New attack aircraft development based on Yak-130, to compete with F-16

What do people make of this? I don't really believe it, if it's true then I doubt it will be on par with f-16. Russia already has mig-29m2, mig-35, su-30 which have similar or better capabilities and most likely cheaper than f-16. I doubt a yak would be able to gain same performance as a f-16. Maybe a upgraded yak-130 as a cheap light strike or multirole but not to be on par with f-16 yes that could easily be an option.


Yakovlev Design Bureau recently began work on an attack aircraft based on the Yak-130, learned BulgarianMilitary.com citing news agency politros.

According to the company sources the new attack aircraft will seriously compete with the improved American F-16. In terms of a number of characteristics, the new aircraft surpasses its American counterpart, as it weighs half as much and costs 3.5 times less.

https://m.ednews.net/en/news/world/428185-russia-is-developing-a-new-attack-aircraft-to-compete-with-f-16

Be aware that unless they have actual customers this could be rather like a lot of programmes any company suggests or put forward.

I remember in the 1980s before Desert Storm showed low and slow was useful, when a few people thought an F-16 could do anything an A-10 could do that the makers of the F-16 came up with a delta winged model with no horizontal tail called the A-16 for use as a bomb truck and strike aircraft.

Obviously it was too fragile and would have been more expensive than the A-10s it would have been replacing...

GarryB wrote:Be aware that unless they have actual customers this could be rather like a lot of programmes any company suggests or put forward.

I remember in the 1980s before Desert Storm showed low and slow was useful, when a few people thought an F-16 could do anything an A-10 could do that the makers of the F-16 came up with a delta winged model with no horizontal tail called the A-16 for use as a bomb truck and strike aircraft.

Obviously it was too fragile and would have been more expensive than the A-10s it would have been replacing...

the Yak-130 is at most a light strike/multirole but not at the capacity of a F-16, even if the engines were upgraded as suggested in this thread before it would still be a light strike etc although slightly better.

if a customer wanted F-16 capabilities from Russia, Russia would offer up Mig-29M2, Mig-35, Su-30 all similar in capabilities and most likely cheaper its pretty much that simple, there would no way Russia would invest in such project especially when trying to promote other aircraft and oil prices being low no need t waste money on projects that make little sense. and as u said zero customer interest.

Exactly... the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 pretty much offer the low end and high end in terms of prices equivalent to the F-16... the M2 offering pretty much any feature the F-16s offer without being expensive, while the 35 offering all the bells and whistles and cheaper than an F-16 but not as cheap as the M2 though more capable than both most likely.

The Yak-130... no matter what the engine is in a different class.

I have talked about putting an RD-33 in to it, but I suspect the volume it will fill means there wont be enough room for fuel so it will be a short legged aircraft that can use AB much at all without running dry real quick.... they could call it Sukhoi... hahahaha...

GarryB wrote:Exactly... the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 pretty much offer the low end and high end in terms of prices equivalent to the F-16... the M2 offering pretty much any feature the F-16s offer without being expensive, while the 35 offering all the bells and whistles and cheaper than an F-16 but not as cheap as the M2 though more capable than both most likely.

What??

Uhm no, the max price for the F-16C/D block 52s cost around $30-34mill per unit
https://militarymachine.com/most-expensive-military-jets/
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/F-16D-Block-52_a000540012.aspx

Now the Mig-29M/M2 is around $25mill per unit.
Not much info on unit price.
Use above link.

And the Mig-35 is around $40-50mill per unit.
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/Mig-35S_a000357007.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35

Now, i doubt Garry is talking about the C/D variants of the F-16, so lets look at the most uptodate F-16V Block 70/72 price instead.
I don't have unit price, so i am gonna use contract price, which includes spare parts and other services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#F-16V_Block_70/72

Lets see:
Slovakia 14 units for $1.8Bill 1.8x10(9)/14= $129Mill per unit.
Bulgaria  8 units for $1.2Bill 1.2x10(9)/8= $150Mill per unit.
Taiwan   66 units for $13Bill 13x10(9)/66= $197Mill per unit.
For obvious reasons, the U.S dropped the price for Taiwan from $13Bill to $8Bill.
So, Taiwan Rev. is 8x10(9)/66= $122Mill per unit.

Now we don't have any orders for the Mig-35s yet, but we do have Egypt's order of Mig-29Ms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29M#Egypt

So 46 units for $2Bill 2x10(9)/46= $44Mill per unit, though i am not sure whether this price includes the Targeting and E/W Pods or not?

Either way, this is day and night, even if we assume the Mig-35's spare Parts and services costs were double that of the Mig-29M, we would still be looking at at worst $90Mill per unit.

Pity i couldn't find contract price for the more recent F-16C/Ds, there is the F-16IQ which is just a more recent F-16C block 52, which cost around $3Bill although some sources say $4.2Bill.

So 3x10(9)/18= $167Mill per Unit, granted this order was for more than just the aircraft and parts, the entire logistics and infrastructure to support the F-16s had to be built.
So i don't believe this price is accurate.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/f-16iq.htm

Those value are worthless. Egypt paid some 45 million per mig-29M whike latest f-16 were bought to as much as 100 million $. The thing is that we don't know what was in the contract.

Unit price is not revelent because if you spend 2 times more for spare parts, repairs, logistics ... that makes the aircraft more expensive during its lifetime.

The best is to look at the price after 10 years of exploitation and political behavior of the country that sells.

Add to that US have total control over the fighters they sell and you need their authorization to use them ...

Isos wrote:Those value are worthless. Egypt paid some 45 million per mig-29M whike latest f-16 were bought to as much as 100 million $. The thing is that we don't know what was in the contract.

Unit price is not revelent because if you spend 2 times more for spare parts, repairs, logistics ... that makes the aircraft more expensive during its lifetime.

The best is to look at the price after 10 years of exploitation and political behavior of the country that sells.

Add to that US have total control over the fighters they sell and you need their authorization to use them ...

Isos, please clarify this last part, would like hear more details.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Isos wrote:Those value are worthless. Egypt paid some 45 million per mig-29M whike latest f-16 were bought to as much as 100 million $. The thing is that we don't know what was in the contract.

Unit price is not revelent because if you spend 2 times more for spare parts, repairs, logistics ... that makes the aircraft more expensive during its lifetime.

The best is to look at the price after 10 years of exploitation and political behavior of the country that sells.

Add to that US have total control over the fighters they sell and you need their authorization to use them ...

Isos, please clarify this last part, would like hear more details.

There's firmware built in to every F-16 (all but US and Israeli versions) that prevent them from being used against USrael (prevention of launching weapons against their fighters). It's largely been speculated that spurred the Egyptians to actually stop buying F-16 fighters, and start buying Russian fighters for air superiority. Egyptian F-16's will likely be regulated to bomb-truck duty, and not aerial interdiction.

Not only that Magnum ...

When pakistani used their airforce against indians there was a doubt about if they used or not the f16. US threatened them if they used them because in the contract it is writen pakistani have to ask US for the permission to use them.

Imagine they used them and lost the battle. That would have had an impact on their stupid propaganda about how their fighters are invulnerable. So they threaten to sanction anyone using them. For tgem air forces buying their stuff are just a branch of their own airforce that will work with them when they need to and their problems will be solved by US without them being free to use their weapons as they want.


Another exemple is israeli trying to sell their old f-16 to Croatia. It was stoped by US because it was full of israeli technology that US didn't made so they saud ok only if they switch the avionics for US made ones. Then good luck to croatian pilots for locking on a US fighter.

Smart countries will buy french or russian.

Isos wrote:Not only that Magnum ...

When pakistani used their airforce against indians there was a doubt about if they used or not the f16. US threatened them if they used them because in the contract it is writen pakistani have to ask US for the permission to use them.

Imagine they used them and lost the battle. That would have had an impact on their stupid propaganda about how their fighters are invulnerable. So they threaten to sanction anyone using them. For tgem air forces buying their stuff are just a branch of their own airforce that will work with them when they need to and their problems will be solved by US without them being free to use their weapons as they want.


Another exemple is israeli trying to sell their old f-16 to Croatia. It was stoped by US because it was full of israeli technology that US didn't made so they saud ok only if they switch the avionics for US made ones. Then good luck to croatian pilots for locking on a US fighter.

Smart countries will buy french or russian.

good to hear some example.

But on that last part, didn't Saddam have a bunch of French Fighter or Missiles, that couldn't lock-on for sh#t during the Gulf conflicts.

French helped argentinians use the exocet during the Malvinas war against brits.

Sadam mirages were outnumbered and outranged by coalition. But there wasn't any issues with them. They even had jamers that worked perfectly against iranian f-14.

What??

What are you not understanding.... the numbers you are giving show I am right... there is the bargain basement MiG-29M2 and the expensive with all the frills MiG-35 based on the same airframe.

Both are cheaper than the equivalent model F-16 on the export market... by quite a margin in some cases...

Add to that US have total control over the fighters they sell and you need their authorization to use them ...

This is an important factor that many customers ignore... we in New Zealand decided to upgrade our Skyhawks with technology from the F-16... the problem was that was a very stupid thing to do. It made our Skyhawks more capable than any other Skyhawks around... we effectively mixed our tiers... so they wouldn't let us sell them.

Effectively there are rich high tech partners and cheap or low priority partners.... the rich high tier buy what they want... within reason, but the low tier partners get what they are allowed to have... places like countries in central and south america can have F-5s or Skyhawks, and possibly old A or B model F-16s but certainly nothing better, so with our top tier components in our A-4s... we couldn't sell them to current operators of A-4s because they weren't cleared for top tier F-16 stuff.

I am sure if we bought F-16s to replace our Skyhawks the problems would have disappeared but we were getting rid of our fighter planes... imagine if other countries did that... pretty soon it would become really hard to start a war...

Smart countries will buy french or russian.

Even then you have to pick your opponents... lots of stories about the French handing over information to the British and also modifying Exocet missiles so they would not detonate properly on impact... plenty of rumour and suggestion but little in the way of facts.

Of course at the time the British were confident... they had Exocets themselves and knew the missiles, and of course the Argentines had Sea Cat and Sea Dart missiles too... but not the much vaunted British Sea Wolf which was going to swat down anything that threatened the British ships.

I remember after the conflict a British official saying that the Exocet was rather more effective than expected but it was OK because those Soviets didn't have subsonic sea skimming missiles in service at that time...

Actually rather true because in 1982 they hadn't gotten the Kh-35 into service yet and the SS-N-22 Mach 2 4.5 ton anti ship missile that climbs to a maximum altitude of about 300m to find its target and then drops down to below 7m altitude at mach 2 to attack its target 120km away is not subsonic...

The exocet worked normally and sink plenty of ships for the total numbers employed. Almost 1:1.

Sovket had the stix family on hundreds of missike boats and the p-120 on Nanushka and submarines with greater range than exocet. Moskit was also sea skiming and supersonic whuch is beter than subsonic.

Their AD missiles could intercept anti ship missiles. They were good for 2nd and 3rd gen fighters. Soviet would have eaten them for breakfirst.

GarryB wrote:

What??

What are you not understanding.... the numbers you are giving show I am right... there is the bargain basement MiG-29M2 and the expensive with all the frills MiG-35 based on the same airframe.

Both are cheaper than the equivalent model F-16 on the export market... by quite a margin in some cases...

Yap, pretty much, after looking into the contract price the unit price doesn't mean bupkis
Even Taiwan who got a special price had to pay out the nose.

P.S: i think it's maybe time to move this discussion to another thread, we have gone way off topic.

The exocet worked normally and sink plenty of ships for the total numbers employed. Almost 1:1.

The Exocet gave the British quite a shock... which is relevant to this thread because a light fighter based on the Yak-130 should be able to carry a mix of Kh-31s and Kh-35s, which are vastly more potent than the early 1980s Exocet models available at the time.

I remember at the time of the war there was a lot of controversy and suggestions that the French helped the British by altering the fusing for the warheads for the Exocets because none of them seem to have exploded properly on impact.

Have not seen any follow up on whether that was true or just wishful thinking.

Their AD missiles could intercept anti ship missiles. They were good for 2nd and 3rd gen fighters. Soviet would have eaten them for breakfirst.

The problem for the British was that the Argentines were familiar with Sea Cat and Sea Dart SAMs, and that the Sea Wolf was relatively new and most of their ships didn't have it.

Surprise attacks are often the most successful.

P.S: i think it's maybe time to move this discussion to another thread, we have gone way off topic.

Was going to agree but as I looked back through the threads to remove I realise this all developed from a post about making a Russian equivalent of the F-16 for export, to which my response was... why... the MiG-29 already fills that role... a smaller lighter aircraft will still need the expensive bits to make it a capable fighter so you are going to reduce range and payload a lot to save a small amount of money... it probably would not be worth it.

I started thinking a dumb cheap drone model with a flight control system and the ability to carry lots of weapons externally that could operate with manned fighters and just carry extra weapons the other fighters could direct at targets and when they were used up they could land and reload while other drones refuelled the manned aircraft so they could remain on station... but then I thought internal carriage would be better and manouver performance would not be important for such a drone... so something like thunderbird 2 except with a large internal weapon bay full of weapons and fuel but stealthy. Such bomb truck drones don't need to be manouverable... good speed and good altitude performance and the ability to launch missiles to defend itself is all it needs so a modification of the Yak-130 still does not make sense. Light attack and light fighter roles against cruise missiles and drones, or enemy attack helicopters it would be very good, but otherwise stick to trainer... which is it best at.

GarryB wrote:

P.S: i think it's maybe time to move this discussion to another thread, we have gone way off topic.

Was going to agree but as I looked back through the threads to remove I realise this all developed from a post about making a Russian equivalent of the F-16 for export, to which my response was... why... the MiG-29 already fills that role... a smaller lighter aircraft will still need the expensive bits to make it a capable fighter so you are going to reduce range and payload a lot to save a small amount of money... it probably would not be worth it.

In that case nevermind then, we're on topic.

There's firmware built in to every F-16 (all but US and Israeli versions) that prevent them from being used against USrael (prevention of launching weapons against their fighters). It's largely been speculated that spurred the Egyptians to actually stop buying F-16 fighters, and start buying Russian fighters for air superiority. Egyptian F-16's will likely be regulated to bomb-truck duty, and not aerial interdiction.

If this is correct ,why US prevented to supply the Egyptian F-16 with the AIM-120 but they released it to jordan ,Morocco ,Gulf countries  and of course Israel.

Before having F-16 , Egypt asked to purchase F-15 but US refused . I guess it's better for them to provide any aircraft and any munitions to Egypt if it "will not work " at the end against Israel .This would help them also to reduce the Egyptian orders to get French or Russian aircrafts .

Fixed. The title resembles that of the page's article that taddei posted

This works too...

With a new thread you can explore options beyond just the Yak-130... so you could talk about the MiG-AT as an option or perhaps a modification of the MiG-21 as the basis for a new light fighter...

Perhaps something more off the wall... so many experts look to supersonic MiG-21 like fighters for use as new generation light fighters, but honestly one of the best platforms for small and cheap and multirole could be argued as being the Su-25TM. Further upgrades with new optronics packages and a small nose mounted AESA radar and you might have something rather useful.

It does not need to be highly supersonic really, and the built in armour should make it quite resilient in air to air combat.

Upgraded weapon pylons to allow fuel tanks and weapon pods and jammers and also weapons as well would improve capacity to carry equipment... but even then the aircraft is relatively small and light... but its performance could be significantly boosted with more powerful engines with afterburner for takeoff at high weights...

I mean effectively a light fighter is essentially a bomb truck and a numbers aircraft, so an Su-25 with R-77s and air to ground weapons ticks all the boxes really...

The Avionics to tie it in to the CAS network where target information comes from the ground forces you are supporting and their drones means the aircraft itself don't need to be super expensive... for theatres where the enemy is particularly well equipped with air defences they could use stand off anti radiation missiles like AS-11 and AS-12 and AS-17, and of course missiles like Hermes and the new Grom missiles and other weapons on the way will make them rather potent standoff aircraft too if needed...

If this is correct ,why US prevented to supply the Egyptian F-16 with the AIM-120 but they released it to jordan ,Morocco ,Gulf countries and of course Israel.

Before having F-16 , Egypt asked to purchase F-15 but US refused . I guess it's better for them to provide any aircraft and any munitions to Egypt if it "will not work " at the end against Israel .This would help them also to reduce the Egyptian orders to get French or Russian aircrafts .

The US has a map and that map is based on value to the US. Egypt will never be of more value to the US than Israel will be, so there will be certain things Egypt can't be allowed to have (US or anyone elses)... so they will take active steps to prevent you getting things only countries above your station are allowed.

AMRAAM was one of those things. F-16s is another but only very low tier "allies" are denied access to F-16s and must make do with F-5s.

It is a global system... even Israel and Australia are not allowed F-22s and had to settle for F-35s instead...

To a degree Russia does do the same in terms of the Su-30MKI compared with the Su-30MKK that China bought, but at the end of the day if you have the money you can generally buy what you want. UAE paid for the Pantsir so they got Pantsir systems too... Jordan paid for the RPG-32, so they get to produce that... if Egypt wants 200km range AAMs with ARH then the RVV-BD is for export... I doubt Russia would just say no for no reason...

The US has a map and that map is based on value to the US. Egypt will never be of more value to the US than Israel will be, so there will be certain things Egypt can't be allowed to have (US or anyone elses)... so they will take active steps to prevent you getting things only countries above your station are allowed.

AMRAAM was one of those things. F-16s is another but only very low tier "allies" are denied access to F-16s and must make do with F-5s.

It is a global system... even Israel and Australia are not allowed F-22s and had to settle for F-35s instead...

To a degree Russia does do the same in terms of the Su-30MKI compared with the Su-30MKK that China bought, but at the end of the day if you have the money you can generally buy what you want. UAE paid for the Pantsir so they got Pantsir systems too... Jordan paid for the RPG-32, so they get to produce that... if Egypt wants 200km range AAMs with ARH then the RVV-BD is for export... I doubt Russia would just say no for no reason...

No one can get F-22 due to the so-called “Obey Amendment.” US was worried that some of the sensitive and secretive technologies that went into developing the F-22 could be discovered and reverse-engineered by enemies if the U.S. were to export it.

But later not even the US get the planned numbers ,the 750 decreased to 185 now in service and the program has stopped so no way it can be exported .

This global system ensure the distribution of power as per US plans and it's their way to increase or decrease the capability of the countries .

There is no need to install a device in each platform to stop it at a specific time , simply they will provide Israel with higher capabilities and in war time they will cut the logistics and munitions that necessary to operate properly such platforms in Egypt . Of course Egypt can keep using it's fleet for years but not for decades as it was planned before.

Iran is operating F-4 , F-5, F-14 ,P-3 Orion ,C-130 Hercules , CH-47 Chinook ,why didn't the US stopped them from flying near to US carriers .

Russians have no plans for the world like US so they care more about revenues and they are more flexible and smart .

ahmedfire wrote:
Iran is operating F-4 , F-5, F-14 ,P-3 Orion ,C-130 Hercules , CH-47 Chinook ,why didn't the US stopped them from flying near to US carriers .

AFAIK Iran has not flown any of its aircraft anywhere near a US carrier. Mind you a F-14 Tomcat pair flying past might bring a tear to some eyes on board if they did.

Also, with regard to the US 'assisting' use of the aircraft they supply, many deals have US technicians included and they can be withdrawn (as I think in Iraq currently) also if part way through deliveries the US can stop shipments, like Turkey's F-35 and Iraq's F-16s, in both cases deliveries were made in the US but not allowed to fly them home.

GarryB wrote:

The exocet worked normally and sink plenty of ships for the total numbers employed. Almost 1:1.

The Exocet gave the British quite a shock... which is relevant to this thread because a light fighter based on the Yak-130 should be able to carry a mix of Kh-31s and Kh-35s, which are vastly more potent than the early 1980s Exocet models available at the time.

I remember at the time of the war there was a lot of controversy and suggestions that the French helped the British by altering the fusing for the warheads for the Exocets because none of them seem to have exploded properly on impact.

Have not seen any follow up on whether that was true or just wishful thinking.

Their AD missiles could intercept anti ship missiles. They were good for 2nd and 3rd gen fighters. Soviet would have eaten them for breakfirst.

The problem for the British was that the Argentines were familiar with Sea Cat and Sea Dart SAMs, and that the Sea Wolf was relatively new and most of their ships didn't have it.

Surprise attacks are often the most successful.

P.S: i think it's maybe time to move this discussion to another thread, we have gone way off topic.

Was going to agree but as I looked back through the threads to remove I realise this all developed from a post about making a Russian equivalent of the F-16 for export, to which my response was... why... the MiG-29 already fills that role... a smaller lighter aircraft will still need the expensive bits to make it a capable fighter so you are going to reduce range and payload a lot to save a small amount of money... it probably would not be worth it.

I started thinking a dumb cheap drone model with a flight control system and the ability to carry lots of weapons externally that could operate with manned fighters and just carry extra weapons the other fighters could direct at targets and when they were used up they could land and reload while other drones refuelled the manned aircraft so they could remain on station... but then I thought internal carriage would be better and manouver performance would not be important for such a drone... so something like thunderbird 2 except with a large internal weapon bay full of weapons and fuel but stealthy. Such bomb truck drones don't need to be manouverable... good speed and good altitude performance and the ability to launch missiles to defend itself is all it needs so a modification of the Yak-130 still does not make sense. Light attack and light fighter roles against cruise missiles and drones, or enemy attack helicopters it would be very good, but otherwise stick to trainer... which is it best at.

That's hard to believe. Exocet sunk ships or more prcisely frigates. That wouldn't be possible if the warheads didn't explode. There opposite stories saying that french engineers that were in Argentina during the war helped convert ship launched exocets to air launched versions, in other words fighting UK.

I meant to say "their AD missiles could not intercept antiship missiles". Sorry for the mistake. Back in the time there was almost no AD system so good to lock on such small targets flying so low because of parasite signals coming back from water. Even today with digitalization and computer power it's hard to do. That's why soviets put ak-630 everywhere.

If we started new topics for every off topic ....

No one can get F-22 due to the so-called “Obey Amendment.” US was worried that some of the sensitive and secretive technologies that went into developing the F-22 could be discovered and reverse-engineered by enemies if the U.S. were to export it.

From memory they didn't formulate that policy till after production at stopped.

The original plan was to produce around 1,500 F-22s to replace most of the F-15s, with the F-35 supposed to replace everything else in a cheaper lighter form.

The end of the cold war meant a 200 million dollar fighter plane seemed overkill because at that time they thought Russia was finished and would probably end up buying old F-16s when HATO moved on to newer stealthy designs because no sales for Russia and eastern europe now joining HATO and not wanting or being allowed Russian fighters meant no market for Russian fighters... only third world countries that were charity rather than profit so MiG and Sukhoi were expected to go under.

The numbers for the F-22 went from 1,500, to 750, to production ends now at 189 and everything is to be dismantled so the next government can't reverse our decision...

At the time Australia and Japan and Israel were probably thinking they might be able to get F-22s... but the US wanted partners in the F-35... supposedly to reduce costs, but effectively mainly just to secure export customers.

The rapid demise of the F-22 production led to the F-35 being required to be rather more than the cheaper simpler lighter support plane to teh bigger more capable more expensive F-22.

In fact they wanted to make the light cheap fighter better than the bigger heavier fighter... which of course was doomed to fail.

[qutoe]But later not even the US get the planned numbers ,the 750 decreased to 185 now in service and the program has stopped so no way it can be exported .[/quote]

Before production was stopped those countries still held out hopes even if they had to pay a bit more...

This global system ensure the distribution of power as per US plans and it's their way to increase or decrease the capability of the countries .

It is more a case of crowd control and playing favourites without actually playing favourites. For instance you can make money selling F-16s to Egypt, but to ensure they are never a real threat to Israel you let Israel have AMRAAMs and don't let Egypt have them... if they had Egypt written off and refused to sell them anything then Egypt would pretty soon be buying French or Soviet aircraft and then the US would have no control at all.

The key is to make them think they are getting a good deal, when in actually fact it is just a corrupt way of bribing government officials... Give Egypt a billion dollars in aide but they can't spend it on schools or hospitals or medicine or food... the aide is not to aid Egypt, it is to aid Boeing and General Dynamics because that money goes straight to US arms companies... it is a subsidy programme that pretends to be good will and support but only supports the US MIC... and US politicians benefit because when they retire from public office companies like Boeing and GD hire them as soon as they can because they have security clearance and they know all the people in government likely to make important decisions about procurement... inside contract information... or better still the people who were under you are now running the place... you used to be their boss, so if you suggest a requirement for a particular contract that means your new company will definitely win the contract you will probably be a million dollar bonus... and that is on top of your half million dollar a year salary to have lunch and meetings in your old offices with your former employees. To sweeten the deals you just tell them what you do... wine and dine former employees for half a million a year... in a few years when they are getting close to retiring from their government jobs you might slow down your work and spend more time with your family... make these changes in the contract and I get a 5 million dollar bonus... if I get that bonus I can retire in 4 years when your retire from this job and I could recommend you for my job at Boeing... no deadlines or need for serious work... just schmooshing the guys currently under you now for great money and embarrassing bonus schemes...

There is no need to install a device in each platform to stop it at a specific time , simply they will provide Israel with higher capabilities and in war time they will cut the logistics and munitions that necessary to operate properly such platforms in Egypt . Of course Egypt can keep using it's fleet for years but not for decades as it was planned before.

Inside every aircraft and every weapon is software with millions of lines of programming... there would be billions of different interactions and combinations of events it needs to cope with... don't expect the screen in an F-16 to pop up saying cannot engage Israeli aircraft... that is not allowed... what is more likely to happen is that the missile you fire develops a fault or the proximity fuse sets the warhead off 200m short of the target... in other words the engagement will fail but it wont be obvious why it failed... you launch ten missiles and you might get ten different types of failures... but the result is that you wont be engaging Israeli planes.

It is easier to do for aircraft and missiles than anything else.... the 120mm tank round wont know or care whether you are firing at an Israeli tank or a sand bank, but with a sophisticated weapon like AMRAAM or the F-16... it is much easier because the target is identified...

Iran is operating F-4 , F-5, F-14 ,P-3 Orion ,C-130 Hercules , CH-47 Chinook ,why didn't the US stopped them from flying near to US carriers .

Computer technology of the time wouldn't allow such sabotage... the Iranians also reverse engineered many of the missiles these platforms carry so an Iranian missile would not have the Trojan Horse code in it like an American missile would.

Russians have no plans for the world like US so they care more about revenues and they are more flexible and smart .

The Russians are not angels and may have put some features they could exploit if they come up against them in a future conflict, but the fact of the matter is... they can buy yours or they can buy someone elses... it is better when they buy yours because you know yours better, and the money you made in the sale can be used to make the new stuff even better...

In the 1990s the Russians sold Tunguska 2S6Ms to Britain, and S-300V SA-12 systems to the US... the latter was not a complete system but I am sure the Americans learned a lot.

At the time neither were new systems and the money earned went to create rather more advanced models that were more capable and have since entered service.

Mind you a F-14 Tomcat pair flying past might bring a tear to some eyes on board if they did.

A very amusing thought...

Also, with regard to the US 'assisting' use of the aircraft they supply, many deals have US technicians included and they can be withdrawn (as I think in Iraq currently) also if part way through deliveries the US can stop shipments, like Turkey's F-35 and Iraq's F-16s, in both cases deliveries were made in the US but not allowed to fly them home.

Also when things turn south suddenly the technicians can perform sabotage operations on equipment before they leave like they did in Iran.

But even just not supplying standard components mean they wont stay operational for that long most of the time.

That's hard to believe. Exocet sunk ships or more prcisely frigates.

At the time of the war it was not revealed that they didn't explode. Afterwards after information was analysed it was determined that none of the warheads of the missiles that hit exploded properly.

The ships sank because of the fires they started and the materials the ships were made of...

That wouldn't be possible if the warheads didn't explode.

Fire on a warship on a long range operational mission is a dangerous thing... all that fuel and ammo and ships made of materials that burned is a lethal combination.

There opposite stories saying that french engineers that were in Argentina during the war helped convert ship launched exocets to air launched versions, in other words fighting UK.

The stories I heard about were from the British and from well after the war ended. Analysis showing that the warheads of the missiles probably didn't explode suggested a problem in fusing, and there were rumours that French engineer specialists might have done that on purpose, but it was all speculation.

I meant to say "their AD missiles could not intercept antiship missiles". Sorry for the mistake. Back in the time there was almost no AD system so good to lock on such small targets flying so low because of parasite signals coming back from water. Even today with digitalization and computer power it's hard to do. That's why soviets put ak-630 everywhere.

Their SAMs went from the ridiculous (Sea Slug and Sea Cat) to the good enough (Sea Dart) to the very good (Sea Wolf).

The Sea Slug and Sea Cat were terrible, the Sea Dart on paper was a useful weapon, but only the Sea Wolf had a good chance against sea skimming missiles.

As I said there were two problems with the Sea Wolf... it was brand new so there were still bugs, but most importantly it was only on a few ships.

If we started new topics for every off topic ....

We would end up with a whole forum...

I am sure if the Argentines had better aircraft the result could have been totally different.

Even if they had fighters like F-4s... their Sparrow missiles would still be awful, but how long would the British have lasted with wave after wave of fighters launching AAMs from outside their Sidewinders range... the British didn't have that many fighter aircraft and their helicopters would be horribly vulnerable to fighter attack too.

A new light cheap fighter might shift the balance of power in some conflicts... Kh-31 and Kh-35 could have been available by the mid 1980s... an early model MiG-29 with an SMT like upgrade could have been really tricky for the Harriers to deal with... if they had delayed the invasion to the late 1980s and bought some MiG-29s to operate from the shorter airfields on the islands... rather interesting...

These days a Yak-130 modification as a light fighter would probably lack the range to be useful in that situation except to operate from the island itself...

From memory they didn't formulate that policy till after production at stopped.

I guess it was early decision .

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/105th-congress/house-amendment/295

Inside every aircraft and every weapon is software with millions of lines of programming... there would be billions of different interactions and combinations of events it needs to cope with... don't expect the screen in an F-16 to pop up saying cannot engage Israeli aircraft... that is not allowed... what is more likely to happen is that the missile you fire develops a fault or the proximity fuse sets the warhead off 200m short of the target... in other words the engagement will fail but it wont be obvious why it failed... you launch ten missiles and you might get ten different types of failures... but the result is that you wont be engaging Israeli planes.

Generally i don't trust them at all but i don't think they prepared to add specific line codes , may be they would add spy devices .Their arms restrictions on Egypt indicates for that .Such things could be done by any supplier too .