If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IHS Jane's)   One big difference between the Mig-35 and the F-22 is that one of these has customers   (janes.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, Anastas Mikoyan, customers  
•       •       •

5943 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2013 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 12:28:57 PM
The F22 is so advanced that it never even needs to be deployed anywhere. It's that good.
 
2013-04-30 12:42:59 PM
The F-22 was not built for export.

On the other hand, you can buy as many F-35s as you like.

/i like zero
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 12:49:03 PM
Well, a warmed over MiG-29 is much cheaper.
 
2013-04-30 12:55:14 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The F-22 was not built for export.

On the other hand, you can buy as many F-35s as you like.

/i like zero


They can't even export it if they wanted to.  Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government.
 
2013-04-30 01:56:11 PM

Sgt Otter: Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government


It's one of the few intelligent things they've done in decades.
 
2013-04-30 02:43:59 PM
Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.
 
2013-04-30 02:50:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.


No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.  Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.
 
2013-04-30 02:56:43 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.


sharkstunter.files.wordpress.com

ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.

Unlike the Russians, we don't dump our stuff on the market for the highest bidder. The Current T-90 being sold for export is the same T-90 that the Russian Army uses. The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.

Of course, considering they stole all their ideas from us, that's not surprising.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.


So which situation are you talking about? Iran-Contra?
 
2013-04-30 03:08:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: hardinparamedic: Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.

No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.  Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.


You know how I know you know nothing about ITAR?

/was an export compliance officer for a company that built fuel cells for craft like the MH-47 and F-18
 
2013-04-30 03:12:05 PM

hardinparamedic: Unlike the Russians, we don't dump our stuff on the market for the highest bidder. The Current T-90 being sold for export is the same T-90 that the Russian Army uses. The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.


Fair point.
 
2013-04-30 03:13:59 PM
As there appears to be some confusion, it's the F-22 which has a buyer, not the MiG-35.

FTFA:
Russia will place an order for the Mikoyan MiG-35 'Fulcrum F' multirole fighter aircraft in the first half of 2013, the CEO of Mikoyan believes.
...
Mikoyan has long been seeking an order for its MiG-35, the latest variant of its 'Fulcrum' fighter stable, derived from the original MiG-29, which first entered service in 1983


From this article:
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) today received an additional $5 billion from the U.S. Air Force for
 three lots of F-22 Raptor air dominance fighters. This brings the total
 multi-year contract value to $7.3 billion and extends the production of the
 aircraft through the year 2011.
 
2013-04-30 03:14:09 PM
Max Landsberger: Since the 1984 oil discovery in New Guinea, we have sold the Bu!kais hill tribesmen 20 of our S-24 fighters. At $21 million per unit, that's $252 million. This has started a local arms race between the Bu!kais, and their local neighbors the Kla!klalas. Now the Kla!klalas also happen to be sitting an a large amount of oil. And now the Kla!klalas want to buy 20 of our new Slash X-Ray Ultra Pursuit fighters for a total of $480 million.
Pete Helmes: What are the chances of war between them?
Bob Nixon: Very good sir. Our spare parts replacement contracts could be very lucrative.
Pete Helmes: Who trains their flight personnel?
Max Landsberger: Well, as near as we can assess it... well, they don't actually fly the planes. They sort of roll them down hills, crashing them into each other.
Scott Dantley: Personally, I think that it's a shameful waste of incredible kill power.
Pete Helmes: Make the deal.
Bob NixonScott Dantley: Absolutely.
 
2013-04-30 03:18:42 PM

hardinparamedic: The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.


No one is using the MiG-35.  They've built a few prototypes but haven't found a buyer.  I believe you're thinking of the Su-27 and its variants.
 
2013-04-30 03:18:48 PM
The article says RUSSIA will place an order for RUSSIAN-made MiG 35s.

Which is exactly the same thing as the USA placing an order for USA-made F-22s.

Except that Mikoyan would probably happily sell their fancy new block point upgrade MiG29 to India, Pakistan, Malaysia, China, etc. while the USA won't sell the F-22 to Israel, Japan, South Korea or even Canada.

Besides, as article mentions, the Flanker family pretty much owns the Russkie tactical export market.
 
2013-04-30 03:34:38 PM
US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.
 
2013-04-30 03:36:33 PM
Is this why we can't have schools or a stable domestic infrastructure?

/if we don't feed the war machine it will get angry, and try to kill us
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 03:39:11 PM

meanmutton: hardinparamedic: The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.

No one is using the MiG-35.  They've built a few prototypes but haven't found a buyer.  I believe you're thinking of the Su-27 and its variants.


The MiG-35 is just a newer MiG-29.  Lots of countries use MiG-29s.
 
2013-04-30 03:54:28 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.


There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.

/I'm still sad that plane is no longer used, or wasn't modernized.
//It gives me wood to see that plane in a museum. That was my childhood favorite.
 
2013-04-30 03:57:23 PM
 
2013-04-30 03:58:42 PM

hardinparamedic: There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.


You mean the F-14s they've been using constantly since 1979 and still use?
 
2013-04-30 04:04:11 PM

clovis69: You mean the F-14s they've been using constantly since 1979 and still use?


Yeah, about that.

There's only a dozen flying now, originally, out of about 90 sold to Iran because they don't have any way of obtaining parts for them except for scavenging them from other aircraft. In addition, the ones that DO fly are crippled - they lack the AIM-54 Phoenix which made the Tomcat so goddamn scary to people thinking of launching an air attack on the fleet.

The ones that are left are basically kept flying as a middle finger to the US. Iran has much newer, and more capable import aircraft, like the SU-27.

clovis69: hardinparamedic: We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procu re ment

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafs-first-operational-f-3 5- pilot-flies-first-training-sortie-383642/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35I


You do realize that the export modifications for those fighters ensure we have a way of tracking them and making sure they're not on par with ours, right?

Just pointing that fact out.
 
2013-04-30 04:16:07 PM

hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.


Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.
 
2013-04-30 04:32:49 PM
You mean the F-22 that Japan has repeatedly asked to buy and told no?  That F-22 with no customers.

/the B-2 sucks ass as well, no one else ever bought those!
 
2013-04-30 04:34:39 PM

Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s
 
2013-04-30 04:36:49 PM

Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s


Well their most recent update package was built in cooperation between American and Japanese companies to be fair.  Odds are the Japanese didn't really need to involve the Americans, so much as it was a political decision to stay friendly with them in hopes of getting good deals on future toys.  Same with the ROK F-15s.
 
2013-04-30 04:37:27 PM
Now you may deal directly with me now; Colonel Nakir Nakesh.
 
2013-04-30 04:38:09 PM

Click Click D'oh: Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


And it transforms into a flying robot too.
 
2013-04-30 04:48:25 PM

Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s


We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs. The F-15SA has all kinds of new goodies; it isn't equivalent to the F-22 though. I'm wondering how one would stack up to an F-35... maybe not every bit as good, but a hell of a lot cheaper and available NOW.
 
2013-04-30 04:50:54 PM

akula: We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs


The F-15C is being drummed out of service except in Air National Guard units in favor of the F-22, which was designed to replace it.

The main variant in service with the Air Force right now is the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is being proposed to be modernized to the F-15SE by the addition of RAM.
 
2013-04-30 04:53:18 PM

ha-ha-guy: Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s

Well their most recent update package was built in cooperation between American and Japanese companies to be fair.  Odds are the Japanese didn't really need to involve the Americans, so much as it was a political decision to stay friendly with them in hopes of getting good deals on future toys.  Same with the ROK F-15s.


makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.
 
2013-04-30 05:02:10 PM

Chevello: makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.


Assuming that the F-15 is the air frame selected for the third phase of the Korean Air Force modernization, the deal is going to be at least parts get built in Korea, the Koreans want to bring over technology from their KF-X program.  Korea can definitely build them since Eurofighter tried to make their Typhoon more attractive by saying they'd let Korea domestically build it.  The currently speculation is Boeing will spit out the airframes, but the Koreans will add all the bells and whistles on for Phase 3.
 
2013-04-30 05:14:23 PM
We don't sell Raptors, subby.

Maths is hard.
 
2013-04-30 05:15:52 PM

hardinparamedic: akula: We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs

The F-15C is being drummed out of service except in Air National Guard units in favor of the F-22, which was designed to replace it.

The main variant in service with the Air Force right now is the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is being proposed to be modernized to the F-15SE by the addition of RAM.


I wasn't sure if the F-15E had replaced the -C model. Not surprised though.

I think they're also talking about adding AESA radar and a bunch of other avionic goodies (pretty much most of the 5th generation toys but without the all aspect stealth of the F-22).
 
2013-04-30 05:18:03 PM

ha-ha-guy: Chevello: makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.

Assuming that the F-15 is the air frame selected for the third phase of the Korean Air Force modernization, the deal is going to be at least parts get built in Korea, the Koreans want to bring over technology from their KF-X program.  Korea can definitely build them since Eurofighter tried to make their Typhoon more attractive by saying they'd let Korea domestically build it.  The currently speculation is Boeing will spit out the airframes, but the Koreans will add all the bells and whistles on for Phase 3.


They spent an awful lot of money on simulators recently that are all F-15K and KF-16, so they are probably going to get at least a few. That isn't to say that they didn't spend a bunch on EFA sims too, but they weren't telling me about it. :)
 
2013-04-30 05:42:13 PM

Sgt Otter: Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government.


This.  The reason that no one is ordering it is because it's not for sale.  Period.
 
2013-04-30 05:47:38 PM
akula:

I wasn't sure if the F-15E had replaced the -C model. Not surprised though.

It hasn't.

The F-15C Eagle is a single-seat, purebred air-to-air fighter, with just a pilot.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is a two-seat, multi-role aircraft with both air-to-air and ground strike capabilities.  It basically replaced the retired F-111 Aardvark fighter-bomber.  There's a Weapons Systems Officer in the backseat who handles the ground-to-air avionics.

They have completely different roles.  They may be more F-15Es in active service, but that's because the F-22 is gradually replacing the F-15C.  The F-22 can't replace the F-15E, at least not without some serious modifications.  There was a proposed F/B-22 Strike Raptor fighter-bomber variant, but it never got past the drawing board.

files.air-attack.com
 
2013-04-30 06:30:36 PM

clovis69: hardinparamedic: We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procu re ment

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafs-first-operational-f-3 5- pilot-flies-first-training-sortie-383642/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35I


Selling an F-35 with some stealth capability and selling an F-35 with the US version's capability are two very different things.

However because the way the rules are applied Lockheed doesn't even have to tell them just how different their version is.

Hint: It's very different!
 
2013-04-30 06:45:17 PM

Chevello: They spent an awful lot of money on simulators recently that are all F-15K and KF-16, so they are probably going to get at least a few. That isn't to say that they didn't spend a bunch on EFA sims too, but they weren't telling me about it. :)


Yeah the Eurofighter already lost out, as did the Rafale, because neither plane could satisfactorily mount American missiles, which Korea has a massive stock of and plans on using in the future.
 
2013-04-30 07:22:19 PM
So the Russians are buying MiG's?  My head will be spinning all day with this shocking news.
 
2013-04-30 07:27:01 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.


Actually... The F-18 was designed and built to require a fraction of the ground crew time of other airframes. Which is why it is still being shot off of aircraft carriers, and the F-14s and a-8s have been retired.

It's also why, despite having no aircraft carriers of their own, Australia and Canada fly F-18s
 
2013-04-30 07:29:51 PM
hardinparamedic: 
ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.


If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.
 
2013-04-30 07:42:57 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every exception in this thread.

I could buy me a fleet of F-47.5 Thunderdogwildeaglefoxbatwildweasel Mark II's. With optional bazooka tubes and hot tub.
 
2013-04-30 07:45:11 PM
Just a little touch up!

/All I can think about reading this thread
//And we'll need a receipt.  For tax purposes.
 
2013-04-30 08:00:47 PM

spawn73: hardinparamedic: 
ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.

If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.


You don't seriously belive that do you? The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.

Take a look at the most obvious example (while not an export): compare our aircraft carriers to the rest of the world.
 
2013-04-30 08:13:12 PM
Well who wants to buy a jet designed 20 years ago anyway?
 
2013-04-30 08:19:27 PM
I was once in a 4-G inverted dive with a Mig-35.
 
2013-04-30 08:42:59 PM

spawn73: If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.


You have no idea how international arms trade regarding American Tech is regulated, do you?

Certain technologies are deemed unexportable by the US State Department That means it's considered treason and espionage to sell them to another country, even an ally of the United States. Examples of this are the DepU-Infused armor systems on the M1 Tank, Generation IV Night vision technology, the the stealth and radar systems of the current F-35 used by the United States. Even technologies we DO sell to other countries are restricted. SOmething we sell to Japan might not be sold to the UK, or to Israel.

This is the reason the M1 Abrams, as we sold to Iraq, has no DepU armor on it, and the reason that the F-35s and F-16s we sell to our allies are less capable when compared with American fighters in terms of stealth and electronics/avionics.
 
2013-04-30 09:42:05 PM

ghall3: The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.


Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.
 
2013-04-30 09:54:04 PM

jaytkay: Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.


No. That's why we decimatedsee definition 3b the Soviet-made T-72s the Iraqis and the soviet leftovers the Afghanis had during the initial invasion, and why we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.

The T-90 was developed by the Russians as a direct challenge to the M1A2 Abraham, the Leopard 2A7, and the British Challenger II tank, because they were completely outclassed by anything the West was making at the time.
 
2013-04-30 10:02:00 PM
There is plenty of furious masturbating going on on this thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report