Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Even if someone did find out the true costs no newspaper editor would print it for the very real fear of themselves or their family going missing too.

Do you believe all the crap on your USA television. Me - I would trust Putin or Medvedev to be far more honest than a recent President the USA had. A lot smarter also.

F-16.net Sponsor

Yes, because Russia is well known for being one of the most open and trust worthy of nations, not to mention masters at enconomics, just ignore the collapse of the Soviet Union and the numerous Russian jounalists that get murdered each year for exposing government 'funny' business. Seriously, why did you even make that silly little rant?

You better knock it off guys...

exec wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

Behold:

OMG! This is unbelievable! This isn't just a bias, this is nonesense and simply not true:

PAK-FA 2,0 Ma target supercruise? Not true. (current target 1,5)
PAK-FA all aspect stealth? Laughing

Not true.
PAK-FA extreme agility (better than F-22) Unknown but unlikely.
PAK-FA high power ESA? Unknown.
PAK-FA high SA? Unknown. The same level as the F-35? Unlikely.
Su-35 supercruising? Laughing

Not true.
Su-35 extreme agility? Better than F-22? Not true!
Su-35 3D TVC? Not true.
Su-35 Sidelooking ESA? Not true.
Su-35 High power ESA. Yes, but not AESA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOr9_eu_5S8

heres another PAK FA vide showing off some stuff, unsure if its posted already, not a lot of time to search, but its indefinitely over hyped.
the S-400 is overhyped, lock on to a stealth aircraft with no steakth aircraft to test it? Wlel back on topic, with the current design of the PAK FA, its not going to be stealth, thats just the bottom line. capabilities, well I'll wait to see for myself.

The new NATO callsign will be
Su-50 Failure

While ignoring rkap's slippery slope... the underestimation of mature block Su-35S and the eventual PAk-FA is something I'm pretty sure the qualified folks at DIA and DoD are not. Future USAF jocks will be given the proper intel if and when appropriate, no doubt. Respects.

geogen wrote:

the underestimation of mature block Su-35S and the eventual PAk-FA is something I'm pretty sure the qualified folks at DIA and DoD are not.

Why is the Su-35 mature? Its essentially a Flanker airframe with all new kit inside and basically a completely new aircraft and only three or so have been produced, that's hardly mature by any standard. I'm pretty sure the Air Force has already said they are not worried by the T-50 too.

beepa wrote:

Supers were what we needed???...for what?...$6bill for what...a trainer so the guys can get used to advanced avionics before the F35 comes along??...

The cost of our Super Hornet capability is $6.6billion. Not $6billion and they were needed to maintain 4x operational fighter squadrons at a time when Government decided we needed increased air combat capability over it's earlier plan to downsize RAAF to 3x fighter squadrons.

A different way to look at it, that I believe is slighty more realistic is to view it in the context that the Super Hornets are not actually replacing ANYTHING. They are a capability INCREASE to the existing force.

The decision to retire the F-111's was made WELL before the Super Hornets were ever on ADF's radar. RAAF's professional advice to Government was that 3x Hornet squadrons, appropriately upgraded and equipped with long ranged standoff weapons and supported by tankers and AEW&C aircraft, was a sufficient air combat capability for ADF, given the strategic circumstances of the time (2000 - 2007) until the JSF was available.

The loss of the F-111 squadron (there really is only enough for one, despite the aircraft being split between 2 squadrons) was designed to retire any risk in the F-111 airframe and free up resources within RAAF to prepare for conversion onto the F-35 aircraft.

Government however decided that our long standing force of 4x air combat squadrons should be maintained in 2007 and hence the Super Hornets were chosen.

What changed? Well between 2000 and 2007, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China and India all ordered or bought Sukhoi Flanker aircraft and Singapore and South Korea ordered or acquired advanced F-15 variants. With the exception of the Phillipines and Japan, every single Country in our immediate neighbourhood announced acquisitions of new generation combat aircraft and varying degrees of supporting elements, such as tankers, AWACS, SAM systems etc.

Suddenly our downsized force no longer had a distinct qualitative over-match nor was it numerically superior to any individual force within South East Asia, with Singapore maintaining a larger air combat force than Australia.

Now I'm not privy to Australian Government Intelligence holdings, but if virtually every Country in your neighbourhood significantly improved it's air combat capability in recent years SINCE your previous strategic assessment AND they had the budgetary resources to do so (given the Government had a large surplus it HAD to spend in 2007, which is why the Super Hornet capability was entirely funded up front for at least 13 years service) wouldn't you want YOUR government to do something to address the issue?

So our Government chose to acquire a package of 24x Super Hornet Block II+ aircraft, which improved our qualitative overmatch in key areas (radar, EW, some low observability and in conjunction with the legacy Hornet upgrade, in standoff weapons capability) and brought us up level numerically with Singapore.

Be careful with that $6.6billion figure too. The largest chunk of it ($4.1billion) is in the weapons, sensor and support package needed to operate the Super Hornet capability for 13 years.

As an aside, operating the F-111 capability for that period, without upgrade and with assuming it didn't increase in cost (yeah right) would have cost $2b on it's own. Continuing to operate F-111 would have seen some much needed upgrades, including JDAM, a new standoff weapon, Link 16 tactical data-links and new voice radios and a new EW system as an absolute minimum. Think you'll acquire and integrate all that for under $2billion? Maybe, maybe not, but all you'll have at the end of it, is a 45-50 year old bomber with no fighter capability, that STILL needs a fighter escort to operate in any sort of threat environment, but which is getting increasingly old and tired and MAY need a new radar and engines, as even APA suggested would be required.

Quote:

Seeing the Vark never saw combat and never will (with Aust) why was there a great rush to replace them?.Do you think it would have cost $6bill to keep them up for another 8 or 10yrs?. Are you sure we couldn't have flown 24 or so legacy hornets up here to keep 1 & 6 busy? or is the 'war' in the south that bad...

Er, so rob Peter to pay Paul? Is that what you think RAAF should have done? Take the Hornets off 3 or 77Sqn just to give them to 1 or 6 squadron?

Not following the logic there much...

Quote:

Google who was in government at the time...Google who was in charge of Boeing Aust at the time...Look at the whole process, see who are mates, look how the boss of the RAAF made a statement to the media that no jets were required, then 2wks later said we need the supers...
While having a new 'ride' for the guys is great, that $6bill could have gone a long way, be it in the F35 stable or elsewere within defence.
Probably the best thing to come out of this scam is the Growler option..Haven't even heard NGJ and Australia mentioned in the same sentance...yet...

Ooh, the Andrew Peacock conspiracy story... If it was all just a conspiracy, why not push for Australia to acquire F-15E, K or SG Strike Eagles? We shortlisted the F-15 in the original Mirage replacement project, so we had some idea of it's capability already, they would have made an excellent contribution to RAAF's combat capability and they would have resulted in a MUCH bigger pay day for Boeing. The fact that PEACOCK retired from Boeing Australia BEFORE the Super Hornets were chosen (he retired from Boeing in February 2007, the contract wasn't signed until May 2007) and contracted for, WITHOUT a "golden handshake" tends to indicate that he didn't have much to do with Boeings success in gaining this acquisition.

If those Super Hornets (or Strike Eagles if chosen) weren't bought, Government probably would not have spent that money on Defence at ALL. It was supplementary funding in a time of large surpluses. I thank our lucky stars Brendan Nelson pushed so forcefully for Government to get the Rhinos or we would have only 3 fighter squadrons in about 3 weeks or so...

As to Growler and NGJ, why would you have heard Australia mentioned? NGJ doesn't even exist yet, it's still in development.

The authority to acquire a Growler capability was only granted to Australia (the first export possible country FOR the Growler) in August 2010. Give it some time. I have little doubt that, that is the way RAAF is headed. It may even see the Super Hornets kept in-service once the JSF is available, which wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.

velocity264c wrote:

exec wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

Behold:

OMG! This is unbelievable! This isn't just a bias, this is nonesense and simply not true:

PAK-FA 2,0 Ma target supercruise? Not true. (current target 1,5)
PAK-FA all aspect stealth? Laughing

Not true.
PAK-FA extreme agility (better than F-22) Unknown but unlikely.
PAK-FA high power ESA? Unknown.
PAK-FA high SA? Unknown. The same level as the F-35? Unlikely.
Su-35 supercruising? Laughing

Not true.
Su-35 extreme agility? Better than F-22? Not true!
Su-35 3D TVC? Not true.
Su-35 Sidelooking ESA? Not true.
Su-35 High power ESA. Yes, but not AESA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOr9_eu_5S8

heres another PAK FA vide showing off some stuff, unsure if its posted already, not a lot of time to search, but its indefinitely over hyped.
the S-400 is overhyped, lock on to a stealth aircraft with no steakth aircraft to test it? Wlel back on topic, with the current design of the PAK FA, its not going to be stealth, thats just the bottom line. capabilities, well I'll wait to see for myself.

The new NATO callsign will be
Su-50 Failure

[img][/img]

haavarla wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

exec wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

Behold:

OMG! This is unbelievable! This isn't just a bias, this is nonesense and simply not true:

PAK-FA 2,0 Ma target supercruise? Not true. (current target 1,5)
PAK-FA all aspect stealth? Laughing

Not true.
PAK-FA extreme agility (better than F-22) Unknown but unlikely.
PAK-FA high power ESA? Unknown.
PAK-FA high SA? Unknown. The same level as the F-35? Unlikely.
Su-35 supercruising? Laughing

Not true.
Su-35 extreme agility? Better than F-22? Not true!
Su-35 3D TVC? Not true.
Su-35 Sidelooking ESA? Not true.
Su-35 High power ESA. Yes, but not AESA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOr9_eu_5S8

heres another PAK FA vide showing off some stuff, unsure if its posted already, not a lot of time to search, but its indefinitely over hyped.
the S-400 is overhyped, lock on to a stealth aircraft with no steakth aircraft to test it? Wlel back on topic, with the current design of the PAK FA, its not going to be stealth, thats just the bottom line. capabilities, well I'll wait to see for myself.

The new NATO callsign will be
Su-50 Failure

[img][/img]

That would be true, but thats a joke. 1, the YF-22 to F-22 took about years to it was unveiled to public in 1997. For want im easily seeing is, the T-50 is going no where now, until those modifications, if theres going to be any going to be unveiled.

haavarla= Off Topic

I will give Russia 20 years just to make 10 T-50s with what ever Su-## designation and what ever NATO callsign its going to be. I say Failure as a jokes, take it seriously if you want to.

Heh, thats one of my favourite troll pics that is, I just wish someone would make an animated version of it.

I think Russia will produce about 10 T-50's a year, The contract (it was a contract for it wasn't it) for 50 or so of them a while back will be complete by about 2021 I should think. Perhaps they'll be able to afford more after that but I have my doubts despite Putins claim that it will only cost $50 dollors or thereabouts to buld and would be in service by 2012 (it was some silly claim like that anyway).

Whilst i'm here I was thinking are there any signs of a 'stealth' paint yet, (like the F-22's fancy IR reducing coat) or are the Russians sticking to traditional camouflage sprayed on instead like the prototype has?

Ask and ye shall receive:

LOL thanks, thats great!

shep1978 wrote:

Heh, thats one of my favourite troll pics that is, I just wish someone would make an animated version of it.

I think Russia will produce about 10 T-50's a year, The contract (it was a contract for it wasn't it) for 50 or so of them a while back will be complete by about 2021 I should think. Perhaps they'll be able to afford more after that but I have my doubts despite Putins claim that it will only cost $50 dollors or thereabouts to buld and would be in service by 2012 (it was some silly claim like that anyway).

Whilst i'm here I was thinking are there any signs of a 'stealth' paint yet, (like the F-22's fancy IR reducing coat) or are the Russians sticking to traditional camouflage sprayed on instead like the prototype has?

Wait wat, it still needs more tests, including some maneuvering flights, along with testing bay doors, weapons, radar, STEALTH, etc. Then I'll give 20 years to build at least 10.

shep1978 wrote:

Heh, thats one of my favourite troll pics that is, I just wish someone would make an animated version of it.

I think Russia will produce about 10 T-50's a year, The contract (it was a contract for it wasn't it) for 50 or so of them a while back will be complete by about 2021 I should think. Perhaps they'll be able to afford more after that but I have my doubts despite Putins claim that it will only cost $50 dollors or thereabouts to buld and would be in service by 2012 (it was some silly claim like that anyway).

Whilst i'm here I was thinking are there any signs of a 'stealth' paint yet, (like the F-22's fancy IR reducing coat) or are the Russians sticking to traditional camouflage sprayed on instead like the prototype has?

Come on..

The Su-35S is rated about 55-65$, so how can the Pak-Fa possible be cheaper?

What Putin and other have said, is the Pak-Fa will be signifficant cheaper vs the F-22. Now that shouldn't be very hard to sell as a fair point?

Well to be honest it might not be as easy to do as it sounds (getting it below Raptor cost) if there is a very limited production run (they've said they're buying 50 or 60 at the moment) and don't forget this is not a simple aircraft, many control surfaces, more than the F-22, inlet blockers that will probably need de-icing built in and of course they could very well have to be variable inlet blockers to allow more air through at certain speeds and AOA. An IRST and 5 radars too. It ain't gonna be cheap that's for sure.
Of course they may not include any advanced AN/ALR-94 type gear (i've heard nothing regarding an equivilent on this bird and I doubt Russia could compete with it anyway) and it may not include a stealthy IR reducing top coat like the F-22 has, nothing so far leads me to think they have such a coating waiting to be put on the production models.

The trouble is whatever they say the cost will be cannot be verified unlike the F-22 so sure they can say it only costs 50 or 60 million and non of us would ever find out the truth.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Overstatement of PAK-FA capabilities?