Should Iraq have bought the Su-30?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814


We are interested in operating cost of an Su-30MK/SM and F-16C as a base of comparison for Iraq. The numbers for Polish MiG-29s and F-16s prove that the twin-engined MiG-29 is inherently cheaper to fly, even if only the cost of fuel, oil and liquids is being considered. Which was surprising even for me.. If we should account for spares or maintenance, then the outcome is even more visible..

Fuel consumption per hour of the MiG-29 is less than that for the F-16C? That would surprise me too, seeing as the MiG has 30% more weight and installed thrust than the F-16 - in fact I don't believe it. Check out the internal fuel loads of both aircraft - and then check out the range/endurance of each aircraft on their own internal fuel load.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 73

i will buy yours and msphere explanation if you have an article handy that show the lada being cheaper per kilometer,
not counting purchase cost, just the spares cost that would inflict such an enormous impact

That was example you can't just compare fuel costs, you need to take cost of engine and parts in equation. You can find on net how much AL-31F cost and how much cost F100-PW-220, PW-220 higher price isn't proportional with it's service life, in fact I would say 3000hour of AL-31F is very similar with 4000 TACs of PW-220.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

the american engine last 33% longer, that is not 'very similar'
for a lifetime of 8000 hours, the f-16 needs 2 engines, the mig-29 needs 6 engines,
not to mention the much reduced maintenance.

since F-16 consume less fuel to begin with, the russian engines and parts of engines
is going to have to be several times over cheaper, or given free, to make it work out, and even then its fishy.

the only formula that can explain the polish comment is that poland had a functional support infrastructure
for mig-29 but not f-16, either that or they were screwed over real good by the yanks.

was maintenance of f-16 contracted out while poles them self maintained mig-29 ?

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 73

TAC isn't equal to hour!

Here is what our engineering study about RD-33 and TAC concluded:

The original TBO was safely extended on the basis of TAC of up to more than 50% of the originally prescribed TBO hours, while maintaining the same safe margin.

http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1474648

So if you apply that to AL-31F and its 3000h, you get at least 4500 TAC that is why I said it is similar to 4000 TAC for PW-220 (in fact it look like AL-31F life in TAC is higher).

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Fuel consumption per hour of the MiG-29 is less than that for the F-16C? That would surprise me too, seeing as the MiG has 30% more weight and installed thrust than the F-16 - in fact I don't believe it. Check out the internal fuel loads of both aircraft - and then check out the range/endurance of each aircraft on their own internal fuel load.
What you believe is not important..

Jak poinformował ppłk Goławski, godzinny lot F-16 kosztuje 70 tys. złotych, przy czym jest to jedynie koszt paliwa. Do tego należałoby doliczyć oczywiście koszty materiałów eksploatacyjnych oraz pracę ludzi – pilotów, obsługi naziemnej etc.

As Lt. Col. Goławski said, flight hour cost of the F-16 is 70 thousand PLN, this being only the cost of fuel. To this should be added, of course, the cost of consumables/parts and work of people - pilots, ground handling, etc.

http://forsal.pl/artykuly/840453,ile-kosztuje-lot-mysliwca-f-16.html

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

the american engine last 33% longer, that is not 'very similar'
for a lifetime of 8000 hours, the f-16 needs 2 engines, the mig-29 needs 6 engines,
not to mention the much reduced maintenance.
I'd appreciate if you people stopped spreading those myths. We have been thru this long time ago, the maintenance methodology ain't the same in Russia and in the West. Pretty much nothing is comparable.. Western flight hours include pre-flight checks and taxiing, Russian hours only include actual flight. Russian "overhaul" is entirely different from Western overhaul.. During the lifetime, an F110-GE might stay the same, but most of the aggregates, turbines and other parts have been replaced, it's not the same engine, anymore.. just like the Space Shuttle might have been called "reusable" but lion share of the parts were new for each flight..

Where's martinez when you need him... he was the right guy for the job, having worked on the RD-33s for ages, he could draw you a very direct comparison..

since F-16 consume less fuel to begin with, the russian engines and parts of engines
is going to have to be several times over cheaper, or given free, to make it work out, and even then its fishy.

The F-16 does not consume less fuel.. get it into your lemon, finally..

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

so: $ 17k for fuel alone per hour for 17k lbs of thrust, that works out to be $1k=1k lbs thrust.

he didnt mention fuel cost of mig-29, but now that we know fuel cost per pounds of thrust,
he also didnt have to.
we know mig-29, any model, has and uses more thrust, therefore its straight forward to conclude it cost more
with regards to fuel cost, since it consume more fuel

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

And does Iraq currently need *any* of those types?

If you're primarily concerned with loitering and dropping PGMs in permssive air environment, as Iraq will be for the next decade, a special-missions Gulfstream will do it all more cheaply and probably better. And with more ISAR kit onboard, plus a toilet and oven.

Hyper-expensive-per-hour fighters poddling around subsonic on account of big tanks and draggy munitions and having to bug-out of the fight due to fuel levels? Not sure I see the attraction.

I think Iraq's mistake was wanting to be back in the fast-jet club.

To say it in the simplest way: No, they are not interested in just COIN, they wanted also a plane able to cover their own air space so to avoid that unfriendly nations (and there are a lot around) would use it instead.
For the CAS/COIN mission against Daesh they have others asset actually and even with those few that they have they still perform more missions than the whole international coalition as any check on their relative numbers would eagerly show you.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Fuel consumption per hour of the MiG-29 is less than that for the F-16C? That would surprise me too, seeing as the MiG has 30% more weight and installed thrust than the F-16 - in fact I don't believe it. Check out the internal fuel loads of both aircraft - and then check out the range/endurance of each aircraft on their own internal fuel load.

Fuel consumption depends by the bypass ratio, by the overall power installed and by how much you have to push the engine to reach a certain speed.
So every plane have a different pattern, two medium size engines being used in a relaxed regime can consume less than a single large one that need to be pushed to the limit in order to reach the same velocity.
There is not a constant there as every plane and engine combination can produce different results.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

he didnt mention fuel cost of mig-29, but now that we know fuel cost per pounds of thrust,
he also didnt have to.
we know mig-29, any model, has and uses more thrust, therefore its straight forward to conclude it cost more
with regards to fuel cost, since it consume more fuel

No, it isn't straightforward, it's a logical fallacy.. More installed thrust means you don't have to push the engines that much. Besides that, ex-German MiG-29Gs (now operated in Poland) were thrust-derated by ~10% in order to save fuel. And there is that other thing that I have already mentioned. The cost of Russian Jp54 and US JP-8 jet fuel might not be the same..

I'd really appreciate if you quit this bloody stubbornness and finally admit the inevitable - the MiG-29 costs less than F-16C with regards to fuel cost, not more..

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

so you didnt pick up the obvious then, f-16 does not consume fuel for $ 17k per hour,
thus you can safely dismiss the polish pilot altogether

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

so you didnt pick up the obvious then, f-16 does not consume fuel for $ 17k per hour,
thus you can safely dismiss the polish pilot altogether
In military thrust, the F-16 consumes around 10k PPH, in afterburner it goes as far as ~49k PPH. JP8 weighs in at 6.65lbs/gal, that's anywhere between 1,500 and 7,500 gal/h or 0.4-2.0 gal/sec. JP8 cost is $2.95/gal, total cost between $4,500 and $22,000/hour. $17k per hour is easily doable, depending how much afterburner is used.

How much data does one need to provide in order to bloody make you finally admit you are wrong ?!

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

never, not ever, mig-29 is much heavier

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

In military thrust, the F-16 consumes around 10k PPH, in afterburner it goes as far as ~49k PPH. JP8 weighs in at 6.65lbs/gal, that's anywhere between 1,500 and 7,500 gal/h or 0.4-2.0 gal/sec. JP8 cost is $2.95/gal, total cost between $4,500 and $22,000/hour. $17k per hour is easily doable, depending how much afterburner is used.

How much data does one need to provide in order to bloody make you finally admit you are wrong ?!


Use real numbers please:

Look up which F-16 engine you are using. Btw, this whole arguement is based on one operator. I don't need to tell you how flawed that is, especially when users of the Mig-29 have stated how expensive it is to operate and have looked to replace it via the f-16. Confirmation bias in effect:

Look up the SFC of the F-16 engines-
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

A big part of vanilla MiG-29 operating expense was fixed schedule maintenance, which was ok for the type of repair scheme and war-time tempo the USSR was looking at.
MiG-29SMT for example (still the first-gen air-frame) has 40% cheaper flight hours due to digital health monitoring system.

MiG claims MiG-29M family has even larger reduction in average flight hour cost.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

TAC isn't equal to hour!

Here is what our engineering study about RD-33 and TAC concluded:

The original TBO was safely extended on the basis of TAC of up to more than 50% of the originally prescribed TBO hours, while maintaining the same safe margin.

http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1474648

So if you apply that to AL-31F and its 3000h, you get at least 4500 TAC that is why I said it is similar to 4000 TAC for PW-220 (in fact it look like AL-31F life in TAC is higher).


Very interesting thanks.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Not sure why this paper is considered important. Every modern engine has monitoring. Martinez brought this argument into F-16.net (I know, but look up TEG's response) and got refuted piece by piece. I'm not a "west is the best" poster but the AL-31 and RD-33 have a service history. You can sell it on this forum, users say otherwise.

Soviet designs traded thrust for longevity, as they didn't plan on the same serviceability as NATO. They were probably right in that scenario. Different doctrines. Things have changed, and while I've no doubt that the engines have been modified for more hours, the legacy remains.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 1,168

In military thrust, the F-16 consumes around 10k PPH, in afterburner it goes as far as ~49k PPH. JP8 weighs in at 6.65lbs/gal, that's anywhere between 1,500 and 7,500 gal/h or 0.4-2.0 gal/sec. JP8 cost is $2.95/gal, total cost between $4,500 and $22,000/hour. $17k per hour is easily doable, depending how much afterburner is used.

How much data does one need to provide in order to bloody make you finally admit you are wrong ?!

Some of these guys just invest too much in their opinion early on and then they have to stick with it just to save face

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Some of these guys just invest too much in their opinion early on and then they have to stick with it just to save face

Or know actual numbers over opinions.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

Not sure why this paper is considered important. Every modern engine has monitoring. Martinez brought this argument into F-16.net (I know, but look up TEG's response) and got refuted piece by piece. I'm not a "west is the best" poster but the AL-31 and RD-33 have a service history. You can sell it on this forum, users say otherwise.

The users you reference also mostly have 1980s level equipment. The RD-33 and AL-31 both have vastly improved rated service life in their later variants, which are the relevant one for a buyer today (even if they are not going for the latest Su-35 or MiG-35).

Especially relevant here since we are hypothetically talking about Iraq operating Su-30s.

EDIT: Responding to FBW's EDIT:

I think a lot of it had to do with maintenance scheme (depot/factory overhaul for major work + very low lvl airfield work), when the imperative towards longer MTBO and service life appeared we saw a "magical" increase in modernized engine life to 4K hours and beyond. The implication is the original design had considerable growth room and as you mentioned for doctrinal reasons initially low priority on extensive service life. Of course even 117S and RD-33MKM (when it appears) won't be setting records for operational resource but hopefully maintain competitive pricing.
The other piece of the puzzle was atrocious spares support in the chaos years, occasionally stretching to recent times...though I suspect recent faults (Indian birds) might be part manufacturer, part operator/operational environment and part crappy spares planning. There's been nothing about VMF RD-33MKs packing up at alarming rates.