Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

User avatar
Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Ribar » Thu 16 Feb 2017 22:33

Ok, I think I didn't express myself clearly enough :

If Nazi Germany with it's economy that was weaker than that of the back then USA could build weapons that were superior and develop major prototypes of new generations that were in certain fields ahead of the Allied best, then why does it appear that Yugoslavia that had history in importing and improving weapons could not build a contemporary (not superior as people point out in forum) weapon that can match it's rivals? Or improve/modify units like Neva M1T (how much different is that one from EOTS HAWK ?) and SAVA ? :?

Why does it appear absurd that Yugoslavia could field contemporary weapons, it's nothing better than what other major nation's arsenals have? It produced Orkans, it produced M-84 tank that was based on T-72M, it produced M-80 IFV, so why not next generation plane like the Swedes do with Gripen or something else?

What I wanted to point out is that much larger economy does not warrant way better military and equipment in peace time if the other side invests much into R&D.
With the fall of the WP projects as EF were introduced in 2000s, but that was because there was no longer a "threat", same happened to F-22, but if WP managed to survive somehow those planes would probably see the official deployment before 2000s, same analogy could be drawn for NA that was never finished because of country's collapse.
Image :mrgreen:

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby codextero » Thu 16 Feb 2017 22:46

Ribar wrote:Ok, I think I didn't express myself clearly enough :

If Nazi Germany with it's economy that was weaker than that of the back then USA could build weapons that were superior and develop major prototypes of new generations that were in certain fields ahead of the Allied best, then why does it appear that Yugoslavia that had history in importing and improving weapons could not build a contemporary (not superior as people point out in forum) weapon that can match it's rivals? Or improve/modify units like Neva M1T (how much different is that one from EOTS HAWK ?) and SAVA ? :?

Why does it appear absurd that Yugoslavia could field contemporary weapons, it's nothing better than what other major nation's arsenals have? It produced Orkans, it produced M-84 tank that was based on T-72M, it produced M-80 IFV, so why not next generation plane like the Swedes do with Gripen or something else?

What I wanted to point out is that much larger economy does not warrant way better military and equipment in peace time if the other side invests much into R&D.
With the fall of the WP projects as EF were introduced in 2000s, but that was because there was no longer a "threat", same happened to F-22, but if WP managed to survive somehow those planes would probably see the official deployment before 2000s, same analogy could be drawn for NA that was never finished because of country's collapse.


Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby GARGEAN » Thu 16 Feb 2017 23:22

codextero wrote:Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.

Well nuh. MiG-21 was cheaper to build that BMP-1. And that's not because BMP-1 was incredibly costly.

User avatar
Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Ribar » Thu 16 Feb 2017 23:44

codextero wrote:Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.


You are right, it takes a lot to develop a plane compared to other "small" units. Yugo co-developed J-22 Orao with Romania, and was working on NA together with France, so it clearly isn't a solo feat and Yugo had history of building trainer and light bomber/CAS aircraft (if you could clasify J-22 as CAS), but if the Swedes can develop a modern fighter (they do have the tradition of building fighters on their side and stable economy), why wouldn't undissolved Yugo with France develop modern fighter aircraft with adequate funds that would probably be given if the country didn't collapse and our relations remained good until '95 in alternate timeline? Israel, a smaller country than Yugo, developed Lavi together with the US.
It is a whole other level when you argue for NA compared to M-91 Vihor tank, but then we end up with only 1 Yugo proto that resembles a unicorn, that would be NA. I won't deny that.
Image :mrgreen:

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby nuke92 » Fri 17 Feb 2017 01:56

It was all done in cooperation.
Last edited by nuke92 on Fri 17 Feb 2017 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby codextero » Fri 17 Feb 2017 02:24

GARGEAN wrote:
codextero wrote:Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.

Well nuh. MiG-21 was cheaper to build that BMP-1. And that's not because BMP-1 was incredibly costly.


Got a source for this?

Curious because the year-on-year procurement cost for the Mig-23 program was supposed to be higher than all AFV programs combined, and there are a lot fewer Mig-23's than tanks+BMP's in any given year.

According to the CIA anyways.

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby GARGEAN » Fri 17 Feb 2017 02:37

codextero wrote:Got a source for this?

Curious because the year-on-year procurement cost for the Mig-23 program was supposed to be higher than all AFV programs combined, and there are a lot fewer Mig-23's than tanks+BMP's in any given year.

According to the CIA anyways.

Well, that's MiG-21, not 23. And it was most produced jet ever with more that 10k only in USSR, without EB, India or China. Particulary price was from MiG-21MF. Will try to find a source tomorrow.

User avatar
MARDER
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri 20 Jul 2012 00:42
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby MARDER » Fri 17 Feb 2017 14:13

codextero wrote:
Ribar wrote:Ok, I think I didn't express myself clearly enough :

If Nazi Germany with it's economy that was weaker than that of the back then USA could build weapons that were superior and develop major prototypes of new generations that were in certain fields ahead of the Allied best, then why does it appear that Yugoslavia that had history in importing and improving weapons could not build a contemporary (not superior as people point out in forum) weapon that can match it's rivals? Or improve/modify units like Neva M1T (how much different is that one from EOTS HAWK ?) and SAVA ? :?

Why does it appear absurd that Yugoslavia could field contemporary weapons, it's nothing better than what other major nation's arsenals have? It produced Orkans, it produced M-84 tank that was based on T-72M, it produced M-80 IFV, so why not next generation plane like the Swedes do with Gripen or something else?

What I wanted to point out is that much larger economy does not warrant way better military and equipment in peace time if the other side invests much into R&D.
With the fall of the WP projects as EF were introduced in 2000s, but that was because there was no longer a "threat", same happened to F-22, but if WP managed to survive somehow those planes would probably see the official deployment before 2000s, same analogy could be drawn for NA that was never finished because of country's collapse.


Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.



Its one thing to slap some stuff on a t72 chassy and call it a new tank. A whole other beast it is to develop a plane from scratch with domestic resurces. As to put salt in the wound its better then 29 and f16 by guys that have zero expirance or facilits to do so.

Some yugo fanboy did go full fanfiction.
As bad as the iraqi spoksman denieing americans being in bagdad.

User avatar
Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Ribar » Fri 17 Feb 2017 14:36

MARDER wrote:
codextero wrote:Developing and building planes is a lot harder than developing tanks for one, that's always been true dating back to WW2. The price of a P-51 Mustang was about twice as much as that of an M4 Sherman. A B-24 Liberator costs around 5-6 times as much. In fact, the only tanks that came close to the price of planes was the Tiger. Jump forward a few decades and you have the US buying F-4's for $2.5 million and M60 Pattons for about 1/4th as much. The gap only increases as planes become more and more reliant on sophisticated avionics, which get expensive FAST. Each F-15 costs $20 million in 1980, an Abrams not even 3.



Its one thing to slap some stuff on a t72 chassy and call it a new tank. A whole other beast it is to develop a plane from scratch with domestic resurces. As to put salt in the wound its better then 29 and f16 by guys that have zero expirance or facilits to do so.

Some yugo fanboy did go full fanfiction.
As bad as the iraqi spoksman denieing americans being in bagdad.


Ribar wrote:It is a whole other level when you argue for NA compared to M-91 Vihor tank, but then we end up with only 1 Yugo proto that resembles a unicorn, that would be NA. I won't deny that.


But then because of one unicorn that stands out of the line you call all of the Yugo projects a big joke. And it's wasn't a solo Yugo project but join project with France, and Yugo had experience in building planes, but every type of plane.

I won't reply on this thread as this is too derailing (sorry for that).
I'm done wasting my time with people who take one example and then make generalization over everything else that appears next.
Image :mrgreen:

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Oktoberfest » Fri 17 Feb 2017 14:58

Ribar wrote:
But then because of one unicorn that stands out of the line you call all of the Yugo projects a big joke. And it's wasn't a solo Yugo project but join project with France, and Yugo had experience in building planes, but every type of plane.

I won't reply on this thread as this is too derailing (sorry for that).
I'm done wasting my time with people who take one example and then make generalization over everything else that appears next.


France was supplying the weapon system, the associated codes and the engine. If it had also to supply the whole electronic system as well as the Airframe's technology to make the "Baby Rafale", then France could also field the Novi Avion in its deck.

The Yugo Project is not a joke, it just made really wild assumptions for a country this size.

Iraq made their local T72 variant, Yugo made the M-84, other nations had their "upgraded" export monkey model and adapted soviet weapon system. But the Novi Avion is a level way higher than what the ORAO is. The global cost of the Rafale is 46,4 billion euros ! I doubt Yugoslavia would have been able to spend so much money on a modern fighter while spending money on other defence projects.

And even France spent years and billions to iron out the issues faced with the Rafale, a plane fully developped in France with french suppliers and a complete french cultural approach.

Look at what recently happened in the indian MMRA call for tender. India entered final negotiation round with the Rafale Team in the optic to build a large part of the Rafale deal under licence at the HAL plants. But even though France was willing to provide the know-how and the technology to the indians to produce them locally, India bailed out, because it's simply too complex ! And HAL is already experienced with the Tejas or the SU-30MKI, while also working on their own stealth fighter.

Adapting its thinking to a foreign cultural way of doing things is very difficult, and I doubt that even in the best cases, Yugoslavia got a working prototype before the second half of the 90's.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests