It'll make a dent in the short term like any other acquisition, but it'll benefit so much in the long term not only for budget but also in terms of readiness rate and combat effectiveness from datalinking as well as increased availability in general.
The closest thing we have to a Western avionic equipped Flanker is what the Malaysians and Indians have with MKI and MKM, the western avionics they have aren't even for datalink, they're mostly for weapons employment like their Damocles targeting pod on the MKM. If you're referencing that militarywatchmagazine site that said we're getting NATO avionics for the Su-35 then I don't recommend that. I've had interactions with their alleged author and no offense, he just have bias against US/EU jets and he doesn't really a have a touch of whats going on here. Do you seriously think with CAATSA and current relations that the US would just be willing to give us datalink for our Flankers?
Plus I think we should focus on using Link 16 for network centric forces since we have intentions to develop the capability and have signed an CISMOA agreement anyway
https://ppid.tni.mil.id/view/32435994/pelaksanaan-kegiatan-cismoaccib-ke-17-2-di-hawai-usa.html
Considering your counter argument is a fallacious sarcastic tirade, it is an ad-hominem.
Keep in mind I also said fighters with more proven track records and better avionics. Funny how you accused me of cherry picking but yet you do this not a few posts in. Also, it wasn't only me that suggested those factors are irrelevant in a modern day BVR scenario, but that doesn't matter to you, right?
Considering the options I provided have been proven to be able to do the job with a much more proven track record, onboard avionics matters more than the raw technical data. IIRC not even the Su-30MKM is equipped with a TDL as France refused to supply TDL units to Sukhoi for integration. So tell me how exactly are we supposed to datalink and network with the plethora of Western equipment we already have?
Keep in mind it has already been stated by the Armed Forces that the Flankers can't share data with the Navy while on MPA missions let alone the F-16's, if we can't even retrofit a NATO compatible TDL onto the existing Flankers we already have, what makes you think a supposed western avionics equipped Su-35 would be equipped with one? Please explain.
Imagine being the pot that called the kettle back.
And funny you mentioned it, I have stated numerous times here that I don't work for a firm anymore. I just still have numerous connections within the industry and government. The only reason I'm supporting the F-15 and F/A-18's in favor of the Flankers is because our Air Force is geared towards modern US equipment the day we bought the F-16's. Had we bought the Mirage I would have supported the Rafale currently being offered. And had we bought the Tornado then I would have supported the Eurofighter. The only difference between those and the Flankers is that despite what you think, the Flankers aren't very integrated within our modern day Armed Forces infrastructure. You don't even need me to tell you that for most repairs we have to send them back to Russia or Belarus. Not to mention we only started arming them with their weapons packages within the past 8 years. If we do have that supposed infrastructure you talked about, why is it do we have to send them all the way back to Eastern Europe for maintenance when Vietnam doesn't have to? Explain.
Never heard of him and neither do I care. But if he pissed you off as much as I did for stating the obvious, I would love to see his posts.
That "dent in the short term" will cost billions of dollars in initial acquisition cost alone, tell me how much of a "dent" will a squadron of a western equivalent twin engine fighters such as F-18 and F-15 cost us? Please elaborate. Then how much will the lifecycle cost be? How much will it cost us to build the supporting facilities, buy new weapon systems (bombs, rockets, missiles), train pilots, buy simulators, acquire maintenance tools and jigs, stock up on spares, train ground crews and maintenance workers, etc? How much time and effort will it need for us to build the capabilities and proficiency to operate the new type of craft efficiently? Please elaborate, since financial cost alone does not paint the overall picture. Time and effort must be factored in as well.
Swapping fighters is not like buying a new car. When you swap your old car with a new one, you don't have to learn to drive again since cars basically operate the same way. Good luck putting an ace Flanker pilot with thousands of flight hours on an F-18 cockpit and ask him to fly the damn plane without any conversion training. Thousands of flight hours on the Flankers does not translate into automatic veterancy when operating a new type of plane.
Then let's talk about the Flanker airframe, what can we do with them except to scrap them or give them away on grants to some poorer third world countries? Good luck trying to trade them in through the dealership because Rosoboron is still having difficulties selling second hand airframes from Belarus or Ukraine. Basically we will most likely write off billions of dollars worth of airframes that we just bought around 10-20 years ago.
That's what I don't like about some of you western fighter jet fanboys, always oversimplifying things and always thinking that we will only pay peanuts and will not spend tons of time and effort just so that you can have your wet dreams fulfilled. Can someone please get into details, crunch sama data and financial numbers, before pushing your agendas just because you think that fighter A sucks and fighter B rules because you said so, or because it have the one ring to rule them all called AESA radar and Link 16, or because you think that fighter A is "wholly superior" to fighter B without explaining in which aspects was it superior on?
And after all is said and done, billions of dollars spent, countless manhours dedicated to acquire the Flanker replacement, we will only be replacing a 4th gen twin engine fighter jet with another 4th gen twin engine fighter jet. I probably can justify wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money on replacing the Flankers with a 5th gen fighter like the KFX, F-35, or the new European 5th gen design. At least we will be paying for the generational leap in capability. But if we're only getting yet another 4th gen fighter with similiar or debatably slightly superior characteristics then I say the smart money is to
PASS on it, because it will not justify the hefty spending and painstaking effort.
It'll make a dent in the short term like any other acquisition, but it'll benefit so much in the long term not only for budget but also in terms of readiness rate and combat effectiveness from datalinking as well as increased availability in general.
The closest thing we have to a Western avionic equipped Flanker is what the Malaysians and Indians have with MKI and MKM, the western avionics they have aren't even for datalink, they're mostly for weapons employment like their Damocles targeting pod on the MKM. If you're referencing that militarywatchmagazine site that said we're getting NATO avionics for the Su-35 then I don't recommend that. I've had interactions with their alleged author and no offense, he just have bias against US/EU jets and he doesn't really a have a touch of whats going on here. Do you seriously think with CAATSA and current relations that the US would just be willing to give us datalink for our Flankers?
Plus I think we should focus on using Link 16 for network centric forces since we have intentions to develop the capability and have signed an CISMOA agreement anyway
https://ppid.tni.mil.id/view/32435994/pelaksanaan-kegiatan-cismoaccib-ke-17-2-di-hawai-usa.html
Oh and I forgot, if you're complaining about the Flanker's maintenance cost and readiness then you ought to know that the US had offered the F-15 numerous times but we rejected them every single time because we baulked after seeing their acquisition and maintenance cost numbers.
