Slashdot Mirror
Own Your Own Fighter Jet
gimmebeer writes "The Russian Sukhoi SU-27 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (more than 1,300 mph) and has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 to 1. That means it can accelerate while climbing straight up. It was designed to fight against the best the US had to offer, and now it can be yours for the price of a mediocre used business jet."
So now that I won my own combat jets, anybody got a slightly used aircraft carrier up for sale?
"His name was James Damore."
Paying to keep this bad boy in the air won't come cheap. I wonder how trigger-happy the US Airforce might get if they stumbled across an SU-27 over US soil though... does it still have weapon hardpoints on the wings? TFA doesn't really address that, it just says "They don't have any weapons."
I was curious about Concorde replacements a while back and researched some of the Soviet fighters. Unfortunately they tend to have short ranges at top speed. If they could just increase the fuel capacity of a two-seater, they'd have a Concorde substitute. The ticket would probably be a lot more though, since you've got one plane and one passenger.
If you don't have the range for a trans-Atlantic hop, having supersonic capability isn't too useful in the US. You're not allowed to fly supersonic over land here because of the boom.
Maybe it'll sell in some other country where the uber-wealthy have a shorter distance to travel, and no noise restrictions.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
As a former USAF avionics specialist, these things are a maintenance bear (npi). the maintenance ratio is measured in 10s of hours per flight hours. However, removing combat related systems will lighten the load and reduce certain maintenance cost.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Bull, but nice try at humor. If they were to put surplus F4s on the market, there would also be a glut of spare parts. The F4 is one of the most plentiful in the boneyard.
He said F-14, not F-4. The Tomcat, not the Phantom. The only F-14s still in operation are located in Iran, and they were the sole purchasers of F-14 spare parts after the aircraft was retired in the US. This is why the production and sale of F-14 parts was halted back in 2007.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k
Here are some fighter jet stories from 2006: Buying A Fighter Jet? and another from Wired: Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time [2005]
"I'd go for this instead of a business jet. Far more fun and you don't have to worry if the engines fail - you can always use the ejection seat."
Sure, but of course it's your 5 million dollar jet you're ejecting from and not tax-payers, not to mention the bill the US gov't might hit you with for having to clean up the jet scattered over 10 acres.
Of course this is a good deal for drug traffickers. With a 4,000 kg normal payload capacity and cocaine selling for $23,000 per kg you'd make almost 100 million in one trip, and who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
When I was younger, I remember touring the Air National guard and asking the tour leader if I could by a fighter jet. He responded that to own a fighter jet, I'd have to find one in the Arizona boneyard and it would cost about 5 million dollars. In the 80's, the F16 cost 5 million each (or so I was told...)
However, even had I the money today, I'm not so sure I would buy one.
My uncle was in the Air Force, and actually flew in an F4 phantom. He had three remarks:
Today, I'm content to fly simulators because I can get a feel for the experience without the attendant risk and cost. Were I flying a 5 million dollar aircraft, I would be very reticent to try the kind of manuevers I do in the simulator, simply because of the risk involved. In the simulator, I can try spins and stalls and rolls that prudence would forbid in the real world.
But it would still be cool to own a fighter jet.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I saw that commercial too... ...oh it's Russian?
What's the Russian equivalent of Pepsi?
Actually, the Russian K36 ejection seats are no more (or less) capable than the standard Aces II seat that all US fighters use. They are both very capable seats. The Aces II has a "success" rate of about 90% when operating outside the ejection envelope and about 95% within the envelope. The Russian design has similar statistics. Both are capable of 0-0 ejections, meaning that the pilot can eject from a stopped aircraft as 0 feet altitude and safely land. Most of the times, this feature is used when the aicraft is taking off or landing. There are several instances of both designs where aircraft doing low approaches had to eject with amazing results.
I think the difference in speed you are referring to is that the Russian seat is measured in kilometers and the US seat is in Knots. The Russian design is rated to about 1400kph, while the US design is 600 knots. If you do the simple math, that doesn't make them equal, until you realize that 600 knots is much much faster at altitude (because of air density,) where kilometers is a fixed distance. 600 knots at sea level is about ~1100kph, but at 35,000 feet, it is ~1400kph.
Remember, the limiting factor isn't the seat itself, it's that soft squishy part that the seat is design to hold. Russian or US designs don't differ in that respect.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Not only that, but the US has even been pissy about salvage efforts. Technically, "Property of US Government" is a label that is legally binding unless they sell it to you. People interested in old warbirds for example will go out and drag up wrecked World War II fighters to restore. Some out of jungles, some out of the ocean - wherever they can find them, but they're pretty much all just junk heaps that will need a fortune sank into them to make them flyable again. IIRC, while the Navy and Marine Corps is somewhat lenient on the issue (there was no Air Force around back them), the Army has still been known to confiscate the 70 year old junk heaps claiming that they're still US Army Property.
If they're being that picky with piston engine prop-powered planes, they're definately not going to let you privately own a US military fighter jet.
In reality though, when you compare fuel burn and such, aside from pure coolness factor, it's not remotely economical for a private citizen to own a fighter jet for personal recreational flying. Besides, once you actually get into flying, most pilots find it more satisfying to fly much slower (since I, and most other private pilots I know, fly more for fun and scenery than to actually travel anywhere). A Kitfox for example is pretty close to my dream plane. High wing, small, good fuel economy, stalls at about 35MPH, and top speed is between 95-120 MPH depending on what engine it's using :).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The problem is for a lot of clueless users, .com is what everything on the Internet ends with. They aren't aware there are other addresses. They are especially unaware of the .gov address, since it is fairly rare. So a lot of government agencies have said "To hell with it," and registered their .com address. The post office was one of the first I can think of. www.usps.gov still works, but just redirects you to www.usps.com which is their site now. They are still a government agency, they just use a .com address.
This was one of my reasons for leaving the USAF and going to Lam Research. Under G.H.W. Bush, we had a single "cann bird". Under Clinton, funds were drying up, parts were coming slow, and we went to 2 cann birds. Then 3 cann birds. Then, I was being told to sign off red x's that I didn't want to sign off.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
> now it seems that USA considers withholding some important systems,
> meaning the version sold will be inferior to the equivalent operated
> by US forces. And this is to nato allies.
That's okay. If said allies want those systems, they can fab them themselves, although they may have to purchase the specifications and other engineering documents from the Chinese.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
There's nothing stopping you from owning and flying surplus military aircraft- even fighters. There are tons of them out there, especially cold war trainers from both sides (think t-38). There are even a few people out there flying their own p-51's, although each time one crashes the number goes down permanently. There are private businesses that will even fly you around in one.
Here's one:
http://millionairesconcierge.com/fighterjets.htm
Here's an extensive list of businesses:
http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/rentride.htm
---
Yes, you are correct that you would be limited to mach .9 just like our own military. The air force stopped flying supersonic over the mainland shortly after this fiasco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests
The primary reason these surplus jets would be unrealistic to own is the maintenance involved. You could do it yourself, if you knew every aircraft-specific system well enough to sign off on your own repairs. You'd spend a few weeks doing maintenance for every flight hour. Finding parts would be a nightmare. The engine alone would keep you on the ground for seemingly minor issues. Or you could hire a crew to do your maintenance, and put your life in their hands. The going rate for a freelance certified NDI tech with his own equipment is about $200-400/hr. Maintenance costs many, many times the original price of any fighter aircraft.
I work in air combat combat command aircraft maintenance, fwiw.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Civilian operated aircraft in the US aren't allowed to have ejection seats. All of the privately owned warbirds have to have their ejection systems removed or rendered inoperable.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.