By: obligatory
- 7th February 2017 at 21:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal
By: a89
- 7th February 2017 at 21:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the link MSphere, I will have a look at the new data.
Brainless repeating of the same old BS is getting tiresome... especially if it's without a hinch of anything measurable.. cold numbers say the opposite.. I can't say whether the F-16 gulps fuel faster than a MiG-29 or whether the F-34/JP-8 is so much more expensive than Jp54, but the fact is that, despite its two engines, the MiG-29 is still cheaper to fly..
Fuel is only a fraction of the flying cost. I would expect maintenance and spare parts to be more expensive (as in civil airlines).
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 7th February 2017 at 22:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal
What is the thrust/weight ? 2 small vs one bigger doesn't change much.
Russia simply has lower overhead than its western counterparts. So it stands to reason that they should be more competitive price wise.
By: Sens
- 7th February 2017 at 22:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nah, quite on the contrary, nothing in existence has a wider inventory of available weapons than a Viper.. the key note is "more advanced".. in fact, advanced is the last thing you need in order to toss bombs on the IS.. you better get six 1,000lb dumb bombs and carry them off your base 1,000 miles away from the next IS stronghold.. and with a Flanker you get a great tool for that kind of job..
A senseless claim. The IS people are smart enough to hide in the population. Non needs a bomb truck except for careless bombing, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.
It is not, obviously..
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal
You're welcome to provide better figures before you continue.. without them, don't even bother..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 00:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A senseless claim. The IS people are smart enough to hide in the population. Non needs a bomb truck except for careless bombing, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
If they hide in the population, then obviously not even a Paveway or a JDAM will do much difference, right?
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 00:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the link MSphere, I will have a look at the new data.
Fuel is only a fraction of the flying cost. I would expect maintenance and spare parts to be more expensive (as in civil airlines).
Quite on the contrary, I expect US made spares to be considerably more expensive.. A $2.6mil RD-93 can hardly be assembled from costlier parts than a $4.2mil F404, that just doesn't add up..
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 8th February 2017 at 00:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
No it wasn't. It was news because it was a real world comparison.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 8th February 2017 at 00:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not, obviously..
You're welcome to provide better figures before you continue.. without them, don't even bother..
its what i gathered from lifetime and TBO for various engines,
i dont know where i read it
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 00:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its what i gathered from lifetime and TBO for various engines,
i dont know where i read it
Info about TBO is incapable to provide a complete picture.. "overhaul" in Russian and NATO terms is not the same..
and of course, price for an overhaul is, again, completely different..
By: Sens
- 8th February 2017 at 01:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iraq is dependent on a constant support, when it is about the hardware in the inventory. If it stops for an unknown reason, just some friendly countries can help for some time at least. Like many other Arab countries the Iraq split sources in the meanwhile. Iraq is not a poor country and by that operating cost are not decisive.
By: Sanem
- 8th February 2017 at 06:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iraq is dependent on a constant support, when it is about the hardware in the inventory. If it stops for an unknown reason, just some friendly countries can help for some time at least.
about that, can China or India also maintain the Su-30MKK?
if so that'd be pretty cool from a geopolitcal point of view
I can't think of many other advanced aircraft that can be maintained by more than one nation
if not today, maybe in the future, as India and China play industrial catch up with Russia and the US
By: JSR
- 8th February 2017 at 07:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iraq is dependent on a constant support, when it is about the hardware in the inventory. If it stops for an unknown reason, just some friendly countries can help for some time at least. Like many other Arab countries the Iraq split sources in the meanwhile. Iraq is not a poor country and by that operating cost are not decisive.
I agree Irak is not poor country but it need a big Russia base to be transformed into successful country very rapidly.
A force of 10,000 Russian will relieve more than 200,000 Irakis from combat and intelligence gathering duties. Irak will not need loans to buy ineffective weopons from this and that country. It can concentrate fully on economic development and oil/gas extraction without worrying about regional countries.
Russia has high quality intelligence that's why they allowed Turks into Syria to show to the world that they are not that much better even with Germanic tanks.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201702081050453062-russia-multiple-launch-rocket/
Russian Multiple Launch Rocket System to Be Equipped With High-Accuracy Missile
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to Izvestia newspaper, the new missile, which is now being tested, will be able to hit a target of not more than 1 meter (3.2 feet) in size at a distance of several hundred kilometers.
Irak is now reasonable good in maintaining big fleet of Mi-171/Mi-28/Mi-35/Su-25. there is no shortage of weopons for these platforms.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 09:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
about that, can China or India also maintain the Su-30MKK?
if so that'd be pretty cool from a geopolitcal point of view
I can't think of many other advanced aircraft that can be maintained by more than one nation
if not today, maybe in the future, as India and China play industrial catch up with Russia and the US
Chinese do not have maintenance service for foreign Su-30MKKs.
India can overhaul Sukhois at HAL or help with training syllabus, but it would have to be the much more advanced Su-30MKI, not the basic Su-30MKK/MK2.
By: a89
- 8th February 2017 at 09:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite on the contrary, I expect US made spares to be considerably more expensive.. A $2.6mil RD-93 can hardly be assembled from costlier parts than a $4.2mil F404, that just doesn't add up..
I was talking in general for a single aircraft, not a comparison. Many assume that MiG-29 is more expensive to operate because it has a higher fuel consumption, but fuel is only a fraction of the total cost. See link below for an airline
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 11:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was talking in general for a single aircraft, not a comparison. Many assume that MiG-29 is more expensive to operate because it has a higher fuel consumption, but fuel is only a fraction of the total cost.
I would not be so sure about the higher cost of fuel.. Both F110 and RD-33 have very similar/identical SFC in military (0.75/0.77), as well as in A/B mode (2.01/2.05). An F110-GE-129 makes 70 kN dry and 131 kN in AB, a twin-set of RD-33 makes 100 kN in military and 163 kN in full AB thrust. Loaded weights, ~12 ton for the F-16C, ~15 ton for the MiG-29.. All things combined and assuming similar aerodynamics, the Fulcrum would only need ~87 kN dry thrust to move through the air the same way the F-16C can at full military power. Hence the MiG can generally operate on ~10% lower throttle settings to achieve the same result.. Now imagine the cost of Russian Jp54 being only few % less than JP-8 (I don't know that but can assume this is the case) and you get the idea as of why it is easilt possible to fly the Fulcrum for less than the Viper (maintenance, lifetime, etc. not considered)..
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 8th February 2017 at 11:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The second argument provided by General Gocuł dealt with the operative costs associated with the F-16: the MiG-29 is cheaper to operate than the Fighting Falcons hence, deploying the Fulcrums is a way for not burdening the taxpayers. Apparently, cost of one flight hour of the MiG-29, according to various sources (exact data is unknown), is shaped at around 5,500 USD. In case of the F-16 the amount is as much as 7,700 USD.
But again, Gen Gocuł stated in an interview for the January issue of the Polish “Lotnictwo” magazine, that the Polish MiG-29s clocked 300 flying hours during May-August 2014, which is approximately 75 hours per aircraft. This provides a rough estimate of how much the Poles spent on its MiG-29s operational activities. This figure stands at around 1.7 million USD per fleet compared to 2.3 million USD it would cost to utilize the F-16s.
as for su-30
yes and no.
most of your enemies are on the ground. falcons or flankers aren't as useful as other types there
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2017 at 14:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks, tocino de cerdo, I was looking for this article for quite a time.. :eagerness: The figures are a bit on the low side but the image is still the same..
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 9th February 2017 at 07:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would not be so sure about the higher cost of fuel.. Both F110 and RD-33 have very similar/identical SFC in military (0.75/0.77), as well as in A/B mode (2.01/2.05). An F110-GE-129 makes 70 kN dry and 131 kN in AB, a twin-set of RD-33 makes 100 kN in military and 163 kN in full AB thrust. Loaded weights, ~12 ton for the F-16C, ~15 ton for the MiG-29.. All things combined and assuming similar aerodynamics, the Fulcrum would only need ~87 kN dry thrust to move through the air the same way the F-16C can at full military power. Hence the MiG can generally operate on ~10% lower throttle settings to achieve the same result..
no, mig-29m weighs almost 50% more, its going to consume a lot more fuel,
i just didnt mention it because i'm so certain f-16 beats it on maintenance alone,
god himself couldnt convince me otherwise
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 9th February 2017 at 10:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no, mig-29m weighs almost 50% more, its going to consume a lot more fuel,
i just didnt mention it because i'm so certain f-16 beats it on maintenance alone,
god himself couldnt convince me otherwise
Errr.. not sure what you're on now.. :confused:
You have already been proven wrong as the MiG-29, indeed, is cheaper to fly than the F-16..
what's the point of further arguing?
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 7th February 2017 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.
i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal
Posts: 374
By: a89 - 7th February 2017 at 21:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the link MSphere, I will have a look at the new data.
Fuel is only a fraction of the flying cost. I would expect maintenance and spare parts to be more expensive (as in civil airlines).
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 7th February 2017 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the thrust/weight ? 2 small vs one bigger doesn't change much.
Russia simply has lower overhead than its western counterparts. So it stands to reason that they should be more competitive price wise.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 7th February 2017 at 22:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A senseless claim. The IS people are smart enough to hide in the population. Non needs a bomb truck except for careless bombing, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not, obviously.. You're welcome to provide better figures before you continue.. without them, don't even bother..Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they hide in the population, then obviously not even a Paveway or a JDAM will do much difference, right?Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite on the contrary, I expect US made spares to be considerably more expensive.. A $2.6mil RD-93 can hardly be assembled from costlier parts than a $4.2mil F404, that just doesn't add up..
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 8th February 2017 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No it wasn't. It was news because it was a real world comparison.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 8th February 2017 at 00:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its what i gathered from lifetime and TBO for various engines,
i dont know where i read it
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Info about TBO is incapable to provide a complete picture.. "overhaul" in Russian and NATO terms is not the same..and of course, price for an overhaul is, again, completely different..
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 8th February 2017 at 01:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iraq is dependent on a constant support, when it is about the hardware in the inventory. If it stops for an unknown reason, just some friendly countries can help for some time at least. Like many other Arab countries the Iraq split sources in the meanwhile. Iraq is not a poor country and by that operating cost are not decisive.
Posts: 593
By: Sanem - 8th February 2017 at 06:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
about that, can China or India also maintain the Su-30MKK?
if so that'd be pretty cool from a geopolitcal point of view
I can't think of many other advanced aircraft that can be maintained by more than one nation
if not today, maybe in the future, as India and China play industrial catch up with Russia and the US
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 8th February 2017 at 07:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree Irak is not poor country but it need a big Russia base to be transformed into successful country very rapidly.
A force of 10,000 Russian will relieve more than 200,000 Irakis from combat and intelligence gathering duties. Irak will not need loans to buy ineffective weopons from this and that country. It can concentrate fully on economic development and oil/gas extraction without worrying about regional countries.
Russia has high quality intelligence that's why they allowed Turks into Syria to show to the world that they are not that much better even with Germanic tanks.
Irak is now reasonable good in maintaining big fleet of Mi-171/Mi-28/Mi-35/Su-25. there is no shortage of weopons for these platforms.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 09:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Chinese do not have maintenance service for foreign Su-30MKKs.
India can overhaul Sukhois at HAL or help with training syllabus, but it would have to be the much more advanced Su-30MKI, not the basic Su-30MKK/MK2.
Posts: 374
By: a89 - 8th February 2017 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was talking in general for a single aircraft, not a comparison. Many assume that MiG-29 is more expensive to operate because it has a higher fuel consumption, but fuel is only a fraction of the total cost. See link below for an airline
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-are-major-expenses-affect-companies-airline-industry.asp
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 11:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would not be so sure about the higher cost of fuel.. Both F110 and RD-33 have very similar/identical SFC in military (0.75/0.77), as well as in A/B mode (2.01/2.05). An F110-GE-129 makes 70 kN dry and 131 kN in AB, a twin-set of RD-33 makes 100 kN in military and 163 kN in full AB thrust. Loaded weights, ~12 ton for the F-16C, ~15 ton for the MiG-29.. All things combined and assuming similar aerodynamics, the Fulcrum would only need ~87 kN dry thrust to move through the air the same way the F-16C can at full military power. Hence the MiG can generally operate on ~10% lower throttle settings to achieve the same result.. Now imagine the cost of Russian Jp54 being only few % less than JP-8 (I don't know that but can assume this is the case) and you get the idea as of why it is easilt possible to fly the Fulcrum for less than the Viper (maintenance, lifetime, etc. not considered)..Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 8th February 2017 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if you read this
https://theaviationist.com/2015/01/27/polish-f-16-combat-ready/
The second argument provided by General Gocuł dealt with the operative costs associated with the F-16: the MiG-29 is cheaper to operate than the Fighting Falcons hence, deploying the Fulcrums is a way for not burdening the taxpayers. Apparently, cost of one flight hour of the MiG-29, according to various sources (exact data is unknown), is shaped at around 5,500 USD. In case of the F-16 the amount is as much as 7,700 USD.
But again, Gen Gocuł stated in an interview for the January issue of the Polish “Lotnictwo” magazine, that the Polish MiG-29s clocked 300 flying hours during May-August 2014, which is approximately 75 hours per aircraft. This provides a rough estimate of how much the Poles spent on its MiG-29s operational activities. This figure stands at around 1.7 million USD per fleet compared to 2.3 million USD it would cost to utilize the F-16s.
as for su-30
yes and no.
most of your enemies are on the ground. falcons or flankers aren't as useful as other types there
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2017 at 14:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks, tocino de cerdo, I was looking for this article for quite a time.. :eagerness: The figures are a bit on the low side but the image is still the same..
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 9th February 2017 at 07:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no, mig-29m weighs almost 50% more, its going to consume a lot more fuel,
i just didnt mention it because i'm so certain f-16 beats it on maintenance alone,
god himself couldnt convince me otherwise
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 9th February 2017 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errr.. not sure what you're on now.. :confused:You have already been proven wrong as the MiG-29, indeed, is cheaper to fly than the F-16..
what's the point of further arguing?