program, when shit hit the fan.

My point is that U should not compere equipment Russia use u should compare to what they produce.,

Sorry for politics, but I dont see Georgia or Iraq using any F-35/Su-30s.

 

Depends of the country you talk about. The vast majority of coutries in europe have agreements of joint military cooperation both in peace and war. The benelux for example joins 2 countries armed forces together and then we have the european unions rapied reaction force, then NATO. Rest assure if shit hits the fan to any member there will be a space program involved (although I dont see the relevance of that).

 

Isn't the Su-34 the equivalent to the F-15E?

 

Not quite. One is more strategicaly oriented and the other is a strike aircraft with a potent AA capability. Not exactly the same thing. The Su-34 is like the F-111 but adaped from an existing type for logistic cost reduction. It will also allow the retirement of the Su24 i.e. if produced in sufficient numbers wich might not hapen and leave room for the 24 to keep operating.

 

 

Currently western airforces lost that nearly intercontinental strike plane capability with the retirement of the F-111. There will be no replacement as now aircraft designs are orinted torwards multipurpose rather than specialization. This is a dead concept.

[Bimbac]

Not quite. One is more strategicaly oriented and the other is a strike aircraft with a potent AA capability. Not exactly the same thing. The Su-34 is like the F-111 but adaped from an existing type for logistic cost reduction. It will also allow the retirement of the Su24 i.e. if produced in sufficient numbers wich might not hapen and leave room for the 24 to keep operating.

 

 

Currently western airforces lost that nearly intercontinental strike plane capability with the retirement of the F-111. There will be no replacement as now aircraft designs are orinted torwards multipurpose rather than specialization. This is a dead concept.

 

I am sorry but I don't think I understand. Could you explain a little more, please? :huh:

[Pilotasso]

It means Su-34 is aimed at strategical offensive cabaility of fighter bomber sized aircraft. In the west specialized fighters or bombers is a thing of the past. If you look at current models and the ones now entering service they are all multirole. Planes like the F-111 will never be again, probably why there is no such aircraft of the same class to replace it. The F-15E has not the same range or payload capability and was developed from a fighter, and it still retains the AA capability. Hence the 2 do not compare side by side.

 

For example if the australians decided to buy F-15E's to replace the F-111's they would soon find out that the eagles would never be able to do things the F-111 could as far away as the F-111's would, though they probabably would get AA capability that make their current F-18's blush of envy. Wich is kinda of funny and ironic. :D

Edited October 1, 2008 by Pilotasso

[hitman]

Wasnt the F-111 developed as a low level ingress tactical nuke delivery system originally? And forgive me if Im wrong, but isnt the Su-34 not even in service, let alone production?

[Pilotasso]

Last time I checked it was in very limited production and considered for export (after being in slow hibernation for years). Too few to replace Su-24's, wich was their main raison d'étre.

[X-man]

Not quite. One is more strategicaly oriented and the other is a strike aircraft with a potent AA capability

The Su-34 is a Strike aircraft with a potent AA capability. It's also intended to replace the Su-24 which implies a more tactical task for the aircraft (Su-24 is not like the F-111, despite the likeness. The Su-24 is a Tactical bomber, much like the F-15E, but old and without AA). Now the Su-34 has the range to perform som Stratigically oriented task as well, but the F-15E vs Su-34 is still a legit comparisment.

 

Su-30Mk would probably be a closer match though, but Su-34 is in there in the same class.

 

my 2 cents