In your case, despite using Google, GPT, Wiki.... you are always wrong.
What else can we hope from a Kangaroo, distant descendant of English vagrants... ?
How did F404 and F414 ever get approved for procurement?
- Thread starter Saaho
- Start date
What else can we hope from a Kangaroo, distant descendant of English vagrants... ?
Dude facts cannot cure your stupidity. I have repeatedly said that F18E is not being replaced by F35C. If you cannot understand this simple fact, I can't help you. I can only provide facts. Only a doctor can cure your stupidity..
I never said F18 is superb. I said its better than that piece of junk Mig29K as it is serving USN for 40+ years. Thats what you don't understand, I am not here to defend or worship American equipment like you worship Russian equipment. I just want the best equipment for Indian armed forces, regardless of which country it comes from..But here's what I find really strange: if the F-18 is so superb, why would anyone choose the Rafale? I just don't get it.
More stupidity on display. So you jumped to comparing gross number of F14 lost with Mig29K, discounting the fact that 700+ F14 were procured vs only 45 Mig29K?
Over 35 years of service, around 160 F14s were lost, putting their loss rate at 22%. In just 14 years, 11% of Mig 29K have been. Again do the basic elementary school math to understand which is higher.
If 11% loss rate in 14 years is low, why don't you tell us any fighter jet which had higher crash rate in just 15 years of service?
I am merely trying to say Russians are as unreliable as Americans, and addressing the topic of this thread.
As evidence I have given examples of Mig29K and INS Vikramaditya.
No need to read otherwise.
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
That's the question I asked myself, when it was excluded in the original comp, When the Indian chief of air said it had better radar and weapons than the Rafale
very simple, we dont want our navy to be completely dependant on the whims of the US. Its alr dependant in terms of engines. Dont want to go furthur into a trap. Its a LOT easier to get A/F jets but not easy to get naval jets.
If, as you say, the F-35 cannot replace the F/A-18, then that means it's garbage, and American manufacturing is garbage.
I don't know whether your MiG-29K is junk or not, but the Rafale, the F/A-18, and the F-35 are definitely garbage.
The first sells for three times the price of the Su-35.
The second has been a running joke on forums for years.
The last was just shot down in Iran, and it's had no shortage of mechanical failures too.
I'm just stating the facts. If you think I'm a Russian fanboy, well, you can see it that way, because Russian stuff is good.
More stupidity on display. So you jumped to comparing gross number of F14 lost with Mig29K, discounting the fact that 700+ F14 were procured vs only 45 Mig29K?
Over 35 years of service, around 160 F14s were lost, putting their loss rate at 22%. In just 14 years, 11% of Mig 29K have been. Again do the basic elementary school math to understand which is higher.
If 11% loss rate in 14 years is low, why don't you tell us any fighter jet which had higher crash rate in just 15 years of service?
By the time deliveries ended in 1987, the F-14 had supplied the U.S. Navy with a total of 478 to use aircraft（Over 560 aircraft were delivered to the U.S. Navy; as of 1987, 478 remained in service, while the rest had been lost in crashes.）.
It entered service in 1973 and ended deliveries in 1987—exactly 14 years
14 years—and F-14 lost 90 to 100 aircraft in that time. -----15%±
I don't know where you got that figure of 700 from.
Or, you should be clear yourself on how you cobbled this figure together.
Please use Google.
Furthermore, regarding the "cases where the MiG-29K crashed before even being delivered" that you mentioned—the same thing happened with the F-14, and involved two aircraft at that (counting from the time after they officially entered service).
---Everything is based on the links you provided; please double-check them carefully.
Does not involve the flight test phase.
As for the rest of your reply,
it's exhausting to respond to, so I'm not going to bother anymore.
Oh, and yes—
Neither the Americans nor the Soviets are reliable,
---------------------------it's the French who are the most reliable of all.
Could it be China, perhaps?
Last edited:
No, I agreed with the navy getting the Rafale, even before we found that the FA-18e couldn't land the bring back amount of weapons, It would be silly to set up just a small number of FA-18e
It was the Rafale for the air force that surprised me
@hyper, you're dribbling nonsense, but please don't google what you say and continue
My dear,
Your voice of accusation was too faint for me to even notice you;
besides,
your ability to provide comic relief pales in comparison to the other one—you’re more like background sound effects in a movie.
You have deep comprehension issues. It seems you are using some translation software which is more crappy than even Mig29K. Thats why you are unable to understand a basic fact. F35 is replacing F18C. F35 isn't replacing F18E. Both F18C and F18E will serve USN for 40 years, unlike the junk Mig29K which IN is kicking out in 20 years of service.
Of course you are a Russian fanboy, you haven't stated any facts but lies like F18 and Rafale cannot take off from STOBAR carriers which I have busted, so now you can't do anything but cry.
Everyone knows that total F14 delivered are 700+, 632 to USN + 79 to Iran. The link above which I posted which shows crashes of F14 also contains crashes of IIAF. You are so stupid that you are quoting random numbers from internet without checking sources.
The fact is you have no capability to respond with facts because you are a lowly fanboy who bases his opinion on his fantasies rather than facts. You didn't even know that INS Vikramaditya is so faulty that it suffered accident during sea trials itself.
I have proven with data that 11% of Indian Mig29K fleet has crashed in just 14 years. You said its low, so I ask again, tell me any other aircraft which has resulted in losses of more than 11% of fleet in less than 15 years of service.
1、If the F-35C cannot replace the F-18, then it is utterly worthless. So I can clearly see that you, too, admit that the F-35—that piece of junk—can’t even replace the subsonic junk F-18E.Why didn't the US continue to use the F‑4 in parallel after the F‑15 entered service? Why didn't they continue to use the A‑6/7 in parallel after the F‑18 entered service? Yet only when it comes to the two pieces of junk, the F‑22 and the F‑35, oh, they have to go back and restart the F‑15EX production line, and keep the F‑18 in service for years more. How pathetic.
2、If, as you claim, the F-35 can only replace the F-18C but not the F-18E, then by any possible logical deduction, the only conclusion is that the gap between the F-18E and the F-35 is negligible, while the gap between the F-18C and the F-18E is huge.
The difference between the F-18E and the F-35
is
smaller than that between the F-18C and the F-18E
—which further proves point 1.
3、The F-18C entered service in 1987 and retired in 2019, serving a total of 32 years—exactly the same as the F-14 (which served from 1974 to 2006). Yet in your own words, you lump the F-18C and F-18E together as one type, claiming a “40‑year service life.”
So here’s the question: why, when discussing issues 1 and 2, do you deliberately split the F-18C and F-18E apart,
but then conflate them again elsewhere? That is a laughable logical blunder, and it exposes your ugly double standards.
4、You say the MiG‑29K is junk because it served only 20 years in India before retirement. Fine—let’s take the F-14 as an example. It ceased production in 1991 and retired in 2006. In other words, by the time it retired, the later‑production F-14s were only 15 to 20 years old—shorter than the projected service life of the MiG‑29K in India.
Similarly, the F-18C was discontinued in 2000 and retired in 2019, so the fleet was also just over 20 years old at retirement.
Once again, you reveal your ugly double standards, simply trying to justify your own mental hierarchy of preference.
The real problem is that you lack basic knowledge—most of your information was probably Googled at the last minute just to argue with me today, so you haven’t even realised how ridiculous you sound. The fact is, carrier‑based aircraft have significantly shorter service lives than land‑based ones, due to the stresses of take‑off and landing. Twenty years is a perfectly normal figure, just as losing 11% of the fleet in 14 years of service is also completely normal.
Sure, the US has money to burn, but there’s no need to rush so eagerly to offer your face for a slap.
Throughout this entire exchange, all I see is you relentlessly shooting down your own theories. I suggest you stop whatever you’re doing now, before you humiliate yourself any further.
As for your endless blabbering about the F‑18 and the Rafale being able to take off from ski‑jump ramps—well, why don't you first ask your American daddy and your French uncle to fit a ramp onto their own Charles de Gaulle and Ford‑class carriers, use it themselves for a few years, and then come back to brag?
As it happens, that piece‑of‑junk electromagnetic catapult on the Ford still can't even get its act together. Just the right time to put that modification into practice.
And if you can defend such blatant garbage with such flowing eloquence, I can now fully understand why a heap of trash like the F404 still manages to find a market.
Last edited:
Speaking of dear old French hardware,1、If the F-35C cannot replace the F-18, then it is utterly worthless. So I can clearly see that you, too, admit that the F-35—that piece of junk—can’t even replace the subsonic junk F-18E.Why didn't the US continue to use the F‑4 in parallel after the F‑15 entered service? Why didn't they continue to use the A‑6/7 in parallel after the F‑18 entered service? Yet only when it comes to the two pieces of junk, the F‑22 and the F‑35, oh, they have to go back and restart the F‑15EX production line, and keep the F‑18 in service for years more. How pathetic.
2、If, as you claim, the F-35 can only replace the F-18C but not the F-18E, then by any possible logical deduction, the only conclusion is that the gap between the F-18E and the F-35 is negligible, while the gap between the F-18C and the F-18E is huge.
The difference between the F-18E and the F-35
is
smaller than that between the F-18C and the F-18E
—which further proves point 1.
3、The F-18C entered service in 1987 and retired in 2019, serving a total of 32 years—exactly the same as the F-14 (which served from 1974 to 2006). Yet in your own words, you lump the F-18C and F-18E together as one type, claiming a “40‑year service life.”
So here’s the question: why, when discussing issues 1 and 2, do you deliberately split the F-18C and F-18E apart,
but then conflate them again elsewhere? That is a laughable logical blunder, and it exposes your ugly double standards.
4、You say the MiG‑29K is junk because it served only 20 years in India before retirement. Fine—let’s take the F-14 as an example. It ceased production in 1991 and retired in 2006. In other words, by the time it retired, the later‑production F-14s were only 15 to 20 years old—shorter than the projected service life of the MiG‑29K in India.
Similarly, the F-18C was discontinued in 2000 and retired in 2019, so the fleet was also just over 20 years old at retirement.
Once again, you reveal your ugly double standards, simply trying to justify your own mental hierarchy of preference.
The real problem is that you lack basic knowledge—most of your information was probably Googled at the last minute just to argue with me today, so you haven’t even realised how ridiculous you sound. The fact is, carrier‑based aircraft have significantly shorter service lives than land‑based ones, due to the stresses of take‑off and landing. Twenty years is a perfectly normal figure, just as losing 11% of the fleet in 14 years of service is also completely normal.
Sure, the US has money to burn, but there’s no need to rush so eagerly to offer your face for a slap.
Throughout this entire exchange, all I see is you relentlessly shooting down your own theories. I suggest you stop whatever you’re doing now, before you humiliate yourself any further.
As for your endless blabbering about the F‑18 and the Rafale being able to take off from ski‑jump ramps—well, why don't you first ask your American daddy and your French uncle to fit a ramp onto their own Charles de Gaulle and Ford‑class carriers, use it themselves for a few years, and then come back to brag?
As it happens, that piece‑of‑junk electromagnetic catapult on the Ford still can't even get its act together. Just the right time to put that modification into practice.
And if you can defend such blatant garbage with such flowing eloquence, I can now fully understand why a heap of trash like the F404 still manages to find a market.
the Charles de Gaulle is a 40,000‑ton ship with only 80,000 horsepower – less than what an 8,000‑ton Sovremenny‑class destroyer packs. Yet the French claim she can do 27 knots.（And then it also has to siphon off power just to boil water for the catapults and top up the accumulators.）
Heh. The North Carolina‑class, with a similar displacement, needed 120,000 horsepower for 28 knots.
The America‑class has power and tonnage close to the de Gaulle but only manages 20–23 knots.
And the Kuznetsov, which is 10,000 tons heavier, has nearly three times the power and can only squeeze out 29 knots.
The only explanation is that the French have Minovsky particles – after all, whatever performance figures they tout for the Rafale, the whole world will swallow them whole.
This time, neither the American nor the Russian kit is reliable—physics isn’t either. The only thing that can be trusted is the PowerPoint slides straight off the Champs‑Élysées.
Anyway, since the hardware has already been bought, buying it makes it right—and there will always be great scholars to come and debate the scriptures on its behalf.
The ingenious use of circular logic: what's bought is never bought wrong, and you'd rather die than acknowledge otherwise.
LOL.
So if one aircraft isn't replacing the other, gap between both is negligible? Su57 isn't replacing Su34, Su35, even Su30SM, so gap between both is negligible? Russian stupidity on display again.
Yes, I stand corrected. F18C didn't serve for 40 years, but 32 years, still 12 years more than the piece of junk called Mig29K.
Now I see that you have conveniently chose to ignore that I have conclusively proved that 700+ F14s were indeed delivered and only 22% of them have crashed in 32 years of service with USN and 50+ years of service with IIAF.
Haha its quite clear who lacks basic knowledge. Me, or the moron who didn't even know that INS vikramidtya had accidents during sea trials, the monkey who didn't even know that both Rafale and F18SH have proved operations from ski jumps, the donkey who tried to show me that Canada's F18 crash rate is equal to that of Mig29K and hasn't talked about it since I disproved it with elementary school math.
No its not, even the previous carrier fighters of IN, the Harriers served for 32 odd years. Maybe 20 years is normal for Russian Junk.
If its so normal, then why can't you show me another aircraft which has such pathetic crash rate as the junk called Mig29K?
Awww, its getting difficult for you to hide behind your lies, isn't it? Want to run away, don't you?
So changing the goalposts when your lies have been called out? From Rafale and F18 can't take off from ski-jumps to "well if they can take off then French and US should use ski jumps too daddy"
Last edited:
Actually the Kuznetsov does 0 knots since it has been mothballed since 2017. Its such a junk that Russians can't even manage to repair it.
The better would have been JV with Safran for M88-4. While testing the LCAmk2 and AMCA on RD33. It would have been a much cheaper deal. But any ways.
@Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik This is what JV is all about, to replace F414 INS6S. I told you they have no plan. These unskilled idiots selected by cheating in exams are directionless and now some research foundations like ORF are consulting them.
@Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik This is what JV is all about, to replace F414 INS6S. I told you they have no plan. These unskilled idiots selected by cheating in exams are directionless and now some research foundations like ORF are consulting them.
Just so everyone is on the same page with the Hornet/Super hornet/Growler
Hornet
1983 FA-18AB
1987 FA-18CD new Radar and stuff,
2024 USMC, A world first Air GaN radar and stuff update, that Canada is also doing
_____________________
Super Hornet
2001 FA-18EF (block l )
2005 FA-18EF ( block ll) Where Boeing put its 5th gen stuff, from the F-35 competition they lost, A low RCS fuselage redesign, APG-79 and stuff
2021 FA-18EF ( block lll )
________________________________
Growler
2005 EA-18G mirroring the EF updates, Its own EW updates and NGJ 2024
Hornet
1983 FA-18AB
1987 FA-18CD new Radar and stuff,
2024 USMC, A world first Air GaN radar and stuff update, that Canada is also doing
_____________________
Super Hornet
2001 FA-18EF (block l )
2005 FA-18EF ( block ll) Where Boeing put its 5th gen stuff, from the F-35 competition they lost, A low RCS fuselage redesign, APG-79 and stuff
2021 FA-18EF ( block lll )
________________________________
Growler
2005 EA-18G mirroring the EF updates, Its own EW updates and NGJ 2024
Last edited:
The Su-57 can replace the Su-27, Su-30, and Su-34, because it outperforms all of them in every single metric – speed, payload, you name it. It is not like that piece of junk F/A-18E, which takes over 280 seconds to lumber up to Mach 1.3, yet some geniuses insist that this trash can replace the F-14. The F/A-18E was originally designed as a "daytime light fighter" – such a rotten foundation that it's beyond salvaging. The F-35 is no different; in reality, it's just a ground-pounder in the same league as the Su-22.
The F-14 – that glorious piece of junk – wrecked 100 of its own airframes in its first 14 years of service, and that's not even counting the ones that crashed in Iran. That alone proves it's light-years behind the MiG-29. Only after endless patches and fixes did its loss rate finally drop – but hey, any aircraft could do that with enough tinkering. And what exactly is this "32 years of service" versus "50 years of service" nonsense supposed to prove?
You still haven't explained the *Enterprise* explosion; that’s just the tip of the iceberg in the case files.
The AV-8 takes off and lands vertically – it's not a heavy-loaded deck-launch conventional fixed-wing aircraft. In the U.S. military, the F-15 can usually serve for 30 years, while the F-14 and F-18 have a paper service life of no more than 20 years – and that's just on paper, without even touching on their real-world availability, which in practice is barely half that of land-based fighters.
Seeing how worked up you've gotten after taking that hit, let me stoke the fire a little more.
In fact, the F/A-18E – that trash – suffers a catastrophic drop in durability compared to the F-18C.
By sortie-generation metrics, its lifespan is only half that of the F-18C.
Just how long is the service life of the F-18C?
Heh, for the F-18E, you simply cut that figure by 50%—those clever American engineers, haha.
The following comes straight from U.S. Congressional investigation reports – if you have any objections or grievances, feel free to call up the Americans. Heh.
That's dictated by its hopeless physical design and aerodynamic flaws. The F-18 was originally built just to compete with the F-16 as a lightweight close‑in dogfighter. Stretching that basic airframe into the naval strike fighter F/A-18C already violated the original design intent. And the F/A-18E? That's a botched, forcibly scaled‑up abomination, slapped together just to haul more ordnance.
(This table further demonstrates just how rubbish the F-22 is; its sortie rate is barely any different from that of the "hangar queen" F-15A—kudos to those clever American engineers!)
Furthermore, in this report, the Americans use "humble" terms like "17-year service life," "20-year service life," and "availability after 10 years of use";
they lack the audacity to even try to rival the "noble" Rafale PPT presentations or the "30-to-40-year" service lives you fantasize about for carrier-based aircraft.
I suppose the only explanation is that the Americans simply don't understand carrier-based aircraft service lives as well as you do.
So changing the goalposts when your lies have been called out? From Rafale and F18 can't take off from ski-jumps to "well if they can take off then French and US should use ski jumps too daddy"
And the very notion of the Rafale and F/A-18 performing ski‑jump takeoffs is an absolute joke. France and the United States, the countries that build them, don't use them that way themselves – and clearly, that struck a nerve with you. So let me repeat it for you one more time.
Last edited:
The performance of the F-18A and EA-18G—those pieces of junk—was even more disastrous.
The average mission capability rate for each F-18C dropped from 70% at delivery to 40% over 20 years, and then fell to 10% after another five years.
The F-18E fared even worse, with its rate halving; it took only 10 years for the figure to drop from 60% to 40%.
For the EA-18G, it took even less time---7 years
The F-18A started out with a mission capability rate of only 50%.
Let me answer that for you:
How could American products possibly be that bad?
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Well,
according to the Americans' own investigation report, the Harrier's service life indeed far exceeds that of the F‑18E — and is roughly on par with the F‑18C/D (under the condition that its average monthly usage time is only 60% of the F‑18C's).
But here's the miraculous part: the Americans claim the F‑18C has a maximum service life of 25 years (with sortie rates dropping from 70% to 10%), yet you say that the Harrier, which is supposedly comparable to the F‑18C, can reach 32 years — also far surpassing that piece of junk F‑18E.
So inevitably, one of these two claims must be a lie.
You know I'm a fan of Russian equipment,
so I'm naturally inclined to believe that the despicable Americans are the ones doing the lying.
And what you said is correct
— thank you!
Last edited:
So why do American aircraft seem to last so long? The American fanboys should take a closer look at how the US actually does it. The original design life wasn't all that impressive – 4,000 to 6,000 hours. But in practice, they often fly well beyond that. There are two ways to achieve this.
1: patching. Apart from replacing aging wiring, the most critical vulnerability is the structural airframe life – and for a fighter, that's fatal. People often see American planes with large patches all over the internal structure and even the external skin. That's the standard American trick – reinforcing failing structures with extra support.
Whether it's the F‑16⁺, F‑15, or F‑18, early‑batch airframes are always covered in these patches. And where the patches go is not the same on every aircraft. Most of them need to be applied uniformly before the structural frame's fatigue life runs out. Just in case anyone didn't get it, there's even a handy red‑highlighted diagram.
By applying structural patches, you can squeeze a bit more life out of an aircraft. The "dogfighting king" F‑16 is the most heavily patched of all – especially the early batches, which prioritized close‑combat performance; without those patches, they wouldn't even reach their original service life. This practice is not exclusive to the US – many countries do it, including the Japanese with their F‑2s, which are technically attack aircraft, not fighters, yet they still get slathered with thick patches. Of course, doing this definitely affects aerodynamics.
How many Gs of maneuvering range can the structural strength still support?
And how much weight was added? Look at the American colony users, who dares to say no?
2. Replace the center fuselage.
The part that takes the most stress on an airframe is the center fuselage – the structure that bears the heaviest G‑loads. For issues that cannot be fixed by slapping on patches, the Americans simply go straight to replacing the entire fuselage. This is the U.S. Navy's favorite trick for the F/A‑18. It's called the Center Barrel Replacement (CBR) method – if you're interested, you can watch the video about it. (Because, you know, nothing says "cutting‑edge longevity" like sawing your jet in half and bolting on a new middle section.)
This is not an assembly line – this is simply taking an F/A‑18C+, cutting it in half, removing the old center fuselage, and bolting on a new structure. That's their idea of "life extension."
Through such methods, the original service life of the F/A‑18 can be boosted from 6,000 hours to 8,000–10,000 hours. As for the A‑10+ and other attack aircraft, they have to go even further – swapping out entire wings just to buy a few more years.
So when you marvel at how American aircraft can last so long, just take a close look at what they have to go through. The money spent on these life‑extension measures alone, by Soviet standards, would be enough to build a brand‑new aircraft from scratch. The Soviets, after all, designed their equipment for attrition warfare – making things cheap and suitable for mass production.
In fact, the wings can also be replaced—take this A-10, for example.
The engines, wings, fuselage, and electronic control systems—everything gets replaced.
It seems that as long as the paint scheme and serial number remain unchanged, the aircraft is considered to be merely undergoing "maintenance."
If you forcibly extend the service life without properly addressing these structural issues, heads will still come off – and that's exactly what happened to the U.S. Air National Guard's F‑15C in 2007.
The F‑15 originally had a 4,000‑hour service life, later stretched to 8,000 hours. And that so‑called 16,000‑hour airframe limit demonstrated in 1973? It was achieved under every possible flight restriction you can imagine.
Back in the 1990s, F‑15s that were nearing 4,000 hours had to have their flight envelope restricted to a paltry Mach 1.5 while they waited for life‑extension work. And for those that didn't receive major overhauls – whether American F‑15s or Japan's F‑15Js – have they ever been short of incidents involving parts falling off and fuselages snapping in half? Hardly.
Heh, a coffee mug that costs tens of thousands, bolts that go for thousands of dollars, extortionate prices for fuselages, wings, and labor – plus doctored service-life figures to justify "maintenance" at astronomical fees, and then, at ten times the price of Russian weaponry, they smugly walk away with the reputation of "long-lived premium hardware." Every level of government is milking the system for every dime, and the hearts of American fanboys are utterly shattered.It's nothing more than self-consolation.
By comparison, the Russian-specified initial service life for the Su-27SK was 2,000 hours; yet in China, they were flown extremely hard—with many exceeding 8,000 hours (spanning over 30 years)—and remain in service today, all without any reports of the Chinese military having to apply structural patches or replace airframes.
The difference is stark.
Last edited:
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that piece of junk, the C-5A. Aside from the fact that Air Force testing revealed its maximum-payload range was only 50% of the manufacturer's hyped figures—and its takeoff distance at max payload was 50% longer than claimed—it required new wings as early as 1988. Yet, not a single one remains in service today; they’re all completely done for. Contrast that with the Il-76: look at how many from that same era are still flying. Has anyone ever even heard of an Il-76 needing a wing replacement?
Then the Americans themselves went and leased An-124s.
Appreciate you taking time to debunk these people.
Then why does VVS keep ordering more Su30s variants? Your entire assertion is stupid, just because USN is choosing to operate both F18E and F35C together doesn't mean that F35 can't replace F18E, just like VVS keeps operating flankers alongside Su57.
Fake news, never happened. Still waiting for you show which fighter has higher crash rate than Mig29K in first 15 years of service. Don't run away from this question bro
It proves that Russian planes are low quality junk, thats why IN is kicking Mig29K out after just 20 years of service. You know like we kick it on the backside?
Whats there to explain? It exploded for whatever reason, how does it matter for IN? Indian navy didn't suffer because of enterprise explosion. Indian navy did suffer due to explosion in the peace of junk called Vikramaditya, whose cost was escalated 3.5 times by blackmailing a navy officer. There is evidence for it. So I know India was fleeced by Russia in that deal.
Tell me something I don't know, moron. Of course deck based fighters have lower availability than land based. Where the hell did I deny that? Problem is Mig29K availability is too low even for a deck based fighter. Thats why IN is kicking it out.The AV-8 takes off and lands vertically – it's not a heavy-loaded deck-launch conventional fixed-wing aircraft. In the U.S. military, the F-15 can usually serve for 30 years, while the F-14 and F-18 have a paper service life of no more than 20 years – and that's just on paper, without even touching on their real-world availability, which in practice is barely half that of land-based fighters.
Seeing how worked up you've gotten after taking that hit, let me stoke the fire a little more.
In fact, the F/A-18E – that trash – suffers a catastrophic drop in durability compared to the F-18C.
By sortie-generation metrics, its lifespan is only half that of the F-18C.
Just how long is the service life of the F-18C?
Heh, for the F-18E, you simply cut that figure by 50%—those clever American engineers, haha.
MiG-29K planes face operation deficiencies: CAG | India News - Times of India
India News: India's mainstream naval fighter jet plane MiG-29K faces operational deficiencies due to defects in engines, airframe and fly-by-wire system leading t
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
By the way, nice try comparing availability of American fighters amongst themselves. You don't have balls to compare availability rates of American fighters with Russian ones, because you know how that will end. Both Mig29K and Su30MKI have had significant availability issues. Which is why IN is moving away from Russian junks and Russia is losing its only export customer of deck based fighters. Now keep crying about how superior Russian engineering is
Its not a notion, its reality. Rafale has been taking off from INS Hansa, and soon it will be taking off from INS Vikramaditya. It doesn't strike a nerve with me, I am happy with Navy's choice, but Russians should really be worried, nobody wants to buy their "superior" engineered fightersAnd the very notion of the Rafale and F/A-18 performing ski‑jump takeoffs is an absolute joke. France and the United States, the countries that build them, don't use them that way themselves – and clearly, that struck a nerve with you. So let me repeat it for you one more time.
Harriers already served 32 years with IN bro, I know accepting reality is hard for somebody high on russian vodka. but thats how it is. Junk Mig29K is going to have just have over half the service life of Harriers in IN.Its alright dude, don't cry, there are basic facts that you can't change:
1. INS Vikramaditya suffered accidents during sea trials and has suffered multiple accidents since. Its a shit ship for which Indian navy was forced to pay more than 3.5 times. We accepted that with a bitter pill as we didn't have any options. But now India has carrier building capability of its own, and we won't let Russian thieves fleece us any longer.
2. Same with Mig29K, this piece of shit was cancelled in Russia. IN revived it from the dead, and because of Indian money, Russia was able to develop it and used it even on its own aircraft carriers. But because of poor russian engineering, the aircraft had record high crash rate and record low availability. Navy was forced to seek replacements for it much earlier than planned, which has resulted in lot of money being diverted which could have been used for purchasing more ships.
3. Nowadays Russia doesn't have a carrier itself as its only carrier is being "repaired" since last 9 years. If superior Russian engineers need help, they can ask India, we have an Indian built carrier proudly serving our navy.
If you still want to continue with your delusion that Russian engineering is superior, please carry on, its nothing to me. Just know that nobody else outside Russia accepts it. Thats why "superior" Russian weapons see no export success, and Russia is even losing its biggest historical markets.
Last edited: