Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

cirvine11 said:

If Argentina can summon the political will-it would have to happen before the two QE's come online. Also-Argentina needs new fighters and the ability to project them far out at sea. I would imagine China would be a great place to look. Also, they may want to taje a trip to Navantia shipyard and have a look at some of their affordable light CV designs. A force of say 6 AIP SSs and a CV as distant cover for the landing force. IF the Argies to try again-THEY MUST attack the main weakness of the British position-the 6,000 mile logistical train.

Click to expand...

Argentina has nothing that time that can hit that far. (land based, carrier wise it is another story)
their main strike aircraft was Super Étendard, and no long range maritime patrol to search the shear volumn of ocean to coordinate the strike missions.

to do what you suggested,
Argentina would need some long legged MPAs. even some biz jet fitted with pods would be nicer than nothing.
and a long legged striker such as JH-7A.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Argentina have six Lockheed Orion P-3ARA currently in service:



I think they count as a "long-legged" MPAs, don't you agree? The Super Etendarts of the COAN are scheduled to be upgraded to the SEM standard ¿soon?, after the initial announcement no more news are released about this program. Do you know any recent news, Miragedriver?

JH-7s? It's available for export? I don't know much about them, how effective are in its role? I know than its powerplant is very reliable but underpowered for an aircraft of its size and weight. Perhaps a comparation against the Super Etendard Modernisé (SEM) would help.

Greetings from Perú

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Ian_PD said:

Sorry, but keep aircraft lined in open doesn't means than this are left essentially to become rust. Being more specific, not the entire MiG-31 fleet is scheduled to be upgraded and keep in service, also the MiG-29, an small batch is going to be upgraded an the rest is going to be withdraw from service and replaced with newer aircraft, like the MiG-35 (recently anounced in MAKS).


Did you ever saw a russian aircraft in open storage? I did, here we have our remaining Su-22 fleet in open storage and the airframes are in very good condition. I think than you are speaking about western fighters, specially the F-16, which need all the care than can you provide it even in service.


I'm sorry, but your information is completely outdated, I'm talking about the remaining Moldavian MiG-29s, left after the massive US acquisition and some small sales abroad (Eritrea was one client, if I remember well), and the remaining six MiG-29S were completely overhaul in Baranovichi (Belarus) between 1998-1999 and receive a ten-years calendar extension, but the were little used by the Moldavian Air Force, and after the calendar extension expired in 2008, this aircraft were carefully stored and mantained since then until today. They are an interesting option for the Peruvian Air Force, but we are seeking also other sources to increase our MiG-29 fleet.

Do not generalize, you are assuming than the russian are all negligent with their aircraft, and that's totally false. Also, an aircraft in open-storage were not always abandoned to the elements.

Greetings from Perú.

Click to expand...

Explain this:

That's a top of the line Tu-160 Blackjack! It probably won't ever fly again, at this stage of deterioration.


How about some Su-27's as well?


Compared to storage like this F-16C:


Or how about these F/A-18A's?



Or these F-4 Phantoms?


How about something bigger: a KC-135E?

Now tell me, which will require more work, reactivating those Russian fighters, or the US fighters? I bet the good folks at Davis-Monthan AFB can pull those F-4's out and have them flight ready in a few weeks, even though they have been sitting in storage for almost 2 decades. It will take a lot longer for those Russian aircraft to be pulled out of long term storage.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Ian_PD said:

Sorry my friend, but you are completely wrong, the purchase of our MiG-29 and Su-25 fleet was not only knew and approved by the Russian Federation, but they also provided an MiG-29UB new from stock in replacement of one of the two MiG-29UB purchased to Belarus, because the latter didn't comply with the Peruvian requirements (which were quite high). The Peruvian Air Force choose the best units of both aircraft from Belarusian stocks, airframes with no less than the 90% of its calendar life (that's why we rejected the UB). The Belarusian deal also includes training, spares, armament (including BVR missiles, a novelty in South America) and support for the entire fleet (it was a bargain, really) .

Click to expand...

Perdón amigo…. However, I’m just repeteing what I have read in many newpapers and publication. Below are but two examples:

“The issue of licensing has been a contentious one for RSK MiG and Belarus before. Belarus exported some MiG-29s to Peru in 1999, beating off Russian competition for the contract on price. RSK MiG refused to provide any spares support for the Peruvian MiGs in response.”

See complete article in Russian Journal dated Thursday December 12, 2001



“Now they've begun taking delivery, but there's a problem. The planes may never be ready for combat, because it turns out that they come without a warranty or service contract.
The planes are Soviet-era MIG-29's, by far the most modern in Latin America, where the United States has long tried to forestall a high-tech arms race. They were bought not from Russia, where they were built, but from Belarus, which these days has to rely on the Russians to service its own air force. And the Russians, who would have liked to make the sale themselves, are simply refusing to service merchandise bought from a competitor.”


See complete article in The New York Times dated May 31, 1997

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Ian_PD said:

Argentina have six Lockheed Orion P-3ARA currently in service:

I think they count as a "long-legged" MPAs, don't you agree? The Super Etendarts of the COAN are scheduled to be upgraded to the SEM standard ¿soon?, after the initial announcement no more news are released about this program. Do you know any recent news, Miragedriver?

Click to expand...

Personally I have no great love for the Super Etendard; it’s just a glorified second-generation attack aircraft. When you factor in the limited range and limited payload (around 2.000 kg) it’s just not up to the task of covering the large area of the South Atlantic.
With that said, I believe that the Fuerza Aérea Naval is considering the purchase of upgrade Super Etendards from the French Navy stocks. I image it will be the ones with low amount of carrier landing and will be zero airframe refurbished.
I would prefer to have the Fuerza Aérea Naval sell the aircraft to Brazil and purchase a squadron of JH-7B with Yingji-82 anti shipping missiles. Even if you carry just two missiles the other three hardpoints can have drop-tanks.

[/URL]

[/URL]

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I already knew both articles, they are part of the campaign against Fujimori initiated by the Toledo administration than I explained before. The Peruvian Air Force is not very good managing its image and information, even in Peru that version (Belarusian "junk") is still widely know and accepted as a fact. Just recently we have a local press media specialized in Defence and Military Technology, as the (directed by Cesar Cruz, a corresponsal of Jane's Defence Weekly), (a naval online magazine recently established, I wrote a couple of articles for them), this media is slowly changing this situation, seeking to explain how and why so many decisions were taking, free of political influences. In one of the first editions of the PeruDefensa & Seguridad it was explained some of the details of the Belarusian deal for both aircraft acquired which clarify this issue.

Belarus not only provide us with support but also upgraded our Su-25UB fleet with the capacity to employ SEAD armament, in the "Comadreja" (Wild Weasel) project:



The problems started with the Toledo administration, his efforts to prove the corruption of Alberto Fujimori regime almost destroy our main combat fleet, and not only the Air Force, both Navy and Army suffered from this same cause.

Miragedriver said:

Personally I have no great love for the Super Etendard; it’s just a glorified second-generation attack aircraft. When you factor in the limited range and limited payload (around 2.000 kg) it’s just not up to the task of covering the large area of the South Atlantic.

Click to expand...

Is irrelevant to what generation the SuE belongs, which is important is its effectiveness, its one of the most successfull attack aircraft of its generation, no even in the sea but also in land, the SEM was deployed in Afghanistan with great success, and is a reliable and sturdy aircraft well proven in combat. They aren't intended to cover a large area (like a MPA), they are originally designed to made anti surface attacks against naval targets employing the AM39 Exocet, I as you know, they prove its value in Malvinas with great success. Latter it was added the use of smart weapons like laser-guided bombs and missiles (AS30L), advanced avionics, etc.

With that said, I believe that the Fuerza Aérea Naval is considering the purchase of upgrade Super Etendards from the French Navy stocks. I image it will be the ones with low amount of carrier landing and will be zero airframe refurbished.

Click to expand...

AFAIK the COAN want to buy the SEM aiframes not to put them back into service, but to remove and install the SEM avionics in their Super Etendards currently stored, and also as a spares source.

I would prefer to have the Fuerza Aérea Naval sell the aircraft to Brazil and purchase a squadron of JH-7B with Yingji-82 anti shipping missiles. Even if you carry just two missiles the other three hardpoints can have drop-tanks.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, the SEM is still a formidable naval attack craft which can still provide the COAN with its good services for some years until a proper replacement arrives.

Greetings from Perú

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

¡Muchísimas gracias che! Thank you for the information! I was unaware for the actual history behind the Mig-29 and Su-25 purchases. I see that the information that was disseminated was incorrect. Of course it would be to Peru’s advantage to have Chile believe that the Peruvian air force is in poor condition, that way they will be cocky, arrogant and unprepared.
In all honesty you will have to admit that you had your choice of either a squadron of Super Etendard or a squadron of JH-7b you would pick the second. Besides no mater how great the Super Etendard was, there are now counter measures against it and the exocet that would not enjoy the success it once did in the 1980’s.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank, I see all of those Russian combat aircraft left to rot in the elements like that and I think of all the potential to sell these fighters, plus the lucrative contracts that could be had in installing new avionics and weapon systems. I just don’t understand why they don’t utilize better care in preserving these aircraft.
Granted they may not have the dry deserts of the US southwest, but some type of inexpensive hanger is better than just sitting outside. For a country like mine that meticulously preserved it Mirage’s and upgraded them, just thirty for forty aircraft, like the ones pictured above, could enhance the national defense several fold.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

Pointblank, I see all of those Russian combat aircraft left to rot in the elements like that and I think of all the potential to sell these fighters, plus the lucrative contracts that could be had in installing new avionics and weapon systems. I just don’t understand why they don’t utilize better care in preserving these aircraft.
Granted they may not have the dry deserts of the US southwest, but some type of inexpensive hanger is better than just sitting outside. For a country like mine that meticulously preserved it Mirage’s and upgraded them, just thirty for forty aircraft, like the ones pictured above, could enhance the national defense several fold.

Click to expand...

Most nations tend to shy away from Russian aircraft if they have a choice, or are offered a superb deal. The main reason is support; the Russians are pretty bad regarding providing technical support and spare parts for aircraft that they sell. This applies for both the commercial and military spheres. The Germans had a heck of a time getting spare parts for their fleet of ex-East German MiG-29's, and the Indians struggled as well.

Not to mention from a pilot's perspective, Russian aircraft are more than a handful to fly, which increases pilot workload trying to fly the aircraft, and less time more critical aspects, such as fighting, and situational awareness.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

Explain this...

Click to expand...

Easy my friend: Did you know if any aircraft in the pics are available for sale? I'm speaking about aircraft currently offered for sale in excellent conditions, and I repeat, the Su-30 in KnAAPo are well-stored and waiting for a buyer, you are assuming than if these fighters (and others) are stored in this conditions, therefore, all the russian aircraft is stored in the same conditions, and that "logic" is not only a fallacy, but also a big mistake.

Compared to storage like this F-16C:
...

Click to expand...

I have some pics of Belgian F-16s stripped down until its bare bones, because they runned out of spares for its F-16 fleet, in fact the Dutch Airforce have the same problem some time ago, currently there is a shortage of spares for the early F-16s versions, and that's why the north-americans are selling F-16s from Block 30 and forward... The F-16 is not precisely an example of sturdy, well constructed aircraft, they are full of structural reinforcements and need to be continously monitored in search of cracks in its main structural components. So, that's why all that care is need.

Now tell me, which will require more work, reactivating those Russian fighters, or the US fighters? I bet the good folks at Davis-Monthan AFB can pull those F-4's out and have them flight ready in a few weeks, even though they have been sitting in storage for almost 2 decades. It will take a lot longer for those Russian aircraft to be pulled out of long term storage.

Click to expand...

That ones of the pics? Probably are only ready for the scrapyard... But they are not for sale, I almost can assure it. The 18 Su-30 ex-IAF and the 6 Moldavian MiG-29S are in quite good condition and well stored, as I say before. But even if the manufacturer tell me than that aircraft can be overhauled and upgraded with a good (and proper) amount of cash, why not? Sorry, but I believe more in the manufacturer words than just a couple of pics used as a "proof". But if you want more, I have some USAF papers than details how bad they planned the F-16 lifecycle, just to give an example than not all in USA is gold.

Greetings from Perú.