Jump to content


Photo

Mig-29 In Eastern Europe

MiG-29 USSR Cold War

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 25 September 2018 - 1415 PM

Yes, even in Finnish evaluation Mirage 2000 costed more than F/A-18.
Pricing of the 1992 fighter candidates in Finnish Marks. Left column is acquisition cost, right column is maintenance cost over 30years.
 

ktoUczw.jpg


  • 0

#22 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 25 September 2018 - 1520 PM

Off topic, I know. Why did Finland favor the F/A-18 over the F-16 or Gripen?


  • 0

#23 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,947 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 25 September 2018 - 1609 PM

AMRAAM iirc, the f-16 offered was lower-capability version?


  • 0

#24 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 25 September 2018 - 1630 PM

Off topic, I know. Why did Finland favor the F/A-18 over the F-16 or Gripen?


It was plain better. F-16 did not meet FAF requirements (unclear what requirements, technical evaluation is still classified, possibly landing/takeoff characteristics which were noted by Swedes). Also, one of the conditions was that end-assembly was done in Finland and General Dynamics was not eager for that arrangement. Price quoted above is for US assembled F-16's.
Gripen was hopelessly late and the program had considerable technical and financial risks (no weapon integrations done etc) which Saab wanted Finns to share, an unhappy position. Only Hornet and Mirage fullfilled the technical requirements 'out-of-the-box'.

AMRAAM iirc, the f-16 offered was lower-capability version?


Initially yes but the offer was upgraded to C/D Block 50/52 when Hornet entered the competition.
Ability to engage multiple targets with missiles was amongst key requirements for the program. As the French were more than happy to sell Mica, US had to offer AMRAAM to compete.
  • 0

#25 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 25 September 2018 - 1721 PM

Yes, even in Finnish evaluation Mirage 2000 costed more than F/A-18.
Pricing of the 1992 fighter candidates in Finnish Marks. Left column is acquisition cost, right column is maintenance cost over 30years.

 

Very interesting Yama, thanks. Couple of points:

 

- The MiG-29 is also very expensive, I would be expecting Russians to offer undelivered MiG-29.

- Next to the MiG-29 estimated cost it says Huom 15 v (Points 15 years?). What does this mean?

 

Spain also evaluated the F-16 (when F-18 was selected) and the Hornet was judged superior. It had a 2 engine configuration, BVR armament (and HARM/Harpoon). IIRC the 2 engine configuration was also preferred by the Finnish.


  • 0

#26 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 25 September 2018 - 2333 PM

It refers to MiG's airframe life (15 years) which is apparently taken into account when calculating lifetime costs over 30 years. It would have needed expensive service life extension.
MiG-29 did not meet requirements regarding missile and cockpit SA (another criteria which was seen very important). I am not sure whether acquisition cost includes some sort of update. Russia also offered industrial partnership to develope MiG-29 to modern multirole fighter. I don't know which version calculation is based on...then came last minute MiG-31 offer - Soviet Union collapsed in middle of the competition and for some time Russian arms export industry was complete mess, with nobody knowing who to negotiate with etc.

2-engine configuration was seen a plus as it lowered mishap rate, somewhat ironic given that original specification called for "1-engined light fighter".
  • 0

#27 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 26 September 2018 - 1237 PM

Soviet Union collapsed in middle of the competition and for some time Russian arms export industry was complete mess, with nobody knowing who to negotiate with etc.

 

It also threw MiG in disarray as funding for MiG-29M dried up. I am not surprised they offered possibility of Finnish involvement to develop the Fulcrum. They also proposed it to German in lieu of EF-2000. In the 90s Russia supplied vanilla MiG-29s to Slovakia and Hungary (compensation for Soviet debt), and a more advanced MiG-29N to Malaysia.

 

I am surprised about the calculated life (15 years). Early MiG-29s had a calendar life of 20 years or 2000 hours, with overhauls every 800.

 

IIRC the Finnish evaluation stated that the F-18 is more expensive to operate vs F-16, but if the mishap rate is taken into account the situation changes. It will be cheaper as more accidents are expected from the single engine F-16.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: MiG-29, USSR, Cold War

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users