Let me repeat the main question:
why wasn’t the Su 27 made without the need for manual trim?
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
Very true. Cannot forget that.
4 Likes
Agree
A striking example is the Czech Republic-it rented Grippens, but by and large they do not even have money for oil and gas in the right amount…Who will pay for the operation of the F-35???
Russia pays for the Armenian Su-30SM, now it will probably be France.
1 Like
Political decisions, more dependence on the US, so a clear demarcation of where they belong. A contradictory decision for me, but it’s never about the people of the country, it’s about the rich international people.
1 Like
The Advent of small drones for striking MBTs upset the hierarchy. Supermaneuverability did not upset the hierarchy, only HOBS missiles.
Another long and unnecessary over-explanation on your part. The sites used are dubious and the TVC J-20 hasn’t flown yet. You were wrong about it being supermaneuverable.
Does the J-20B exist
Yes or no.
You got proof? The Chinese Government says otherwise. Are you saying they are lying?
Lol he can’t even acknowledge the J-20B because he is mentally incapable of admitting he is clueless.
Anyway, now only TVC engines are in mass production, and even on the Su-30SME Myanmar they are installed…
If we hypothetically imagine the resumption of fighting in such a specific theater of operations as the Bekaa Valley and around Israel, supermaneuverability would not be superfluous there…
1 Like
While not untrue that sharing development helps with the initial cost, it actually doesn’t reduce the total cost or production cost of the aircraft.
Total cost of development is often more than if a nation were to develop solely I house because it has to be designed to meet the needs of every partner.
The Rafaele and Gripen are easily the cheapest gen 4.5 aircraft available in the west because development was able to focus solely on the needs of one customer, rather than 4 or 5.
It’s generally considered a good thing that multiple nations are able to collaborate on the development and production of such systems, but it definitely isn’t cheaper as development still has to occur if just one partner wants a very expensive feature.
The F-35A also costs just a few million more than an F16 Block 70 and gets that wonderful “5th gen” sticker - ergo, it’s a political tool more than anything else.
1 Like
I am not quite sure what you mean here.
Any aircraft sold can “focus solely on the needs of one customer”. Otherwise, why would they buy it? This could be said about any product.
Small Delta wing fighters are less complex and cheaper to produce. Sure, that alone makes it more affordable to focus on the needs of a customer in other aspects.
Believe me, if you got the money. They will make the F-35 pink if you want. The Israeli’s have their own specialized F-15s, F-16s & F-35. I believe their F-35I is the only in the world compatible with native software & native weapon system guidance technologies iirc.
But cost is not only reason why these countries collaborate. Its lack of experience, innovation & research.
Many countries & corporations of all industries collaborate to develop products, technology & capabilities that would have otherwise been impossible had they tried to do it in house.
Many lack the innovative capability of the United States & Soviet Union/Ruf For example, 3-dimensional thrust vectoring capability of afterburning turbofan engines in supersonic aircraft.
Other examples would be Intercontinental Ballistic missiles, Space Flight & Hypersonic flight etc. The US & Russia still reign supreme.
Another example, the US was flying Hypersonic aircraft since 1969 (X-15) None of these countries can do this & must seek collaboration to achieve it. The US even referred to the Russians for Space flight in the rocket design and Mir Space Station. Space X used Russian rockets.
Collaboration to develop these aircraft we refer to were not exclusively done out an effort to reduce production & development cost, but rather lack of innovation within the minds & experiences of their own nation.
The US has done this by the way, as well as the Russians & Chinese. Everyone collaborates to one degree or the other depending on circumstance & of course the cost.
ugabuga
1 Like
When it comes to joint development you often get the following:
Country 1 wants: A, B ,C
Country 2 wants: B, C, E
Country 3 wants: A, D, F
Country 4 wants: A, B, D, E and F
Even though Country 1 only wants A,B,C, it must contribute to and pay for the development of D,E and F aswell, same for all the others.
Each country could do all the required development themselves, but it’s expensive and governments can change several times over development and each one could cancel the project entirely to save money. Having multiple partners adds security to the project and locks those countries into such a deal.
Research and development is then shared and all countries get the best capabilities that all the others have to offer.
The project MUST meet the needs of the key stakeholders, otherwise they will pull out and put the whole project in jeopardy, and there is no point in a joint development producing 4 unique products, its completely counter untuitive to the purpose of a joint development.
Super power nations just be doing super power nation things.
One where it costs $35,000 to have your appendix burst, and $1500 epi pens, and the other just sees burst appendix and diabetes as natural selection.
1 Like
All flankers are 9, the safety factor is 1.5. It’s just that the flanker was designed more correctly than the MiG-29.It’s easier to make a big plane than a small one.
Could they really?
Can each country do all the required development themselves? Putting cost & time aside completely. Pretend it’s not an issue.
Does each of these countries have the capability to develop combat capabilities to match the US, Russia & China? The answer is absolutely not.
Many of these countries do not have the innovation, the countless specialized production techniques, machinery, specialized materials to develop & produce the applications of 4th, 5th & even 6th generation fighters & must collaborate.
They will never catch up with the top 3 unless collaborating with others.
You are only listing the headaches of collaboration, which I agree.
I am speaking on the reasons a nation must feel it necessary to set out on such endeavors.
That’s not to their needs though is it?
Being a super power has its advantages of the infinite money pool & exploitation of the population that smaller weaternised nations don’t have.
They certainly could develop in house to meet their needs, italy, and Spain are the least developed in the EF Typhoon coalition and and most certainly could develop an inferior aircraft at massively reduced costs, but specifically one that meets their needs but such a project for a small nation is incredibly high risk compared to a super power.
The UK and Germany certainly could have developed their own 4th, 5th and 6th gen aircraft. The primary obstacle from them doing this is politics. Any government would be lambasted for wasting billions and would never survive another election where the project would be swiftly canceled.
Also, any time the UK, or Germany a bit too spicy, the US would put massive pressure to get those projects canceled, this has happened several times since the end of WW2
USA, Russia and China don’t have to care about their military development and production being turned on its head every 5 years and those countries suffer signficant disadvantages because of it.
t depended on the specific regiment. There were those who had 170-190. But I agree the raid has dropped compared to the Soviet period.In Afghanistan, there were from 80-350 hours per year
Features of the aerodynamic layout. It is statically unstable, unlike the F-15.Autotrimming hadn’t been invented yet
This was due to sanitary standards
1 Like