I was just wondering why are some countries still buying old western junk like the F-15s (South Korea, Singapore, Japan..etc) when there may be better aircraft out there, eg, Su-30, MiG-29 (China, Malaysia, Thailand...just to name a few in the Asian region as it might just be the next flashpoint). I'm not pretending to be the most knowledgable military buff out there, but I'm quite sure the F-15s and F-16s are outclassed by the more recent Russian fighters. Why are some countries continuing to purchase these outdated Western fighters when they could have gone for the more technologically advanced Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale?
2006-08-10 04:58:19 · 12 answers · asked by JMZ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Number one reason, cost. Also, the two former Soviet examples that you gave are nearly as old as the F-15, and the F-15 outlcasses them both, although there are some VERY impressive Russian aircraft outhere, such as the new Su-37 Flanker, which has perfomance somewhat similar to the F/A-22 Raptor and the European Typhoon.
But try this answer. Would you sell your best technology to someone who might one day be your enemy? (Yes, I know that the Clinton administration sold nuke tech to China, and I still think that at the very least he should be flogged, but that is for another forum)
2006-08-11 00:39:38 · answer #1 · answered by The_moondog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First I disagree that SU-30 & Mig-29 are more capable aircraft. The F-15 is quite probably the most successful Air Superiority Fighter to ever fly with over 200 air to air kills without a single loss in air to air combat. F-22 Raptor makes them all look like WWII Prop fighters by comparison however.
2006-08-10 10:39:31 · answer #2 · answered by Tower of T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The F15, F16 and F18 are capable of dealing with any of the other aircraft you mentioned. The cost of supporting the current crop of US fighters is much lower due to longer time between overhauls and the availability of spare parts is much greater.
The Russians still build their aircraft as a "disposable" unit. The airframe has a short life span as does the engine.
The Euro fighters are fairly capable, but the availability of spares is problematic.
Give the people of South Korea, Singapore and Japan some credit. They know how to run a cost/benefit analysis as well as anyone.
2006-08-16 14:30:10 · answer #3 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
F-15s and 16s are just as capable as the MIG 29 and and SU 30. And to answer your question most countries can only buy older aircraft because A.) they are way cheaper than newer ones and that is all the country can afford. and B.) A country like the US or UK is not going to sell cutting edge technology because they want to remain technologically superior. That's how superpowers stay superpowers.
2006-08-10 05:19:51 · answer #4 · answered by knmardix 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is quality the MiG and su-30 are not as capable as upgraded F-15 and F-16 and F-18. It's not the agility that wins it's the fire control system and a competent pilot. Also russian planes are gas hogs and spend almost twice as much time in maintenance as u.s. planes. European planes are just as good as u.s. planes they just take forever to build or deliver. The only advantage of russian planes is there are alot of em and there cheap and the builder sells to anybody with the cash.
2006-08-14 07:37:10 · answer #5 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are being sold by the governments who own them to get some money back, and most countries do not have the ability to build aircraft, ships, submarines, etc., so they by from other countries. The U.S. has been selling "surplus" equipment like this for a long time.
2006-08-10 05:03:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
on an identical time as the Mosquito seems to be the apparent answer, it wont fit the define "little established". The wood Terror is extremely properly established. next stands out as the Beaufighter, utilized by applying the U. S. and Israelis so as that it would be in contact interior the Suez disaster. inspite of the undeniable fact that it too will not be able to be called "little established" the main probable candidate could be the A-20/P-70/DB-7 Havoc/Boston. i've got self belief that its the airplane you're pointing out. regrettably no information of its air victories might desire to be got here across.
2016-11-04 07:06:25 · answer #7 · answered by ravelo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
f15 and f16 are still better than the MIG and the Eurofighter. Believed me. time and time again their records in exercise with these other planes have proven to be better.
just because they are the later invention or in service does not constitute them to be the best.
2006-08-10 12:08:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Experience Real Flight Simulation Guaranteed - http://LatestFlightSimulator.com
2016-02-04 06:05:15 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are more on the issue just the hardware itself, you need to get support like spares, technical know how to maintenance the aircraft, to have pilot to fly, all the ppl support the aircraft need to understand the system in order to maint it. therefore to get the US or UK items is much easy for Asia country than get it from USSR
2006-08-10 06:44:54 · answer #10 · answered by mickeycatty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋