M-MRCA utk TUDM

Robotech

The other is the F/A-18E/F Block III, or the SU-30MKM.

That how I see things for the next decade. Limit our MRCA platform to Su-30MKM and / or F-18F SuperHornet. A good balance in having Western & Russian inventory within RMAF.

Although I prefer MiG-35 (non-combat proven) as medium MRCA requirement for RMAF, ditching that to more F-18D (ex-USMC) even seen better. F-18D have proven track records, & possible upgrades suited to RMAF requirements.

gancity

light and expensive

gancity

choose btw Russian & US for 1st tier jet are enough for us...
2nd tier v jst choose btw UK & Italy

far-eiq

sekarang Mig mendahului....jadi sesiapa yg undi Mig tu boleh bagi penjelasan???? pasal kebanyakan bincang tentang Gripen......

ermmm...secara peribadi walaupun Mig35 tidak ada negara luar yg menggunakannya...tetapi ia nya pun tidak boleh dipandang sebelah mata...

gancity

my view is...TUDM had operate MIG-29n... so is not a problem for us to continue master the MIG-35.... + it can fit wit BAR-29 or Ibris radar & at less 30%++ componenet similiar wit the SU-30mkm easy for maintenance... & the MIG-35 do improve alot compare the previous MIG-29... about communication/interlink wit AEW&C... i dont thk is a major problem for the Russian jet if SU-30mkm can interlink...Y not the new MIG-35...

gancity

jst wander do MIG-35 hv single sit version? or the MIg-29OVT is the single sit of the MIG-35?

johngage

Originally posted by RainbowSix at 27-2-2008 06:54 PM
For US$76 million (wikipedia) a piece, the Gripen is a bit steep for a light/2nd tier aircraft. Secondly, its does not offer anything more than the SU-30MKM. Stealth upgrades are available even f ...

I don't think that your figures are correct. Wikipedia has been known to provide inaccurate info.

Check out this link from Flight international:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1998/05/20/37251/uae-block-60-order-provides-edge-for-lockheed-martin.html

The F-16E/F was offered to the Nowegian Air Force for approximately $40 million USD in 1998.

UAE purchased 80 F-16 for $8 billion USD. That's works out to $100 million apiece and this order was made in 1999.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mGk6we5s-YoJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_3_30/ai_n18618915/pg_6+uae+block+60+f-16+unit+price&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

Now, I don't know how much the F-16E/F would cost in 2008 but it would certainly be more than $26 million USD.

I am also skeptical about the Wikipedia price for the Gripen of $76 million USD.

Hungary bought their Gripens for $47 million USD in 2001

http://www.amcham.hu/BusinessHungary...s/17-06_38.asp

The Czechs bought their Gripens for around $56 million USD in 2004.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/06/15/182921/czech-government-approves-deal-to-lease-14-gripens.html

But both these deals involved leasing, extensive offsets etc. So the price of aircraft is not accurately calculated.

Furthermore, the Gripen has significantly lower operating costs compared to some Russian aircraft. The figure given of $2000/hour to fly compared to $25000 for Russian aircraft perhaps has to be taken with caution

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...8-014529-8921r.

But it is certainly true that single-engined aircraft offer considerable savings in fuels and spare-parts when compared to twin engine aircraft. It is for this reason that countries such as the US operate the single engined F-16 next to its more capable but expensive to purchase and operate twin engine F-15.





[ Last edited by  johngage at 28-2-2008 01:37 PM ]

johngage

Originally posted by far-eiq at 27-2-2008 09:51 PM
sekarang Mig mendahului....jadi sesiapa yg undi Mig tu boleh bagi penjelasan???? pasal kebanyakan bincang tentang Gripen......

ermmm...secara peribadi walaupun Mig35 tidak ada negara luar yg m ...

Saya rasa MiG-35 ini memang ada potensi yang banyak. Tetapi kos untuk develop benda ini terlampau tinggi. Buat sekarang benda ini hanya ada dalam versi prototype sehaja bukan dalam production. Maknanya kita kena tanggung R & D benda ini, kos intergrasi senjata dan avionik, kos buka kilang buat spare-part dia, kos buat testing untuk semua avionik..etc...

Contohnya SU-30MKI. India mengambil masa 6 tahun untuk develop kapalterbang ni.

([url=http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Wz8H9NLoKRQJ:www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/ ... integration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9]http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Wz8H9NLoKRQJ:www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/ ... integration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9[/url])

Sekarang mereka menolong kita develop SU-30MKM. Kalau India dgn budget tenteranya $22 billion AS, dengan kilang aerospace mereka yang canggih seperti HAL dan DRDO mengambil masa 6 tahun, agaknya tertekan TUDM kalau kena develop kapalterbang sendiri. Lebih baik kita beli kapalterbang yang orang lain sudah develop, tidak pening kepala.

yaminz

Twin engine...

belacan79

@ Johngage

Good point. Prize of jet pejuang depending on sistem they buy or put inside jet.

For exampel, countri A may put more sistem on thier jet so it became expensif like beter redar, EW sistem, chaff, good jcms helmet, night goggels dan berbagai bagai lagi.

Countri B could order more wepons with full package so it can became more expensif. Countri C may order thier wepons on another time so package became less expensif. Not easy to compare.

mentosonline

Perhaps though the biggest advantage of the gripen is it's short take-off characteristics and ability to operate from a short strip of road and a trailer.

windof

Secara purata, Gripen mmg memiliki banyak kelebihan utk digunakan TUDM berbanding pesawat2 lain. Mmg patut ia menjadi calon favourite MMRCA negara.

RainbowSix

Originally posted by johngage at 28-2-2008 13:35


I don't think that your figures are correct. Wikipedia has been known to provide inaccurate info.

Check out this link from Flight international:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/199 ...

Czech Republic put the price of a Gripen at US$68 miliion including weapons, support equipment and training.
The only advantage I see with the Gripen is its low maintenance and operating cost.

[ Last edited by  RainbowSix at 28-2-2008 10:04 PM ]

yaminz

Agreed, even Grippen can operate at highway, big advantage.

razhar

mig also can,,,

razhar

in fact..all russian-build crafts were built to be use for rough situation n enviroment...

belacan79

Kalo Sewden offer AWAC dengan Gripen, beli jer. Bukan mahal sangat.

mentosonline

Yes, but I really doubt the Russians quality control and anyway their equipment usually never works as advertised.
Half the time, it breaks down.
And I don't think ALL Russian equipment is built for rough conditions.
Let's see...

Whenever the Russians release a new piece of military equipment it's usually revolutionary and probably the best in the world. But somehow, in combat all over the world, more often then not it turns out to be second best.

johngage

I have absolutely no doubt that Russia has some very talented designers and the aircraft that they produce have great potential. Their main problem is the lack of funding for R & D, and a proper test program to make sure that all the components and avionics have been throughly tested. Take a look at the F-35 (JSF) program. The program started in 1993, the first prototype flew in 2000. The first production model F-35 flew in 2006. You are talking of an aircraft which has been developed over a period 15 years, at a cost of over $300 billion USD !!! That means that every component from avionics to hydraulics has been tested, corrected, fine-tuned, adjusted...to near perfection.

Now compare this to the MiG-35. its first flight was only in 2007. It has new engines (the 'smokeless' latest version of the RD-33), a new radar (Zhuk-AE AESA), new avionics, new engine management system, a newly designed Optical Locator System. But how much work has been done to test the reliability of all these new components? Look at how many bugs there are in new Microsoft software, let alone a sophisticated combat fighter. At the moment this aircraft has not been ordered. So any country that orders it would be the 'test' customer, with all the headaches that this carries. In other words the technology is not mature. In my opinion, its better for Malaysia to buy a product which has already been tested, so that all the technical faults have been ironed out.

RainbowSix

Look at it this way, even the SU-30MKM was modified so extensively that the cost was multiplied. No doubt they are good after so many modifications. Another is the Mig-29N reliability fiasco. This proves that Russian equipment not only is crude but also lacking reliability. Secondly, the PT-91. A very extensively upgraded and retrofitted tank. Only then it was considered.
As for Mi-17s, they are just old. Work horse or not the moment the helos start falling down, everyone loses faith in them. Mig-35, well wait and see.
My advice, dont get Russian stuff unless we have to.

[ Last edited by  RainbowSix at 2-3-2008 04:52 PM ]