Russia - Egypt military contracts

Not the greatest article. And they used mig-35 instead of Su-35. And they are guessing the cost.  $3 billion for 26 Su-35 to be all delivered by 2023. Works out at $115.38 million each. And includes missiles and weapons etc.

https://m.ednews.net/en/news/world/428645-russia-sold-26-su-35-fighter-jets-to-egypt-totalling-3-billion#.Xr5m97Fex90.facebook

d_taddei2 wrote:Not the greatest article. And they used mig-35 instead of Su-35. And they are guessing the cost.  $3 billion for 26 Su-35 to be all delivered by 2023. Works out at $115.38 million each. And includes missiles and weapons etc.  

https://m.ednews.net/en/news/world/428645-russia-sold-26-su-35-fighter-jets-to-egypt-totalling-3-billion#.Xr5m97Fex90.facebook

The previous news have been talked about 24 aircraft that costs 2 billion . Now 26 with 3 billion means a wide range of missiles and bombs are included which definitely will add a huge capabilities to EAF . Can't wait to change the wallpaper with the Su-35 over the Pyramids  

ahmedfire wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Not the greatest article. And they used mig-35 instead of Su-35. And they are guessing the cost.  $3 billion for 26 Su-35 to be all delivered by 2023. Works out at $115.38 million each. And includes missiles and weapons etc.  

https://m.ednews.net/en/news/world/428645-russia-sold-26-su-35-fighter-jets-to-egypt-totalling-3-billion#.Xr5m97Fex90.facebook

The previous news have been talked about 24 aircraft that costs 2 billion . Now 26 with 3 billion means a wide range of missiles and bombs are included which definitely will add a huge capabilities to EAF . Can't wait to change the wallpaper with the Su-35 over the Pyramids  

Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

Actually i didn't like the EAF situation to depend on huge F-16 fleet . US simply couldn't be trusted if Egypt go for war with Israel .

And i don't see a future for any new US aircraft to serve in EAF .Egypt will not buy F-35 and will operate the F-16 fleet till being retired .

US has threatened to impose sanctions on Egypt because of this SU-35 deal , so may the sanctions would be applied or they just are afraid to completely lose Egypt .

ahmedfire wrote:

Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

And i don't see a future for any new US aircraft to serve in EAF .Egypt will not buy F-35 and will operate the F-16 fleet till being retired .

US has threatened to impose sanctions on Egypt because of this SU-35 deal , so may the sanctions would be applied or they just are afraid to completely lose Egypt .

Ur right Israel could totally crap on them and all f-16 rendered useless bad move by Egypt getting involved with f-16 better to phase out asap. USA at most likely threaten to remove the 1.5 BN dollars they give as aid but Egypt could save that amount easily by not buying western equipment

They won't phase them out. They have enough missiles and bombs to use them for another decade.

They can always make spare parts by themselves like Iran for their f-14.

d_taddei2 wrote:
Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

USA halted weapon transfers to Egypt in October 2013 because they considered Sisi autocratic after he took power by coup against a democratic elected president.
So Egypt turned to the Russia to satisfy its needs or/and to pressure to US to resume arms sales, which it was finally done when Obama restored US military aid to Egypt in 2015.

My opinion is that Egypt doesnt have the intention to break full military cooperation with US. They also bought ships from France and submarines from Germany. They just want to diversify their their arms sources with purchases from other countries as well.

George1 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

USA halted weapon transfers to Egypt in October 2013 because they considered Sisi autocratic after he took power by coup against a democratic elected president.
So Egypt turned to the Russia to satisfy its needs or/and to pressure to US to resume arms sales, which it was finally done when Obama restored US military aid to Egypt in 2015.

My opinion is that Egypt doesnt have the intention to break full military cooperation with US. They also bought ships from France and submarines from Germany. They just want to diversify their their arms sources with purchases from other countries as well.

Of course they won't breakaway from USA because USA give them 1.5 BN dollars in aid for military but by accepting that money it will most likely come with conditions and USA might no more russian deals or very limited deals. Streamlining their equipment is badly needed. And western systems don't tend work well in integration with russian systems. And if they start installing western systems into russian made equipment that adds to cost.

Russia launches production of Su-35 fighter jets for Egypt — source

The timeframe for first batch’s delivery has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak

"The Gagarin Aircraft Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur has launched the production of Su-35, intended to be delivered to the Egyptian Air Force under the contract signed in 2018," the source said.

"The timeframe for first batch’s delivery to the Egyptian side has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak," he added.

Russia’s Kommersant daily reported in March 2019 that Egypt had decided to purchase several Russian-made Su-35 fighter jets for about $2 billion. The signing of the deal has never been confirmed by official sources

https://tass.com/defense/1157115

dino00 wrote:Russia launches production of Su-35 fighter jets for Egypt — source

The timeframe for first batch’s delivery has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak

"The Gagarin Aircraft Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur has launched the production of Su-35, intended to be delivered to the Egyptian Air Force under the contract signed in 2018," the source said.

"The timeframe for first batch’s delivery to the Egyptian side has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak," he added.

Russia’s Kommersant daily reported in March 2019 that Egypt had decided to purchase several Russian-made Su-35 fighter jets for about $2 billion. The signing of the deal has never been confirmed by official sources

https://tass.com/defense/1157115

The article I put on here says 26 aircraft plus missiles $3 billion order to be completed by 2023

It must also include ground equipment needed to use the sukhois which must be different from the mig-29 they have and totally different from what they use for their f-16.

Fuel for exemple is not the same on US and RU aircraft so they will need different refueling trucks. Or testbeds for missiles, engines, radars ...

If they buy another batch, the unit cost will be closer to 60-70 millions as they will buy only the fighters.

And we could potentially see a contract with Saudi Arabia because they have close ties with Egypt military and US are threatening them to take away their stuff (patriot and fighters) because of the oil war.

d_taddei2 wrote:

dino00 wrote:Russia launches production of Su-35 fighter jets for Egypt — source

The timeframe for first batch’s delivery has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak

"The Gagarin Aircraft Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur has launched the production of Su-35, intended to be delivered to the Egyptian Air Force under the contract signed in 2018," the source said.

"The timeframe for first batch’s delivery to the Egyptian side has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak," he added.

Russia’s Kommersant daily reported in March 2019 that Egypt had decided to purchase several Russian-made Su-35 fighter jets for about $2 billion. The signing of the deal has never been confirmed by official sources

https://tass.com/defense/1157115

The article I put on here says 26 aircraft plus missiles $3 billion order to be completed  by 2023

You said that they were guessing the cost the price is from Kommersant, the important part is that they started work.

dino00 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

dino00 wrote:Russia launches production of Su-35 fighter jets for Egypt — source

The timeframe for first batch’s delivery has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak

"The Gagarin Aircraft Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur has launched the production of Su-35, intended to be delivered to the Egyptian Air Force under the contract signed in 2018," the source said.

"The timeframe for first batch’s delivery to the Egyptian side has not been set yet, due to restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus outbreak," he added.

Russia’s Kommersant daily reported in March 2019 that Egypt had decided to purchase several Russian-made Su-35 fighter jets for about $2 billion. The signing of the deal has never been confirmed by official sources

https://tass.com/defense/1157115

The article I put on here says 26 aircraft plus missiles $3 billion order to be completed  by 2023

You said that they were guessing the cost  the price is from Kommersant, the important part is that they started work.

the $2 billion figure was the old article back in 2018 and only included 24 aircraft  and no missiles and necessary weapons as stated in the new article.  New article states an extra 2 aircraft plus missiles etc so it might not be $3 billion but most likely closer to the $3bn figure than the $2bn that is of course if they are getting 26 instead of 24 and getting missiles etc. And the article from Tass did state this
"
Russia’s Kommersant daily reported in March 2019 that Egypt had decided to purchase several Russian-made Su-35 fighter jets for about $2 billion. The signing of the deal has never been confirmed by official sources.

China has become the first foreign country to buy Su-35 when it signed a $2.5-billion deal with Russia for 24 aircraft. The deal also envisaged supplies of ground equipment and spare engines. The delivery of the aircraft to China was completed in 2019."

Back in 2019 is wasn't even confirmed. And secondly that China purchased 24 for $2.5bn. So if Egypt is getting 2 more aircraft plus missiles etc then a figure nearer the $3bn figure is a reasonable number

 I am sure a more concrete answer will come out in next few weeks or month.

Isos wrote: Fuel for exemple is not the same on US and RU aircraft so they will need different refueling trucks. Or testbeds for missiles, engines, radars ...

A point and a question, if I may.  First the point is that the EAF has been operating the MiG-21 from the F-13 variant to the MF variant and almost all in between as well and MiGs from the 15 to the 17 to the 19 and the Chinese F-7 Airguard.  The MiG-21 and F-7s (and even MiG-17 & 19) were used at the same time the EAF was starting to acquire the F-16 and for another 35 years or so, operated the latter 2 along with the F-16s.  So unless the fuel type has drastically varied from the MiG-21 to the MiG-29 and now the 29M/35, then it shouldn't be a problem at all to have the services already available and in use and I don't think there will be any transition needed as far as that aspect is concerned.

Question - what is the difference in the fuel type from the J-P5 used on most western fighter jets to what Russia uses?  I'm guessing it has something to do with the sub-zero and below freezng temperatures but J-P5 has a flashpoint around minus 60 °C or 140 °F and a freezing point around −46 °C (−51 °F) which I wouldn't know if that's satisfactory for Siberia LOL!  But that's pretty good for most parts of the cold world and certainly in Egypt.  So do you know what the fuel type is for the Su-35S and is it the same as the MiG-35?  Thanks.

d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

I'm just curious, but are you guessing as to the amount of missiles based on the average cost per aircraft or was there some note in the Russian literature that dictated a certain quantity of missiles?

Gomig-21 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

I'm just curious, but are you guessing as to the amount of missiles based on the average cost per aircraft or was there some note in the Russian literature that dictated a certain quantity of missiles?

guessed based on the value. if indeed the deal is 26 aircraft plus missiles etc and the deal was said to be 3billion dollars, and prior there was mention of just 24 aircraft for 2 billion dollars then thats 1 billion dollars for two aircraft plus missiles. 24 aircraft for 2 billion dollars works out at 83million dollars approx per aircraft, so take that figure means 166million dollars for two that leaves 834 million dollars for weapons and missles. a lot of money.

of course nobody really knows the real info of the deal.

Question - what is the difference in the fuel type from the J-P5 used on most western fighter jets to what Russia uses?

You can see on the web. I don't know. That's normal kerosen with some add-on chemicals.

So do you know what the fuel type is for the Su-35S and is it the same as the MiG-35?  Thanks.

They are the same. But not the same as what US use. That's still kerosen but you can't mix them so you will have the refueling stuff and fuel tanks for US/French jets on the airfield but also the same equipment for russian jets.

I'm not sur but russians may use the civilian fuel. To be verified.

d_taddei2 wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah that's a lot missiles. And USA will be fuming. I think Egypt is turning away from USA weapons. I feel Egypt always had a Mish mash of equipment it wouldn't hurt streamlining it a bit and due to having such a large military need to strike better cost effective deals and not be getting ripped off by Western countries

I'm just curious, but are you guessing as to the amount of missiles based on the average cost per aircraft or was there some note in the Russian literature that dictated a certain quantity of missiles?

guessed based on the value. if indeed the deal is 26 aircraft plus missiles etc and the deal was said to be 3billion dollars, and prior there was mention of just 24 aircraft for 2 billion dollars then thats 1 billion dollars for two aircraft plus missiles. 24 aircraft for 2 billion dollars works out at 83million dollars approx per aircraft, so take that figure means 166million dollars for two that leaves 834 million dollars for weapons and missles. a lot of money.

of course nobody really knows the real info of the deal.

That's what I thought, makes sense.  Still have to factor the cost of training, a couple of simulators and some of the other weapons or pods besides the conventional R-73 & R-77.  For example, I would like to see us get the R-27 (being the reputation of the R-77 has taken a bit of a hit lately) as well as some other items like the MSP-418K EW pod if it could be used to supplement whatever built-in EW hardware is already available on the Su-35 and its IRBIS-E radar.  As well as several of the KH missiles such as the KH-31 which is supposedly coming with the order of Katrans and other cruise missiles.  Some of the heavier munitions will cost a bit more which would eat out of that $800+ million quickly.

I'm also pretty excited about this only Russian innovation and that is placing an AESA radar in the leading edge slats/flaps. This is just great stuff!!

Isos wrote:You can see on the web. I don't know. That's normal kerosen with some add-on chemicals.

Well I only asked you because you had brought up the point that Russian aircraft use a different type of fuel than western aircraft, so the EAF would need two different types of fuel trucks out on the tarmac.  Just wondering what is so different about the fuel used in Russian AC compared to the old standard JP-5.[/quote]

Most Russian aircraft have digital fuel management systems for their engines AFAIK so they should not be too fussy.

In fact I seem to remember mention in the late 1980s about the MiG-29 being designed to use standard HATO support equipment so they can operate from captured airfields.

I know for certain that the Su-25 has some very hard core engines that can run on petrol, kerosene, Benzine, fuel oil, diesel ...or their mixtures... so land on a road in front of a petrol station and fill the tank with anything in the pumps and take off...

Regarding streamlining types I am not saying it is a bad idea... but if you take it too far you end up with F-35 and nothing else... which sounds to me like a bad thing.

I would support removing from service aircraft you don't actually own... the ones you just rent... ie American planes and equipment, but I am biased and would do that anyway.

I would say there are quite a few European countries who are having second thoughts about paying $80K per hour operating costs for planes that are not actually stealthy and seem to be rather fragile and unforgiving...

AFAIK There was special high flashpoint fuel for the SR-71, but I was not aware of any special fuels for the MiG-25 or MiG-31... the former had an alcohol injection system that sprayed 100% alcohol into the air intakes at high speeds to cool them down and boost thrust by making the air flowing through the engine more flammable.

GarryB wrote:Most Russian aircraft have digital fuel management systems for their engines AFAIK so they should not be too fussy.

I would think that most aircraft flying turbofan engines would have some fuel management systems that allow the usage of similar types of fuels that are all essentially kerosene-based, since the main content is kerosene and the additives are mostly minimal.

GarryB wrote:In fact I seem to remember mention in the late 1980s about the MiG-29 being designed to use standard HATO support equipment so they can operate from captured airfields.

I know for certain that the Su-25 has some very hard core engines that can run on petrol, kerosene, Benzine, fuel oil, diesel ...or their mixtures... so land on a road in front of a petrol station and fill the tank with anything in the pumps and take off...

That's amazing because from what I know, there is a major difference between kerosene-based fuels and oil-based ones such as diesel because they have very different combustion parameters.  So to be able to use that wide a range is pretty impressive.

GarryB wrote:Regarding streamlining types I am not saying it is a bad idea... but if you take it too far you end up with F-35 and nothing else... which sounds to me like a bad thing.

You mean putting all the aircraft in the EAF inventory working under one data link?  Or purchasing only one type of aircraft like either western or eastern?  I think the goal for the EAF is to put all aircraft under one data link network and most likely Link-16 since all its E-2C Hawkeys performing all essentially AWACs operate in that link, including many off the ships & frigates etc. But almost all ground radars (especially the new and very impressive Protivnik GE radars) and air defense radars and one of the main military satellites are all Russian based. Finding a way to integrate all these major systems under one information sharing source will be quite a challenge. Especially when you have critical elements to consider such as IFF and such. Although the EAF had already interated its older Russian aircraft IFF in the MiG-21 under a common system that was jointly developed by the Egyptian military and Teledyne. So I'm guessing they will be doing something similar with these new Russian aircraft to bring them into the fold. Otherwise they'll have to operate on their own as a separate entity which could lead to problems.

GarryB wrote:I would support removing from service aircraft you don't actually own... the ones you just rent... ie American planes and equipment, but I am biased and would do that anyway.

Hahaha.  That was good.  Even though the F-16s come through the Peace Vector program and there are strings attached as far as their use and who is exposed to them etc., I think they are the property of the EAF despite all that stuff.  But I get what you're saying.  

GarryB wrote:I would say there are quite a few European countries who are having second thoughts about paying $80K per hour operating costs for planes that are not actually stealthy and seem to be rather fragile and unforgiving...

Mmmm...are we referring to the  Rafales or the EF Typhoons? lol.  If the operating cost is that high (which I don't think it is even close, Gary TBH at least for the Rafale anyway), then there is definitely a problem.  I'm pretty sure the Rafale is somewhere around $15K+/- per hour but the EFT is probably higher.

GarryB wrote:
I know for certain that the Su-25 has some very hard core engines that can run on petrol, kerosene, Benzine, fuel oil, diesel ...or their mixtures... so land on a road in front of a petrol station and fill the tank with anything in the pumps and take off....

This is true I was told this during my service. We did war games the scenario was based in UK. And it was mentioned that Soviet aircraft could either use various types of fuel and some with very little tweaking could use it, however it did effect their range and to a certain degree performance and effected maintenance and this wasn't just specific to Su-25. The threat was many motorways have fuel stations so the Russians not only had access to fuel stations but the motorway used as a runway. The tactics were simple bomb fuel stations and cluster munitions on motorways near fuel stations. It effectively made every motorway service station in the UK a potential airbase for the Russians, something western aircraft couldn't do. It was during this time I took mote interest in Soviet aircraft. Although I was studying various equipment at the time it made me realise that the common attitude of Soviet equipment was crap was unfounded

I would think that most aircraft flying turbofan engines would have some fuel management systems that allow the usage of similar types of fuels that are all essentially kerosene-based, since the main content is kerosene and the additives are mostly minimal.

Believe it is a gas turbine thing, but not exclusively.

Here in New Zealand in the 1970 there was a severe shortage of petrol... the government introduced carless days where you had a sticker on your windshield to say which days you were allowed to drive that car. Not a big deal for families with more than one car, but rather serious for those that did not.

One of the things that this produced was conversion of cars to run on LPG... and there were a lot of cars from that period that had LPG fuel tanks put in their boots and with the flick of a switch you could use the car on petrol or LPG. Extra fuel lines were added but the old equipment was left there so you could choose which fuel to use as you pleased.

For their jet aircraft I believe the digital engine management handled the variations with the fuel mix in the fuel tanks and was able to adjust the fuel flow and fuel burn in real time to prevent a flame out or serious issue. It is my understanding that the gas turbine of the T-80 could also handle a variety of fuel types including diesel... which is a bit counterintuitive...

That's amazing because from what I know, there is a major difference between kerosene-based fuels and oil-based ones such as diesel because they have very different combustion parameters. So to be able to use that wide a range is pretty impressive.

With an internal combustion engine a petrol or indeed LPG engine has fuel pumped in to the cylinders and enough air to explode and then a spark plug provides the spark for the explosion. With a diesel engine the diesel doesn't need a spark plug and explodes on compression... but with a gas turbine engine it is more like a fire is burning and so fuel is burnt by throwing it on the fire so diesel or petrol or kerosene or LPG... or their combinations don't matter so much.

I have heard of Russian tank engines being called multifuel diesel engines too and not just the gas turbine for the T-80...

Engine V-type, 1,000 hp, multi-fuel

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/tanks/t-72m1/

You mean putting all the aircraft in the EAF inventory working under one data link? Or purchasing only one type of aircraft like either western or eastern?

It is more important to have a unified IADS working over your whole country than narrowing your inventory of equipment to one type... in fact that would be a bad thing. Having different types makes an IADS better... an IADS is just a control and management system that coordinates the efforts of all the components of air defence together so each bit isn't working on its own with its own limited view of the world but contributing its picture to a collective view of the battlespace to manage resources so each component can have a break rather than operating 24/7 till they break.

I think the goal for the EAF is to put all aircraft under one data link network and most likely Link-16 since all its E-2C Hawkeys performing all essentially AWACs operate in that link, including many off the ships & frigates etc. But almost all ground radars (especially the new and very impressive Protivnik GE radars) and air defense radars and one of the main military satellites are all Russian based.

Well they need to decide what they want to do but it is like a computer network at home, not having computers or phones or tablets connected limits their potential and usefulness.

The difference here is that you are buying stuff that is intended to work in an IADS... the Link-16 system is an air mobile system for HATO that Egypt could use, but I don't know what its limitations and restrictions are for Egypt. To add a new system into it is like adding a device to a computer, except in this case it will be one of a range of bits of hardware... for instance a Tunguska battery can provide information about air targets in its immediately vicinity including thermal views of targets that could be uploaded if the system allows it... other systems have other sensors but they also have weapons which expand options... a Tunguska battery has a command module, which means it is already trying to manage the vehicles assigned to it so they all get an air picture from the air space around them so they don't all need to have their radars running all the time.

In terms of integration it is a question of what the network expects and needs from the platforms integrated in to it.... if you have to hand type in target details to add information from Tunguska to Link-16 then that is a problem... some sort of hardware bridge would be needed to allow the vehicle to receive data from the network and also add new information it collects to the network to give other nodes on the network a fuller picture of the airspace they can observe... there are going to be gaps in any system, but even a guy with a radio and binoculars can add information to make the system better.

Finding a way to integrate all these major systems under one information sharing source will be quite a challenge. Especially when you have critical elements to consider such as IFF and such.

The advantage of a unified IADS is that when a new target is detected everyone sees it and the labels are consistent, so as AB115 through to AB120 approach a Tunguska battery the commander of the battery could allocate one of each of these five targets to a vehicle in his battery with one vehicle scanning with radar for a precise view of exactly what is happening... Five vehicles can immediately launch a single missile each and engage all five targets and potentially destroy them without the chance they all target the same aircraft and start receiving fire from the remaining four aircraft who have just shat themselves and want revenge...

The reason the Russians set up an IADS for the Syrians was because without it you can only see what you can see on your radar that is part of your unit and a new target is a new target... with an IADS the Syrian missile battery would have seen the Russian aircraft the Israeli aircraft were using as cover for their attack and at the very least with the Russian plane marked as friendly the missile would not have targeted on to it when it lost lock on the Israeli F-16s.

Although the EAF had already interated its older Russian aircraft IFF in the MiG-21 under a common system that was jointly developed by the Egyptian military and Teledyne. So I'm guessing they will be doing something similar with these new Russian aircraft to bring them into the fold. Otherwise they'll have to operate on their own as a separate entity which could lead to problems.

A full IADS is complex and expensive to set up, but once you get it working it magnifies the effectiveness of everything... playing chess with each piece wanting to move at once with no coordination or logic, compared with a chess grand master efficiently using pieces to damage and weaken his enemy till he finds a gap to strike for the kill.

Mmmm...are we referring to the Rafales or the EF Typhoons? lol. If the operating cost is that high (which I don't think it is even close, Gary TBH at least for the Rafale anyway), then there is definitely a problem. I'm pretty sure the Rafale is somewhere around $15K+/- per hour but the EFT is probably higher.

I quite like the Rafale... a bit pricey to buy but certainly does what it is supposed to do... seems like a capable killing machine. I don't know so much about the Typhoon.... they seem to fix problems by the Tranche so you really don't get an actual product till about Tranche 3, but to be fair it seems to be improving and its problems are being solved... unlike the F-35... which is the plane I was thinking of... its stealth coating needs a lot of attention and if internal components of the aircraft need to be accessed or replaced then you need to get out the sander and remove the RAM... unscrew the panel and make the repair and then tape up the screws on the panel and put a coat of RAM over the panel to restore the stealthiness... and the RAM takes days to cure so you can fly again.

Something like 40 hours of maintenance per flight hour because of this problem...

I think Turkey dodged a bullet buying S-400 and being denied F-35s.

The Norway government is struggling to keep its F-35s flying because of low readiness their pilots and ground crews are struggling to get enough operational time with the aircraft to retain readiness qualifications levels...

This is true I was told this during my service. We did war games the scenario was based in UK. And it was mentioned that Soviet aircraft could either use various types of fuel and some with very little tweaking could use it, however it did effect their range and to a certain degree performance and effected maintenance and this wasn't just specific to Su-25. The threat was many motorways have fuel stations so the Russians not only had access to fuel stations but the motorway used as a runway. The tactics were simple bomb fuel stations and cluster munitions on motorways near fuel stations. It effectively made every motorway service station in the UK a potential airbase for the Russians, something western aircraft couldn't do. It was during this time I took mote interest in Soviet aircraft. Although I was studying various equipment at the time it made me realise that the common attitude of Soviet equipment was crap was unfounded

Yes... and imagine the response of HATO allies when friendly planes come in and bomb all those fuel stations and the motorways leading up to them... there will be a war on of course and likely enormous problems with civilian traffic trying to get fuel and leave.

For the Soviets having this ability makes their planes more flexible... what every fuel they can get to their planes they can use... some of their planes could operate from as little as 250m of tarmac so HATO could not possibly destroy all the roads in Europe to stop them being used.

The use of mixed fuels led to loss of top thrust power and was one of the reasons for the shorter engine lives of Soviet aircraft, but the pay off was that during a war you just put fuel in them and made sure their hydraulics and lubricants were OK and then jump in and fly them... in a full scale war the idea that you might use a fighter or a bomber long enough (1,000 hours) for the engines to need overhauls was just silly... the plane probably wont survive that long anyway... it is like the Tiger tank... magnificently engineered... would have lasted 50 years easy, but in WWII they needed tanks that could last 15 years but able to be produced in 4 or 5 times greater numbers.

During WWII as the war progressed more and more men were needed for the front... in 41 and 42 it was hard because they were moving their industrial base from the west to the Urals... but by 43 half the people building T-34s in the 3/4ths built factories were children and old men, and the other half were women... and they were finishing building the factories they worked in in their time off... the western attitude that lend lease and the winter cold won on the eastern front was always offensive, but continues to this day sadly, and western support for Poland and the Ukraine means such things will only get worse... those people didn't work for Stalin because he threatened to kill them... they did it because those civilised europeans from Germany were actually killing them in enormous numbers with no mercy... it was a war of extermination and the people who claimed the Soviets were brutes who murdered and raped innocent Germans... well that happened in western occupied Germany too.

https://defence-blog.com/news/satellite-image-shows-first-egypts-su-35-fighter-jets-in-komsomolsk-on-amur.html

It seems the Egyptian Su-35

ahmedfire wrote:https://defence-blog.com/news/satellite-image-shows-first-egypts-su-35-fighter-jets-in-komsomolsk-on-amur.html

It seems the Egyptian Su-35

Looks about right. Same colors and pattern as the MiG-29M/35s. I think it's amazing that they already have 4 (maybe even 5 as that unpainted one could also be an Egyptian one just not painted yet) already painted and ready for some final testing and things of that sort. Truly remarkable the speed that these were produced at unless they started way back in 2018 when the contract was agreed on? That's also possible and even more plausible with this result. Either way, can't wait to see some close-up photos!