By: FBW
- 10th February 2017 at 05:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Addendum- it is not a knock on soviet era weapons that they were designed with a shorter service life. It was doctrine. The Soviet era maintenance was done by conscripts, with the understanding that numerical superiority was more desirable than a long service life. They were probably right given a high intensity conflict. No one envisioned that air superiority fighters, or strike fighters designed in the 70's would still be front line fighters some 30+ years later.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 10th February 2017 at 07:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Addendum- it is not a knock on soviet era weapons that they were designed with a shorter service life. It was doctrine. The Soviet era maintenance was done by conscripts, with the understanding that numerical superiority was more desirable than a long service life. They were probably right given a high intensity conflict. No one envisioned that air superiority fighters, or strike fighters designed in the 70's would still be front line fighters some 30+ years later.
There was no "short sighted" doctrine. Whether its AK-47's, the Soyuz rocket, T-90 tanks or Flankers, it was all built to be simple and last a long time. And all have stood the test of time.
By: ijozic
- 10th February 2017 at 09:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ijozic, which part of "fuel cost only" don't you understand? It's all very nice, but this has zero effect on the cost numbers provided..
Yeah, sorry, I missed that since your first post on the topic clearly stated: "Interestingly, the F-16C is more costly to operate than a MiG-29, as Polish AF have found out." which is what I was responding to.
Is there a quoted value of how much a MiG-29 flight hour in fuel costs in the Polish Air Force?
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 09:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Use real numbers please:
Don't hesitate and provide us with those "real" numbers, please.. TIA.
Look up which F-16 engine you are using. Btw, this whole argument 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:
There is hardly any difference in SFC between the F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-229..
Who are those mysterious MiG-29 users who have decided to replace their Fulcrums with F-16s? :confused:
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 09:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
There is no "design legacy" to speak of.. The traded thrust for longevity was a problem with early RD-33s from late 80s and early 90s and was attributed to used materials more than design aspects.
Or know actual numbers over opinions.
As said, show us those actual numbers.. What are you waiting for?
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 09:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there a quoted value of how much a MiG-29 flight hour in fuel costs in the Polish Air Force?
Yes, we got two quotes.. One says $5,500/h for the MiG-29 vs $7,700/h for the F-16C.
The other one says PLN 61,900/h for the MiG-29 vs PLN 70,000/h for the F-16C.
We can argue about what engine regimes./throttle settings were used to get that number, but the speaker of the Polish General Staff specifically said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost per hour than the F-16C and that was why the Polish AF used them for air policing instead of the "Jastrzebs".. As said, I was surprised, too..
By: Sens
- 10th February 2017 at 09:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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..
The F-16 does not consume less fuel.. get it into your lemon, finally..
Stick to your own demand. All is comparable when it is about the situation in a specific country. The same thrust by two engines comes along with higher Maintenance, repair, and Overhaul cost, when done in the same country. The heavier aircraft has a heavier fuel-bill as well. It ends, when it comes to the avionic-suit and the related MRO. Non serious will compare cost of avionic related capabilities of different standard aircraft.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 09:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was no "short sighted" doctrine. Whether its AK-47's, the Soyuz rocket, T-90 tanks or Flankers, it was all built to be simple and last a long time. And all have stood the test of time.
Well, in all honesty, early RD-33s were NOT built to last, at all. They were utter crap assembled from substandard materials..
By: Sens
- 10th February 2017 at 10:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, we got two quotes.. One says $5,500/h for the MiG-29 vs $7,700/h for the F-16C.
The other one says PLN 61,900/h for the MiG-29 vs PLN 70,000/h for the F-16C.
We can argue about what engine regimes./throttle settings were used to get that number, but the speaker of the Polish General Staff specifically said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost per hour than the F-16C and that was why the Polish AF used them for air policing instead of the "Jastrzebs".. As said, I was surprised, too..
http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm Here you can look under negatives, when it comes about fuel and endurance. Poland flies that ex GAF MiG-29s too. The safety margin of 1000 kg brought back you will pay 5500 USD for 3400 kg of fuel in Poland. Do the same for the F-16C. You will get 4754 kg of fuel for the same price. Non serious will claim that the lighter F-16C with less installed thrust and better sfc will burn 140 % of fuel for the same mission. Blind thrust in official claims given by a speaker are misleading sometimes without the related details or the intention he had. At least you were surprised when others did the reality check at first.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 11:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here you can look under negatives, when it comes about fuel and endurance. Poland flies that ex GAF MiG-29s too. The safety margin of 1000 kg brought back you will pay 5500 USD for 3400 kg of fuel in Poland. Do the same for the F-16C. You will get 4754 kg of fuel for the same price.
$5,500 is quoted as the cost of a flying hour, not mission cost. Endurance or safety margin plays zero role in this comparison.. Read the facts before starting an argument.
Non serious will claim that the lighter F-16C with less installed thrust and better sfc will burn 140 % of fuel for the same mission. Blind thrust in official claims given by a speaker are misleading sometimes without the related details or the intention he had. At least you were surprised when others did the reality check at first.
1. F-16 does not have better SFC.. the figures are practically identical
2. The F-16 does not have to burn more fuel to be more costly. All it takes is that it burns a comparable amount of more expensive fuel (the JP8).
3. The ones who were really surprised are the Polish AF. The original price projections for operating cost were much lower than the reality. They are quite happy with the Jastrzeb's performance and capabilities, but quite unhappy with readiness rate and operating cost. That, my friend, is the true reality check.
By: FBW
- 10th February 2017 at 13:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't hesitate and provide us with those "real" numbers, please.. TIA.
There is hardly any difference in SFC between the F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-229..
Who are those mysterious MiG-29 users who have decided to replace their Fulcrums with F-16s? :confused:
F100-220 (SFC .73 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 10,650 lbs JP8 per hour in intermediate thrust
F110-129 (SFC .68 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 11,617 lbs JP8 her hour in intermediate thrust
RD-33 (SFC .77kg/kgfh, other source lists .74 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 8,310 lbs of fuel per hour using the lower SFC listed
Now, let's think. The F-16 has one engine, the Mig-29 has two. How exactly does the F-16 use more fuel?
(edit- corrected -229 to -129 typo)
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 13:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F100-220 (SFC .73 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 10,650 lbs JP8 per hour in intermediate thrust
F110-229 (SFC .68 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 11,617 lbs JP8 her hour in intermediate thrust
RD-33 (SFC .77kg/kgfh, other source lists .74 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 8,310 lbs of fuel per hour using the lower SFC listed
Polish F-16s use F100-PW-229 - this type has SFC of 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) at military thrust and 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) at full afterburner. This supports my stance that the SFC of both aircraft is largely identical, give or take.
Now, let's think. The F-16 has one engine, the Mig-29 has two. How exactly does the F-16 use more fuel?
No one has ever claimed the F-16 used more fuel.. Polish AF have said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost/hour than the F-16C.
The obvious explanation would be that Russian type fuel is less pricey than the JP8..
By: FBW
- 10th February 2017 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Polish F-16s use F100-PW-229 - this type has SFC of 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) at military thrust and 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) at full afterburner.
F100-229 (SFC .70), not sure where you got the other number. I'm going with RAND as they likely got the numbers directly from the directly from the manufacturers.
What fuel do the Poles use in their Mig's, can the RD-33 not run on JP series fuel?
Polish AF have said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost/hour than the F-16C
And for the Poles that may be, but I don't see it due to fuel (as even if Russian aviation fuel is cheaper, your talking about 5,000 lbs more fuel in mil thrust).
Secondly, one operator's figures do not equate to a whole service history. CPFH are calculated differently by different services. Malaysian experience with the Mig-29 has suggested it is the opposite of cheap to operate, India as well.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 14:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F100-229 (SFC .70), not sure where you got the other number. I'm going with RAND as they likely got the numbers directly from the directly from the manufacturers.
That's a figure quote by lotsa sources... In return, I have never seen your 0.70 number..
What fuel do the Poles use in their Mig's, can the RD-33 not run on JP series fuel?
Well, not sure, the closest that I came to was something called Jp54.
BTW, Pride aircraft used Jet A in their Flankers.
And for the Poles that may be, but I don't see it due to fuel (as even if Russian aviation fuel is cheaper, your talking about 5,000 lbs more fuel in mil thrust).
This whole issue is about fuel only.. Everything else, maintenance, parts cost, manpower, labor cost, lifespan etc. is not being considered.
Secondly, one operator's figures do not equate to a whole service history. CPFH are calculated differently by different services. Malaysian experience with the Mig-29 has suggested it is the opposite of cheap to operate, India as well.
SOURCES. Ogg, 1987, pp. 37, 39; U.S. Air Force, Aeronautical
Systems Division Deputy for Propulsion, 1986.
- that is where they got the SFC for the F100-220 and F110-100 for that document, and the numbers are the same on the doc I posted earlier. RAND is getting their information from the USAF. The figures floating around the internet for SFC like this site: http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
are ballpark accuracy based on open source. The RAND numbers are more accurate.
By: Sens
- 10th February 2017 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
$5,500 is quoted as the cost of a flying hour, not mission cost. Endurance or safety margin plays zero role in this comparison.. Read the facts before starting an argument.
1. F-16 does not have better SFC.. the figures are practically identical
2. The F-16 does not have to burn more fuel to be more costly. All it takes is that it burns a comparable amount of more expensive fuel (the JP8).
3. The ones who were really surprised are the Polish AF. The original price projections for operating cost were much lower than the reality. They are quite happy with the Jastrzeb's performance and capabilities, but quite unhappy with readiness rate and operating cost. That, my friend, is the true reality check.
Bad behavior to stay polite. It was about fuel cost and your are the one in need to read the facts.
About 1. A claim without data 2. In Poland you have the same fuel for both. 3. Here you start twisting again to avoid the fuel comparison. The new F-16C is a true multi-role fighter with an advanced avionik suit and the related cost. The old MiG-29A is a single role Interceptor in Polish service with 30 years of service and well known for the own service people and plenty of support equipment at hand. The Polish have still to learn the new and different technology of their first Western fighter. It is a culture change too.
The Iraqis have to decide to do a full switch to Western technology or will have the burden to master that of Eastern technology again. https://www.theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/iranian-su-25-iraq/ That in mind the Su-30 can become an option for political reasons at first. The Iran is forced to switch to Eastern technology in weaponary at all.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 10th February 2017 at 18:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, in all honesty, early RD-33s were NOT built to last, at all. They were utter crap assembled from substandard materials..
He was making a sweeping statement about "Soviet" engineering philosophy. And as we can see with AK's , Soyuz ect, he's wrong
By: FBW
- 10th February 2017 at 18:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
He was making a sweeping statement about "Soviet" engineering philosophy. And as we can see with AK's , Soyuz ect, he's wrong
Not engineering philosophy overall, weapon engineering.
And your wrong. Your trying to apply modern Russian defense policy and manufacturing with Soviet times (likely due to some fearful inferiority complex, as it is a running theme in your posts). But I'm not going into this for another derailment of a thread to correct your misguided notions.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2017 at 18:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About 1. A claim without data
Really? Me and FBW are the only ones to provide any meaningful data in this debate.. You haven't provided anything except your opinions no one is interested in..
2. In Poland you have the same fuel for both.
A source would not hurt anyone.. I vaguely remember the JP-8 did not work too well with the RD-33 and that Peruvian AF Fulcrums were using JP-4.
3. Here you start twisting again to avoid the fuel comparison. The new F-16C is a true multi-role fighter with an advanced avionik suit and the related cost. The old MiG-29A is a single role Interceptor in Polish service with 30 years of service and well known for the own service people and plenty of support equipment at hand. The Polish have still to learn the new and different technology of their first Western fighter. It is a culture change too.
I don't give damn about what the F-16 is. I am not discussing avionics or any related cost here, so get that crap out of the debate, please..
The Iraqis have to decide to do a full switch to Western technology or will have the burden to master that of Eastern technology again. https://www.theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/iranian-su-25-iraq/ That in mind the Su-30 can become an option for political reasons at first. The Iran is forced to switch to Eastern technology in weaponary at all.
The Iraqis have obviously made that decision soon after US troops have disengaged. There has been no follow-up order for the F-16s and the order for the AH-64Es has been cancelled and replaced by the Mi-35M-3s and Mi-28NEs..
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 05:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No doubt TR1, read the bottom of my post..... was still typing.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 05:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Addendum- it is not a knock on soviet era weapons that they were designed with a shorter service life. It was doctrine. The Soviet era maintenance was done by conscripts, with the understanding that numerical superiority was more desirable than a long service life. They were probably right given a high intensity conflict. No one envisioned that air superiority fighters, or strike fighters designed in the 70's would still be front line fighters some 30+ years later.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 10th February 2017 at 07:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was no "short sighted" doctrine. Whether its AK-47's, the Soyuz rocket, T-90 tanks or Flankers, it was all built to be simple and last a long time. And all have stood the test of time.
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 10th February 2017 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, sorry, I missed that since your first post on the topic clearly stated: "Interestingly, the F-16C is more costly to operate than a MiG-29, as Polish AF have found out." which is what I was responding to.
Is there a quoted value of how much a MiG-29 flight hour in fuel costs in the Polish Air Force?
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 09:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't hesitate and provide us with those "real" numbers, please.. TIA. There is hardly any difference in SFC between the F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-229..Who are those mysterious MiG-29 users who have decided to replace their Fulcrums with F-16s? :confused:
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no "design legacy" to speak of.. The traded thrust for longevity was a problem with early RD-33s from late 80s and early 90s and was attributed to used materials more than design aspects. As said, show us those actual numbers.. What are you waiting for?Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 09:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, we got two quotes.. One says $5,500/h for the MiG-29 vs $7,700/h for the F-16C.
The other one says PLN 61,900/h for the MiG-29 vs PLN 70,000/h for the F-16C.
We can argue about what engine regimes./throttle settings were used to get that number, but the speaker of the Polish General Staff specifically said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost per hour than the F-16C and that was why the Polish AF used them for air policing instead of the "Jastrzebs".. As said, I was surprised, too..
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th February 2017 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stick to your own demand. All is comparable when it is about the situation in a specific country. The same thrust by two engines comes along with higher Maintenance, repair, and Overhaul cost, when done in the same country. The heavier aircraft has a heavier fuel-bill as well. It ends, when it comes to the avionic-suit and the related MRO. Non serious will compare cost of avionic related capabilities of different standard aircraft.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, in all honesty, early RD-33s were NOT built to last, at all. They were utter crap assembled from substandard materials..Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th February 2017 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm Here you can look under negatives, when it comes about fuel and endurance. Poland flies that ex GAF MiG-29s too. The safety margin of 1000 kg brought back you will pay 5500 USD for 3400 kg of fuel in Poland. Do the same for the F-16C. You will get 4754 kg of fuel for the same price. Non serious will claim that the lighter F-16C with less installed thrust and better sfc will burn 140 % of fuel for the same mission. Blind thrust in official claims given by a speaker are misleading sometimes without the related details or the intention he had. At least you were surprised when others did the reality check at first.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
$5,500 is quoted as the cost of a flying hour, not mission cost. Endurance or safety margin plays zero role in this comparison.. Read the facts before starting an argument.1. F-16 does not have better SFC.. the figures are practically identical
2. The F-16 does not have to burn more fuel to be more costly. All it takes is that it burns a comparable amount of more expensive fuel (the JP8).
3. The ones who were really surprised are the Polish AF. The original price projections for operating cost were much lower than the reality. They are quite happy with the Jastrzeb's performance and capabilities, but quite unhappy with readiness rate and operating cost. That, my friend, is the true reality check.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F100-220 (SFC .73 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 10,650 lbs JP8 per hour in intermediate thrust
F110-129 (SFC .68 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 11,617 lbs JP8 her hour in intermediate thrust
RD-33 (SFC .77kg/kgfh, other source lists .74 lbs/hr/lbs st)= 8,310 lbs of fuel per hour using the lower SFC listed
Now, let's think. The F-16 has one engine, the Mig-29 has two. How exactly does the F-16 use more fuel?
(edit- corrected -229 to -129 typo)
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Polish F-16s use F100-PW-229 - this type has SFC of 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) at military thrust and 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) at full afterburner. This supports my stance that the SFC of both aircraft is largely identical, give or take.
No one has ever claimed the F-16 used more fuel.. Polish AF have said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost/hour than the F-16C.
The obvious explanation would be that Russian type fuel is less pricey than the JP8..
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F100-229 (SFC .70), not sure where you got the other number. I'm going with RAND as they likely got the numbers directly from the directly from the manufacturers.
What fuel do the Poles use in their Mig's, can the RD-33 not run on JP series fuel?
And for the Poles that may be, but I don't see it due to fuel (as even if Russian aviation fuel is cheaper, your talking about 5,000 lbs more fuel in mil thrust).Secondly, one operator's figures do not equate to a whole service history. CPFH are calculated differently by different services. Malaysian experience with the Mig-29 has suggested it is the opposite of cheap to operate, India as well.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's a figure quote by lotsa sources... In return, I have never seen your 0.70 number..
http://www.456fis.org/PRATT_&_WHITNEY_F100_ENGINE.htm
https://defence.pk/threads/pratt-f100-pw-229-eep-engine-to-power-moroccan-air-force-f-16s.66664/
http://www.airpowerworld.info/aircraft-engine-manufacturers/pratt-and-whitney-f100.htm
http://www.mepcsa.com/ROADMAP/F100-PW-229EEP.aspx
http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/64-engines-power/13430-pratt-whitney-f100-jtf22-f401
Well, not sure, the closest that I came to was something called Jp54.
BTW, Pride aircraft used Jet A in their Flankers.
This whole issue is about fuel only.. Everything else, maintenance, parts cost, manpower, labor cost, lifespan etc. is not being considered. Cheap to operate compared to what? An A-4?
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After digging, I can tell you where RAND gets their numbers. Here from a different doc:
- that is where they got the SFC for the F100-220 and F110-100 for that document, and the numbers are the same on the doc I posted earlier. RAND is getting their information from the USAF. The figures floating around the internet for SFC like this site:http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282467.pdf
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
are ballpark accuracy based on open source. The RAND numbers are more accurate.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th February 2017 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bad behavior to stay polite. It was about fuel cost and your are the one in need to read the facts.
About 1. A claim without data 2. In Poland you have the same fuel for both. 3. Here you start twisting again to avoid the fuel comparison. The new F-16C is a true multi-role fighter with an advanced avionik suit and the related cost. The old MiG-29A is a single role Interceptor in Polish service with 30 years of service and well known for the own service people and plenty of support equipment at hand. The Polish have still to learn the new and different technology of their first Western fighter. It is a culture change too.
The Iraqis have to decide to do a full switch to Western technology or will have the burden to master that of Eastern technology again. https://www.theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/iranian-su-25-iraq/ That in mind the Su-30 can become an option for political reasons at first. The Iran is forced to switch to Eastern technology in weaponary at all.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 10th February 2017 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
He was making a sweeping statement about "Soviet" engineering philosophy. And as we can see with AK's , Soyuz ect, he's wrong
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th February 2017 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not engineering philosophy overall, weapon engineering.
And your wrong. Your trying to apply modern Russian defense policy and manufacturing with Soviet times (likely due to some fearful inferiority complex, as it is a running theme in your posts). But I'm not going into this for another derailment of a thread to correct your misguided notions.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2017 at 18:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? Me and FBW are the only ones to provide any meaningful data in this debate.. You haven't provided anything except your opinions no one is interested in.. A source would not hurt anyone.. I vaguely remember the JP-8 did not work too well with the RD-33 and that Peruvian AF Fulcrums were using JP-4. I don't give damn about what the F-16 is. I am not discussing avionics or any related cost here, so get that crap out of the debate, please.. The Iraqis have obviously made that decision soon after US troops have disengaged. There has been no follow-up order for the F-16s and the order for the AH-64Es has been cancelled and replaced by the Mi-35M-3s and Mi-28NEs..