Constantly getting fucked in the ass by america drives the price upnukchebi0 wrote:
6/.150=much more than 12
Or does the exportation drive up the cost?
In that case how would the F22 stack up against the SU30. FEOS or anyone else in the know might be able to help me there. My uneducated guess would be that it would probably do well as the SU might not be able to see it, not until the Raptor opens up its bays and unleashes the fury. By then it would be too late.
cool videoBurwhale the Avenger wrote:
In that case how would the F22 stack up against the SU30. FEOS or anyone else in the know might be able to help me there. My uneducated guess would be that it would probably do well as the SU might not be able to see it, not until the Raptor opens up its bays and unleashes the fury. By then it would be too late.
Can we have a 'full contact' fly-off for the Aussie contract?
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X wrote:
Can we have a 'full contact' fly-off for the Aussie contract?
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
So not as bad as previously mentioned.F22fighter.com wrote:
With an average aircraft "sticker price" of less than $84 million – not $200 million as is often quoted in the F-22
so if it was 84 million we could buy 78
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-02-24 02:58:23)
Sure, and half of those 13 (or 8) MiGs wouldn't be able to get in or stay in the air long enough to engage the Raptor. So the odds really aren't that bad at all. Even if the MiGs survived the BVR shots, they wouldn't come out of the merge in one piece.Dilbert_X wrote:
Can we have a 'full contact' fly-off for the Aussie contract?
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
And as LBJ pointed out, if you remove the R&D cost from the equation, then the per-unit costs go down dramatically. I would figure a FMS sale would end up somewhere between $200M and $84M a copy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Where does this assumption come from? They are cheap to run and simple to maintain.Sure, and half of those 13 (or 8) MiGs wouldn't be able to get in or stay in the air long enough to engage the Raptor.
If run by the RAAF I reckon they could launch a few.
Assuming it were a head-on fight, or you run attack/defend scenerios each way what then?
Current R+D inclusive cost is $361m, apparently.
If the current incremental cost per F22 is $138m, lets assume sale price $150m, we still have a ratio ~6:1
The Raptor carries 8 missiles, need a 6/8 hit ratio or you're dogfighting. What is a realistic figure?
Fuck Israel
Thats great, if your a cold heartless bastard that would willingly sacrifice those who have joined up to "preserve and protect".Dilbert_X wrote:
Can we have a 'full contact' fly-off for the Aussie contract?
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
Do some research on reliability for MiGs, both inside and outside of Russia. You'll fall out of love with them quickly.Dilbert_X wrote:
Where does this assumption come from? They are cheap to run and simple to maintain.Sure, and half of those 13 (or 8) MiGs wouldn't be able to get in or stay in the air long enough to engage the Raptor.
If run by the RAAF I reckon they could launch a few.
Assuming it were a head-on fight, or you run attack/defend scenerios each way what then?
Current R+D inclusive cost is $361m, apparently.
If the current incremental cost per F22 is $138m, lets assume sale price $150m, we still have a ratio ~6:1
The Raptor carries 8 missiles, need a 6/8 hit ratio or you're dogfighting. What is a realistic figure?
6/8 hit ratio for the AIM-120 and AIM-9X is not unrealistic...so yes. It is a realistic figure.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Let's see, in a dogfight, the Brits estimated a 10.1:1 ratio for the F-22 against a modified SU-35 (read SU-37).
The MiG-29 is a generation behind the SU-35/37, so it would be fairly easy for the F-22s.
The MiG-29 is a generation behind the SU-35/37, so it would be fairly easy for the F-22s.
Ok. Heres a possible update on whether we may get Raptors in Oz, to be honest it doesnt look good according to this guy.
Super Hornets looking good, Raptors off the radar
The article did also go on to say that there were many secret and hidden capabilities that the Superhornets have, that we the public arent allowed to know about.
I personally think we should get raptors. We are in the line up for F35s right and arent they meant to be more advanced than F22. So we get our hands on the technology a few years earlier, BIG DEAL!!!
At the end of the day the US will get export dollars it needs, and Oz will get a plane that it deserves.
Super Hornets looking good, Raptors off the radar
This is just one mans opinion , however he makes some good points. He does claim that Oz govt has no intention of buying Raptors and that they just want to see if they are allowed to purchase them. I dont get why the Oz govt would even bother asking if they had no intention of buying, so I disagree with him there.HERE'S a hot tip. There is not the slightest chance Australia will buy any F-22 Raptor aircraft, and there is almost no chance that we will ditch the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the previous government was going to buy.
This probably cant be denied, and it makes our chances of getting Raptors much less likely.Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports.
The article did also go on to say that there were many secret and hidden capabilities that the Superhornets have, that we the public arent allowed to know about.
Maybe he is right , however he is taking a lot on faith here, and he probably cant really know the true answer to that question.As to the Super Hornets, every person in the official Australian defence establishment knows they have many secret and classified capabilities and that, as part of an Australian system, they would be comprehensively able to defeat any other plane in the region.
I personally think we should get raptors. We are in the line up for F35s right and arent they meant to be more advanced than F22. So we get our hands on the technology a few years earlier, BIG DEAL!!!
At the end of the day the US will get export dollars it needs, and Oz will get a plane that it deserves.
Sounds propaganda-ish to me... but for our sake... lets hope these SH's have some sercret shit happening... well i should find out in 1 and half years when i hope to be flying themBurwhale the Avenger wrote:
Ok. Heres a possible update on whether we may get Raptors in Oz, to be honest it doesnt look good according to this guy.
Super Hornets looking good, Raptors off the radarThis is just one mans opinion , however he makes some good points. He does claim that Oz govt has no intention of buying Raptors and that they just want to see if they are allowed to purchase them. I dont get why the Oz govt would even bother asking if they had no intention of buying, so I disagree with him there.HERE'S a hot tip. There is not the slightest chance Australia will buy any F-22 Raptor aircraft, and there is almost no chance that we will ditch the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the previous government was going to buy.This probably cant be denied, and it makes our chances of getting Raptors much less likely.Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports.
The article did also go on to say that there were many secret and hidden capabilities that the Superhornets have, that we the public arent allowed to know about.Maybe he is right , however he is taking a lot on faith here, and he probably cant really know the true answer to that question.As to the Super Hornets, every person in the official Australian defence establishment knows they have many secret and classified capabilities and that, as part of an Australian system, they would be comprehensively able to defeat any other plane in the region.
I personally think we should get raptors. We are in the line up for F35s right and arent they meant to be more advanced than F22. So we get our hands on the technology a few years earlier, BIG DEAL!!!
At the end of the day the US will get export dollars it needs, and Oz will get a plane that it deserves.
MiG-29 is the same generation with Su-27 - 4thRAIMIUS wrote:
Let's see, in a dogfight, the Brits estimated a 10.1:1 ratio for the F-22 against a modified SU-35 (read SU-37).
The MiG-29 is a generation behind the SU-35/37, so it would be fairly easy for the F-22s.
MiG-29 M2 is the same generation with Su-35 - 4.5th
Su-27(35) is an air superiority jet-fighter
MiG-29(29M2) is a frontline multi-purpose jet-fighter
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will proceed with plans to acquire Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the previous government, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced.
Mr Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=79814
Mr Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=79814
*armchair general*
Australia is a large, sparsely-populated, resource-rich english-speaking western country. To it's north is a (comparatively) small, densely populated (200+million), poor country which, if it could, would probably take a swipe at Australia. Imagine if, to the south, the USA had the entire middle-east and you get the idea.
Australia has F-111s so it can drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, and is buying SHs so that it can continue to drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, while it waits for it's shiney new F-35s. Australia is rich enough to develop it's own fighter, but using the same systems as your allies makes sense both in an inter-operational and logistical sense. Besides that, if the shit really hits the fan, chances are that Australia will still have some F-111s sitting round while its SHs are running round, and thus will be able to drop even more bombs on Jakarta.
*/armchair general*
Australia is a large, sparsely-populated, resource-rich english-speaking western country. To it's north is a (comparatively) small, densely populated (200+million), poor country which, if it could, would probably take a swipe at Australia. Imagine if, to the south, the USA had the entire middle-east and you get the idea.
Australia has F-111s so it can drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, and is buying SHs so that it can continue to drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, while it waits for it's shiney new F-35s. Australia is rich enough to develop it's own fighter, but using the same systems as your allies makes sense both in an inter-operational and logistical sense. Besides that, if the shit really hits the fan, chances are that Australia will still have some F-111s sitting round while its SHs are running round, and thus will be able to drop even more bombs on Jakarta.
*/armchair general*
In a lecture today (yeah, I know, lectures in Year 11?!) the suggestions was made that while that was true a long time ago it isn't now. They gain too much in the way of material and human support for that to be the case.Pubic wrote:
*armchair general*
Australia is a large, sparsely-populated, resource-rich english-speaking western country. To it's north is a (comparatively) small, densely populated (200+million), poor country which, if it could, would probably take a swipe at Australia. Imagine if, to the south, the USA had the entire middle-east and you get the idea.
Australia has F-111s so it can drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, and is buying SHs so that it can continue to drop bombs on Jakarta if needed, while it waits for it's shiney new F-35s. Australia is rich enough to develop it's own fighter, but using the same systems as your allies makes sense both in an inter-operational and logistical sense. Besides that, if the shit really hits the fan, chances are that Australia will still have some F-111s sitting round while its SHs are running round, and thus will be able to drop even more bombs on Jakarta.
*/armchair general*
Still. It's a big, sparsely populated country. You don't want anyone to get any... rash ideas.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lecture in year 11.. umm you should be getting them a bit earlier than that....
Apparently the defence minister has had some top secret meetings with the Air force and has been made aware of the Super Top secret abilities of the Superhornet. Maybe thats true, however I remain sceptical. I cant see this being a great replacement for the F111's. Time will tell. Hope we never have to find out.
Yeah....................coz you'd know more than the Defence Minister and the Capability Review PanelBurwhale the Avenger wrote:
Apparently the defence minister has had some top secret meetings with the Air force and has been made aware of the Super Top secret abilities of the Superhornet. Maybe thats true, however I remain sceptical. I cant see this being a great replacement for the F111's. Time will tell. Hope we never have to find out.
Sure I dont know as much as those guys, but from what I have seen on the Four Corners documentary on Superhornets, they are outclassed in many ways by Su30's, which our close neighbours have. The experts they talked to ran a simulation using the Superhornet and it didnt go so good. Check it out yourself http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_ … efault.htm
If you watch it you may have some doubts yourself. I hope I am wrong and the Superhornet is as good as they say. Remember its our money thats paying for this plane.
If you watch it you may have some doubts yourself. I hope I am wrong and the Superhornet is as good as they say. Remember its our money thats paying for this plane.
As I posted earlier on mate, our company has won the support contract for the data link (Link-16) onboard the Super's so I know a lot about it's capabilities.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Sure I dont know as much as those guys, but from what I have seen on the Four Corners documentary on Superhornets, they are outclassed in many ways by Su30's, which our close neighbours have. The experts they talked to ran a simulation using the Superhornet and it didnt go so good. Check it out yourself http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_ … efault.htm
If you watch it you may have some doubts yourself. I hope I am wrong and the Superhornet is as good as they say. Remember its our money thats paying for this plane.
I hope you are kidding by thinking that Four Corners knows more than our Defence people. I saw a little yellow kid called Bart on TV too, doesn't mean it's real!!
Don't be fooled by what's on the box mate, the media doesn't get to see the real capabilities, that's why it's called Top Secret
Ok I realise that not everything on TV is real. Four Corners is highly reputable and the advisers they used should know what they are talking about.
such as :
such as :
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: I cannot believe that we would waste $6.6 billion of the taxpayer’s money on an aeroplane that has no practical use against any modern, new generation fighter coming into our arc of interest to our north.
DR CARLO KOPP, AIR POWER AUSTRALIA: In most of the engagements scenarios that we could postulate the Super Hornet would get shot down. It’s as simple as that.
These guys arent noobs (unlike myself) and their advice deserves to be listened to. Look, I fully admit that you know more than me on this. Obviously much more. But you must admit that there are grounds for some doubts here, and they are bought forward by some very well informed people. If you assure us that the weapons systems make all the difference, then that puts my mind at rest a bit.WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: The Sukhoi's top speed is Mach 2.350 and the Super Hornet's is Mach 1.6. This means that if its weapons don’t work, the Super Hornet can get into a fight but it can’t get out of a fight, right? And it can be run down. The Super Hornet is struggling with a weapon load above, much above 40,000 feet and the Sukhoi is quite comfortable up to about 55,000 feet.
The real cost is in Maintenance and Operations of the aircraft. I would rather have 12 good jets than 161 crappy ones. 12 jets use less fuel, pilots, support personel, air ports, parts, ........Dilbert_X wrote:
Can we have a 'full contact' fly-off for the Aussie contract?
12 F22s vs however many Mig 29s the same money would buy?
If $6bn buys 12 Raptors, based on the Algerian figures thats 161 Mig 29s
13:1 Do you like those odds FEOS?
If we use the 'sticker price', $200m, and the price of the Mig, $25m?, thats still 8:1
And what good is having the same jets at your enemy if you want to be superior. 12 Raptors that could shoot down the Migs before they even where seen by the Migs can do a lot of damage, but yes 12 Raptors could only cover so much area and defend so much.
Thus I guess the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Get some Raptors and continue running some of the current F111 jets. But just so you know, Soviet hardware always looks better on paper than it works in real life. This has been proven again and again on the battle field.
The issue with these retired guys is that they don't understand the difference between the SH and the older Hornet. And they wouldn't, as they are retired and not privvy to the classified info on the jet. As such, their advice, while useful, should be considered under-informed.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Ok I realise that not everything on TV is real. Four Corners is highly reputable and the advisers they used should know what they are talking about.
such as :AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: I cannot believe that we would waste $6.6 billion of the taxpayer’s money on an aeroplane that has no practical use against any modern, new generation fighter coming into our arc of interest to our north.DR CARLO KOPP, AIR POWER AUSTRALIA: In most of the engagements scenarios that we could postulate the Super Hornet would get shot down. It’s as simple as that.These guys arent noobs (unlike myself) and their advice deserves to be listened to. Look, I fully admit that you know more than me on this. Obviously much more. But you must admit that there are grounds for some doubts here, and they are bought forward by some very well informed people. If you assure us that the weapons systems make all the difference, then that puts my mind at rest a bit.WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: The Sukhoi's top speed is Mach 2.350 and the Super Hornet's is Mach 1.6. This means that if its weapons don’t work, the Super Hornet can get into a fight but it can’t get out of a fight, right? And it can be run down. The Super Hornet is struggling with a weapon load above, much above 40,000 feet and the Sukhoi is quite comfortable up to about 55,000 feet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Revived i know sorry.
Just wondering if their is any news on this? i heard the government was re-thinking it... but i also heard they were re-thinking our order for 100
F-35s by 2015.
So update anyone?
Just wondering if their is any news on this? i heard the government was re-thinking it... but i also heard they were re-thinking our order for 100
F-35s by 2015.
So update anyone?