Vad anser våra flygexperter om den nya (nåja) exportversionen av MiG-29 med tillägget SMT?

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:3u13-Q1...-29smt%22&hl=sv
http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fighter/mig29smt.html
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewt...light=mig29+smt
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/

Att försöka hålla ordning på alla ryska flygplanstyper med siffror, körkortnigar etc är jobigare än att hålla ordning på medeltidens kungar, furstar etc...

Ryssarna är bra på att bygga flygplan med imponerande prestanda. Däremot är de mindre bra på att bygga flygplan med vettiga driftskostnader.

För Sovjetunionen spelade det mindre roll om en motor var metallskrot efter 250 timmars gångtid men för de flesta andra så är det en icke oväsentlig faktor.

Så jag är övertygad om att MiG-29SMT inte är väsentligt sämre än något annat modernt stridsflygplan, och förmodligen väsentligt billigare i inköp. Men "Total Cost of Ownership" är nog inte dess starkaste kort.

Intressant att höra dina åsikter BJE. Läste faktiskt ett förklarande inlägg om det här:

"Q: Why did the Soviets design the Mig-29 to require so much maintenance, Gaz? This is, apparently, an endemic problem with Soviet equipment. Any reason why the Russians make gear like this?

A: It wasn't a problem, it was a feature. To understand you have to look a tthe different design philosophies and power structures involved. In the west spening more money on something that is cheaper is acceptable, and high tech is appreciated. In the former Soviet Union cost was not an issue. Under communism the government owns everything, so the cost for example of titanium is irrelevant as you don't have to buy it from anyone. The only exception there is that you can earn export dollars from Ti so you don't want to make everything out of Titanium. I remember with amusement comments regarding various aircraft projects not going ahead and it was speculated in the west that it was because of the cost of Titanium. (the west was surprised that the Mig-25 was made of steel rather that lighter titanium). The reality was that cost had nothing to do with it... it was availability... they were making 6,000 ton submarines out of Titanium at the time and didn't have enough welders specialising in Ti or enough Ti at the time to make the Mig-25. Equally Steel is much cheaper and easier to work with.

To put it simply the Soviets designed their aircraft for war. They have shorter times between overhauls but between those overhauls the aircraft need almost no inspection or attention except fuel, oil and ammo. An overhaul time of 500 hours is plenty in a real war zone. To reduce costs the maintainence is done by relatively unskilled labour and although it takes more man hours to overhaul the cost of 30 men at $5 a month each is still cheaper than 5-6 western technicians at 30-40,000 a year. Of course as I said cost was irrelevant... the main reason they built their aircraft this way is because 30 unskilled labourers will be easier to find in the front lines than these well educated specialised technicians. Also the Soviet gear is not designed to operate from special air conditioned hangars and they often have special anti Foreign Object deflection systems so the runways don't have to be swept clean all the time to ensure there is no foreign object damage to the engines.
The engines themselves are a good example for comparison. The Soviet engines are usually heavier, more thirsty, but usually of equal or higher thrust and operate at higher speeds. Life times are usually ten times shorter, but the engines themselves are often 20 time cheaper. A Russian engine might cost $700,000, whereas an equivelent western engine might set you back $6-7 million.
Also the Soviet method of overhaul also effects the lifespan of the components.
Many parts subject to wear are often replaced without inspection as a matter of procedure as the expensive inspection gear is not present at every forward airbase or rear area overhaul centre.
By introducing western style inspections and overhaul procedures the life of the RD-33 engine in the Mig-29 doubled. Later model engines have introduced more exotic materials and technologies that have increased lifespan and reduced operating costs but increased purchase costs.

For many of the countries operating Soviet weapons the Soviet method suits them better as they tend to have large supplies of unskilled labour. Even rich countries like Saudi Arabia require foreign specialists to help them keep their armed forces operating... something I am sure they don't like very much.

The purpose of the SMT upgrade was to improve many things including range and air to ground capability, but it also completely changed many systems (just removing the the old cockpit systems and avionics boxes and replacing them with modern digital systems reduced aircraft weight by 600kgs) with the resutl that maintence costs were reduced by 40%.

Q: Ie the Time Between Overhaul (TBO) for the engine is half of its MTU or GE Western brothers.

A: Actually probably less than a quarter. That western engine would cost about 8-10 times more to actually buy, and of course it also ignores peace time flight restrictions on most western aircraft. Most are limited as to the top speed or height or weight to reduce fatigue on the airframe to extend life. There are no such restrictions on Soviet aircraft except for the normal operational restrictions. Soviet/Russian aircraft also often fly faster and often operate from more austere airstrips than the western aircraft do. The US had problems basing Helos and with other aircraft in desert storm... those Soviet aircraft based in the various desert regions of the SU already had to operate in such environments."

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewt...er=asc&start=48

Det är detta som gör det svårt att jämföra sovjetisk/rysk materiel med västdito. Det är oftast billigare att köpa ryska saker, men sedan ska man ha råd att använda dem också...

Tydligen håller ryssarna nu på att bli "västifierade" ur den aspekten, men då lär priserna gå upp också.

Till syvende og sidst så handlar det nog om man har mest pengar till anskaffning eller till driftskostnader. ;) Någonstans kommer det att kosta pengar, det är bara frågan var.

MIG-29:an är konstruerad som ett taktiskt Jaktflygplan. Dess relativt korta aktionsradie kompenseras av möjligheten till basering på tillfälliga baser. MIG-29 kan utan vidare opereras från isar, vägar, grus och gräsbanor.

Flygegenskaperna är helt ok och stridsförmågan beror på vilken elektronik och beväpningden utrustas med.

En MIG hybrid med västerländsk elektronik, radar mm torde vara ett intressant alternativ. Dock ökar kostnaden markant med Västerländska system. Självklart behåller man den Ryska IR sökande SAAM (R 73?) med dess hjälmsikte.

Vid jämförelse med tex Amerikanska flygplan så måste hänsyn tas till baseringsbehovet. De kräver riktiga banor medan MIG:en kräver hyfsat platt mark

Har du läst länkarna ovan?

Range

- in altitude 2200 km
- in altitude with 1 AFT 2800 km
- in altitude with 3 AFT 3500 km
- with in-flight refueling 6700 km

VAr ju någon som en gång sade att när en amerikansk kärra landat så tar det ett par timmar innan den är uppe igen. Får den "foregin Object" i motorn måste hema kraftpaketet bytas.
Med ryska maskiner är det väl med "ner-tanka-ladda-lyfta" och "lite-skit-i-motorn-spelar-inte-så-stor-roll"

Jepp!

Denna nya version har ytterligare tankar inbyggda. Bla bakom huven. Men ursprungs typen hadde relativt kort räckvidd.