Before doing your usual Russophiles tirade, know that I'm not a Russia strong fanboy, just a neutral observer with common sense in mind.
Oh boy, here we go. "I'm not a Russophile, BUT...."
I can understand this Russian equipment averseness IF we haven't bought any Russian arms in the first place, but since we ALREADY bought the Flankers, operated them for decades, built infrastructures to support them, acquired technical knowledge, gained pilot skills and flying hours, trained the ground support crews and procured maintenance equipments...
And considering how many times the Flankers are used on sorties vs. the F-16's, I'd say the Flanker fails in that regard. But don't take my word for it, ask around any of the personnel in the Airbases. Like it or not, the entire AU infrastructure is made to support western aircraft. All the MRO's in country are made to support our western aircraft and they have been for some time. And any attempt to send our Flankers to MRO facilities in Vietnam or setup MRO facilities here are strongly rebuked by the Russians. Compared to Lockheed Martin/General Dynamics (whom allowed and supported PTDI to conduct spare part manufacturing and MRO facilities here as far back as the 80's) I'd say it's a clear cut which one is the better deal here. Exactly how does the Russian deal seem better to you? Explain.
just because Murrica strong fanboys and sales people with vested interest such as yourself had a hard on to buy their favorite toys like the F-18 or the F-15 just doesn't cut the mustard.
And why doesn't it cut? If it's good enough for higher tier air forces such as the Israeli Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, and the Republic of Singapore Air Force; why is it not good enough for us? Please explain your reasoning.
Yes we made a mistake when procuring the Flankers (courtesy of the "they will never embargo us" US of A for, you guessed it, their embargo on us),
And did the Russians not embargo us in the 60's/70's? Whatever happened to the Tu-16's we once operated? All equipment has a chance of an embargo. Britain did so with the Hawks in the 90's as well. The difference is what the United States has shown that compared to Russia or Europe, is that they have a strategic geopolitical interest in keeping us within their circle preventing them from issuing an actual full scale embargo. Case in point is the fact during the embargo, our US supplied airplanes still flew whereas the Soviet embargo in the 60's led to literally every Soviet built plane to fall into disuse. With that in mind, explain exactly how the Indonesian Air Force procuring the SHornet or the Strike Eagle would be a mistake.
but it will be an even dumber mistake to just swap them midway with planes which are in every sense just similiar if not inferior to the Flankers.
Exactly how is the F/A-18 or the F-15 inferior? They have better service records, cheaper operational costs, less problematic maintenance, a much more abundant global supply chain, a much more active assembly line thus being cheaper to produce, and also much more advanced avionics, countermeasures, and weapons packages. Please explain how they are supposedly inferior in your view?
And yes, I am addressing your incessant attempts to frame or paint a biassed notion of how inferior Russian jets are compared to Americans ones, which coming from the mouth of a western defense company rep like you meant as much as a rant from an Apple fanboy about how inferior Android devices are compared to the latest iPhone.
Sounds like a you problem to be honest.
Especially when said person never elaborated just how superior their toys are using any verifiable technical parameters or any objective studies. And no, saying things like "they aren't nearly as capable as their US/EU counterparts" won't cut the mustard either, it didn't made you sound partial and biassed at all.
Then maybe you should go back and read through the thread. I'm not the only one here that supports US/EU made aircraft.
@Kansel,
@striver44,
@Nike,
@Gen3115 , along with a plethora of other posters have shown studies and articles proving as much.
But I'll throw you a bone. The F-15C (which was first introduced in 1976) is currently fitted or being refitted with the AN/APG-63(v2) and AN/APG-63(v3)
AESA radars. The F-15E Strike Eagle (first introduced in 1989) is currently equipped with either the AN/APG-63(v3) or the AN/APG-82(v1)
AESA radars. Meanwhile, the Su-35 (first introduced in 2014) uses an Irbis-E
PESA radar. Exactly how does a fighter that is equipped with a PESA radar in any way shape or form superior or at least in line with one that is equipped with an AESA radar? It's the 21st century and BVR combat is the name of the game. And an aircraft with a PESA simply can't perform as well in BVR against something with an AESA. Furthermore, the engines of an F-16 and F-15C/E are interchangeable with each other (
https://books.google.co.id/books?id... f-16 and f15 engines interchangeable&f=false), the engines of the Su-27/30 and the Su-35 are not. Wouldn't this simply cause more logistical issues and maintenance costs? Explain exactly how this would benefit the Indonesian Air Force.
You know, for someone who supposedly isn't a Slavaboo, you're really trying hard to defend something that is wholly inferior.
