US Air Force: Discussion and News

It is funny, when they pick a successor they start to sabotage the plane it replaces.... when the F-18 entered service the F-14 stagnated, and then when the F-35 was developed there was even more pressure on the F-14 to go...

In comparison in Russia the Su-35 actually benefited from the new stuff being developed for the Su-57, and MiG will likely do the same with the MiG-35 and the new twin engined carrier based designs they are working on where the new technology not only moves the new planes forward but also is applied to in service aircraft so the improvements reach the front line much faster so the step up with the new plane is not so steep because it is on all the upgraded aircraft too.

GarryB wrote:It is funny, when they pick a successor they start to sabotage the plane it replaces.... when the F-18 entered service the F-14 stagnated, and then when the F-35 was developed there was even more pressure on the F-14 to go...

In comparison in Russia the Su-35 actually benefited from the new stuff being developed for the Su-57, and MiG will likely do the same with the MiG-35 and the new twin engined carrier based designs they are working on where the new technology not only moves the new planes forward but also is applied to in service aircraft so the improvements reach the front line much faster so the step up with the new plane is not so steep because it is on all the upgraded aircraft too.

That (the Russian incremental approach) is just how proper risk management works, while US MIC runs frontally against it. It is not about different "development cultures", it is about being a scammer or not, plain and simple.

In a sense they were right regarding 5th gen fighters... it seems stealth is not such an advantage to justify the extra cost so they are going back to 4th gen fighters so they can have an affordable fleet of aircraft in service.

But then of course you could argue their 5th gen stealth fighters were expensive because they set the stealth bar too high which made it expensive and yet unlikely to achieve the levels of stealth they were hoping for anyway.

And of course even these brand new 4th gen fighters are going to be more expensive to buy and operate than the 5th gen fighters Russia seems to be introducing...

They can do shiny and flashy but they can't do affordable, which is why I am not hugely worried about their talk of swarms... to create enough platforms the generate a swarm would require cheap affordable technology and I would say China and Russia and even Iran would be better at that than the US could be.

GarryB wrote:In a sense they were right regarding 5th gen fighters... it seems stealth is not such an advantage to justify the extra cost so they are going back to 4th gen fighters so they can have an affordable fleet of aircraft in service.

But then of course you could argue their 5th gen stealth fighters were expensive because they set the stealth bar too high which made it expensive and yet unlikely to achieve the levels of stealth they were hoping for anyway.

And of course even these brand new 4th gen fighters are going to be more expensive to buy and operate than the 5th gen fighters Russia seems to be introducing...

They can do shiny and flashy but they can't do affordable, which is why I am not hugely worried about their talk of swarms... to create enough platforms the generate a swarm would require cheap affordable technology and I would say China and Russia and even Iran would be better at that than the US could be.

You can say the same about the Su-57. I believe it was 10 regiments that were deemed too be too costly so instead you have fewer Felon regiments which can act as a silver bullet to be supported by the Su-35 in the same way the F-22 became a silver bullet rather than wholesale replacement for the F-15.

GarryB wrote:In a sense they were right regarding 5th gen fighters... it seems stealth is not such an advantage to justify the extra cost so they are going back to 4th gen fighters so they can have an affordable fleet of aircraft in service.

But then of course you could argue their 5th gen stealth fighters were expensive because they set the stealth bar too high which made it expensive and yet unlikely to achieve the levels of stealth they were hoping for anyway.

All that would be taking their BS for something with merit, which is not. They used stealth as a sales pitch for milking more money from DoD and then justified their fraud by defending that only their stealth is the "real stealth", while Russians were laughing their *** off all the way. US stealth is both prohibitively expensive, impractical and useless against modern detection means, of which Russia has more than enough already. That does not mean that low RCS design is useless or necessarily expensive, only that US MIC turns everything they touch into a scam.

And of course, the Su-57 was not too expensive or backtracked to make way for "affordable" 4G planes. Again it is just US doing that with the F-22 and F-35, while Russia keeps using common sense, progressively relying on 5G to substitute older planes as it would be logical to do when the new generation is for real and not just another farce.

You can say the same about the Su-57. I believe it was 10 regiments that were deemed too be too costly so instead you have fewer Felon regiments which can act as a silver bullet to be supported by the Su-35 in the same way the F-22 became a silver bullet rather than wholesale replacement for the F-15.

Not really. There were no plans to stop Su-35 production... the Su-57 was never expected to be their standard heavy fighter... they were always going to produce a batch and then get some operational experience with them to see how much they cost to operate and then make a decision as to how many they would buy.

When they first talked about the F-22 one of the things they use to make it sound affordable was to say it would replace existing types on a one for one basis... originally they were talking about 1,500 F-22s to specifically replace the F-15C... but the end of the cold war they slashed that to half... 750... and then they said the number they had made was enough... about 190 or so.

As the numbers were cut it was claimed because they could do the work of 2 or three older gen fighters so that is why they cost two to three times more... except at about 250 million per F-22s they were more than 2-3 times more expensive.

The F-35 was worse because they specifically chose the production model they used for the C-17 which worked out to be terribly inefficient but also ensured the congressmen who controlled the purse strings would keep ordering without even being asked because they were made in their constituents in high unemployment areas...

The F-35 never had a chance.... they sabotaged it themselves to ensure it could not be cancelled but would be much more expensive than they promised.

Even current figures of 80 million dollars per airframe is a cheat because it does not include the price of the 30 million dollar engine... and without an engine you don't have a plane.

They used stealth as a sales pitch for milking more money from DoD and then justified their fraud by defending that only their stealth is the "real stealth",

It was a marketing ploy that made the aircraft orders of magnitude more expensive than they needed to be or was worth paying for.

And of course, the Su-57 was not too expensive or backtracked to make way for "affordable" 4G planes.

They managed the level of stealth to be more easily achievable so in practise it is more difficult to detect, but no so expensive they can't afford to have any.

Stealth is useful but manouverability and a good gun and good missiles are critical too.

Again it is just US doing that with the F-22 and F-35, while Russia keeps using common sense, progressively relying on 5G to substitute older planes as it would be logical to do when the new generation is for real and not just another farce.

Ironically the F-16 and F-18 were both designed better because they gave up mach 2+ speed for lighter weight and simpler design... with more complex air intake/s both aircraft could go faster than mach 2 and mach 1.8 respectively but the amount of time in full AB it takes to get to that speed operationally it never happens so why not make the intakes lighter and simpler and cheaper and easier to maintain... which is what they did.

F-22 was stoped because USSR didn't exist anymore and wasn't needed.

If it was still there you would have 700-800 f-22 right now and probably 500-600 mig-1.44 with a thousands of smaller fighters like f-16/mig-29M on both sides.

Now they face China and they make those f-35 like little breads even if they are just as expensive as f-22.

Isos wrote:F-22 was stoped because USSR didn't exist anymore and wasn't needed.

The USSR collapsed in 1991 and F-22 was commissioned in 2005, almost 15 years later, so they had the time to notice before they went into the series. If the plane was not necessary, they could have delayed the program or cancelled it. What they did instead was yet another scam, one with bad consequences for the USAF force structure in the long run.

Normally they would have cancelled it... like they cancelled that artillery piece that they cancelled and of course the Comanche helicopter they also cancelled.

The F-22 was just way to expensive for them to afford... four for a billion dollars is just too much even when you print your own money.

The F-35 was designed to be cancel proof using the same method they perfected with the C-17 programme and it has succeeded in making it hard to cancel, but has not led to better aircraft for the pilots to fly sadly which should have been their first priority... but obviously their arrogance is that anything we make is the best so the only thing we need to worry about is making it harder for a person in congress to cancel funding for it...

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:F-22 was stoped because USSR didn't exist anymore and wasn't needed.

The USSR collapsed in 1991 and F-22 was commissioned in 2005, almost 15 years later, so they had the time to notice before they went into the series. If the plane was not necessary, they could have delayed the program or cancelled it. What they did instead was yet another scam, one with bad consequences for the USAF force structure in the long run.

The project was going on so they decided to buy some. But if USSR was still there they would have produced much more.

GarryB wrote:The F-35 was designed to be cancel proof using the same method they perfected with the C-17 programme and it has succeeded in making it hard to cancel, but has not led to better aircraft for the pilots to fly sadly which should have been their first priority... but obviously their arrogance is that anything we make is the best so the only thing we need to worry about is making it harder for a person in congress to cancel funding for it...

That is the key of the question, the reversed risk management within those programs. Where Russian MIC introduces a technology demonstrator / intermediate step (Su-35) in the way to the the final product (Su-57) that may eventually work as a B-plan for the air force, the US eliminates any possible alternative to avoid risking the money flowing to their pockets. It is hardly surprising that you fail miserably in a complex program if you practice risk augmentation instead of risk reduction measures...

The project was going on so they decided to buy some. But if USSR was still there they would have produced much more.

I am not sure they would have.

The B-52s and B-1Bs and B-2s have all switched to low altitude penetration of enemy air defences in their strategic roles because flying at altitude it not survivable... and it would be the same for the F-22.

Its party piece was to zip around at supersonic speed in dry thrust at altitude using its superior sensors and the speed and altitude adding to the range of any missiles or bombs it uses to basically fight from the top of the hill using its advantage to take out enemy aircraft before they even know you are there... detection at max range and missile range extended so you can fire on targets that essentially can't fire back because of your kinetic advantage.

Throwing rocks down from a high castle wall is easier and much more effective than standing at the base of that wall trying to throw rocks up at the people on top of the wall.

The problem is that Russian air defences had developed continuously to the point where standing on the wall would get you killed real quick.

The F-22 was great for use against third world countries... flying in taking out the enemy air power and air defence systems and comms and HQs and monitoring everything from out of MANPADS reach, but the ability to achieve the capacity to fly at altitude can only happen with light weak enemies even if they have a lot of planes.

I rather be in a stealthy f-22 than the older f-15.

Stealth gives you a huge advantge.

It gives you an enormous advantage against other western aircraft that are not designed or kitted to fight stealth aircraft yet, but with L band wing mounted radar arrays and IRSTs and rather powerful nose mounted radars and the ability to defeat your missiles I rather suspect both the MiG-35 and Su-35 and Su-57 would be serious problems for all western aircraft... mostly when used as part of an IADS network.

GarryB wrote:It gives you an enormous advantage against other western aircraft that are not designed or kitted to fight stealth aircraft yet, but with L band wing mounted radar arrays and IRSTs and rather powerful nose mounted radars and the ability to defeat your missiles I rather suspect both the MiG-35 and Su-35 and Su-57 would be serious problems for all western aircraft... mostly when used as part of an IADS network.

Back in the 00s when it was bought Russia and China had mainly su-27 that have neither a powerful rader nor L bnd radars.

F-22 would have ruled the skies. Unless USSR kept existing and introduced the mig-1.44.

Of course f-22 was not invicible with shorads and S-300PM2 still being dangerous but it would be the most survivable aircraft.

With USSR dead and China being 3rd world country, 100-200 f-22 were enough.

Was pleased to see this!

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rolls-royce-chosen-by-us-new-b-52-engines-2021-09-27/

LONDON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Rolls-Royce (RR.L) said on Monday it had been selected to provide engines for the United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers, in a contract which could be worth up to $2.6 billion to the British engineering firm.

The F-130 engines, which will be made at Rolls-Royce's Indianapolis, Indiana facility, were chosen as replacement engines for the bombers, for an initial $500 million six-year deal, which could rise to $2.6 billion longer-term.

Shares in Rolls-Royce, which beat incumbent supplier Pratt & Whitney part of U.S. company Raytheon (RTX.N), to win the contract, jumped 5% to 139 pence, their highest level since June 2020.

Jefferies analyst Andy Douglas called it a "good" win and said while it wouldn't change numbers straightaway "it provides additional comfort to longer-term consensus forecasts and is a positive for sentiment."


Report ad
The Pratt engines have powered the famous B-52 aircraft, which can carry nuclear weapons, since the 1960s but will be retired by 2030. The aircraft's manufacturer, Boeing (BA.N), will integrate the new Rolls engines, with the first due for testing by 2025.

Rolls-Royce said its F-130 engine will provide the U.S. with "vastly greater fuel efficiency" while the U.S. said in its statement that it would also increase range and cut maintenance costs.

The new engines will allow the bombers to continue missions into the 2050s.

Back in the 00s when it was bought Russia and China had mainly su-27 that have neither a powerful rader nor L bnd radars.

F-22 would have ruled the skies. Unless USSR kept existing and introduced the mig-1.44.

Not really.
They went to the F-22 because the F-15 would not have lasted long trying to enter Russian air space, and honestly I don't think the F-22 would have done any better...

Russian air power wasn't really the problem.

Of course f-22 was not invicible with shorads and S-300PM2 still being dangerous but it would be the most survivable aircraft.

By the time the US got F-22 the Russians had rather more capable missiles too... S-400 entered service in 2007 and by that stage I doubt they would have had any F-22s to spare to send to Europe...

With USSR dead and China being 3rd world country, 100-200 f-22 were enough.

If the US was a grown up mature country that lived up to its own morals and ethics they would have made Russia and China good allies and would not have needed any F-22s, but that ship has sailed....

LMFS wrote:
All that would be taking their BS for something with merit, which is not. They used stealth as a sales pitch for milking more money from DoD and then justified their fraud by defending that only their stealth is the "real stealth", while Russians were laughing their *** off all the way. US stealth is both prohibitively expensive, impractical and useless against modern detection means, of which Russia has more than enough already. That does not mean that low RCS design is useless or necessarily expensive, only that US MIC turns everything they touch into a scam.

The usual rubbish, from the usual suspect.

If Russians were indeed so sure that stealth is ineffective why did they design stealth aircraft themselves? That too not just one but two. What makes Russian stealth aircraft superior to U.S ones? Zilch

LMFS wrote:And of course, the Su-57 was not too expensive or backtracked to make way for "affordable" 4G planes. Again it is just US doing that with the F-22 and F-35, while Russia keeps using common sense, progressively relying on 5G to substitute older planes as it would be logical to do when the new generation is for real and not just another farce.

Endless list of BULLSHIT.

Russians cannot afford the Su-57 that's the reason why they are increasing the procurement of Su-35, Su-30 and are now coming up with the Checkmate basically a new weakened version of the Su 57.

The Su-75 ("Checkmate") is not less stealthy than the F-35.

JohninMK wrote: its a no-brainer to produce a simple stealthier than 4G aircraft at a market disruptive price.

So to answer your question, the Su-57 they had too make to react to the US hype and maintain their technical reputation, the Checkmate is to exploit the market as it now exists.

Why purchase this simple stealth aircraft themselves? If they had realized that stealth isn't worth it they could have simply exported it riding on the back of the hype that the U.S created.

I understand the word "simple" here as mediocre. Just the front section optimized for stealth like the F-35 with an EW suite much inferior to that of the F-35.

Regarding price the Su 57 is expensive, that's why RuAF has cut back on requirements. Also, who would have purchased the Su-57? The usual clients of Russia: Algeria, Egypt, India, Vietnam etc.
How many Su-57 have they ordered? Even they found it to be pricey. India had to drop out of the joint project because the cost involved was too high.

JohninMK wrote:the Russians could but don't believe in just paying for something by printing more money as that is not a viable long term strategy.

Give me a break.....how will the Russians just print more money when their currency is not fully convertible? Only a few selected countries whose legal tender is "hard currency" can afford to print more money.

Why do you think Russia accepts payments for its exports in hard currency...USD, Euro, GBP? Because they print money like most countries against their foreign reserves.

RTN wrote:The usual rubbish, from the usual suspect.

If Russians were indeed so sure that stealth is ineffective why did they design stealth aircraft themselves? That too not just one but two. What makes Russian stealth aircraft superior to U.S ones? Zilch

You don't even understand what I am talking about do you? It is not about low radar visibility not being an advantage in general, the problem is when you turn that valid argument into an exaggerated sales pitch and you paint yourself into a corner by pursuing radar "invisibility". Your overhyped, unmaintainable, ultra-expensive stealth technology is:
1) Opposed to the cost, simplicity and operability requirements of actual weapons
2) Useless against modern counter-stealth technologies

So it worked phenomenally to drain a colossal amount of money out of your budget and ruin your force planing for several decades, but is still largely ineffective against those peer rivals which are your main concern today. Russia on the other hand did not lost their head over ridiculous marketing claims and unrealistic expectations, adding signature management to their fleet without turning it into useless boutique crap. So, yes, better keep quiet instead of suggesting comparisons between the abject failure of US approach and the path Russia has taken, not even considering that you had everything in your favour and Russia almost everything against them.

Endless list of BULLSHIT.

Russians cannot afford the Su-57 that's the reason why they are increasing the procurement of Su-35, Su-30 and are now coming up with the Checkmate basically a new weakened version of the Su 57.

Hahaha, thanks for making us laugh even harder. It takes a LOT of cheek, or to be really retarded, to attack Russia's recent success in the face of US' current face-melting, circus-like air power strategy, probably the biggest fuckup of modern military planing.

Su-57 was, according to geniuses like yourself, doomed just a couple of years ago. Then the 76 units order came and your lot astutely crawled beneath the rocks they came out from, not to make it even clearer that they had been full of shit for the last 20 years. Now you say they cannot afford the plane, despite them ordering it in big amounts and proceeding at high pace with the further modernization of the design and ramp up of the production. Or that they increasing procurement of 4.5G planes, when the facts are the exact opposite. Baseless claims which you don't seem embarrassed about making, but you are perceived quite differently from the outside, I can tell you. The latest projection in your wish list is that they need to develop the LTS since they cannot pay for the Su-57, again based in nothing but sour feelings and having zero clue about the cost of the plane, the availability of funds or any other element a functioning brain would require to make such a call. Shameless.

LTS is a quite normal, expected development any air force would take, the classical hi-lo mix USAF and VKS have been using for ages. But no, F-16 is a proof F-15 is a failure, F-35 a proof USAF cannot afford F-22... and you say this, while your deficit runs wild and Russia has a ridiculous amount of debt... talking about cheek

Keep coming for more, another day we can talk about your new 4.5G substitute for the F-16 or newly bought F-15EX

kvs wrote:The Su-75 ("Checkmate") is not less stealthy than the F-35.  

Both have not lot of space inside so they will carry weapons externally which means stealth being on par with 4.5 gen fighters.

If they carry only inside weapons they are not really dangerous.

Just the front section optimized for stealth like the F-35 with an EW suite much inferior to that of the F-35.

When did you test it ?

Regarding price the Su 57 is expensive, that's why RuAF has cut back on requirements. Also, who would have purchased the Su-57? The usual clients of Russia: Algeria, Egypt, India, Vietnam etc.

They went from 24 to 76 aircraft ordered. That's not cutting back.

The usual rubbish, from the usual suspect.

If Russians were indeed so sure that stealth is ineffective why did they design stealth aircraft themselves? That too not just one but two. What makes Russian stealth aircraft superior to U.S ones? Zilch

If stealth is the silver bullet then why did the US take an enormous risk of sending Apache attack helicopters to take out Iraqs large long range radars in the early 1990s... surely the F-117 could just fly in and bomb those with impunity and their fighters wouldn't even know it was there... like a modern drone or cruise missile over Saudi Arabia...

What makes the Russian stealth aircraft superior to US ones.... well they are affordable... they are designed to fight stealth aircraft whereas US stealth fighters seem to be optimised to destroy the 4th gen fighters of third world countries with limited air defence capabilities... For goodness sake Israel can't even use F-35s over Syria safely... it is easy when every air defence position is working on its own, but when networked together they become rather formidable.

Russians cannot afford the Su-57 that's the reason why they are increasing the procurement of Su-35, Su-30 and are now coming up with the Checkmate basically a new weakened version of the Su 57.

They don't want an entire fleet of stealth fighters... just like they want riflemen in their infantry platoons and don't just want all snipers.

For many duties even Su-35s and Su-30s will be too much so they are also buying MiG-35s.

The Checkmate, as they stated is intended mostly for export and was not expected to be in widespread Russian service... only the west can afford to spend trillions on fighter planes... most other countries have rather more important things to spend their funds on and are accountable to their tax paying public...

At about 40 million and about 50 million per aircraft the MiG-35 and Su-35 are about the cheapest quality fighters you can buy internationally...

Given the timescale of the decision to do it, maybe the Russians felt that they had to politically as they were not fully aware of the of the reality that would exist 15 years later? Then, having studied the technical environment that exists now, they look at the potential market for fighters and realise that, given the stealth hype that exists, its a no-brainer to produce a simple stealthier than 4G aircraft at a market disruptive price.

Stealth is like camouflage... it makes sense to hide yourself and your shape and not wear bright distinctive colours that make you easy to spot and identify... but having everyone running around in a ghillie suit makes little sense either... the key there is running... if you are running around no level of camouflage will hide you... it makes more sense to use local terrain to hide behind... like Israeli F-35s behind hills in neighbouring countries...

The Su-75 ("Checkmate") is not less stealthy than the F-35.

The F-35 loses its tail when it operates its AB for more than 90 seconds which is not long enough to achieve supersonic flight...

Why purchase this simple stealth aircraft themselves?

We don't know if they are going to buy any Checkmate aircraft, but then who would not want an affordable stealthy fighter?

If they had realized that stealth isn't worth it they could have simply exported it riding on the back of the hype that the U.S created.

The Soviets and Russians have known about US stealth bombers and fighters for 40+ years now and their SAMs are optimised to deal with such threats... you can't say the same for the west... by the time the west has hypersonic manouvering missiles the Russians likely will already have SAMs that can deal with them... they can already deal with cruise missile attacks and now drones too...

I understand the word "simple" here as mediocre. Just the front section optimized for stealth like the F-35 with an EW suite much inferior to that of the F-35.

You don't even know what its EW suite involves... but I am guessing if the Checkmate can fly supersonic and is as cheap as they claim then it will be checkmate...

Regarding price the Su 57 is expensive, that's why RuAF has cut back on requirements. Also, who would have purchased the Su-57? The usual clients of Russia: Algeria, Egypt, India, Vietnam etc.

They have ordered a first batch of about 76 aircraft... which is actually pretty normal... if the Checkmate shares components then that should reduce costs even further... the Su-57 with its L band radar and powerful main radar and IRST is a hunter designed for any threats including stealthy ones... pretty much just what Russia wants, but the US will struggle to penetrate the Russian IADS network no matter what aircraft they try to use.

How many Su-57 have they ordered? Even they found it to be pricey. India had to drop out of the joint project because the cost involved was too high.

Their order was larger than the first order for Su-35s, which shows they have confidence. India made all sorts of demands but was not prepared to pay for all the changes itself so they decided to drop out of the development phase and just buy them off the shelf and modify them then like they did with the Su-30MKI programme.

Give me a break.....how will the Russians just print more money when their currency is not fully convertible? Only a few selected countries whose legal tender is "hard currency" can afford to print more money.

Only one country on the planet gets away with money printing and that is the US... for any other country that devalues their money and makes it worthless.

The US using its money as a weapon is devaluing it as an international trade currency... it cannot end well...

Why do you think Russia accepts payments for its exports in hard currency...USD, Euro, GBP?

They are under US sanction which limits their ability to use and get access to US dollars so they are moving away from USD to other currencies like the ruble or the chinese currency. Selling products in foreign currencies means they don't need to buy those currencies when they want to buy things from those countries in those currencies... but they don't need US dollars and have taken the time to remove US dollars from all of their transactions...

So, yes, better keep quiet instead of suggesting comparisons between the abject failure of US approach and the path Russia has taken, not even considering that you had everything in your favour and Russia almost everything against them.

To be fair it was very easy for Russia to take the route they took because they simply could not waste that amount of money and resources on such things the way the US did.

Hahaha, thanks for making us laugh even harder. It takes a LOT of cheek, or to be really retarded, to attack Russia's recent success in the face of US' current face-melting, circus-like air power strategy, probably the biggest fuckup of modern military planing.

Again, to be fair... no one in the US is owning this stupidity or that the Russians are anything but wrong so essentially ensuring this bus crash is an ongoing thing that will continue. How can they say Russia made some good choices and we got it totally wrong because they are the bad guys and we are perfect aren't we?

Perhaps countries like the UK or France or Germany can talk to them about what it feels like to be all powerful... and then to have that taken away... because the US needs to learn about its future. Its behaviour so far has been terrible and when their power diminishes and with it their military shrinks because they simply can't afford to waste that sort of money on defence when no one is interested in invading them, they will need to learn to talk to people like they are people rather than down to them like they are pets or obstacles in their way.

But of course we are just all jealous of their freedoms and their democracy with their two political parties that look more alike than different from the outside.

Both have not lot of space inside so they will carry weapons externally which means stealth being on par with 4.5 gen fighters.

If they carry only inside weapons they are not really dangerous.

But that is where their differences are most stark... the Checkmate will be in service in large numbers... if Russia buys them they will likely buy them in enormous numbers... 300-400 because they are so cheap and so affordable to actually operate, and most of the other countries buying them will likely buy them in huge numbers too because having them in large numbers makes them much more capable but it can be afforded by countries who simply could not afford to have say a Rafale or F-35 in useful numbers and operate them too.