Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    31 Jan '19 16:45
    Well, both cost roughly the same: 90 million per unit.

    Just to put some perspective on it:
    A spitfire cost: 1 million (costs updated)
    An F-16 cost: 18 million
    A MiG 35 costs: 40 million (2007)

    How good are these planes?
    Are they worth the money? Well, according to a recent report the F-35 engine is described as a blowtorch surrounded by fuel: they keep catching fire.

    What’s your opinions on this sort of investment?
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Jan '19 17:52
    @shavixmir said
    Well, both cost roughly the same: 90 million per unit.

    Just to put some perspective on it:
    A spitfire cost: 1 million (costs updated)
    An F-16 cost: 18 million
    A MiG 35 costs: 40 million (2007)

    How good are these planes?
    Are they worth the money? Well, according to a recent report the F-35 engine is described as a blowtorch surrounded by fuel: they keep catching fire.

    What’s your opinions on this sort of investment?
    The F35 is the future it is an amazing machine
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    31 Jan '19 18:06
    @shavixmir
    It is the continuing game of one upsmanship. We got the best rocket scientists from Germany and that is what allowed the US to beat the Soviets to the moon, a tech game of my stick is MUCH bigger than YOUR stick.

    My guess is, actually I was in the USAF for 4 years so I should have some street cred, if you can make say an A10 for a mil and the F35 costs 90, if you started a war with 90 A10's (a potent slow gunship) I would think you would win out because 90 A10's against one Mig35 or whatever, how would that jet stand a chance when up against such numerical superiority. Of course it means you have to train a lot more flyboys but that's the name of the game. Remember, the speed of the plane or maneuverability is not that important anymore due to the incredible speed of air to air or air to ground missiles. Both the A10 and the F35 carries missiles so a bunch of A10's I think would win any air battle against the high tech monsters made today.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    31 Jan '19 18:43
    @sonhouse said
    @shavixmir
    It is the continuing game of one upsmanship. We got the best rocket scientists from Germany and that is what allowed the US to beat the Soviets to the moon, a tech game of my stick is MUCH bigger than YOUR stick.

    My guess is, actually I was in the USAF for 4 years so I should have some street cred, if you can make say an A10 for a mil and the F35 costs 90, if ...[text shortened]... iles so a bunch of A10's I think would win any air battle against the high tech monsters made today.
    Speed an maneuverability are still important for modern fighters. The need to get to where they are needed quickly, and force the enemy to respond quickly. These things still fire in more or less the direction they are pointing so turning circle is still relevant. You don't want to send A10s against a MiG35, the MiG would only need to withdraw because it ran out of ordnance. A drone swarm would be a different matter, as they might react quickly enough.
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    31 Jan '19 18:481 edit
    @sonhouse said
    @shavixmir
    It is the continuing game of one upsmanship. We got the best rocket scientists from Germany and that is what allowed the US to beat the Soviets to the moon, a tech game of my stick is MUCH bigger than YOUR stick.

    My guess is, actually I was in the USAF for 4 years so I should have some street cred, if you can make say an A10 for a mil and the F35 costs 90, if ...[text shortened]... iles so a bunch of A10's I think would win any air battle against the high tech monsters made today.
    My comparison would be the Tiger I, II and Panther against the T-34.

    You can have the best tanks in the world, but if each tank is facing 100 tanks, the 1 to 10 kill ratio means nothing.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Jan '19 20:38
    I got in trouble for talking about the F35 on a military forum because they said I was telling military secrets to our enemies or some nonsense but the F35 brings a lot of capabilities to the table that no other aircraft can match. I won’t go into details because apparently I know too much

    😳
  7. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65540
    31 Jan '19 20:45
    @athousandyoung said
    I got in trouble for talking about the F35 on a military forum because they said I was telling military secrets to our enemies or some nonsense but the F35 brings a lot of capabilities to the table that no other aircraft can match. I won’t go into details because apparently I know too much

    😳
    A trip to North Korea, they'd pay a lot for what's in your head.
  8. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    31 Jan '19 21:20
    @wajoma said
    A trip to North Korea, they'd pay a lot for what's in your head.
    Okay. But would you use a Eurofighter (Typhoon) or a F-35?
    Or perhaps the MIG?

    Which option is going to be the least investment for the greatest return?
  9. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Jan '19 21:27
    @shavixmir said
    Okay. But would you use a Eurofighter (Typhoon) or a F-35?
    Or perhaps the MIG?

    Which option is going to be the least investment for the greatest return?
    F35 at low altitude supported by Typhoon (or F22) at high altitude
  10. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    31 Jan '19 21:32
    @athousandyoung said
    F35 at low altitude supported by Typhoon (or F22) at high altitude
    So... 180 million euro's against 180 million euro's.

    F-16 = 18 million.
    That's 10 F-16's against 2 Euro/F-35 fighters.

    What do you, seriously, think the odds are?

    And, to add to the equation (although I can't confirm the figures in any form of definitive way): A Tiger I destroyed 10 T-34's.

    Would you, considering quality vs quantity in a historical perspective, invest in the newer technology?
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    31 Jan '19 21:411 edit
    @shavixmir said
    Well, both cost roughly the same: 90 million per unit.

    Just to put some perspective on it:
    A spitfire cost: 1 million (costs updated)
    An F-16 cost: 18 million
    A MiG 35 costs: 40 million (2007)

    How good are these planes?
    Are they worth the money? Well, according to a recent report the F-35 engine is described as a blowtorch surrounded by fuel: they keep catching fire.

    What’s your opinions on this sort of investment?
    I write as a historian of aviation (in part) and someone with substantial knowledge
    of aeronautical engineering and the international arms trade.

    There has been a vast (exponential) increase in state-of-the-art aircraft complexity
    since the 1930s, when the Supermarine Spitfire was designed by a small team of engineers,
    led by (the dying) R. J. Mitchell. Modern design teams are much much larger
    (requiring much more pay), including in specialists in avionics, radar, and other
    fields that hardly existed when the Spitfire was designed.

    And the modern research and development cycle is much longer and more costly.
    In late 1944, the Heinkel He-162 (an early jet fighter) went from its first sketches
    on the drawing board to its first flight test in only about 90 days. (Working around
    the clock, some German engineers slept on cots in the workplace in order not to
    lose any time traveling back and forth from their homes.)

    In the early 1980s, India (HAL) proclaimed that it would develop a world-class LCA
    (light combat aircraft) with supposedly indigenous air frame, engine, and radar.
    That project was wildly overambitious. India eventually had to import almost all
    the technology. The aircraft was not introduced into service until 2015 (!). when
    it already was obsolete.

    Many ignorant Westeners still seem to assume that the (former) MiG (later
    known as Mikoyan) OKB still produces most of Russia's leading fighter aircraft.
    The MiG-29 (designed in the 1970s, introduced in the early 1980s) was the last
    MiG to be a major fighter aircraft used by the USSR or Russia. For the past few
    decades, Sukhoi (not Mikoyan) has dominated Russian fighter aircraft design.

    Russia does plan to buy some MiG-35s, largely to increase its appeal in the export market.
    But Sukhoi fighters (Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35) are the backbone of Russian fighter aviation.
    The most advanced Russian fighter under development is the Sukhoi Su-57.

    Not many countries can afford (even if the USA were willing to export it) the F-35.
    So there's a major market for more affordable aircraft that are less than state-of-the-art.

    After the USA reneged on an agreement to sell some F-16s to Pakistan (which already
    had paid for them--Pakistan eventually got a partial refund for non-delivery),
    Pakistan paid 500 million USD (a comparative bargain) to China in order to develop
    a fairly modern fighter aircraft according to Pakistani specifications, which would
    be built in a factory (set by the Chinese) in Pakistan. Reportedly, Pakistan has been
    very satisfied with the JF-17 Thunder, which supposedly can compete with all
    except the most advanced Indian fighters (such as the French Dassault Rafale).

    Recently, China sold several advanced jet trainers (based upon the MiG-21 but with
    more modern avionics) to Sudan (a very poor country), a market that probably
    would be ignored by the merchants of more advanced and expensive aircraft.

    If I were a minister of defense and asked for my advice on procuring combat aircraft,
    I would say that it would depend upon my country's financial resources, general
    level of technology, and strategic situation (in terms of likely threats).

    Iran's air force still chiefly depends upon (1970s American) aircraft inherited from the Shah.
    Western countries would not export any advanced combat aircraft to Iran.
    So I would suggest that Iran consider, on the high end, the Russian Sukhoi Su-35,
    or, on the low end, the Chinese JF-17 Thunder. as upgrades.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    31 Jan '19 21:45
    @shavixmir said
    Okay. But would you use a Eurofighter (Typhoon) or a F-35?
    Or perhaps the MIG?

    Which option is going to be the least investment for the greatest return?
    What are we using it for, point defence, air superiority, interdiction, strike? What is the competency of the enemy, is this a superpower or an insurgency, what air defences do they have. For COIN a BAe systems Hawk would be fine. Against a superpower in an actual shooting war I wouldn't want to restrict myself to one airframe. Forced to make a choice I'd go for the Typhoon because the F35 is new and the problems are not known. Given a couple of years I'd probably reverse that decision.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    31 Jan '19 21:552 edits
    @deepthought said
    What are we using it for, point defence, air superiority, interdiction, strike? What is the competency of the enemy, is this a superpower or an insurgency, what air defences do they have. For COIN a BAe systems Hawk would be fine. Against a superpower in an actual shooting war I wouldn't want to restrict myself to one airframe. Forced to make a choice I'd go for the T ...[text shortened]... is new and the problems are not known. Given a couple of years I'd probably reverse that decision.
    "What are we using it for, point defence, air superiority, interdiction, strike? "
    --Deep Thought

    It's important to consider the threat scenario and the mission profile.
    It's also important to consider realistically one's limits rather than buying for prestige.

    The BRD's government made a political decision to buy the American Lockheed
    F-104 Starfighter for the (recently reborn) Luftwaffe even though most of its pilots
    were still very inexperienced. The F-104 Starfighter had (or would acquire) a reputation
    as a very 'hot' aircraft that was tricky to fly. At least one veteran Luftwaffe officer
    (the commander of JG-71) recommended *against* buying the F-104 Starfighter
    because he believed that most of his pilots were too inexperienced to handle it.
    He was ignored and told to shut up. The outcome was many fatal accidents,
    earning the F-104 Starfighter the grim nickname of 'the Widowmaker'.

    There's an amusing story about apartheid South Africa's decision to buy (against
    the advice of its navy) some Israeli (based upon a French design) fast missile boats.
    These (short range) boats were suited for Israel (which has a small coastline)
    operating in the relatively calm waters of the eastern Mediterranean.
    South Africa has a much longer coastline and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans
    pose much more challenging seafaring conditions. The Israeli boats soon acquired
    a reputation for marginal (at best) seaworthiness in South African service.
  14. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    31 Jan '19 22:00
    @shavixmir

    What’s your opinions on this sort of investment?


    Needless pork barrel spending, authorized by paranoid desk workers who were beaten up in grade school.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Jan '19 22:16
    @shavixmir said
    So... 180 million euro's against 180 million euro's.

    F-16 = 18 million.
    That's 10 F-16's against 2 Euro/F-35 fighters.

    What do you, seriously, think the odds are?

    And, to add to the equation (although I can't confirm the figures in any form of definitive way): A Tiger I destroyed 10 T-34's.

    Would you, considering quality vs quantity in a historical perspective, invest in the newer technology?
    These only cost 4 million why not use them instead?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II
Back to Top